Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

If they're earning, they're spending, so local businesses will benefit from their spending power.


The real economy is mostly small to medium traders, not importers & exporters.

Those 50,000 people are a net cost to the economy by a larger margin.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Those 50,000 people are a net cost to the economy by a larger margin.

They would also be a cost if they were unemployed.

Sam Russell

Deleted User wrote: »

They would also be a cost if they were unemployed.

I do not think the cost to the Gov of a person unemployed would come close to those being employed in this role. Dole is quite small, and they do not have an office provided for them, nor do they earn civil servant pension rights.

Nody

Deleted User wrote: »

They would also be a cost if they were unemployed.

But a lower cost than paying them 30k+ a year in salary and all added cost around the positions themselves (and that's assuming that a) the people are currently unemployed and b) they would not have been able to pick up another job instead adding value to the economy); it's a cost to the economy and there's a reason why unemployment benefits are not 30k a year asking someone to sit home and order pizza as well.

druss

Deleted User wrote: »

They would also be a cost if they were unemployed.

Overall, it's a cumulative negative and I'm sure you know that. The staff would be be hired to perform a "service" that is not currently required and which makes day-to-day transactions for business more burdensome than is currently the case

I'm trying to think of an analogy. Maybe if Dublin airport was to decide, unilaterally, to do away with all fast-track and electronic scans and to manually search by hand the luggage of all incoming and outgoing passengers? And also charge passengers more for their tickets at the same time. More staff needed for this job, so that's good, right?

Leroy42

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They would also be a cost if they were unemployed.

Why the the government not think of this before? Simply get every business to create jobs for stuff not needed. Problems solved.

Of course, you don't actually need Brexit to do that, could have kept more in the army or not cut 21k police.

But wait, wasn't part of the reasoning behind Brexit to get rid of the waste of Brussles? But now you are perfectly happy to create 50k non necessary jobs (if SM and CM was maintained)?

fash

Deleted User wrote: »

If they're earning, they're spending, so local businesses will benefit from their spending power.


The real economy is mostly small to medium traders, not importers & exporters.

As would the 50,000 people I propose to employ running around the country and burning down people's houses. Plus, think of all of that extra work created for builders and insurance companies. Why has nobody thought of this brilliant plan before?

fash

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They would also be a cost if they were unemployed.

If unemployed, they wouldn't need offices nor would they be creating (much) work and delay for others filling in paperwork in order to export.

Edit: plus if they were unemployed, they would spend at least as much in the local economy, if that is your concern- especially given that they would have more time.
It should also be noted that if not employed for the state as customs officials, it is quite likely that they have the correct attitude to work at something else. By tying competent workers up doing something relatively pointless, you are depriving productive value adding endeavours of competent personnel.

sondagefaux

Deleted User wrote: »

They would also be a cost if they were unemployed.

The state should employ everybody to shuffle paper, zero unemployment, rise in GDP, what's not to like?

sondagefaux

The Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland attached to the Withdrawal Agreement says that a Joint Committee will decide whether particular goods or types of goods will be subject to tariffs when sent from Britain to Northern Ireland.

If they're deemed at risk of being sent out of Northern Ireland to the republic/EU, either as they are when they arrive in Northern Ireland in commercial transactions, or further processed within NI before being sent to the republic/EU, they may be subject to tariffs, unless a trade deal between the EU and the UK abolishes all tariffs anyway, or unless the Joint Committee decides goods are not at risk.

If any dispute arises between the EU and the UK over whether goods are at risk or not of entering the republic/EU, and if they can't work it out between themselves, the final decision, binding on both parties, is taken by an independent, third-party arbitration panel.

Any given dispute could be decided in favour of the UK, which makes it hard to understand why the UK government is now giving mixed signals over whether it's going to fully implement the Protocol or not.

Does it lack confidence in the independent, third-party dispute resolution mechanism set out in the Withdrawal Agreement?

Does it not want to be bound by decisions taken by independent third-party bodies provided for in trade agreements?

If it's the latter, the UK is going to find it almost impossible to have trade agreements with anyone, as such mechanisms feature in many bilateral and multi-lateral trade agreements.

At this rate, the UK will be mimicing the Trump régime's attitude to the WTO's dispute resolution mechanisms (now effectively in abeyance due to Trump), and those of intermational bodies and agreements, trade and non-trade, but with none of the USA's capacity to disrupt (or bully if you prefer) its way to outcomes that suit itself.

Little Britain is a far more likely outcome than Global Britain with this approach.

murphaph

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They would also be a cost if they were unemployed.

UK has effectively zero unemployment. Anyone on the dole who isn't just between jobs right now is probably next to unemployable!

These customs officials will be made up of people leaving the private sector mostly. If it was possible to create wealth this way governments would just make up a bunch of jobs like this all the time.

Capt'n Midnight

Spending money is a tad more difficult when its in short supply.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-10/-170-billion-and-counting-the-cost-of-brexit-for-the-u-k

Dan Hanson, U.K. economist for Bloomberg Economics, puts the total cost of Brexit by the end of 2020 at 200 billion pounds as uncertainty continues to take a toll on companies and consumers.

Enzokk

This is not 100% Brexit related, but Priti Patel is facing calls to resign after the most senior civil servant resigned and in an move that never happens went public as to his reasons why.

Priti Patel’s future in doubt after senior Home Office civil servant resigns

Priti Patel’s future as the home secretary is being called into question this weekend after the most senior civil servant in her department resigned in a row over her alleged bullying of staff – and then announced he would sue the government for constructive dismissal.

In a move described as “unprecedented” and “extraordinary” by two former heads of the home civil service, Sir Philip Rutnam accused Patel of orchestrating a “vicious” campaign against him and of “shouting and swearing, belittling people, making unreasonable and repeated demands – behaviour that created fear and that needed some bravery to call out.”

Rutnam said: “One of my duties as permanent secretary was to protect the health, safety and wellbeing of our 35,000 people. This created tension with the home secretary and I have encouraged her to change her behaviours.” He said he had been accused of briefing the press against Patel, a claim he said was completely untrue.

“The home secretary categorically denied any involvement in this campaign to the Cabinet Office,” he said. “I regret I do not believe her. She has not made the efforts I would expect to disassociate herself from the comments.”

He rejected the settlement offer provided by the government, which would have included a NDA and possibly a peerage as well, to take the government to court for unfair dismissal. This will mean discovery of documents, possibly related to her firing in the last cabinet by May for speaking to a foreign government behind the backs of No.10 at the time. That was brushed aside quietly at the time when she resigned as well.

So who knew bringing someone who was let go because on incompetence would still be incompetent just a short while later? If only there were signs that Johnson and Cummings could see? Or did they know and thought she was the blunt instrument to take on the civil servants?

As for the relation to Brexit, it is pretty much acknowledged that the UK's civil service is highly regarded around the world, but undermining the senior people in the civil service and attacking those working in it, via the press and personally, will surely lead to a deterioration of this prized possession during a time they will need it most.

Dave Penman, general secretary of the FDA – the trade union for senior civil servants, which will back Rutnam’s legal case – said Rutnam had been offered the chance to “resign and go quietly with financial compensation” but had instead chosen to speak out against “attacks on civil servants”. It is expected that Rutnam will demand a public hearing at which he can outline his case against Patel.

Penman added: “The Home Office now needs to find new leadership at a time when it needs stability. Those who engage in anonymous briefings need to bear the responsibility for this destructive behaviour.”

I have been thinking lately about the likes of Laura Kuenssberg and Robert Peston and their use of the sources from No.10 without any pause for thought. They have used the excuse that they are not there to determine what is news or not, they are just there to report the story. But that for me is a abdication of their duties as political editors. They aren't merely line reporters sent to get quotes but rose to their positions due to, I would hope, a talent to spot what is important and what isn't. Hiding behind the excuse that they are only relaying news means they actually agree with how the Sun and others reported on Hillsborough. That was also just relaying what was told to reporters from those with ulterior motives without a pause on whether it was true or not. The reporter who wrote the initial story did his job but it was the editor who decided to print it as fact. These 2 have that same power and they are, whether deliberate or not, deciding to push those narratives out there and treat it as the truth. For someone earning more than £250K per year and who is comfortably in the top 1% of earners in the UK, that is just unfathomable to hide behind the excuses they do.

Twitter bio of Kuenssberg, "I know it's fashionable, but even in 2019 there is nothing big or clever about shooting the messenger"

wexfordman2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If they're earning, they're spending, so local businesses will benefit from their spending power.


The real economy is mostly small to medium traders, not importers & exporters.

I have a very exciting opportunity for you to invest in my pyramid scheme, email me at gullible@gmail.com

Christy42

Deleted User wrote: »

If they're earning, they're spending, so local businesses will benefit from their spending power.


The real economy is mostly small to medium traders, not importers & exporters.

Why don't we just hire 100,000 people to do nothing then? It costs money to the tax payer. Employment is nice but you would like some economic benefit from their work to make it worthwhile. All your reasoning so far could be done by employing people to do nothing.

Professor Moriarty

It occurs to me that Dolanbaker's suggestion has been rebutted thoroughly at this stage. If it were me, I'd like people to move on from it.

wexfordman2

wexfordman2 wrote: »

I have a very exciting opportunity for you to invest in my pyramid scheme, email me at gullible@gmail.com

No need, we're already in one, it's called consumerism!

Sam Russell

Just a look at numbers.

The K say they will need 50,000 customs officials to deal with the customs inspection tasks after the transition period.

In contrast, the EU employs 32,000 civil servants (or faceless unelected bureaucrats - as the UK press calls them).

That is, the K Gov needs 50% more bodies to do only one aspect of EU business, than the EU does for all its business. How can that be?

Capt'n Midnight

Enzokk wrote: »

I have been thinking lately about the likes of Laura Kuenssberg and Robert Peston and their use of the sources from No.10 without any pause for thought. They have used the excuse that they are not there to determine what is news or not, they are just there to report the story.

Did they not see this meme ?

My fave tutor at uni had a great journalism 101 lesson: “If someone says it's raining & another person says it's dry, it's not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out of the f**king window and find out which is true.”

Enzokk

I know we sometimes give in to hyperbole on this thread about the UK and its path now that they have left, but a couple of stories that interest me that makes me shake my head in puzzlement on what they are actually doing and trying to achieve. Firstly, seems like Johnson is setting the UK up to leave the ECHR. This may just be because it contains the words, European, and people not knowing it predates the EU by quite a bit and the UK had a big hand during its creation.

https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1233906245641392130?s=20

This is a reply to another tweet about this story,

https://twitter.com/peterdavies211/status/1233904775663583233?s=20

English common law served us well for almost a millennium. The political construct of the ECHR was wished upon us by the serial liar Blair during his constitutional vandelism.
I weep no tears at its demise here in an independent Sovereign state. Our judges not foreign laws.

When he is questioned about his dubious knowledge of the ECHR and Tony Blair, he pivots to, "I said political construct...", whatever that is supposed to mean. He got it wrong and cannot admit it. As for looking at his profile, he likes free speech so I wonder if he will stand up for free speech in this story,

Mary Beard blocked by No 10 as British Museum trustee 'for pro-Europe views'

She is Britain’s best known classicist, a Cambridge don with formidable intellect and a knack for getting people interested in all things ancient.

That combination of passionate erudition and accessibility would, you might think, make Mary Beard a shoo-in for the board of the country’s most prestigious historical institution.

You would be wrong. The 65-year-old scholar has been rejected by Downing Street as a trustee of the British Museum, the Observer understands. Whitehall sources said the decision last year to turn her down had been made because of her pro-European views, which she has frequently expressed via social media

So Cummings and Johnson has rejected her for her pro-EU views. But what happened to free speech? Or is that only allowed for people to say offensive things and not for those that has opposing views?

Just on the ECHR, the UK does understand that leaving it will mean the collapse of the GFA, right? I mean they must have read through the document to understand this. Then again the way they have spaffed all over their obligations of the GFA it is not surprising they would gladly rip it up. I think we will have to seriously consider the UK a rogue government soon who cannot be trusted to fulfill their international obligations and to be treated with caution, the same as North Korea.

murphaph

No need to be able to produce any food either apparently. Let's hope there's never a pandemic causing panic buying around the worl... Oh, wait.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8060473/Britain-doesnt-need-farmers-reveal-leaked-emails-senior-government-official.html

Enzokk

murphaph wrote: »

No need to be able to produce any food either apparently. Let's hope there's never a pandemic causing panic buying around the worl... Oh, wait.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8060473/Britain-doesnt-need-farmers-reveal-leaked-emails-senior-government-official.html

A common thread, both this advisor and Cummings were brought in by Gove. Johnson seems to be a flake, only interested in playing PM but it will be 10 times worse if Gove got himself into Downing Street.

And every day that these headlines happen and you see tweets from pro-Corbyn people lamenting that people chose this shower of crap over Corbyn, you have to remember that warning were given that Corbyn cannot win and that he will be a disaster. If only his cheerleaders had listened and not dug in behind Comrade Corbyn. How different it may have been.

Strazdas

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Seeing the posts above, I think by now it is blindingly obvious that Brexit is but a first step on the dismantling of the UK politically, socially and economically

Cheerleaded by Cummings who has been sent back to UK by his Kremlin masters in order to destroy the UK from within (ever wonder what he did in Russia for all those years?) in the same manner that in 1917 Germany sent Lenin in a sealed train to Petrograd in order to cause chaos which he did alright by causing the Russian Empire to collapse (tho that spectacularly backfired on Germany few decades later)

It's a right wing coup by the Tories and their media backers. Dismantle the state and reconstitute it in a hard right wing, English nationalist fashion.

There was an interesting discussion on the Sky papers review last night abut how Patel had been sent into the Home Office as a "wrecking ball" i.e. smash up the ministry and force all dissenters out - the rows with senior civil servants are no accident.

GM228

Enzokk wrote: »

Just on the ECHR, the UK does understand that leaving it will mean the collapse of the GFA, right? I mean they must have read through the document to understand this.

Not necessarily, the GFA simply requires the incorporation of the ECHR into domestic law within NI only, they could in theory leave the ECHR, but keep the provisions and entitlements of the ECHR applicable to NI only.

Strazdas

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Yep it seems UK is not heading for Singapore-in-Atlantic (that role will endup being Ireland) but Moscow-in-NorthSea

Same tactics, propaganda, lies that were employed in Russia by Putin 20 years ago and turned it an weird failed state whose main defining features are oligarchy, hypercapitalism, nationalism and fascism that keeps harping back to nostalgic days when Russia was great

It's extraordinary to watch a western democracy go down this route.

But it's also very risky and could result in disastrous failure for the far right populists pushing it. The UK is on the edge of the biggest and most successful single market in the world and if it decides to get into a battle with it, it will take a hammering.

Spook_ie

Strazdas wrote: »

It's extraordinary to watch a western democracy go down this route.

But it's also very risky and could result in disastrous failure for the far right populists pushing it. The UK is on the edge of the biggest and most successful single market in the world and if it decides to get into a battle with it, it will take a hammering.

Unfortunate that this biggest, most successful single market can't even agree with itself! The EU is an experimental failure as a cohesive political force because at the end of the budget everyone is after what they can get and **** the rest of Europe

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2020/0220/1116511-eu-budget-analysis/

sondagefaux

There's arguing over the EU budget every time it comes to be renewed. In the end, it's always agreed.

Spook_ie

Spook_ie wrote: »

Unfortunate that this biggest, most successful single market can't even agree with itself! The EU is an experimental failure as a cohesive political force because at the end of the budget everyone is after what they can get and **** the rest of Europe

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2020/0220/1116511-eu-budget-analysis/

Do you hold nations to the same standards?

RobMc59

Nody wrote: »

But a lower cost than paying them 30k+ a year in salary and all added cost around the positions themselves (and that's assuming that a) the people are currently unemployed and b) they would not have been able to pick up another job instead adding value to the economy); it's a cost to the economy and there's a reason why unemployment benefits are not 30k a year asking someone to sit home and order pizza as well.

Does this cost for employing extra border staff also apply to EU countries as they will need to increase their staff?

RobMc59

RobMc59 wrote: »

Does this cost for employing extra border staff also apply to EU countries as they will need to increase their staff?

Yes, other countries will have to spend money on staff to facilitate worse trading conditions than existed before.