Current Affairs EU In or Out

[Ruairi77]

I took for granted that even an idiot would make contingency plans for either possible outcome. As the Prime Minister who called the referendum it was his responsibility to plan ahead for either outcome and lead The country through the process (or not if he'd chosen to ignore it). The fact that he didn't have any plan after calling such a monumental referendum and then just walked away after not getting the result he wanted in order to avoid cleaning up the mess he created is nothing short of a disgrace and shows just what sort of man he is.

Granted, I wasn't there, but from the media coverage it seemed clear that there was no coherent plan for how to leave in the run up to the vote. Seems to me that a lot of leave voters voted with their hearts above their heads, all of a sudden choosing to trust in something they had never trusted in before.

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

Granted, I wasn't there, but from the media coverage it seemed clear that there was no coherent plan for how to leave in the run up to the vote. Seems to me that a lot of leave voters voted with their hearts above their heads, all of a sudden choosing to trust in something they had never trusted in before.

With all due respect mate, the leave campaign wasn't the government so how could they make plans and guarantee that the government wouldn't just ignore it? Do you think we should of formed a Brexit coalition government with leavers of all different types represented? Because that would be the only way for the leave campaign to form a plan of any sort. Most of us took for granted that the coward who called the referendum would have a contingency plan for the possibility of an out vote and I really don't see why that's unreasonable to suppose.

 

[abelard]

I took for granted that even an idiot would make contingency plans for either possible outcome. As the Prime Minister who called the referendum it was his responsibility to plan ahead for either outcome and lead The country through the process (or not if he'd chosen to ignore it). The fact that he didn't have any plan after calling such a monumental referendum and then just walked away after not getting the result he wanted in order to avoid cleaning up the mess he created is nothing short of a disgrace and shows just what sort of man he is.

Can't argue with any of that. They couldn't begin to fathom that you'd actually vote to leave.

Christ:

Lack of Government contingency planning risks Brexit border chaos

16 November 2017
In its report, the Home Affairs Committee raises serious concerns about the Government’s contingency planning for post-Brexit customs operations and warns major border disruption could ensue unless urgent action is taken.

• Read the report: conclusions and recommendations
• Read the full report: Home Office delivery of Brexit: customs operations

Maintaining operational status quo
The report notes that maintaining the operational status quo for customs arrangements and remaining in the customs union would cause the least upheaval at the border and deliver certainty for business. The Government should aim to swiftly agree transitional arrangements with the EU which involve no practical change to customs operations either in the UK or the EU, and especially at the Irish border.

The Committee specifically warns of the risks if no deal is secured, which would result in customs in the UK experiencing a huge amount of change in a very short time, with a vast increase required in capacity and processes at the border.

Delays and traffic jams at ports
The report warns that rapid changes and a failure to plan could see the UK facing delays and traffic jams at ports similar to those experienced in July 2015 when French ferry operators went on strike and Operation Stack was implemented to ease major problems.

It warns that any change to customs arrangements after March 2019 will require similar investment and planning at the EU side of the border - especially in France, Belgium and Ireland or there will be serious delays for UK exports.

The Committee raises concerns that a 4% increase in Border Force staff is too small as they carry out customs checks in many ports. The report warns of the risk of Border Force being diverted from security and immigration checks into customs checks and emphasises that security must not be put at risk by government failure to plan.

The Committee welcomes proposals to use the approved operators scheme but calls for action to accredit more businesses now.

Insufficient contingency planning
The Committee warns that insufficient contingency planning has been done for Britain leaving the EU with no deal. The report today calls on the Government to publish detailed plans on the impact on Britain’s customs arrangements of all potential outcomes of the Brexit negotiations, including a no deal. This should provide detail on additional staffing required, additional infrastructure, the new processes for business, and set out the costs of these plans.

Lack of coordination across government
The Committee criticises the lack of coordination across government, who were unable to specify which single Minister is responsible for border planning. The report calls on the Government to act and put in place a lead Minister to oversee this substantial body of work.

Government's border planning for Brexit unconvincing
Chair of the Committee, Yvette Cooper MP, commented:

"The Government's border planning for Brexit is extremely unconvincing.

The Government should be aiming for transition arrangements which require no change at all in customs and border requirements as everyone is running out of time to make any staffing, infrastructure or procedural changes - and they risk long delays at the border, both in the UK and abroad.

But there must also be an urgent acceleration of contingency planning in case there is no deal at all. We found the 4% increase in Border Force staff at the borders completely unconvincing. The Government must not allow bad policy decisions or poor contingency planning to mean that Border Force staff are pulled away from security, illegal goods and immigration checks to cover for customs chaos. Ministers must not allow Brexit implementation put our security at risk.

Ports, haulage and logistics companies have made very clear the problems they will face without a clear indication very soon of the contingencies which the Government is considering for post-Brexit customs arrangements in the different possible scenarios, including a transitional period or no deal at all.

It is clear from the evidence the Committee has taken that remaining in the customs union, particularly during the transition deal, is the best way of avoiding the chaos and high costs predicted by traders and trade bodies, like the CBI. However, we recognise this is not the option currently favoured by the Government.

Home Office Ministers must now demonstrate that they are aware of the risks of introducing new customs arrangements and understand the work needed to mitigate them. As a matter of urgency, it must provide details for the no deal scenario that they stress they are not afraid of, including the numbers of extra staff that will be needed to implement the new processes, and new infrastructure requirements and processes, and the associated costs. They must detail the timescales and mechanisms that will be put in place and allow businesses to plan ahead.

As things stand, the Government is running the risk of celebrating their first day of Brexit with the sight of queues of lorries stretching for miles in Kent and gridlock on the roads of Northern Ireland, which would be incredibly damaging to the UK economy and completely unacceptable to the country. Contingency planning is essential. If the Government gets this all wrong, we could be facing Operation Stack on steroids.

We expect a speedy response to this report from the Government to demonstrate that it has now taken these vital matters in hand – and we want to know which Minister is in charge. The current pace of contingency planning is insufficient and risky."

Concerns about Government’s readiness to respond to changes in customs arrangements
The Home Affairs Committee raises serious concerns about the Government’s readiness to respond to changes in customs arrangements at Britain’s borders required by a Brexit deal – or transition period – which does not see the UK maintain operational status quo and remain in the customs union.

Timetable leaves little time to implement significant change
The Secretary of State for Exiting the EU’s has set out his aim of securing a transitional arrangement in the first quarter of 2018, but the report warns that even this timetable leaves little time to implement significant change, if it is required. The practical challenge involved in changing customs and border arrangements is significant. Imports and exports are worth billions of pounds and involve a vast number of intermediaries.

HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) has estimated that Brexit could lead to an increase of up to 360% in the annual number of customs declarations in the UK, from the current total of 55 million to 255 million, and estimates that the number of traders that may have to go through customs processes could double. The Institute for Government estimates that the introduction of customs declarations on EU trade could cost traders between £4 billion and £9 billion a year.

Freight and logistic companies described a “nightmare scenario” and “total chaos” if significant time is not given to traders to transition to any new customs arrangements. There are particular risks if no deal is secured in March 2019, which would require substantial changes in the volume and processes for customs checks to take place overnight.

Failure to plan sufficiently could see Border Force staff being diverted to customs checks, which raises real risks for our national security. The current 4% increase in staff is nowhere near enough.

Home Office cannot wait for agreement with EU before taking action
The Committee are clear that the Home Office cannot wait until an agreement has been reached with the EU before taking action. It will take time to hire and train additional staff, to build physical infrastructure at ports, and to develop IT systems. And any changes to customs arrangements will impact on EU ports too. If they are not prepared there will still be delays. Businesses also need to be given time to plan ahead and adapt to new arrangements.

Calls on the Government to publish a major contingency plan
The Committee calls on the Government to publish a major contingency plan setting out the potential impact on customs arrangements of the various possible outcomes of the Brexit negotiations. This includes the volume and nature of checks it would expect to operate in the event of no deal being agreed. The plan should cover costings for extra staff, additional infrastructure at ports and new processes for business.

The Government must clearly demonstrate that there will be sufficient staff in place at ports and elsewhere to maintain the UK’s security and the integrity of goods entering the UK, without resources needing to be diverted to customs operations from vital security functions carried out at the border by Home Office Border Force staff.

HM Revenue & Customs’ new IT system, the Customs Declaration Service, will play an vital role in post-Brexit customs arrangements but this project is not due to be completed until January 2019, only two months before Brexit day. The Government must set out what contingency planning is in place should the system be delayed or lack full functionality.

Border between Northern Ireland and Ireland
The border between Northern Ireland and Ireland is acknowledged to present particular difficulties for post-Brexit planning and this could have a grave impact on the day to day lives of people living and working there. Plans to expand the use of the “trusted trader” Approved Economic Operator and approved warehouse schemes could address some of the specific issues here and in the UK more widely. But the Government needs to do more to inform traders now about what this would mean in practice. It must also inform businesses about the accreditation requirements now, so that they can start this process as soon as possible, and improve the registration system.

Further information

• About Parliament: Select committees
• Visiting Parliament: Watch committees

Image: iStockphoto

Regardless of how one might think Brexit could have been beneficial in theory, it's becoming quite delusional to read things like ^this^ and still believe it can be a good thing in practice.

Barring the total collapse of the government - hardly implausible - followed by an election, I expect the same squabbling, dithering, and abdication of responsibility, right up until the deadline. When it becomes clear we're incapable of forming a bargaining position, the EU will make a last-minute 'take it or leave it' offer - "just take the gun out of your mouth, mate" - but we'll probably pull the trigger all the same, out of sheer spite.

 

[orchard]

One of the best bits from the above Select Committee report:

Lack of coordination across government
The Committee criticises the lack of coordination across government, who were unable to specify which single Minister is responsible for border planning. The report calls on the Government to act and put in place a lead Minister to oversee this substantial body of work.


Anyone else reckon we're in good 'strong and stable' stewardship? ANY other industry...

 

[Bruce Wayne]

With all due respect mate, the leave campaign wasn't the government so how could they make plans and guarantee that the government wouldn't just ignore it? Do you think we should of formed a Brexit coalition government with leavers of all different types represented? Because that would be the only way for the leave campaign to form a plan of any sort. Most of us took for granted that the coward who called it would have a plan and I really don't see why that's unreasonable to suppose.

That's a cop out imo. People like Johnson, Gove, Davis et al were all senior members in the government, and numerous cabinet ministers plumped for the leave side. I can't believe that Cameron was party to any information that they were not, so they would have been as informed as anyone as to how the policy they supported would play out. They would have known exactly what Article 50 would have meant, they would know exactly how likely it would be to secure a trade deal in the 2 year timeframe, they would have known exactly the state of the government finances, and indeed the human resources required to transition. And that's before you get into third party analyses from the likes of the BoE, IMF and so on that were in the public domain.

Leave voters might have been happy to bury their heads in the sand and hope it would all work out, but leave campaigners should have been far more prepared than they were. There was absolutely no excuse not to be.

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

That's a cop out imo. People like Johnson, Gove, Davis et al were all senior members in the government, and numerous cabinet ministers plumped for the leave side. I can't believe that Cameron was party to any information that they were not, so they would have been as informed as anyone as to how the policy they supported would play out. They would have known exactly what Article 50 would have meant, they would know exactly how likely it would be to secure a trade deal in the 2 year timeframe, they would have known exactly the state of the government finances, and indeed the human resources required to transition. And that's before you get into third party analyses from the likes of the BoE, IMF and so on that were in the public domain.

Leave voters might have been happy to bury their heads in the sand and hope it would all work out, but leave campaigners should have been far more prepared than they were. There was absolutely no excuse not to be.

Johnson was never a committed leaver. He was and still is just an opportunist who saw the way the vote was going long before most and wanted in on the winning side. It's irrelevant anyway because it's a remainer who runs the government as Prime Minister. If a leaver had been Prime Minister then they would of been able to implement their vision rather then May's cackhanded attempt at Brexit. Don't you think that it's reasonable to suppose that a leaver should be running the show if you want to blame the leave campaign?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Johnson was never a committed leaver. He was and still is just an opportunist who saw the way the vote was going long before most and wanted in on the winning side. It's irrelevant anyway because it's a remainer who runs the government as Prime Minister. If a leaver had been Prime Minister then they would of been able to implement their vision rather then May's cackhanded attempt at Brexit. Don't you think that it's reasonable to suppose that a leaver should be running the show if you want to blame the leave campaign?

That isn't what we're discussing. We aren't talking about what has happened after the vote, but before it. The suggestion is that no one on the leave campaign could have, nor should have, had a plan for how this might unfold. I'm calling that nonsense. If Cameron and Johnson (for sake of argument) had access to the same information upon which to formulate a plan, the fact that their plans are different is irrelevant.

Indeed, were the government to conduct scenario planning sessions, the cabinet would have been involved in those, so the notion that the cabinet members who were leavers are given a free pass I find very convenient to shrug off the mess they've made of things.

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

That isn't what we're discussing. We aren't talking about what has happened after the vote, but before it. The suggestion is that no one on the leave campaign could have, nor should have, had a plan for how this might unfold. I'm calling that nonsense. If Cameron and Johnson (for sake of argument) had access to the same information upon which to formulate a plan, the fact that their plans are different is irrelevant.

Indeed, were the government to conduct scenario planning sessions, the cabinet would have been involved in those, so the notion that the cabinet members who were leavers are given a free pass I find very convenient to shrug off the mess they've made of things.

But that's all irrelevant Bruce, what Boris Johnson or Gove or Farrage doesn't matter because they aren't in charge. May is and she's a remainer. We can't know what any if their plans might of been because they aren't running Brexit. It seems perfectly logical to me that if people felt so strongly about leavers being responsible and accountable then the only way to hold them to account was to form a Brexit coalition government. It's not giving anyone a free pass, I'm saying if you want to blame leavers for getting it wrong then it might be a good idea to let them have a crack at running it rather then the reluctant Maybot.

 

[Old Blue 2]

Honest question, when you voted to leave, did you assume that Cameron had a plan in place should the leave side win?

Honest answer, Ruairi. It is normal practise, as I think most people may know, in the run-up to a general election, that senior civil servants (those at the very top of the tree) make plans not only for a continuance of the existing party in power to form a new Government, but also for a change of party taking the reins of power, and that change resulting in a change of cabinet ministers and a whole new direction in the formulating of laws. That is standard practise.

My own opinion is that I would have expected the head of state to ensure that both possibilities were covered, as far as immediate, initial, planning for the way forward should the vote to leave gain a majority. I believe that had the remain vote carried the day, it would have been a case of 'carry on as before'. But yes, I think Cameron failed the country in not ensuring both sides of the vote were covered, organisationally, and I was surprised when it surfaced that he had not made any such plans (as far as we all know).

 

[Ruairi77]

But that's all irrelevant Bruce, what Boris Johnson or Gove or Farrage doesn't matter because they aren't in charge. May is and she's a remainer. We can't know what any if their plans might of been because they aren't running Brexit. It seems perfectly logical to me that if people felt so strongly about leavers being responsible and accountable then the only way to hold them to account was to form a Brexit coalition government. It's not giving anyone a free pass, I'm saying if you want to blame leavers for getting it wrong then it might be a good idea to let them have a crack at running it rather then the reluctant Maybot.

If you voted to leave, you were voting to change the status quo. Even though the leave campaign were not in government, surely it was their responsibility to lay out a plan for how all this would happen if they won.
What you're telling me here is that the government provided no framework for leaving because they were incompetent, The leave campaign provided no framework for what would happen because they weren't the government.
So no one put forward a framework for how to leave the EU
But, rather than say, let's vote on this when there are reasonable plans in place and and available to the public, you took a chance that it would all work out fine.
In essence, you gambled with a lot of other peoples chips.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

But that's all irrelevant Bruce, what Boris Johnson or Gove or Farrage doesn't matter because they aren't in charge. May is and she's a remainer. We can't know what any if their plans might of been because they aren't running Brexit. It seems perfectly logical to me that if people felt so strongly about leavers being responsible and accountable then the only way to hold them to account was to form a Brexit coalition government. It's not giving anyone a free pass, I'm saying if you want to blame leavers for getting it wrong then it might be a good idea to let them have a crack at running it rather then the reluctant Maybot.

"With all due respect mate, the leave campaign wasn't the government so how could they make plans and guarantee that the government wouldn't just ignore it?"

That's what you've said though. The Labour party aren't in government but I'm fairly sure they will have a document outlining what they'd like to do if they were in government, and how they plan on doing it. Of course, you could argue that these plans are largely pie in the sky, but nonetheless, they do exist. I just think it's a bit feeble to let the Leave campaign off from having such a plan themselves. Indeed, had they had a plan (manifesto if you like) and the people voted for it, then according to all this 'will of the people' rubbish, it would be rather hard for any government not to follow it.

 

[LouReedwalkonthewildside]

If you voted to leave, you were voting to change the status quo. Even though the leave campaign were not in government, surely it was their responsibility to lay out a plan for how all this would happen if they won.
What you're telling me here is that the government provided no framework for leaving because they were incompetent, The leave campaign provided no framework for what would happen because they weren't the government.
So no one put forward a framework for how to leave the EU
But, rather than say, let's vote on this when there are reasonable plans in place and and available to the public, you took a chance that it would all work out fine.
In essence, you gambled with a lot of other peoples chips.

Think one of he problems was Cameron thinking the remain vote was going to piss it, so no planning, work done on the outcome of a leave win.

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

If you voted to leave, you were voting to change the status quo. Even though the leave campaign were not in government, surely it was their responsibility to lay out a plan for how all this would happen if they won.
What you're telling me here is that the government provided no framework for leaving because they were incompetent, The leave campaign provided no framework for what would happen because they weren't the government.
So no one put forward a framework for how to leave the EU
But, rather than say, let's vote on this when there are reasonable plans in place and and available to the public, you took a chance that it would all work out fine.
In essence, you gambled with a lot of other peoples chips.

I really don't see how many times I can repeat this mate but no. It wasn't the leave campaigns responsibility, it was the man who called the referendum's responsibility to have plans for both outcomes and see the result through no matter what they were. That's my opinion, others obviously see it diffent but as far as I'm concerned Cameron is completely responsible for this entire episode and should of been held accountable for it. He made a promise he never thought he'd have to keep to won the general election in 2015 and he's juat walked away as though nothing happend. He's an absolute disgrace and a total worm.

 

[Ruairi77]

I really don't see how many times I can repeat this mate but no. It wasn't the leave campaigns responsibility, it was the man who called the referendum's responsibility to have plans for both outcomes and see the result through no matter what they were. That's my opinion, others obviously see it diffent but as far as I'm concerned Cameron is completely responsible for this entire episode and should of been held accountable for it. He made a promise he never thought he'd have to keep to won the general election in 2015 and he's juat walked away as though nothing happend. He's an absolute disgrace and a total worm.

Yea, I agree with you on Cameron. On what responsibility the leave campaign bore, we'll have to agree to disagree

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

"With all due respect mate, the leave campaign wasn't the government so how could they make plans and guarantee that the government wouldn't just ignore it?"

That's what you've said though. The Labour party aren't in government but I'm fairly sure they will have a document outlining what they'd like to do if they were in government, and how they plan on doing it. Of course, you could argue that these plans are largely pie in the sky, Of course, you could argue that these plans are largely pin in the sky, but nonetheless, they do exist. I just think it's a bit feeble to let the Leave campaign off from having such a plan themselves. Indeed, had they had a plan (manifesto if you like) and the people voted for it, then according to all this 'will of the people' rubbish, it would be rather hard for any government not to follow it.

Firstly the bold bit. You said it and you are correct.

Secondly you mention the idea of manifestos for leave side. I think that would of been a great idea for the referendum if we'd of had several different options with all those manifestos and the goverment was obliged to follow the course of the winner. Unfortunately Cameron didn't think of that when he announced the referendum because he never dreamed we'd vote out. I just don't understand why your so reluctant to not blame the person who is completely and utterly responsible for this entire episode.