Brexit discussion thread IV

prawnsambo

First Up wrote: »

Logical but politically toxic in the poisonous atmosphere that inspired Brexit. There is no way UK ports will give preferential treatment to intra-EU trade while their own stuff is rotting at the ports.

I don't think it's even feasible. If they're planning a 15 mile hard shoulder based queue, then it would be a nightmare to try and isolate the TIR and empty stuff. I don't think they even have enough infrastructure in the port itself to make that separation anyway.

Leroy42

Not in the freight business, although I have worked in companies that relied on it, but one thing that I have noticed is that most conversations regarding the passage of freight and the decision about though the UK or longer ferry trips, is that people are using the current timings.

Nearly 30 hours to Holland and 15 hours through the UK. But that seems to leave out the additional time required if border checks are required. They are taking about 15 mile tailbacks. Isn't that multiple hours? So the difference is cut down dramatically, if not entirely.

First Up

Leroy42 wrote: »

Not in the freight business, although I have worked in companies that relied on it, but one thing that I have noticed is that most conversations regarding the passage of freight and the decision about though the UK or longer ferry trips, is that people are using the current timings.

Nearly 30 hours to Holland and 15 hours through the UK. But that seems to leave out the additional time required if border checks are required. They are taking about 15 mile tailbacks. Isn't that multiple hours? So the difference is cut down dramatically, if not entirely.

You can be sure that everyone whose business depend on transport for supplies or markets has been researching this very thoroughly and planning for all contingencies.

It isn't a coincidence that the number of sailings from Ireland to the European mainland has almost doubled already and there may be more to come

Peregrinus

prawnsambo wrote: »

I don't think it's even feasible. If they're planning a 15 mile hard shoulder based queue, then it would be a nightmare to try and isolate the TIR and empty stuff. I don't think they even have enough infrastructure in the port itself to make that separation anyway.

You don't need much infrastructure; just a T-junction where sealed containers/empty containers turn left and leave the port area, and everyone else turns right and joins the queue for customs clearance. Sealed containers can be identified visually from outside; you might need spot-checks or a weighbridge to check that containers claimed to empty are in fact empty.

Nody

First Up wrote: »

You can be sure that everyone whose business depend on transport for supplies or markets has been researching this very thoroughly and planning for all contingencies.

It isn't a coincidence that the number of sailings from Ireland to the European mainland has almost doubled already and there may be more to come

This is the issue; a vast number of UK companies has not done this and let alone the EU once who don't think they will be affected (but will due to their supplier being impacted etc.).

LONDON (Reuters) - Less than a third of 800 UK business leaders surveyed have carried out contingency planning on Brexit, the Institute of Directors (IoD) said on Friday.

Forty-nine percent were not intending to do any planning and, of those, 49 percent thought Brexit would not affect them while 42 percent were waiting until the relationship between Britain and the EU becomes clearer.

And that article is from August 2018; that's the scary part of a crash out because there are a lot of heads in the sand approach going on atm...

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

You don't need much infrastructure; just a T-junction where sealed containers/empty containers turn left and leave the port area, and everyone else turns right and joins the queue for customs clearance. Sealed containers can be identified visually from outside; you might need spot-checks or a weighbridge to check that containers claimed to empty are in fact empty.

Where do you place the T junction?

EdgeCase

Nody wrote: »

This is the issue; a vast number of UK companies has not done this and let alone the EU once who don't think they will be affected (but will due to their supplier being impacted etc.).

And that article is from August 2018; that's the scary part of a crash out because there are a lot of heads in the sand approach going on atm...

I've experienced this first hand. We asked a UK supplier how they'd guarantee continuity of supply after brexit and got a very unsatisfactory answer and they weren't even aware that the Republic of Ireland wasn't part of the UK. Then they were utterly shocked when I opted to seek alternative suppliers as I'm genuinely concerned we may have an issue in March.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Where do you place the T junction?

I dunno. It depends on the geography of the port. Basically, you want to segregate the traffic as, or as soon possible after, it comes off the ferry/off the quayside and send traffic not needing inspection by as direct a route as possible to the main road out of town, while sending the rest off to wherever you have designated for queuing. The more traffic you can hive off at an early stage, the less the area you need for queuing.

First Up

Leroy42 wrote: »

Where do you place the T junction?

The Port of Dover has been warning about chaos and gridlock so I suspect they haven't found any spare T junctions lying around waiting to be used.

Zubeneschamali

prawnsambo wrote: »

If they're planning a 15 mile hard shoulder based queue, then it would be a nightmare to try and isolate the TIR and empty stuff.

4 out of 5 trucks going UK to France are empty. It'd be madness not to sort them, and the TIR trucks go in the empty queue.

CelticRambler

prawnsambo wrote: »

If they're planning a 15 mile hard shoulder based queue ...

A quick point of order: they're planning a 15-mile queue of a hard shoulder plus at least two lanes of motorway. Anyone who uses that stretch of the motorway for their daily commute will see the impact of Brexit every single day for months or years to come as they themselves crawl through the contraflow.

Leroy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

4 out of 5 trucks going UK to France are empty. It'd be madness not to sort them, and the TIR trucks go in the empty queue.

So all empty trucks get first dibs on the ferry space and actual exports, that the UK are basing the whole of Brexit and indeed the future of the country get bogged down?

Its not that it doesn't makes sense, its that they do not have the infrastructure to handle it at present.

VinLieger

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Here is the interview (about 5 minutes in) with Ann Widdecombe (former Tory MP) from yesterday's hard shoulder

https://www.newstalk.com/listen_back/81889/47514/06th_September_2018_-_The_Hard_Shoulder_Part_3/

Despair yee

Jesus the levels of misinformation she is spouting are just disgusting, still pushing the lie of "europe needs us just as much as we need them"

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

So all empty trucks get first dibs on the ferry space and actual exports, that the UK are basing the whole of Brexit and indeed the future of the country get bogged down?

Trucks full of exports must be delayed by checks. They do not have to be further delayed by 4 times as many empty trucks ahead of them in their queue, making a 3 mile "export" queue into a 15 mile "mixed" queue.

In France, while French customs are checking 1 ferry of loaded trucks, 4 ferries of empty/TIR trucks can be waved out of the port. If the ferries arrive mixed, they will not be allowed to unload until customs are ready for them. So ferries at Dover will not be allowed to load, making the delays 5 times worse than necessary.

swampgas

VinLieger wrote: »

Jesus the levels of misinformation she is spouting are just disgusting, still pushing the lie of "europe needs us just as much as we need them"

Perhaps a factor here is that politicians and others have been able to think and say anything they like about the EU, and how it operates, for decades, without their ideas ever being tested. People have been making statements about the EU based on little more than their own uninformed prejudices and whatever it is they think will get them elected or promoted. There have never been any consequences for being wrong, as there has never been a way to *prove* one way or the other who is telling the truth.

If there is a hard Brexit, the liars and fantasists are going to be exposed. But for now they still seem to be detached from reality and any kind of fact-based evaluation of the crisis they are facing.

Peregrinus

demfad wrote: »

OK. If the UK Gov cannot get parliament to agree on a deal and parliament does not want no deal then the current parliament would be stuck. There are only two options:

A GE: But this would would be fraught with danger and may even return Corbyn if he promised a referendum.

It may return Corbyn whether or not he promises a referendum. I think the Tories will do anything to avoid a GE.

demfad wrote: »

Extend article 50: Would require a commitment from UK re direction. and referendum on a deal

Roads seem to be leading to another referendum.

In a situation in which Parliament has voted against the Goverment's draft deal with the EU, what option would be put in a referendum? The deal that Parliament has already rejected? That seems odd. And even if that is, the deal, what's the alternative? Leave with no deal? Or cancel Brexit?

The EU would only grant an extension for a referendum that the EU wanted the UK to have. So the only deal that could be put to the people would be a deal acceptable to the EU - i.e. the one that Parliament has just rejected. And I think the EU would prefer that the alternative would be "Cancel Brexit", not "no-deal Brexit". But of course Brexiters would be spitting with fury if the choice was the already-rejected deal, or Remain.

You say there are two options, but there is in fact a third possiblity; no-deal Brexit. Parliament might not want it, but it's the default, so not wanting it is not enough to avoid it. Parliament actually has to want something else. And they have to want something else that the EU likes enough to agree to an Art 50 extension to facilitate it. I don't think that can be taken for granted, so no-deal Brexit is a very live possibility.

Imreoir2

EdgeCase wrote: »

I've experienced this first hand. We asked a UK supplier how they'd guarantee continuity of supply after brexit and got a very unsatisfactory answer and they weren't even aware that the Republic of Ireland wasn't part of the UK. Then they were utterly shocked when I opted to seek alternative suppliers as I'm genuinely concerned we may have an issue in March.

I'm guessing a lot of pro-Brexit business people in the UK are going to get a lot of shocks over the next few months as their comfortable assumptions meet reality.

Zubeneschamali

There have been calls have been for a referendum to approve or reject whatever Parliament decides to do, but it is not clear what a No vote would mean.

For example, if Parliament approves a Canada style free trade agreement with a carve-out for NI, then this would be put to a referendum. A yes has a clear meaning, but does No mean No Brexit, or brexit with No Deal, or does it just mean No, renegotiate a different Leave deal?

As with the original Brexit referendum, it may be a bad idea to have any Referendum unless the options are very clearly specified.

Imreoir2

Having a referendum on the issue was a bad idea in the first place. It's hard to see a second referendum making the situation better. If a workable deal can be reached, then why risk a referendum on it? If a workable deal cannot be reached then the option is remain or no deal, again why risk a referendum on it? The Government must take the option it thinks is the least worst and suffer the consequences either way.

murphaph

Peregrinus wrote: »

I dunno. It depends on the geography of the port. Basically, you want to segregate the traffic as, or as soon possible after, it comes off the ferry/off the quayside and send traffic not needing inspection by as direct a route as possible to the main road out of town, while sending the rest off to wherever you have designated for queuing. The more traffic you can hive off at an early stage, the less the area you need for queuing.

Yeah but the real checks will be in Calais for goods coming from Dover. Your T junction goes there in Calais, the queue effectively stretches back across the channel to a motorway in Kent. You'd have to instruct all non-TIR trucks to keep left in the hard shoulder and instruct TIR and empty (assuming the French agree to expedited inspection of empty vehicles) ones to pass them and board the ferry ahead of them-how long before there would be frayed tempers though.... I can see that being politically unsellable to Daily Mail Man.

oscarBravo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There have been calls have been for a referendum to approve or reject whatever Parliament decides to do, but it is not clear what a No vote would mean.

For example, if Parliament approves a Canada style free trade agreement with a carve-out for NI, then this would be put to a referendum. A yes has a clear meaning, but does No mean No Brexit, or brexit with No Deal, or does it just mean No, renegotiate a different Leave deal?

As with the original Brexit referendum, it may be a bad idea to have any Referendum unless the options are very clearly specified.

This. I've asked the same question before: what happens in the event of a "no" vote?

Your last sentence sums it up perfectly.

seamus

Worth noting that any plebsicite doesn't require a "No" or "None of the above" option.

It would be unpopular probably, but no different from a general election. You have to pick an option or just not vote, and the "most popular" option wins.

It would be the only way forward for a "what next" referendum. "Do nothing" cannot be an option.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There have been calls have been for a referendum to approve or reject whatever Parliament decides to do, but it is not clear what a No vote would mean.

For example, if Parliament approves a Canada style free trade agreement with a carve-out for NI, then this would be put to a referendum. A yes has a clear meaning, but does No mean No Brexit, or brexit with No Deal, or does it just mean No, renegotiate a different Leave deal?

As with the original Brexit referendum, it may be a bad idea to have any Referendum unless the options are very clearly specified.

If you're going to have a further referendum, at least learn from the mistakes of the past, and don't offer options that you can't deliver, or that you are wildly unlikely to be able to deliver.

"Renegotiate a different leave deal" is not a possible option. As far as the EU is concerned, once the deal is negotiated, it's negotiated. The UK parliament, or a UK referendum, may ratify it, or may not, but failure to ratify is not a reason why the EU would offer better terms. The reasons why the EU didn't offer those terms the first time round would still prevail, so they wouldn't offer them the second time around either.

So, the only possible options are (a) exit on this deal, (b) exit with no deal or (c) don't exit at all. But many in parliament consider (b) to be unthinkable, and they would (belatedly) recognise that it was grossly irresponsible and improper to refer to the people an option which parliament - the ultimate sovereign authority - knew to be bad for the country. They would consider that the referendum should offer (a) or (c), but not (b).

Ultra-brexiteers, by contrast, would insist that any referendum should offer (a) or (b), but definitely not (c). In their demented psychotic logic, if the people chose (c) they'd be traitors to the Will of the People, and then we'd have to hang them. Or something. Don't ask me to explain, but that's how they feel. if the referendum were to offer (c), and (c) were to be chosen, there'd be a lasting "stab-in-the-back" betraying narrative poisoning British politics for a generation.

In theory you could offer (a), (b) or (c) and allow voters to rank their preferences in a way that is familiar to us. But British politicians, and indeed a majority of British people, seen to think that's not a good idea. The successful option, if it didn't get >50% on the first count, would be seen as lacking democratic legitimacy. Plus, this referendum would outrage both those who think that option (b) should never be offered, and those who think that option (c) should never be offered. So for all these reasons I think it's unlikely to get up.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

there'd be a lasting "stab-in-the-back" betraying narrative poisoning British politics for a generation.

Whatever happens, a big minority are going to be unhappy. I think there will be lasting bitterness about Brexit until everyone alive now is dead, which is longer than most people mean when they say "a generation".

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

So all empty trucks get first dibs on the ferry space and actual exports, that the UK are basing the whole of Brexit and indeed the future of the country get bogged down?

Its not that it doesn't makes sense, its that they do not have the infrastructure to handle it at present.

Not so much dibs as that once the ferry arrives to France if it brings more than X trucks that has goods for inspection they will not be allowed of the ferry as there is no space to park them (this would have been communicated to the ferry company before loading in the UK how many spots are available). Add in the issue with international driver licenses etc. and I'd expect a significant decrease of RoRo style shipping and divergent to only shipping the containers (this frees up the drivers on both sides and removes the issue with having truckers sitting around waiting).

trellheim

I have just thought of something . Is any insurer offering Brexit protection for suppliers or producers ? Interested to see what the risk appetite is out there [ that will show a lot of truth ]

trellheim

Allso twitter abuzz with news of the ExEu Commitee transcript. Does anyone have a link ?

Imreoir2

trellheim wrote: »

Allso twitter abuzz with news of the ExEu Commitee transcript. Does anyone have a link ?

Here: http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/exiting-the-european-union-committee/the-progress-of-the-uks-negotiations-on-eu-withdrawal/oral/88890.pdf

Hurrache

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1038021873165115393

He's a few snippets of it, if that's the one you're talking about.

murphaph

Cue "Pound SOARS" headline in the Express as it goes up 0.1% "because Barnier crumbles".