May's Brexit Plan

[JohnD]

Here's a new and frightening statistic.     The "No-deal" option so favoured by Rees-Mogg's ERG, and  increasingly likely to happen, could cause Kent to become gridlocked, despite the Minister for Defence allocating 3500 troops to assist with lorry parking.     

Many of those lorries will be European, I have no idea how many have UK drivers, but Dover handled 2.7 MILLION trucks in 2017.    Say a third, it's a guess, but the UK is 60,000 short of the HGV drivers it needs, and if only a third had UK drivers that's a million trips.    Drivers hours are a complex matter, but basically they must not do more than a five day week - good!    Each driver who crosses the Channel must take about a day each way (again, Im guessing, correct me someone in logistics), but that means that they cannot do more than five trips in a fortnight, or 130 trips a year.   Which brings me back to the fearful statistic.   

One million trips at 130 per year for each, requires nearly 8000 drivers.   How many permits have been allocated in the event of a No-Deal crash out, by the community to drive in Europe?   One thousand.  ONE THOUSAND!   They couldn't keep Waitrose's in sun-dried tomatoes.

If our Government agreed to that, then they are even more incompetent than I imagined.

John

Edited December 19, 2018 by JohnD

[PaulAA]

John

Reference page 8 of the EU's latest "Preparation..." document, here.  The EU is offering a nine-month extension for the passage of goods by road haulage, provided the UK offers the same in the other direction.

Paul

[Nick Jones]

And now the "children" in Westminster are fighting over who called whom stupid.  As it feels like the average IQ of the house of commons could be raised significantly just by bringing an averagely thick Labrador in, it doesn't seem like any of them have much to be proud of on that front.

Can a responsible adult please report to the house of commons immediately...….  Is there a responsible adult anywhere??!

[IainR]

Having carefully read the spread of opinion expressed here, (Would that our bloody politicians could manage the debate in a similar fashion). I find myself drawn naturally in the direction of Fraser but take some small comfort from Jonesy's words of encouragement. 

[David Butterworth]

2 hours ago, JohnD said:

Here's a new and frightening statistic.     The "No-deal" option so favoured by Rees-Mogg's ERG, and  increasingly likely to happen, could cause Kent to become gridlocked, despite the Minister for Defence allocating 3500 troops to assist with lorry parking.     

Many of those lorries will be European, I have no idea how many have UK drivers, but Dover handled 2.7 MILLION trucks in 2017.    Say a third, it's a guess, but the UK is 60,000 short of the HGV drivers it needs, and if only a third had UK drivers that's a million trips.    Drivers hours are a complex matter, but basically they must not do more than a five day week - good!    Each driver who crosses the Channel must take about a day each way (again, Im guessing, correct me someone in logistics), but that means that they cannot do more than five trips in a fortnight, or 130 trips a year.   Which brings me back to the fearful statistic.   

One million trips at 130 per year for each, requires nearly 8000 drivers.   How many permits have been allocated in the event of a No-Deal crash out, by the community to drive in Europe?   One thousand.  ONE THOUSAND!   They couldn't keep Waitrose's in sun-dried tomatoes.

If our Government agreed to that, then they are even more incompetent than I imagined.

John

John, Google TIR rules. There is virtually nothing to stop trucks running in both directions including Ireland and Northern Ireland. Border problem solved for transit of goods

Dave

[JohnD]

Thank you, Paul.  

Road haulage 
If the Withdrawal Agreement is not ratified, road haulage between the EU and the United Kingdom will be severely restricted and limited to an international system of limited quotas. The Commission has today adopted a measure to ensure basic connectivity. This will allow operators from the United Kingdom temporarily to carry goods into the Union, provided the United Kingdom confers equivalent rights to Union road haulage operators and subject to conditions ensuring fair competition:  
 A proposal for a Regulation * to allow temporarily, for 9 months, access for road haulage operators licenced in the United Kingdom to the carriage of goods by road between the territory of the latter and the EU27 Member States.  
EU level contingency action is necessary to ensure an appropriate legal framework in the area of road haulage. EU law has superseded old bilateral agreements on road haulage rights and they cannot be resurrected. Any new bilateral agreement would raise issues of competence, and would not allow for road haulage to the United Kingdom by an operator of another Member State (cross-trade). They are therefore not a practical solution

 

*Commission proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules ensuring basic road freight connectivity with regard to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the Union (COM(2018) 895 final).

I note the use of the words "severely limited to …. limited quotas", "basic connectivity", and a temporary 9 months extension, and they are no less frightening.   The last two sentences are especially telling in that they "raise issues of competence" and are "not a practical solution".

 

David,

Paul referred to a 9 page document by the relevant page.  The TIR regs must run to very many.  Please point out what and where you refer?

John 

Edited December 19, 2018 by JohnD

[AB|W]

severely limited to …. limited quotas"

Well that has sorted out the EU's import / export disparity with the UK,  Merry Christmas from the EU to those with a BMW and a liking for Brie & Beaujolais.

I always wrongly thought that trade was a two way deal.

Alan

 

 

 

[PeterC]

UK has leverage re waggon movemnents.   Eire will be screwed judging by the numbers of their waggons using Holyhead-Felixstowe as a shortcut. Likewise Stranraer and Fishgard. UK can threaten tit for tat. 

Peter

 

[oldtuckunder]

Or

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2oEmPP5dTM

 

[PeterC]

The EU is a volcano.

Volcanoes are nasty, they erupt to no good.

Peter

[Sprint95m]

16 hours ago, PeterC said:

Eire will be screwed judging by the numbers of their waggons using Holyhead-Felixstowe as a shortcut.

Peter

 

Not so.

There are two enormous container ships under construction in Denmark to carry container freight from Eire directly to Europe.
The loser in this is the British haulage industry.

 

Ian.

[JohnD]

17 hours ago, PeterC said:

UK has leverage re waggon movemnents.   Eire will be screwed judging by the numbers of their waggons using Holyhead-Felixstowe as a shortcut. Likewise Stranraer and Fishgard. UK can threaten tit for tat. 

Peter

 

Peter,

Feliwstowe-Holyhead is 325miles, and takes at least nine and a half hours of driving.     Unless the truck is double manned, that is more than the driver may do in a day, so they must stop for an eleven hour break before they go any further.    So the trip takes at least a day.    A ferry direct from Cherbourg to Dublin takes less than 19 hours, and the driver is are ready to go at the other end.   No Irish destination that isn't a major port is more than four and a half hours driving away, so the driver is ready after his vehicle is unloaded to return the same day.   

How will Eire be screwed?

JOhn

PS Ah! Ian is ahead of me.  As is Eire.   

Edited December 20, 2018 by JohnD

[Sprint95m]

 This is such an active topic here.
I simply don't have the time to read all the posts,
which is frustrating.

 

 

Ian.

[Nick Jones]

10 hours ago, PeterC said:

The EU is a volcano.

Volcanoes are nasty, they erupt to no good.

Peter

Disagree. The EU is not the volcano, but it is sitting on a number of volcanoes.

Greece, Italy, Hungary. The refugee crisis. Ukraine and Russian ambition. The wider Euro question. Brexit is Mere fumarole in comparison.

From our side, a stable, effective EU and dormant volcanoes on our doorstep is infinitely preferable to chaos. In the EU we can (and have for many years) contribute to its stability and balance and help stop the volcanoes erupting.

[PaulAA]

Here's a thought.

If we cut away the hyperbole and ignore some of the more fanciful of emotive reactions against the EU, it appears (to me, at least) that the big ticket item on the Brexit shopping list is a substantial reduction in immigration, the 'solution' being exit from the complete freedom of movement within the Single Market.

I'm no lawyer, but a cursory glance through Directive 2004/38/EC, which is the mainstay of freedom of movement, demonstrates that each an every member state has an instrument of limitation based on several criteria including the loose term 'public policy'.  Granted, the Directive clearly states that the reason for such public policy cannot be economic, but I suspect that the Bexiteers' issue with immigration may have little real basis in economics.

So, if the UK can manufacture a justifiable reason for limiting immigration approximating to the criteria defined by the current White Paper (in other words, not defined by an income threshold), the golden question is a long way to being answered.

Now, where is the flaw in my argument..?

Paul

[PeterC]

3 hours ago, JohnD said:

Peter,

Feliwstowe-Holyhead is 325miles, and takes at least nine and a half hours of driving.     Unless the truck is double manned, that is more than the driver may do in a day, so they must stop for an eleven hour break before they go any further.    So the trip takes at least a day.    A ferry direct from Cherbourg to Dublin takes less than 19 hours, and the driver is are ready to go at the other end.   No Irish destination that isn't a major port is more than four and a half hours driving away, so the driver is ready after his vehicle is unloaded to return the same day.   

How will Eire be screwed?

JOhn

PS Ah! Ian is ahead of me.  As is Eire.   

Cherbourg is nowhere near Hamburg or Rotterdam, nor eastern EU/Germany.

Peter

[PeterC]

25 minutes ago, PaulAA said:

Here's a thought.

If we cut away the hyperbole and ignore some of the more fanciful of emotive reactions against the EU, it appears (to me, at least) that the big ticket item on the Brexit shopping list is a substantial reduction in immigration, the 'solution' being exit from the complete freedom of movement within the Single Market.

I'm no lawyer, but a cursory glance through Directive 2004/38/EC, which is the mainstay of freedom of movement, demonstrates that each an every member state has an instrument of limitation based on several criteria including the loose term 'public policy'.  Granted, the Directive clearly states that the reason for such public policy cannot be economic, but I suspect that the Bexiteers' issue with immigration may have little real basis in economics.

So, if the UK can manufacture a justifiable reason for limiting immigration approximating to the criteria defined by the current White Paper (in other words, not defined by an income threshold), the golden question is a long way to being answered.

Now, where is the flaw in my argument..?

Paul

The flaw is that UK imports skilled staff that other countries have paid taxes to train. Doctors, nurses, engineers, scientists...   At one point UK was employing half the output of Phillipines nursing schools. That is wrong.  UK now depends upon such immigration, putting itself in a precarious position should the immigrants home countries threaten their expats with loss of citizenship.    Governments that pay to train medics etc have a right to expect a decent return on their investment, not to be plundered by UK, or short chainged by those who benefited from the training.

Peter

[Nick Jones]

Peter,

While I completely agree with you on the “wrongness” of plundering the skilled labour force of other, especially poorer countries........

1. It really is a side issue to brexit

2. On a purely selfish note, we’d be in deep shit without them due to successive governments failure to train medical people or make the NHS an attractive and rewarding place to work. The later meaning that a rather high proportion of those trained get poached by countries higher up the food chain - or retrain.

My simple procedure yesterday involved two nurses, one English, one Polish. A junior doctor, Italian. A technical assistant, Polish. The consultant, English and retiring soon.....

Paul,

Also no lawyer but you say makes sense to me. I would say that there must be a good reason why it’s not possible or it would’ve been brought out/done before....... But then again, after the insight gieven by recent events into the personal and party agendas and the simple ignorance,arrogance and rank stupidity of our ruling class...... maybe not!!

[PaulAA]

21 minutes ago, PeterC said:

The flaw is that UK imports skilled staff that other countries have paid taxes to train. Doctors, nurses, engineers, scientists...   At one point UK was employing half the output of Phillipines nursing schools. That is wrong.  UK now depends upon such immigration, putting itself in a precarious position should the immigrants home countries threaten their expats with loss of citizenship.    Governments that pay to train medics etc have a right to expect a decent return on their investment, not to be plundered by UK, or short chainged by those who benefited from the training.

Peter

Peter

You seem to be reacting with my own argument.  Believe me, we here in Poland would welcome back the skilled labour force that trained here at public expense and then moved to the UK for higher wages.  I was talking recently to a colleague, who has connections in the Romanian govt, where the situation is so bad that they are thinking of penalising people who do not 'repay' their education by working for a certain number of years in their home country.

The other side of the coin is that the UK would appear to have the legal capacity to utilise provisions in the Freedom of Movement legislation to limit the very freedoms the directive enshrined.  Why would they not do this?  We have already discussed in this thread the fact that the UK, along with Sweden, jumped the gun and allowed full freedom immediately after the Directive was published in 2004, but now the checks and balances seem to have been forgotten.

I am surprised that the UK is not being chastised elsewhere in the EU for not imposing quotas on immigration.  Poland, the Baltics, Romania, Bulgaria and, to a lesser extent, Hungary and Slovakia are all suffering from a depletion of the active labour force and an artificial ageing of the population, to the extent that unfair preference is being given along the EU's eastern border to unrestricted immigration from Ukraine and, to a lesser extent, Belarus.  It's a tricky situation with Ukrainian citizens, many of whom have Polish heritage...

Paul

[rhino_mac]

2 hours ago, PaulAA said:

Here's a thought.

If we cut away the hyperbole and ignore some of the more fanciful of emotive reactions against the EU, it appears (to me, at least) that the big ticket item on the Brexit shopping list is a substantial reduction in immigration, the 'solution' being exit from the complete freedom of movement within the Single Market.

I'm no lawyer, but a cursory glance through Directive 2004/38/EC, which is the mainstay of freedom of movement, demonstrates that each an every member state has an instrument of limitation based on several criteria including the loose term 'public policy'.  Granted, the Directive clearly states that the reason for such public policy cannot be economic, but I suspect that the Bexiteers' issue with immigration may have little real basis in economics.

So, if the UK can manufacture a justifiable reason for limiting immigration approximating to the criteria defined by the current White Paper (in other words, not defined by an income threshold), the golden question is a long way to being answered.

Now, where is the flaw in my argument..?

Paul

Paul, this is something that the UK populace just doesn't get. The government has been able to limit immigration from the EU for years but chooses not to as they know immigration benefits the economy. So they keep quiet about this so rising immigration can be blamed on the EU and not their policies.

The "new" policy Savid Javid announced yesterday where immigration will be skills tested is madness. We'll always need skilled people from abroad but in my experience, English workers generally don't want to work in McDonalds/KFC, chambermaid in hotels, pick lettuces in fields or work as porters in hospitals etc etc.

[JohnD]

2 hours ago, PeterC said:

Cherbourg is nowhere near Hamburg or Rotterdam, nor eastern EU/Germany.

Peter

Lacking data on a Hamburg to Dublin passage time, I compromised on Cherbourg.

But now, I've found http://www.shortseaschedules.com/Schedule/MapSearch?From=Dublin&To=Cherbourg

That gives the Cherbourg-Dublin passage as 28 hours, and that from Rotterdam, surely a more central paort for Europe than Hamburg, at 47 hours.    A bit longer, I can't say how true, but you're not going to employ a driver to sit on that ferry for two days, you'll have one at each end.      My point is that Eire is not over a barrel at all, especially if someone has realised the potantial of sea transport to the Emerald Isle.

John

[Chris W]

1 hour ago, JohnD said:

Lacking data on a Hamburg to Dublin passage time, I compromised on Cherbourg.

But now, I've found http://www.shortseaschedules.com/Schedule/MapSearch?From=Dublin&To=Cherbourg

That gives the Cherbourg-Dublin passage as 28 hours, and that from Rotterdam, surely a more central paort for Europe than Hamburg, at 47 hours.    A bit longer, I can't say how true, but you're not going to employ a driver to sit on that ferry for two days, you'll have one at each end.      My point is that Eire is not over a barrel at all, especially if someone has realised the potantial of sea transport to the Emerald Isle.

John

Hi John,

I don't believe that the 'Irish are screwed' by Brexit (in fact I find such language rather distasteful) but there is no doubt that they will be severely inconvenienced.  The Irish Government recognise this as fact. If you believe Official forecasts, the Irish Government assessment for short term GDP impact of a 'No Deal Brexit' suggest it will impact RoI more than the UK. 

Regarding the ferries, surely if it made economic sense for the Irish to have a direct sea link to mainland Europe, they would have created one years ago.  Despite your calculations, it clearly must have been preferable to use GB as a land bridge, using our free motorways and cheap European Diesel to shave costs.  The new sea link is simply a response to Brexit and nothing else.

Of course the proof of the pudding will be in how much the new ferry service is used, once the initial disruption at British /French/Dutch ports dies down.  If I were a betting man, I'd say not a lot.

 

 

 

 

[PeterC]

4 hours ago, PaulAA said:

Peter

You seem to be reacting with my own argument.  Believe me, we here in Poland would welcome back the skilled labour force that trained here at public expense and then moved to the UK for higher wages.  I was talking recently to a colleague, who has connections in the Romanian govt, where the situation is so bad that they are thinking of penalising people who do not 'repay' their education by working for a certain number of years in their home country.

The other side of the coin is that the UK would appear to have the legal capacity to utilise provisions in the Freedom of Movement legislation to limit the very freedoms the directive enshrined.  Why would they not do this?  We have already discussed in this thread the fact that the UK, along with Sweden, jumped the gun and allowed full freedom immediately after the Directive was published in 2004, but now the checks and balances seem to have been forgotten.

I am surprised that the UK is not being chastised elsewhere in the EU for not imposing quotas on immigration.  Poland, the Baltics, Romania, Bulgaria and, to a lesser extent, Hungary and Slovakia are all suffering from a depletion of the active labour force and an artificial ageing of the population, to the extent that unfair preference is being given along the EU's eastern border to unrestricted immigration from Ukraine and, to a lesser extent, Belarus.  It's a tricky situation with Ukrainian citizens, many of whom have Polish heritage...

Paul

My point is, in the past, freedom of movement has lead to UK becoming dependant upon skilled immigration. That has to stop, UK must become self sufficient in skills.

EU doesn't seem worried by mass internal migration - Cameron sought limits but was given the brush off. Whether the 27 nation states will support their skill being exported remains to be seen. Schengen is regarded by Brussels as a cornerstone of their EUxperiment. But experiments can fail.

Peter

[PeterC]

30 minutes ago, Chris W said:

Hi John,

I don't believe that the 'Irish are screwed' by Brexit (in fact I find such language rather distasteful) but there is no doubt that they will be severely inconvenienced.  The Irish Government recognise this as fact. If you believe Official forecasts, the Irish Government assessment for short term GDP impact of a 'No Deal Brexit' suggest it will impact RoI more than the UK. 

Regarding the ferries, surely if it made economic sense for the Irish to have a direct sea link to mainland Europe, they would have created one years ago.  Despite your calculations, it clearly must have been preferable to use GB as a land bridge, using our free motorways and cheap European Diesel to shave costs.  The new sea link is simply a response to Brexit and nothing else.

Of course the proof of the pudding will be in how much the new ferry service is used, once the initial disruption at British /French/Dutch ports dies down.  If I were a betting man, I'd say not a lot.

 

 

 

 

It remains a preferable route. Most waggons dont need to buy UK diesel.  My point is, Brussels and UK hold the means to allow unfettered access to irish waggons. UK has leverage.

Ireland also has the problem of the border in a hard brexit: UK has the Irish Sea, despite the DUPs protestations. I see the solution in free port status fro NI,

Peter

[JohnD]

Ireland, and Europe, take the view that, however concerned they are about the effect of a hard Irish border, it is the UK's policy that has caused it and the UK's repsonsibilty to deal with it.

JOhn