https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1168479741491462144

Quotes embedded in tweet. It's well worth reading the replies, too.

So, if anybody tries to sell you the "will of the people" line, point them towards this and remind them what people actually voted for.

Maybe the entire UK's money supply should be gambled short selling itself. That way all the Brexit giveaway promises can be paid for...

It's fertilised with Brexit Unicorn apples.

Now it's a total of £50bn in spending promises combined with touted tax cuts.

That money tree must be in full fruit

Don't we send that to the EU every 5 seconds?

He hasn't told you the cuts yet.

They will also cut taxes and increase spending as a result of the no deal losses brexit dividend. Makes you wonder what the point of austerity was if they now will disregard fiscal prudence.

Maybe the plan is to win the next election on the back of these promises and then find, oops, the intransigent EU are denying us the Brexit dividend so they have to row back on the promises and it's all the rotten EU's fault ner ner di ner ner and yah boo sucks to them!

But Boris would still be in #10.

A lot of the announced spending is old money that has been announced previously. Any new spending pledges are spread over several years.

It's difficult to calculate how much actual new money per year has been pledged - which is, of course, the way the politicians want it to be.

What most observers continue to conclude is that however generous the Tory spending pledges seem, they're still considerably smaller than those promised by the more left-wing parties.

Certainly if the economy takes a dive - perhaps if Brexit works out worse than they expect - then spending will be reined back: this has happened many times before when an economic downturn occurs.

ftfy

Given that BJ is apparently pursuing a no-deal Brexit, despite pretending to do otherwise, a "economic downturn" would be a certainty. That alone makes any public spending pledges highly questionable.

Reducing spending during an economic downturn is generally not a good idea because it makes the economic downturn worse. This reduces tax revenues even further and forces more spending cuts, which reduces tax revenue…

I'm a bit unclear on the shorts. Is the idea that the pound will drop in value after a no deal so those who shorted .... what?

An explanation would be greatly appreciated.

I read the article linked by Mark Hobson (a little more than half way down the page). Was he serious or was that just conservative fantasy to sell Brexit?

Maybe they looked across the pond and saw the GOP scream their bloody heads off about the deficit for nearly a decade but once in power themselves, made the situation roughly 50% worse and nobody seems to give a damn.

That pretty much sums up what all the fuss is about. What did people vote for when they voted for a Brexit. Because it's not what Boris and his backers want.

https://www.theage.com.au/world/euro...30-p52wck.html

It seems that the government will publish detailed plans regarding Brexit and the Irish border. It seems that their cunning plan to avoid a border infrastructure on the border is to install it near the border :rolleyes:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49881345

People on the island of Ireland are less than impressed:

IMO Austerity was never about fiscal prudence (otherwise there wouldn't have been tax cuts for the wealthy).

Instead it was a continuation of Conservative policy for the last 40 years or so to restrict access to welfare (except for pensioners who tend to vote Tory), run down local services (so people are forced to seek privatised alternatives) and to reduce economic and social mobility.

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers/cover-1273

FIFY

Actually I think it is more subtle than that, the problem the Irish government and EU have is they don't want a border on the island of Ireland.

Boris's answer is to build two borders, which is clearly not a border.:rolleyes:

The alledged British "government" is going to reveal a plan to negotiate Brexit.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49881345

I'm not sure if it's intended as a joke or not, but it comes off as one.

McHrozni

There is a suggestion that the NI border will be kept open by having the customs checks at the point of departure or even depots away from the border. Is that not just the existing TIR Convention?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIR_Convention

"The Convention on International Transport of Goods Under Cover of TIR Carnets (TIR Convention) is a multilateral treaty that was concluded at Geneva on 14 November 1975 to simplify and harmonise the administrative formalities of international road transport. (TIR stands for "Transports Internationaux Routiers" or "International Road Transports".) The 1975 convention replaced the TIR Convention of 1959, which itself replaced the 1949 TIR Agreement between a number of European countries.[1] The conventions were adopted under the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). As of December 2018, there are 76 parties to the Convention, including 75 states and the European Union.

The TIR Convention establishes an international customs transit system with maximum facility to move goods:

in sealed vehicles or containers;
from a customs office of departure in one country to a customs office of destination in another country;
without requiring extensive and time-consuming border checks at intermediate borders;
while, at the same time, providing customs authorities with the required security and guarantees."

If TIR is a suitable workaround the problems presented with NI border UK should ratify the deal with the backstop and then justify why that should be used instead.

It's quite simple: either there is a suitable alternative for the customs union, or there isn't. If it's the first Brexiteers should have no problem whatsoever with the backstop and just push for the suitable alternative.

McHrozni

TIR is possibly a hidden in plain sight solution, I remember seeing TIR lorries all the time and the legislation was part of basic police training in 1989 when I joined. We were shown how to identify TIR vehicles and to check they had the customs seal secured. If not, Customs and Excise were to be informed for further instructions, potentially seizing the vehicle so they could do more thorough checks.

TIR doesn't begin to cover the scope of the full relationship between the UK and EU - for a start it only relates to the physical movement of goods.

It also requires that infrastructure is in place to carry out the customs inspection and paperwork. Fine if you're moving a whole container of goods, less so if you're a member of the public buying something in the UK/EU and driving it to the EU/UK.

That isn’t the point that the case was decided on. There’s no question that ministerial actions are subject to judicial review. If the government wanted to argue that the PM is in some way special in that respect, then it would have been up to them to cite authority for that proposition.

Presumably the idea is to simply ignore the small-scale smuggling. It's not like people with station wagons or minivans would ever engage in illicit movement of goods.

TIR as a solution requires immense levels of goodwill from Ireland. You know, the country that "needed to be shown their place"?

McHrozni

It would indeed require an infrastructure to be put in place. TIR is at least something that worked in the past and many transport companies will have experience of it.

As for individual purchases, since so many are electronic and will detect that the purchaser is not from the country, maybe that could flag up that duty is due and it is paid at time of purchase.

I don't think the proposal is for the remote checking of commercial goods. Boris this morning was keen to point out that the UK will have its own customs territory. I understood the plan, which he refused to expand on other than denying the leaked details, to be a hard border but (here is the clever bit) not on the actual border itself, perhaps it will be a mile away. So there will not be a hard border on the Irish border. Genius. Twat. Take your pick.

The Irish government is rejecting it anyway;

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...pport-for-deal

"Traders would have the choice of lodging their papers at these sites, similar to the ones that existed before the single market came into existence, or electing to be tracked electronically in an online “transit” arrangement."

That is a reference to the TIR system, but;

"The idea of permanent clearance sites on both sides of the border, even five to 10 miles away, and real-time tracking of the movements of goods are unlikely to be supported by the Irish government."

Part of the reason TIR isn't 100% helpful is the admin burden. FTA and RHA deal with it for the UK. IIRC, the FTA told me in 2017 they issue about 100 carnets a year - numbers plummeted post SM. Let's say the RHA do 9 times that (they don't, but it makes the maths easy). Let's further say that all are for the maximum 20 tickets (they aren't). That would mean 20,000 trucks travelling under TIR a year.

This link says that there are 13,000 truck movements across the NI border every day:
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...-37732220.html

That's a lot more paperwork than the two trade organisations can handle.

...and physical tokens worked on the 19th century railway but they are singularly unfit for modern high speed rail.

Ignoring for the fact that those who wish to bypass the system would use cash or a domestic method of online payment (for example Mrs Don has a US credit card for US purchases), the EU prohibits collection of duty by third parties on its behalf, but more importantly this would do nothing to protect bio-security or ensure that goods which are fit for the UK market but not the EU market, don't make it into the EU.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-off-by-allies

So, according to Young, not only are the stories true, but it was such common behaviour that it was noteworthy if it didn't happen.

Also to facilitate privatisation.

People complained? Men complained too if they weren't groped. :rolleyes:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1178968685786095617

A consistent strategy. Run down the clock.

:eek:

I wonder what punishment they might be handed if a court decided it was a flagrant attempt to avoid the consequences of the Benn act?