Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Imreoir2

dilallio wrote: »

Surely this has to be a spoof!

Fisheries minister didn’t read Brexit bill because she was “organising the local nativity trail”

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/fisheries-minister-didnt-read-brexit-bill-because-she-was-organising-the-local-nativity-trail/14/01/

I fully believe it's true, but why in the name of god would she admit it?

Hurrache

RobMc59 wrote: »

The NHS pays for any medical treatment/expenses for British people living in Spain. I asked my sister this very question who has lived there for over twenty years.

It's a reciprocal scheme with costs covered by the issuing country, of which the UK is no longer a member. They say they're bringing out another scheme, GHIC, which won't cover all countries and not available to everyone.

dogbert27

RobMc59 wrote: »

The NHS pays for any medical treatment/expenses for British people living in Spain. I asked my sister this very question who has lived there for over twenty years.

With EHIC. I doubt the NHS would be paying medical expenses for a Brit living in the US!

dogbert27

Hurrache wrote: »

It's a reciprocal scheme with costs covered by the issuing country, of which the UK is no longer a member. They say they're bringing out another scheme, EHIC, which won't cover all countries and not available to everyone.

New scheme is GHIC

Hurrache

dogbert27 wrote: »

New scheme is GHIC

Yeah, my ninja edit was just less ninja, more sumo!

Quin_Dub

dogbert27 wrote: »

New scheme is GHIC

Which only covers you for Medical expenses when travelling , not for a British Citizen resident in another country.

So a British Pensioner living in Spain/Portugal or wherever isn't covered by that.

peter kern

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I'm not arguing that they were wrongly prevented from travelling.
I'm taking issue with you grandly saying that this is evidence that 'EU officials are struggling over the new rules'.

It clearly seems to have just been 'grunts' at the desk who made the mistake. Not EU officials, instead lowly employees of Iberia and/or their codeshare partners.

The people who might count as EU officials (embassy staff, immigration staff) moved quite quickly to clarify that these passengers were entitled to travel, albeit presumably 12/24 hours later than they would have wanted.

sorry but here rob is right both articles he posted showed that people where turned away in spain and not just in the uk .
and also it says iberia was send a mail form spanish authorities not to accept those cards so yes their were mistakes made.

RobMc59

dogbert27 wrote: »

With EHIC. I doubt the NHS would be paying medical expenses for a Brit living in the US!

I agree, I do know a couple who wanted to retire to Florida,was reasonably comfortably off but were told the best they could have was six months over there but no chance of being able to relocate permanently.The ability to pay medical expenses being the reason why.

Leroy42

Rob, the UK signed up to this agreement. To then point out the processes are not sufficient to deal with the level, or type, or trade is a bit much at this point.

The UK were given plenty of options. THey, only they, chose to leave the SM and CU. They refused to agree to anything that would make things easier for themselves.

At the very least they should have negotiated a transition period for after the deal was made, at the very least to give their own ministers, who were busy on nativity duties, time to read the agreement they so happily voted for.

So the UK are now in the exact position that many people tried to warn them about. That no amount of belief, no amount of bulldog spirit would help deal with the inevitable issues that creating vast levels of bureaucracy and additional costs is going to solve.

These issue that the Scotish fishermen, for example, are experiencing are exactly the reason why countries are part of the EU. Up to now the UK didn't see any benefit to the EU, it was all downside. Suddenly they are starting to realise, at least some Scotish fishermen, just how beneficial being part of the EU actually was.

reslfj

RobMc59 wrote: »

Until the UK gets its act together and looks into the system used by Switzerland which another poster mentioned yesterday it seems these delays will remain. ...

Switzerland is a member of the SM. They need 'only' handle the pure customs forms and paying the duty/tariffs.
This includes among other things questions of RoO and reexport.

But the UK is outside both the SM and the CU - another world completely.

Lars

murphaph

reslfj wrote: »

Switzerland is a member of the SM. They need 'only' handle the pure customs forms and paying the duty/tariffs.
This includes among other things questions of RoO and reexport.

But the UK is outside both the SM and the CU - another world completely.

Lars

Exactly. The stricter controls are the phytosanitary ones which don't apply at the EU-CH border because it's effectively in the single market.

If it was only VAT and duties/tariffs it could be like the Swiss border. Still nothing like it was before with 12k trucks a day rolling on and off ferries at Dover without any interference.

J Mysterio

dilallio wrote: »

Surely this has to be a spoof!

Fisheries minister didn’t read Brexit bill because she was “organising the local nativity trail”

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/fisheries-minister-didnt-read-brexit-bill-because-she-was-organising-the-local-nativity-trail/14/01/

Serious issue of course, the Fisheries Minister being to busy with her local council then her brief. And while the UK fishing industry is in terminal decline, they will be happy to know that JRM has deduced the fish themselves are now happier that they are 'British fish'. So, there is that.

https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1349713125453553671

yagan

RobMc59 wrote: »

I agree, I do know a couple who wanted to retire to Florida,was reasonably comfortably off but were told the best they could have was six months over there but no chance of being able to relocate permanently.The ability to pay medical expenses being the reason why.

Same with British retirees wanting to move to Spain now, they'll have to provide their own health insurance until they naturalise. Plus they'll have to do their driving test in Spanish too in order to take out a local policy, so I can see that putting off a lot.

This in turn will impact the economy of the British communities covered by the December deal as they'll be starved of British service workers and new entrants to keep British businesses and services there going.

Imreoir2

J Mysterio wrote: »

Serious issue of course, the Fisheries Minister being to busy with her local council then her brief. And while the UK fishing industry is in terminal decline, they will be happy to know that JRM has deduced the fish themselves are now happier that they are 'British fish'. So, there is that.

https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1349713125453553671

He is right though, given the disruption to the UK fishing industry caused by Brexit, fewer fish are being caught. Happy fish indeed.

peter kern

J Mysterio wrote: »

Serious issue of course, the Fisheries Minister being to busy with her local council then her brief. And while the UK fishing industry is in terminal decline, they will be happy to know that JRM has deduced the fish themselves are now happier that they are 'British fish'. So, there is that.

https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1349713125453553671

i guess here he is right fishes would have actually voted for a hard brexit as they would survive longer...
less market less fishing .

Leroy42

Imreoir2 wrote: »

He is right though, given the disruption to the UK fishing industry caused by Brexit, fewer fish are being caught. Happy fish indeed.

Yes, but how the hell did they get their hands (fins I suppose) on the new blue passports! Because we all know that without them one is not really British at all

Imreoir2

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes, but how the hell did they get their hands (fins I suppose) on the new blue passports! Because we all know that without them one is not really British at all

Yes, quite a few of those fish are actually illegal migrants. The fishing industry has been deporting them back to the EU for years, but Brexit has gotten in the way of that. So much for taking back control!

sondagefaux

beggars_bush wrote: »

will it lead to NI residents coming over the border to do their shopping?

No need. They can shop in Lidl or Dunnes branches in NI, both with fully-stocked shelves.

https://mobile.twitter.com/lidl_ni/status/1349647628078903296

ambro25

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Yes, quite a few of those fish are actually illegal migrants. The fishing industry has been deporting them back to the EU for years, but Brexit has gotten in the way of that. So much for taking back control!

Reportedly, Scottish fishermen are now deporting landing those fish directly in Denmark instead.

I've not checked or thought about this further, for now, but somehow it doesn't sound right (in terms of market access/exporting of British fishing services/etc).

Though it might just be an expedient money-making fix for those Scots, until someone in authority in Denmark puts the kibosh on it.

Gerry T

Gerry T wrote: »

I heard the 50k number many times and thought how could it be that much, considering the UK would all ready have customs officers so I had a think about it.
If we only consider ports there's 120 of them in the UK, so ignoring Airports customs officials have to deal with:

The UK Ports industry is the second largest in Europe, handling more than 500 million tonnes of freight each year, as well as over 60 million international and domestic passenger journeys.
https://www.maritimeuk.org/about/our-sector/ports/#:~:text=There%20are%20about%20120%20commercial,such%20as%20coal%20or%20oil.

Ports run say 300 days a yr, and lets say only between 6am to 10pm (under estimate) that's 2 shifts and there's 120 entry/exit points. So..

50,000/300/2/120= 0.5 people per port per shift

I know I'm simplifying things as some ports may only work a couple of days a week, but others would have a hugh volume of traffic. But when you start thinking about it 50,000 customs officials starts to look like a small number. Only a half person per port per shift additional per day. And this doesn't consider Airports and the added customs checks on passengers.

This doesn't mention the added 200 vets for customs, It would be interesting to see how the UK came up with these numbers.

Jesus, are you sure you're not a Brexiter? With maths like that :pac:

sondagefaux

yagan wrote: »

Same with British retirees wanting to move to Spain now, they'll have to provide their own health insurance until they naturalise. Plus they'll have to do their driving test in Spanish too in order to take out a local policy, so I can see that putting off a lot.

This in turn will impact the economy of the British communities covered by the December deal as they'll be starved of British service workers and new entrants to keep British businesses and services there going.

A British couple wanting to retire to Spain will also have to prove they have a combined income of about €32,000 per year.

Proof of Permanent Retirement income from an official institution (social security or other private source) to live in Spain without working. The minimum income required is 25,560 Euros annually plus 6,390 Euros per each additional family member.

This requirement increases every year.

Screenshot from Spanish Consulate in San Francisco but the requirements are the same for all third-country applicants.



British state pensions are crap.

https://www.gov.uk/state-pension

Gerry T

Deleted User wrote: »

Jesus, are you sure you're not a Brexiter? With maths like that :pac:

oops...need to re look. Wish I could blame been on the beer last night :rolleyes:

forgottenhills

Gerry T wrote: »

Sorry 0.7

No, your maths is completely wrong.

If you are allocating 50k customs officials to 120 ports then that is an allocation of 50000/120 = 416 officials per port. If you had 3 shifts and even allowed 2 extra shifts worth of officials to cater for time off/holidays then that would be 416/5 = more than 80 officials available per port per shift (not 0.7 as per your calcs).

Now of course the 50k have to be allocated over airports and back offices etc. as well as to ports but it still seems from a rough calculation to be a perfectly adequate figure.

Gerry T

forgottenhills wrote: »

No, your maths is completely wrong.

If you are allocating 50k customs officials to 120 ports then that is an allocation of 50000/120 = 416 officials per port. If you had 3 shifts and even allowed 2 extra shifts worth of officials to cater for time off/holidays then that would be 416/5 = more than 80 officials available per port per shift (not 0.7 as per your calcs).

Now of course the 50k have to be allocated over airports and back offices etc. as well as to ports but it still seems from a rough calculation to be a perfectly adequate figure.

Its ok I get it

sondagefaux

These little piggies did not go to the Single Market.

Brexit brings UK pork sector to standstill
UK pork processors are experiencing significant issues in exporting products to the EU, which has already brought part of the industry to a complete standstill, risking knock-on impacts on farms. (NPA)

...

The NPA’s processor members have reported that excessive bureaucracy associated with new paperwork requirements are causing delays at Dover, Calais and other ports. With pork being a perishable product, these delays are making UK shipments unattractive to buyers in the EU, forcing processors to reject shipments and cancel future orders.

Despite the trade deal agreed between the EU and UK just before Christmas, the UK’s formal departure from the EU Customs Union and Single Market was always going to mean additional checks, new labelling and certification requirements and delays at ports. While the full overall impact of the new rules is yet to be felt, as UK export volumes remain lower than normal for the time of year, the UK pig sector is already feeling the effect.

Processors have reported a number of issues, including:
• Officials at ports in the UK, France, Ireland and the Netherlands are taking a far more stringent approach to assessing paperwork, which in itself appears to be excessive. One load was caught at Calais for 20 hours undergoing vet checks and then rejected upon finally reaching its destination in Germany because of the delay.

• Additional paperwork is causing major delays for processors – one processor said it took nine hours to prepare the paperwork for one shipment to the EU last week.

• Another processor reported that when sending product to the Netherlands, each Export Health Certificate (EHC) needed 12 stamps for the English, Dutch and French versions required in duplicate. Therefore, for a 15 tonne load, the vet had to stamp paperwork 72 times. There is no electronic option at present – all EHCs have to be in hard copy

• Another processor reported that as we are now a third country, new rules require inspectors to check labels on each box in a consignment of pork products meaning that the whole pallet has to be offloaded and broken apart to check the boxes in the middle, adding more time to the process.

• The Eurotunnel needs to process 500 lorries an hour but only has the veterinary capacity for 150 an hour which will slow things down even more.

• The administrative burden of EHCs means that vets are struggling to meet the demand and the costs for exporters have increased.

https://www.foodandfarmingfutures.co.uk/PrestoMobile#/details/ZWVhNzBlY2QtZWJjNi00YWZiLWE1MTAtNWExOTFiMjJjOWU1LjI1MDI2

There are whinges about 'overzealous' customs officials snd 'excessive' bureaucracy in the full article, also a complaint that up to 30% of British consignmemts are being physically inspected, far more than from any other non-EU country according to the complainer.

What they don't acknowledge or accept though is that some other non-EU countries (eg: New Zealand) have agreements to follow EU standards for meat exports to the EU and so have a lower rate of physical inspections:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:01997A0226(02)-20150401&from=EN

Switzerland implements EU SPS (Samitary and Phtyto-Sanitary) rules and other non-EU countries' physical inspection rate is based on risk assessments carried out by the EU.

As a country that has just become a third-country in respect to EU rules, Britain is going to have a higher rate of physical inspections for the time being.

The physical inspection rate for British meat products is also high because Britain will not be fully implementing its own SPS border checks until July.

So meat products sent from Britain to the EU could be mixed in with all sorts of dodgy crap from anywhere in the world.

Nody

sondagefaux wrote: »

These little piggies did not go to the Single Market.



https://www.foodandfarmingfutures.co.uk/PrestoMobile#/details/ZWVhNzBlY2QtZWJjNi00YWZiLWE1MTAtNWExOTFiMjJjOWU1LjI1MDI2

There are whinges about 'overzealous' customs officials snd 'excessive' bureaucracy in the full article, also a complaint that up to 30% of British consignmemts are being physically inspected, far more than from any otjer non-EU country according to the complainer.

What they don't acknowledge or accept though is that some other non-EU countries (eg: New Zealand) have agreements to follow EU standards for meat exports to the EU and so have a lower rate of physical inspections.

Switzerland implements EU SPS (Samitary and Phtyto-Sanitary) rules and other non-EU countries' physical ibsoection rate is based on risk assessments carried out by the EU.

As a country that has just become a third-country in resoect to EU rules, Britain is going to have a higher rate of physical inspections for the time being.

The physical inspection rate for British meat products us also high because Britain will not be fully implementing its own SPS border checks until July.

So meat products sent from Britain to the EU could be mixed in with all sorts of dodgy crap from anywhere in the world.

And this is why I stated many times previously that the challenge is not the tariffs but the paperwork; but plenty of Brexiteers on this thread though the fact UK signed a zero tariff deal "was a big win for the UK" somehow. This is exactly what Canada's companies experienced as well and they have arguable a better deal due to recognition of competency etc.

sondagefaux

Nody wrote: »

And this is why I stated many times previously that the challenge is not the tariffs but the paperwork; but plenty of Brexiteers on this thread though the fact UK signed a zero tariff deal "was a big win for the UK" somehow. This is exactly what Canada's companies experienced as well and they have arguable a better deal due to recognition of competency etc.

Canadian beef exporters have been largely geared towards supplying the US market. The requirements for the US market are radically different to the requirements for the EU market.

A difference in food health standards between the European Union and Canada is being blamed for beef exports falling short of expectations, despite a promising modification to a trade agreement between Canada and Europe.

In 2017, the landmark Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) was established, removing tariffs imposed on Canadian production.

At first, this was good news for beef producers. But they have been unable to take full advantage of the agreement, and they believe it's due to different health standards required by Europe.

In 2018, Canada sent just 3.1 per cent of the 50,000 tonnes of meat authorized for export each year, and in 2017 only 2.3 per cent.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/ceta-beef-export-canada-europe-not-what-was-expected-1.5312594

British producers have been producing within the EU system for decades. Despite that, the requirements for exporting as a third country are clearly hitting them very hard.

Life outside the Single Market is tough for exporters to the EU.

prawnsambo

forgottenhills wrote: »

No, your maths is completely wrong.

If you are allocating 50k customs officials to 120 ports then that is an allocation of 50000/120 = 416 officials per port. If you had 3 shifts and even allowed 2 extra shifts worth of officials to cater for time off/holidays then that would be 416/5 = more than 80 officials available per port per shift (not 0.7 as per your calcs).

Now of course the 50k have to be allocated over airports and back offices etc. as well as to ports but it still seems from a rough calculation to be a perfectly adequate figure.

There are roughly 40 international airports in the UK. So that's 160 ports of entry that would have to be covered. 50k/160= 312 divided by shifts etc. As you say, probably more than enough, but the issue is that they don't actually have those numbers yet. And the more pressing problem is the lack of customs agents without whom, the whole process gets very messy and slow.

sondagefaux

Brits in Spain worrying about cheddar imports being too difficult.

https://www.thelocal.es/20210114/opinion-sue-wilson-spain-brexit-eu-imports-cheese

Not to worry lads. There's plenty of Irish-made cheddar for ye to enjoy.

forgottenhills

sondagefaux wrote: »

Brits in Spain worrying about cheddar imports being too difficult.

https://www.thelocal.es/20210114/opinion-sue-wilson-spain-brexit-eu-imports-cheese

Not to worry lads. There's plenty of Irish-made cheddar for ye to enjoy.

Well hopefully Irish exporters can start picking up some of these opportunities and get embedded with new customers, particularly as all such opportunities may not last for ever.