Senethro
Overlord
Risk based approach is not treating everyone equally you dummy!
Brexit Thread V - The Final Countdown?!?
- Thread starter uppi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- brexit europe united kingdom
- Status
EnglishEdward
Deity
Consider UK customs officers applying a risk based approach to;
(a) Air freight labelled as coffee incoming in an executive plane from Colombia/Venezuela at a minor regional airport
If there have been previous instance of cocaine smuggling using similar ways or intelligence to that effect, the goods are inspected.
(b) Lorry freight labelled as Belgian/Swiss chocolate being delivered by a well know haulier company at Dover.
If there are no instances of this being a smuggling route and there is no intelligence,
then, unless the customs have spare time for a random search, there is no inspection.
(a) Air freight labelled as coffee incoming in an executive plane from Colombia/Venezuela at a minor regional airport
If there have been previous instance of cocaine smuggling using similar ways or intelligence to that effect, the goods are inspected.
(b) Lorry freight labelled as Belgian/Swiss chocolate being delivered by a well know haulier company at Dover.
If there are no instances of this being a smuggling route and there is no intelligence,
then, unless the customs have spare time for a random search, there is no inspection.
EnglishEdward
Deity
I have never laboured under that assumption. I recollect that I have previously pointed out that the EU earns far more from exporting
to the UK than vice-versa, but that does not in itself demonstrate that the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU.
Having said that the EU seems to claim it needs £39 billion.
At the moment such dubious types can consider the 28 different member states varyingly thorough practical
implementations of the EU customs rules, and choose the one they receive as weakest for their particular purposes.
Relying on HMRC catching offenders is being optimistic - the UK was fined this year for not adequately controlling its borders on behalf of the EU.
Once out of the EU that will be the UKs loss.
Practically it won't eliminate the paperwork or cost to companies/economy.
Once out of the EU that will be the UKs loss.
Practically it won't eliminate the paperwork or cost to companies/economy.
What is a risk-based approach, anyway?
Except that it's not the same as today.
Oh look, the same type of industrial lobbyists who backed the Russian candidate for the US presidency!
But in three months and one week the UK will be not adequately controlling its borders on its own behalf. This is sovereignty.
Broken_Erika
Play with me.
They're taking back control of their borders meaning no-one can tell them what to do with them. All they can to is specify which bodily orifice in which to shove their "Control" into.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,378
Attitudes in this thread seems to be imitating british parliament. It is not a compliment. Please do not defend one thing and its opposite immediately after!
Either the UK is going to keep borders mostly unchanged and no catastrophe will happen on brexit day, it it will be able to close them (or have others close them) and a catastrophe can happen. Don't claim both just because either is something to attack he UK's government over.
And @Takhisis, make up your ming, you want to claim that Trump is the american business lobbies candidate, or the russian candidate? Because it can't be both, they are competitors.
Why are people incapable so willing to throw reasoning out just to score a cheap point against their pet political target? You're venting some rage in an utterly useless way! Attacking everything and incapable of reasoning, of coherently, continuously standing for some vision of the future. That kind of attitude may make you feel better for a moment, but won't improve your lives nor others'. It's passive cynicism, a coping mechanism when you feel impotent. It leads you to act impotent, be impotent. Politics as a circus only happens because of your attitude, you're feeding from it and into it.
Either the UK is going to keep borders mostly unchanged and no catastrophe will happen on brexit day, it it will be able to close them (or have others close them) and a catastrophe can happen. Don't claim both just because either is something to attack he UK's government over.
And @Takhisis, make up your ming, you want to claim that Trump is the american business lobbies candidate, or the russian candidate? Because it can't be both, they are competitors.
Why are people incapable so willing to throw reasoning out just to score a cheap point against their pet political target? You're venting some rage in an utterly useless way! Attacking everything and incapable of reasoning, of coherently, continuously standing for some vision of the future. That kind of attitude may make you feel better for a moment, but won't improve your lives nor others'. It's passive cynicism, a coping mechanism when you feel impotent. It leads you to act impotent, be impotent. Politics as a circus only happens because of your attitude, you're feeding from it and into it.
Broken_Erika
Play with me.
Reason and Rationality are for Commies!
Senethro
Overlord
Maybe you don’t actually know **** and are insulated from consequences?
A risk based approach means that a top manager (or a minister, a PM) can blame other people when something goes wrong.
Normally the Finance dept is used for that risk handling but if the potato becomes too hot it is outsourced to some big company.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Left to die by the Tories?
The fundamental shift away from manufacturing industries towards services was almost entirely a Tory project.
No, they are not. As you may have seen me and other people expound on in other threads, the local elites that provide Trump's domestic support both financial and ideological want to perpetuate and increase (or worsen, I'd say) the upwards transfer of purchasing power and political power. Which will damage the US and, sooner or later, destroy it or at least cripple it.
And those people's short term objectives further the goals of the Russian state.
Now, the exact same can be said of the Brexiteeing political class in the UK.
What a coincidence, both have had meetings with Russian intelligence operatives, financial and technical support from Russian spies, and the explicit backing of Putin in his propaganda shows.
Of course, you have expressed something close to support for Viktor Orbán and the likes, as long as they destroy the EU, so I'd suggest you get political glasses to cure your political myopia.
Yes, certainly when Blair is included as a semi-Tory.
One crude way to look at the manufacturing capacity of a country is the GFCF as % of GDP, the Gross Fixed Capital Formation. Mainly the total of all physical fixed assets available for production of industry at purchase value: the productive capital stock updated each year with investments and disposals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_fixed_capital_formation
From 1970 to today, you can see that from 1970-1990 the UK is in the mainstream of the old EU-countries, that all go down as % of GDP because of Services increasing in total GDP, and from end Thatcher and the John Major period the UK diverges strongly downward, under Blair stagnation downward, followed by a hit with the GFC in 2009 and marginal improvements in the last couple of years. All in all a massive weakening of the manufacturing capacity of the UK compared to the old EU countries (Switzerland as EFTA without oil assets).
To be noted is that investments in oil and gas add to the GFCF and because the UK did have more investments here than their old EU peers, the real "normal" GFCF of the UK is even lower compared to the old EU countries (is also the reason I left Norway out because of that effect, and put Switzerland in)
https://data.worldbank.org/indicato...017&locations=BE-FR-DE-IT-NL-CH-GB&start=1970
The UK at the very bottom, and transforming the UK back to more industry will need a big catch up.
This is also what Corbyn wants to do when in charge.
BUT Corbyn wants to make ample use of "state-aid" policies to build the industry up, and both the WTO rules as the more strict EU rules, make that more difficult if done by direct subsidising methods instead of flanking infrastructural methods ("fair" competion). There is in the EU enough room as witnessed from actual projects, but Corbyn does not like that interference, repeating that again yesterday:
Corbyn made last Friday an interview with the Guardian stating that he wanted to Brexit to a customs union, which caused much turmoil within the Labour party from the younger members who aim to stay in the EU.
In a Guardian article yesterday pro-Remain Pat McFadden, a former Labour business minister, said:
Labour divided on how to catch up facing serious electoral long term backlash.
The Tories continuing the strategy to shrink the economic sector agriculture for food (first New Zealand, the Commonwealth as garden of the UK with US wheat, since 1973 the EU), to shrink the economic sector (traditional) manufacturing, and moving towards a third economical sector Financial Services UK with some high end industry like weapons, aerospace, AI, medicins (incl chemicals) and a global trading hub to the EU, with trickle down tax cuts as support. Just like a Big Corporate outsourcing everything except the core business, slashing all jobs not anymore needed. Also making the UK to a high degree (streategically) dependant on international trade.
Real crossroads.
Last edited:
Corbyn should be left to run his program. As predicted (cause it was beyond obvious) the blairite riff-raff were quick to try to self-preserve by presenting themselves as in identity with remain/full cancelation of brexit.
I fear that uk politicians have become a sideshow not unlike what their island's tribal rulers were during the divide et impera by ancient rome.
I fear that uk politicians have become a sideshow not unlike what their island's tribal rulers were during the divide et impera by ancient rome.
I indicated that a bit in my post, and also in various other posts, but a good long explanation would be an article worthy of the NYT or closer by, a good BBC documentary. A good one.
You have to describe the impact of the neglect by the government in flanking and developing policies and the wrong directions by politicians messaging towards small and big company owners, by statements and policies.
Basically you can summarise the position of politicians and the government in writing off a good future for the UK based on industry and at the same time encouraging a future for UK in Financial Service and some high end industry. Buy you stuff cheaper from other countries (China, EU-food, mass-industrial), specialise into money and high-end and force your country to export to pay the now unavoidable import of those cheap products you no longer can make yourself.
Force your country to export other stuff... huh ?... not as natural effect of a healthy industry/economy... but forced because you need the money for your current account... and believing that you are so good in trading that you can make up for a shortage of goods you make, the grandstanding that the UK has always been a great trading nation (Westminster politicians !).
My impression is that the UK was not so much a trading nation but a manufacturing nation forcing its colonies to buy their products, that were BTW very cost effective because of the huge scale size and innovation of that industry, enabled by that huge imperial market. Is that trading ?
Analysts of the London Stock Exchange advicing negatively to investors to invest in traditional sectors championed by statements of Westminster. Investor's money going for dot.com, real estate, and everything with "better returns". And "normal" industry, engineering companies do make lower returns, especially if no one believes in their future.
Thatcher privatised industries that got too little government investments to become more innovative and productive (2 flies with one stroke of austerity). Thatcher slashed indirectly a lot of jobs in industry and with that the future of engineering and craftsmen was broken. Do mind that once you make such skilled/experienced people jobless, those skills evaporate, unless they can find adjacent jobs, where their skills are of value to their salary and the value added to the economy. Thatcher also immediately launched the concept of the UK as trading hub between global and the EU market. But that was aimed at Big Corporate from foreign countries. Not at small medium companies in her own country.
John Major continued that neglect, continued giving the wrong signals and not really boosting high end industries by flanking infra to compensate the traditional industry's job losses. Blair even spinned that process as a great future. Both just benefitted from a global GDP growth, global maturing economies needing more Services, where everbody and his dog saw domestic growth.
And meanwhile the UK was not even capable to keep up a decent car industry. Don't be fooled with the cars per year produced in those shining assembly lines. The bulk of the added value of the car industry is about the suppliers of car components. There is not enough of that in the UK, it has as country a shallow manufacturing depth, dependant on imports.
And having a big car suppliers industry is crucial for having lots of innovations and scale size cost effeciencies to support a myriad of adjacent industrial sectors to the level that they can prevent avoidable imports up to be able to generate exports. A real engineering country aims at the level of having an international competitive machine building industry. A real engineering country has many supportive tools for educating engineers and skilled craftsman. The UK govt broke that down, actively and by neglect of flanking actions.
The running joke we had as international continental European industry managers on the UK was that their last surviving skilled industrial people all had become consultants to sell off their last bits of knowledge, including to other countries.
The less lucky people ending up in lesser jobs to reach their retirement.
Comparing with how that all developed, can for sure partially be explained by the other business culture in the UK, but the UK government did the opposite of stopping or countering it. The high end industries aimed for, developed and grown, just not big enough to compensate the shrinking of the more traditional industries.
Anyway
Good reflective articles on the industrial downfall of the UK are scarce.
The Guardian has ofc many articles. And this one going in a bit deeper.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/nov/16/why-britain-doesnt-make-things-manufacturing
This one explaining the high end industrial profile of some countries incl Switzerland. Whereby noted that Switzerland has an excellent engineering culture and education + a very good apprentice system for shopfloor craftsmen. Not a culture where a money manager is picking the brains of an engineer when so needed.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...gs-matter-britain-forgot-manufacturing-brexit
This Statesman article highlighting the lack of continuity of govt policy also driven by a higher financial dependency on the more volatile Financial Services economy. And industrial investments thrive best in continuity and reliability. Not in bust-boom behaviour of austerity inclined governments.
https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/culture/2013/01/meeting-our-makers-britain’s-long-industrial-decline
EDIT
I forgot to add an info on state aid by other EU countries as comparison with the UK, to outline that the EU has factual enough room for state aid, the UK only does not use it:
Last edited:
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,378
It's good that he timidly came out finally with his own opinion, and basically telling the truth (brexit is not reversible, it'd be a catastrophe to attempt that). And it is good that he has been so attacked over it, because it shows how hard his position is. Labour is as split as the Conservatives.
Ironsided
Flower of happiness
- Joined
- May 25, 2012
- Messages
- 1,267
Headline in the Grauniad: “Corbyn faces furious Labour backlash over backing Brexit”.
That part of the party seem fully delusional. It’s like little children who wants to eat their cookie and still have it. Corbyn was maybe never a strong EU supporter but he went along with party lines to support remain in the vote. Now the vote is done. To reverse it is impossible. The EU will not accept a reversal on the same terms and any deal to remain will be worse than before and the children will cry even more. Corbyn is per usual just keepin’ it real and moving on.
That part of the party seem fully delusional. It’s like little children who wants to eat their cookie and still have it. Corbyn was maybe never a strong EU supporter but he went along with party lines to support remain in the vote. Now the vote is done. To reverse it is impossible. The EU will not accept a reversal on the same terms and any deal to remain will be worse than before and the children will cry even more. Corbyn is per usual just keepin’ it real and moving on.
- Status
