UK races to find extra 50,000 staff for post-Brexit paperwork New recruits needed to process millions of extra declaration forms from 1 January 2021
A race to hire 50,000 people in the next six months to process Brexit paperwork is under way after the government confirmed they would be needed for border operations. But experts have warned it will be a challenge to train enough people in time to be competent in the complexity of customs declarations and the second layer of red tape involving entry and exit declaration forms that are mandatory for trading with the EU. The Road Haulage Association has warned that the number of declaration forms for tariffs alone will rocket from the current 50m a year to 200-250m a year. In addition, the exit and entry forms introduced after the 9/11 terror attack in New York to ensure safety on ferries and planes will involve another 100-125m forms being processed every year.
Michael Gove, the chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is responsible for readying the country for full Brexit at the end of the year, confirmed in parliament on Thursday afternoon that the RHA estimated 50,000 new recruits would be needed in the next six months.
Boris Johnson news - live: France rejects UK’s ‘artificial’ Brexit deadline, as PM mocked over emergency coronavirus meeting in three days' time
Boris Johnson’s plan to walk away from talks with the EU by the end of June unless there is a “broad outline” of a Canada-style free trade deal has been met with dismay in Brussels. EU diplomats reportedly believe a “dramatic crisis” lies ahead this summer. France’s Europe minister Amelie de Montchalin said the bloc would refuse to accept “artificial deadlines” in trade talks. “We do not accept time pressure,” Montchalin told an audience at Chatham House in London on Friday. Mr Johnson will convene the government’s Cobra committee in response to a growing number of cases of the coronavirus – but has been ridiculed for scheduling an “emergency” meeting for Monday.
EU diplomats predict summer ‘drama’ over trade talks
Plenty of criticism mounting after Boris Johnson’s government threatened to pull out of trade talks with the EU by the end of June unless there is a “broad outline” of a Canada-style deal. Ministers will then start preparing us all for a no-deal crash out onto World Trade Organisation (WTO) terms at the end of 2020.
EU sources told The Times there would be a “dramatic crisis” over the summer.
One unnamed European ambassador said “there will be a lot of drama” around June, but suggested the possibility of an agreement would rumble on into the autumn.
Mujtaba Rahman, the respected analyst at the Eurasia Group, said “the mood among senior EU officials regarding Monday’s start of UK trade talks is extremely gloomy”.
He added: “Expectations have adjusted that EU might end up trading with UK like US or China, on WTO terms.”
EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier said only: “We will stick to all our prior commitments in the Political Declaration. We want an ambitious & fair partnership with the UK in the future.”
After spending the week in Bxl, I can report that the mood among senior EU officials regarding Monday's start of UK trade talks is extremely gloomy. Expectations have adjusted that EU might end up trading with UK like US or China, on WTO terms. A thread on how I see things 1/
I agree with most in Bxl that odds of no deal are rising & space for a deal is shrinking - & rapidly. This is largely driven by @10DowningStreet super-hardline on divergence, & the need to square this with EU's expectations on the level playing field 2/
Follow Mujtaba Rahman @Mij_Europe MD Europe @EurasiaGroup ; formerly HM Treasury & European Commission. Adjunct Prof, Sciences Po; Senior Research Fellow, LSE. Views & analysis are mine
London, Bxl, EU
eurasiagroup.net/people/mrahman
After spending the week in Bxl, I can report that the mood among senior EU officials regarding Monday's start of UK trade talks is extremely gloomy. Expectations have adjusted that EU might end up trading with UK like US or China, on WTO terms. A thread on how I see things 1/
I agree with most in Bxl that odds of no deal are rising & space for a deal is shrinking - & rapidly. This is largely driven by @10DowningStreet super-hardline on divergence, & the need to square this with EU's expectations on the level playing field 2/ 7:30 am · 27 Feb 2020·Twitter for iPhone 56 Retweets 173 Likes
Replying to @Mij_Europe The EUs now-final mandate has 3 major asks of UK on LPF: 1) dynamic alignment on state aid; 2) a commitment to not go below env, social, labour & fiscal standards that will be in place at the end of the transition; & 3) an aim to maintain regulatory coherence with EU in future 3/
Senior EU officials tell me that the last bit (3) is where member states turned the screws the most. The EU's original mandate only spoke of the UK not rowing back on env, social, labour & fiscal standards from where they sit when Govt formally exits transition at end of year 4/
The revised text also throws in a forward looking element. Not the full bell & whistles of dynamic alignment - which means EU legislates & UK adopts & transposes, like Norway - but something softer. "A system for two adults", in the words of one official involved in the talks 5/
However, the bigger conclusion for me is not where the EU mandate landed - a slight toughening from the @EU_Commission original proposal - but where it *could* have landed. & what this tells us about the EU's internal political dynamic in phase 2 6/
The French wanted dynamic alignment on all of it. They lost the argument, but suspect they knew they would. What they've won, however, is arguably far more important. The recognition that they'll be the toughest, most important critic to bring on board in this round of talks 7/
Frankly, in light of tough UK messaging, especially ambiguity @10DowningStreet has fostered around implementation of the Irish protocol, I'm surprised Paris didn't win *more* support from EU capitals over mandate 8/
Indeed, senior EU officials tell me they purposely chose to leave some wiggle room for @MichelBarnier to manoeuvre & do a deal. But EU still doesn't feel they actually know what Govt's bottom line *really* is. There are, remarkably, *no* back channels with @DavidGHFrost 9/
So no ground has been prepared in private; all officials in Bxl can go off are public statements. @michaelgove statement in Commons today which will draw attention to mandate Govt won in December’s election as basis for UK's stance - not last year's deal - is a case in point 10/
HOWEVER, the *biggest* problem - greater than the slightly tougher EU mandate, @EmmanuelMacron position or poor information flows between key UK & EU officials - is time, which in some ways will undermine the EU's leverage & increases risks of serious miscalculation. Why? 11/
Because senior EU officials concede that it will be *impossible* to agree internally among the 27 which UK sectors/products should be hit with retaliatory EU tariffs if UK doesn't comply with EU's LPF demands. There's simply no time to have a line-by-line tariff negotiation 12/
Without going over old ground,I remember saying way back when this thread was in it's infancy,that it needed a strong Prime Minister who actually believed in Brexit to negotiate the best deal.Theresa May was not that person and subsequently her,the negotiating team and numerous Brexit Ministers rolled over and got their tummy's tickled by the EU side(well played them).The EU knew then that they had the upper hand and wouldn't be conceding too much ground in any negotiations,again well played the EU for sticking up for their beliefs.Fast forward a few years and the scenario seems to have changed,we now have a PM who(whether he's liked or not) seems to be standing up to the EU unlike his predecessors,the EU are slowly realising this and seem to accept that they can't continue trying to bully/threaten the UK as per May's term as PM and think that we're ready for another tummy tickle.This is not a post proclaiming Boris as some sort of Super Hero(far from it) but if we'd had a stronger PM from the start,maybe,just maybe,things might now have been different.
Without going over old ground,I remember saying way back when this thread was in it's infancy,that it needed a strong Prime Minister who actually believed in Brexit to negotiate the best deal.Theresa May was not that person and subsequently her,the negotiating team and numerous Brexit Ministers rolled over and got their tummy's tickled by the EU side(well played them).The EU knew then that they had the upper hand and wouldn't be conceding too much ground in any negotiations,again well played the EU for sticking up for their beliefs.Fast forward a few years and the scenario seems to have changed,we now have a PM who(whether he's liked or not) seems to be standing up to the EU unlike his predecessors,the EU are slowly realising this and seem to accept that they can't continue trying to bully/threaten the UK as per May's term as PM and think that we're ready for another tummy tickle.This is not a post proclaiming Boris as some sort of Super Hero(far from it) but if we'd had a stronger PM from the start,maybe,just maybe,things might now have been different.
This how see it. The referendum showed that there was a small majority in favour of leaving the EU. Nevertheless it was a majority. The referendum didn't specify anything else, and leaving with no deal was never discussed. There was always going to be a negotiation on the terms under which we left. The choice was always going to be remaining very closely aligned, not quite so aligned, or completely diverging. Every qualified economist agreed that the more we diverged, the more we would affect trade, and the more damage we would do to our economy. Theresa May didn't quite pass the Withdrawal Agreement. The WA only covered citizens rights, Irish border, and how much we owed the EU. The WA also included a Political Declaration, which was a non legal and binding outline of the trade negotiations. Her PD kept us closely aligned, and set out a customs arrangement, which was likely to cause little damage to the economy. Jacob Rees-Mogg, and Boris both voted for it. Many MPs are now saying they prefer it, to the Boris deal. There was no bullying by the EU. What did they bully us into? We agreed how much we owed, citizens will retain their rights, and Theresa May chose one method to sort out the border, Boris chose another. The Boris method was the original solution offered by the EU, a solution that both PMs said that they could never accept. Yet Boris did and has lied about it ever since. There was no bullying. Along comes Boris. All he did to get the WA passed was to accept the EUs original Irish border solution, and changed the non legal and binding PD. That was it and he became a hero. The blame for TMs WA not going through rests with the Tories themselves. The ERG stopped it going through. There has never been a mandate for no deal, and Parliament has voted against this many times. There has only been a mandate to leave the EU. We could leave and remain closely aligned, completely diverge, or leave without a deal. In each instance we would be leaving, although remaining closely aligned would cause the least damage to our economy, and no deal the most. Boris is adamant that we will completely diverge, which will be damaging, and may result in no deal. MPs aren't allowed to use the term no deal any more, they must call it an Australian deal. Australia don't have a deal with the EU. How stupid could you be? He obviously thinks that voters are very gullible. EU bullying is a myth.
Logic dictates that both sides want a deal, as both sides lose out in the case of no deal. The EU is a rules based organisation. We were members for many years and played an important role in formulating these rules. Now that we are leaving we don't want to accept these rules. We want the penny and the bun. We have conceded no ground and nobody has been played.
If Boris wanted to he could get a fantastic trade deal that would cause the least damage to our economy, but he has no intention.
A Boris from the start would have left us in exactly the same position.
'A Boris from the start would have left us in exactly the same position'
Whilst I agree with most of what you say,I disagree with the above.It's the same for any negotiation/battle,if your opponent smells blood they'll go in for the kill.The PM and her team were weak,the EU were strong in their stances.That early weakness set the tone for future talks,we were then always the underdog just trying to survive the EU onslaught.I personally blame TM & her weak lily-livered team for the position we are now in(with Boris in charge).You can't go in to a battle half hearted and in my opinion that's what TM done and now we're paying the price.
'A Boris from the start would have left us in exactly the same position'
Whilst I agree with most of what you say,I disagree with the above.It's the same for any negotiation/battle,if your opponent smells blood they'll go in for the kill.The PM and her team were weak,the EU were strong in their stances.That early weakness set the tone for future talks,we were then always the underdog just trying to survive the EU onslaught.I personally blame TM & her weak lily-livered team for the position we are now in(with Boris in charge).You can't go in to a battle half hearted and in my opinion that's what TM done and now we're paying the price.
Sorry, I completely disagree.
Boris is setting out to get a sh1t deal from the EU.
His plan is to completely diverge.
The EU has made it clear from day one that the closer we align the better deal we can have.
Boris wont align full stop.
Hence the sh1t deal.
I think the negotiations are more similar to something like Tescos negotiating with say Heinz beans. Tescos are the UKs biggest supermarket, and probably sell millions of Heinz beans, Heinz beans are probably the biggest beans producer in the UK, maybe the world. So when the deal comes up for renewal, if the bloke that Heinz sends around, comes back without a deal, they would fire him and send someone else. Not doing a deal would affect both companys profits. If Heinz lost Tescos they would be laying off staff. So they always do a deal, and always will. You cant walk into a Tesco that doesn't have Heinz beans in stock.
The similarity is that starting off it is in the interests of both sides to get a deal Tesco know they cant screw them too much on the price, because Heinz have to make a profit to stay in business.
If Boris was working for Heinz he would be the first person to lose the Heinz contract. So stock up while you can, just in case.
At the start of the EU negotiations both sides wanted a good deal.
Now Boris doesn't.
Liam Fox said it would be the easiest deal in human history.
Boris doesn't want a comprehensive trade deal, but he will blame the EU.
He is already reneging on stuff that has been agreed.
Nobody will trust the UK in future trade deals.
Top business people are much cleverer than politicians.
If this had involved 2 companies, UK ltd, and EU ltd, the deal would have done a couple of years ago, and everyone would be happy.
'A Boris from the start would have left us in exactly the same position'
Whilst I agree with most of what you say,I disagree with the above.It's the same for any negotiation/battle,if your opponent smells blood they'll go in for the kill.The PM and her team were weak,the EU were strong in their stances.That early weakness set the tone for future talks,we were then always the underdog just trying to survive the EU onslaught.I personally blame TM & her weak lily-livered team for the position we are now in(with Boris in charge).You can't go in to a battle half hearted and in my opinion that's what TM done and now we're paying the price.
I also think that if Boris really wanted to bring the country back together he would have chosen a different path. Many leave voters just wanted to leave the EU, and didn't have any thoughts beyond that. So we have now left, and they should be happy. Many remain voters would have been happy to leave had we remained closely aligned, and caused little damage to the economy. So a Norway type deal could have started to reunite the country.
'A Boris from the start would have left us in exactly the same position'
Whilst I agree with most of what you say,I disagree with the above.It's the same for any negotiation/battle,if your opponent smells blood they'll go in for the kill.The PM and her team were weak,the EU were strong in their stances.That early weakness set the tone for future talks,we were then always the underdog just trying to survive the EU onslaught.I personally blame TM & her weak lily-livered team for the position we are now in(with Boris in charge).You can't go in to a battle half hearted and in my opinion that's what TM done and now we're paying the price.
I find it curious that you would say this.
I don't understand what ground you think we have lost, or what the EU have gained.
The only thing that has been agreed on, is the WA.
The only contentious issue in the WA, was the Irish border arrangements.
The EU came up with a solution, which TM wouldn't agree to.
TM then came up with the backstop, because she said that no British PM could agree to an Irish Sea border.
The EU immediately agreed to the backstop replacing their solution.
Boris then slagged off the backstop, before eventually voting to pass the WA.
After becoming PM, he also said clearly that he wouldn't ever agree to a border in the Irish Sea.
This was before reverting to the EUs original solution, and putting a border in the Irish Sea.
There are a number of MPs from different parties wishing they had voted for the TM version.
The EU haven't been difficult, and as far as I can see have only objected to us wanting the penny and the bun.
Boris is on a path that he has chosen, and must own it.
Without going over old ground,I remember saying way back when this thread was in it's infancy,that it needed a strong Prime Minister who actually believed in Brexit to negotiate the best deal.Theresa May was not that person and subsequently her,the negotiating team and numerous Brexit Ministers rolled over and got their tummy's tickled by the EU side(well played them).The EU knew then that they had the upper hand and wouldn't be conceding too much ground in any negotiations,again well played the EU for sticking up for their beliefs.Fast forward a few years and the scenario seems to have changed,we now have a PM who(whether he's liked or not) seems to be standing up to the EU unlike his predecessors,the EU are slowly realising this and seem to accept that they can't continue trying to bully/threaten the UK as per May's term as PM and think that we're ready for another tummy tickle.This is not a post proclaiming Boris as some sort of Super Hero(far from it) but if we'd had a stronger PM from the start,maybe,just maybe,things might now have been different.
I think it would be ironic if history showed that TM had a much better idea of what a good trade deal might look like.
'A Boris from the start would have left us in exactly the same position'
Whilst I agree with most of what you say,I disagree with the above.It's the same for any negotiation/battle,if your opponent smells blood they'll go in for the kill.The PM and her team were weak,the EU were strong in their stances.That early weakness set the tone for future talks,we were then always the underdog just trying to survive the EU onslaught.I personally blame TM & her weak lily-livered team for the position we are now in(with Boris in charge).You can't go in to a battle half hearted and in my opinion that's what TM done and now we're paying the price.
Boris has stupidly (in my view) made his number one priority, getting a deal by December, rather than getting the best deal as soon as possible.
He says he wants to get a Canada deal by December, which the EU wont give him.
Nevertheless the Canada deal with the EU, took 7 years to negotiate, and almost 3 years to implement.
We have 10 months left.
Impossible.
He sends out his silly argument troops to tell us that it wont take long because we are already aligned.
This is a stupid argument, as he wants diverge.
To say that it could be done quicker because we are aligned would make absolute sense if we planned to remain aligned, but not if the alignment has to be undone, as we completely diverge.
Divergence, when you are aligned is surely as time consuming as starting from scratch.
Maybe more time consuming, where it may be advantageous to start with a blank sheet of paper.
He must think we are all gullible.
The translation of the Japan deal into 20 plus languages of the EU membership, prior to ratification, took over 4 months.
'A Boris from the start would have left us in exactly the same position'
Whilst I agree with most of what you say,I disagree with the above.It's the same for any negotiation/battle,if your opponent smells blood they'll go in for the kill.The PM and her team were weak,the EU were strong in their stances.That early weakness set the tone for future talks,we were then always the underdog just trying to survive the EU onslaught.I personally blame TM & her weak lily-livered team for the position we are now in(with Boris in charge).You can't go in to a battle half hearted and in my opinion that's what TM done and now we're paying the price.
The Daily Mirror says the length of time taken by Boris Johnson to convene the emergency committee Cobra smacks of "unacceptable complacency". The Sun believes "the coronavirus has not been Boris Johnson's finest hour... yet". But the Daily Express is more supportive of the prime minister, saying he "is right to make dealing with the coronavirus his top priority", as he revealed on Friday. Market chaos Many of the newspapers focus on what the Daily Telegraph's front page describes as "stock market chaos" - the plummeting value of shares worldwide, in response to the coronavirus. The i newspaper's headline is "virus shock to global economy" and the paper quotes one broker as saying "the panic mode is full on". Another explains that "the fear of the unknown is causing traders to lose their nerve and just cut and run".
The Times expresses disappointment that the former Chancellor Sajid Javid did not get to deliver what the paper describes as his "radical budget plans". Mr Javid, who stepped down earlier this month during a cabinet reshuffle, has given an interview to the paper in which he says he had intended to cut 2p from the basic rate of income tax. He was apparently also keen to reduce stamp duty and offer relief for capital investment. Under the headline "right ideas", the paper argues that "the government needs to think boldly if it is to achieve the radical transformation of Britain it has promised".
The Guardian is angry about the humanitarian crisis in northern Syria - caused by the government offensive, backed by Russia, against rebels in the city of Idlib. It suggests the international community has been prompted to call for an end to hostilities not just because of the horrors caused by the fighting - but also in response to Turkey's announcement that it will no longer prevent Syrian refugees travelling to Europe. "What it takes to puncture indifference," its leader says, "is not the suffering of ordinary men, women and children - but the prospect that they might escape it by coming to our shores".
Boris Johnson's 'oven ready' Brexit is going nowhere near the oven It fell to Michael Gove to explain that the 'oven ready' Brexit has already been scraped into the bin
Yes that’s right. The “oven ready” Brexit deal, the Brexit pot noodle (“just add water” – just add ****), already is no more.
All of the pledges that Boris Johnson signed up to then begged the voters to please, just let him, sign and pass into law have already been tossed away. All the assurances on environmental protections, workers rights and so on and so on, have been tossed away. It would be Michael Gove’s job to come to the despatch box of the House of Commons and explain the government’s “negotiating position” in its forthcoming trade talks with the EU. Which is to say, explain how it bears no relation to anything the voters have ever expressed an opinion on before.
Gove, of course, is the right man for the job. It is not yet four years since he gave what now stands a very serious contender for the most mendacious speech in British political history, the one where he explained how the chances of the UK leaving the EU without any kind of trade deal in place were about as likely as “Jean-Claude Juncker joining Ukip.” It would be strange, for most people, to be a leading figure now, in a government with a huge majority, and to be very deliberately working to bring about the precisely disastrous outcome that you yourself promised could never possibly happen.
Boris Johnson warned failure to fulfill Irish border commitments will ‘significantly damage’ Brexit trade deal chances Delivering on promises of controls on goods is ‘test of good faith’ for prime minister, Ireland warns
Boris Johnson has been warned that a failure to fulfil commitments on the Irish border which he signed up to in his Brexit divorce deal last October will “significantly damage” the UK’s chances of a favourable trade agreement with the EU. Irish foreign minister Simon Coveney said that the implementation of checks and controls on goods passing from the British mainland to Northern Ireland will be a “test of good faith and trust” for Mr Johnson’s government, without which future relations will not be easy.
And the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier voiced “surprise” at signals from London that the UK has not begun the process of preparing for checks which are due to begin at the end of the Brexit transition period on 31 December.
He said that a joint committee, including a representative of the European Commission, will be established next month to monitor preparations and ensure the UK is “rigorously” living up to its obligations.
Looking ahead to trade talks due to begin on Monday and conclude by the end of the year, Mr Barnier warned: “If we want to succeed in the very short time that Mr Johnson has chosen, we need to make sure we don’t start backtracking where we should be making progress.”
“All of this is part of a treaty which has been ratified by the chamber of the House of Commons in London and become British law. We will respect our commitments and we expect the UK to do likewise.”
How much will my Council Tax rise in April 2020? Search by postcode for your area Your Council Tax bill is going to rise in 2020/21, and no matter what your bands or discount, your family is set to be hit. Whether you're Band A or Band H, use our online calculator to work out how yours will go up in April
'A Boris from the start would have left us in exactly the same position'
Whilst I agree with most of what you say,I disagree with the above.It's the same for any negotiation/battle,if your opponent smells blood they'll go in for the kill.The PM and her team were weak,the EU were strong in their stances.That early weakness set the tone for future talks,we were then always the underdog just trying to survive the EU onslaught.I personally blame TM & her weak lily-livered team for the position we are now in(with Boris in charge).You can't go in to a battle half hearted and in my opinion that's what TM done and now we're paying the price.
The Boris plan in a nutshell appears to be as follows,
An EU deal completed by December.
Increased spending in a number of areas, including NHS, social care, education, to name but a few.
More increased spending in left behind areas in order to level up.
Increased spending on infrastructure projects like HS2, and 40 new hospitals etc.
The Tories have a fiscal rule that dictates that they can borrow for infrastructure projects, but not for day to day costs.
The general consensus seems to be that it is currently a good time to borrow money.
This rule clearly means that they can borrow the massive funding required for HS2, and the 40 hospitals, but not the money to pay for 20,000 coppers, 50,000 nurses, 6,000 GPs, and the 50,000 new recruits required to process the new Brexit paperwork.
So the Tories are promising massive increases in spending, both in areas where they are allowed to borrow money, and day to day costs where they are not.
The obvious concern about borrowing huge amounts of money is that it has to be repaid.
This could be accomplished by increased income, or cutbacks elsewhere.
The Boris plan for the EU trade deal undoubtedly involves less trade with our biggest trading partner.
Forget the forecasts, because those on the other side of the argument, just claim they are not true, but claims of a reduction in our GDP of up to 9% have been mooted.
Whichever way you look at it less trade means less income for the Treasury.
Loan repayments further reduce your income.
The Boris trade negotiations have to result in less trade.
Therefore to massively increase spending on day to day stuff, without borrowing money, can only be accomplished by increasing taxes.
Various options have been discussed, like the first rise in fuel duty since 2011, reducing pension tax relief, and increasing income tax, on top of the planned Council Tax increases, which will increase Local Authority budgets, rather than benefit the Treasury.
So the Baldrick, I mean Boris plan seems to be to massively increase spending while at the same time purposely reducing the size of our economy, and to take on massive loans.
If you had a friend that confided in you that they planned to build an extension, finance a new car, book a Caribbean holiday, while at the same time reducing their working hours from full time to part time, when they are currently just making ends meet. You would surely consider it a foolish plan, and try to talk them out of it.
'A Boris from the start would have left us in exactly the same position'
Whilst I agree with most of what you say,I disagree with the above.It's the same for any negotiation/battle,if your opponent smells blood they'll go in for the kill.The PM and her team were weak,the EU were strong in their stances.That early weakness set the tone for future talks,we were then always the underdog just trying to survive the EU onslaught.I personally blame TM & her weak lily-livered team for the position we are now in(with Boris in charge).You can't go in to a battle half hearted and in my opinion that's what TM done and now we're paying the price.
The Boris plan in a nutshell appears to be as follows,
An EU deal completed by December.
Increased spending in a number of areas, including NHS, social care, education, to name but a few.
More increased spending in left behind areas in order to level up.
Increased spending on infrastructure projects like HS2, and 40 new hospitals etc.
The Tories have a fiscal rule that dictates that they can borrow for infrastructure projects, but not for day to day costs.
The general consensus seems to be that it is currently a good time to borrow money.
This rule clearly means that they can borrow the massive funding required for HS2, and the 40 hospitals, but not the money to pay for 20,000 coppers, 50,000 nurses, 6,000 GPs, and the 50,000 new recruits required to process the new Brexit paperwork.
So the Tories are promising massive increases in spending, both in areas where they are allowed to borrow money, and day to day costs where they are not.
The obvious concern about borrowing huge amounts of money is that it has to be repaid.
This could be accomplished by increased income, or cutbacks elsewhere.
The Boris plan for the EU trade deal undoubtedly involves less trade with our biggest trading partner.
Forget the forecasts, because those on the other side of the argument, just claim they are not true, but claims of a reduction in our GDP of up to 9% have been mooted.
Whichever way you look at it less trade means less income for the Treasury.
Loan repayments further reduce your income.
The Boris trade negotiations have to result in less trade.
Therefore to massively increase spending on day to day stuff, without borrowing money, can only be accomplished by increasing taxes.
Various options have been discussed, like the first rise in fuel duty since 2011, reducing pension tax relief, and increasing income tax, on top of the planned Council Tax increases, which will increase Local Authority budgets, rather than benefit the Treasury.
So the Baldrick, I mean Boris plan seems to be to massively increase spending while at the same time purposely reducing the size of our economy, and to take on massive loans.
If you had a friend that confided in you that they planned to build an extension, finance a new car, book a Caribbean holiday, while at the same time reducing their working hours from full time to part time, when they are currently just making ends meet. You would surely consider it a foolish plan, and try to talk them out of it.
Come back Theresa May.
Are the Conservative Party now Labour in disguise...
'A Boris from the start would have left us in exactly the same position'
Whilst I agree with most of what you say,I disagree with the above.It's the same for any negotiation/battle,if your opponent smells blood they'll go in for the kill.The PM and her team were weak,the EU were strong in their stances.That early weakness set the tone for future talks,we were then always the underdog just trying to survive the EU onslaught.I personally blame TM & her weak lily-livered team for the position we are now in(with Boris in charge).You can't go in to a battle half hearted and in my opinion that's what TM done and now we're paying the price.
The Boris plan in a nutshell appears to be as follows,
An EU deal completed by December.
Increased spending in a number of areas, including NHS, social care, education, to name but a few.
More increased spending in left behind areas in order to level up.
Increased spending on infrastructure projects like HS2, and 40 new hospitals etc.
The Tories have a fiscal rule that dictates that they can borrow for infrastructure projects, but not for day to day costs.
The general consensus seems to be that it is currently a good time to borrow money.
This rule clearly means that they can borrow the massive funding required for HS2, and the 40 hospitals, but not the money to pay for 20,000 coppers, 50,000 nurses, 6,000 GPs, and the 50,000 new recruits required to process the new Brexit paperwork.
So the Tories are promising massive increases in spending, both in areas where they are allowed to borrow money, and day to day costs where they are not.
The obvious concern about borrowing huge amounts of money is that it has to be repaid.
This could be accomplished by increased income, or cutbacks elsewhere.
The Boris plan for the EU trade deal undoubtedly involves less trade with our biggest trading partner.
Forget the forecasts, because those on the other side of the argument, just claim they are not true, but claims of a reduction in our GDP of up to 9% have been mooted.
Whichever way you look at it less trade means less income for the Treasury.
Loan repayments further reduce your income.
The Boris trade negotiations have to result in less trade.
Therefore to massively increase spending on day to day stuff, without borrowing money, can only be accomplished by increasing taxes.
Various options have been discussed, like the first rise in fuel duty since 2011, reducing pension tax relief, and increasing income tax, on top of the planned Council Tax increases, which will increase Local Authority budgets, rather than benefit the Treasury.
So the Baldrick, I mean Boris plan seems to be to massively increase spending while at the same time purposely reducing the size of our economy, and to take on massive loans.
If you had a friend that confided in you that they planned to build an extension, finance a new car, book a Caribbean holiday, while at the same time reducing their working hours from full time to part time, when they are currently just making ends meet. You would surely consider it a foolish plan, and try to talk them out of it.
Come back Theresa May.
Are the Conservative Party now Labour in disguise...
Its really hard to say what there are, it doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
'A Boris from the start would have left us in exactly the same position'
Whilst I agree with most of what you say,I disagree with the above.It's the same for any negotiation/battle,if your opponent smells blood they'll go in for the kill.The PM and her team were weak,the EU were strong in their stances.That early weakness set the tone for future talks,we were then always the underdog just trying to survive the EU onslaught.I personally blame TM & her weak lily-livered team for the position we are now in(with Boris in charge).You can't go in to a battle half hearted and in my opinion that's what TM done and now we're paying the price.
The Boris plan in a nutshell appears to be as follows,
An EU deal completed by December.
Increased spending in a number of areas, including NHS, social care, education, to name but a few.
More increased spending in left behind areas in order to level up.
Increased spending on infrastructure projects like HS2, and 40 new hospitals etc.
The Tories have a fiscal rule that dictates that they can borrow for infrastructure projects, but not for day to day costs.
The general consensus seems to be that it is currently a good time to borrow money.
This rule clearly means that they can borrow the massive funding required for HS2, and the 40 hospitals, but not the money to pay for 20,000 coppers, 50,000 nurses, 6,000 GPs, and the 50,000 new recruits required to process the new Brexit paperwork.
So the Tories are promising massive increases in spending, both in areas where they are allowed to borrow money, and day to day costs where they are not.
The obvious concern about borrowing huge amounts of money is that it has to be repaid.
This could be accomplished by increased income, or cutbacks elsewhere.
The Boris plan for the EU trade deal undoubtedly involves less trade with our biggest trading partner.
Forget the forecasts, because those on the other side of the argument, just claim they are not true, but claims of a reduction in our GDP of up to 9% have been mooted.
Whichever way you look at it less trade means less income for the Treasury.
Loan repayments further reduce your income.
The Boris trade negotiations have to result in less trade.
Therefore to massively increase spending on day to day stuff, without borrowing money, can only be accomplished by increasing taxes.
Various options have been discussed, like the first rise in fuel duty since 2011, reducing pension tax relief, and increasing income tax, on top of the planned Council Tax increases, which will increase Local Authority budgets, rather than benefit the Treasury.
So the Baldrick, I mean Boris plan seems to be to massively increase spending while at the same time purposely reducing the size of our economy, and to take on massive loans.
If you had a friend that confided in you that they planned to build an extension, finance a new car, book a Caribbean holiday, while at the same time reducing their working hours from full time to part time, when they are currently just making ends meet. You would surely consider it a foolish plan, and try to talk them out of it.
Come back Theresa May.
Are the Conservative Party now Labour in disguise...
Any plan to reduce trade, damage the economy, increase spending, and borrow more, must surely end in tears.
Home Office boss quits over 'campaign against him'
The top civil servant in the Home Office has resigned and said he intends to claim against the government for constructive dismissal. Sir Philip Rutnam said there had been a "vicious and orchestrated" campaign against him in Home Secretary Priti Patel's office.
Comments
UK races to find extra 50,000 staff for post-Brexit paperwork
New recruits needed to process millions of extra declaration forms from 1 January 2021
A race to hire 50,000 people in the next six months to process Brexit paperwork is under way after the government confirmed they would be needed for border operations.
But experts have warned it will be a challenge to train enough people in time to be competent in the complexity of customs declarations and the second layer of red tape involving entry and exit declaration forms that are mandatory for trading with the EU.
The Road Haulage Association has warned that the number of declaration forms for tariffs alone will rocket from the current 50m a year to 200-250m a year.
In addition, the exit and entry forms introduced after the 9/11 terror attack in New York to ensure safety on ferries and planes will involve another 100-125m forms being processed every year.
Michael Gove, the chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is responsible for readying the country for full Brexit at the end of the year, confirmed in parliament on Thursday afternoon that the RHA estimated 50,000 new recruits would be needed in the next six months.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/28/extra-50000-border-staff-needed-for-post-brexit-trade-says-gove
Boris Johnson news - live: France rejects UK’s ‘artificial’ Brexit deadline, as PM mocked over emergency coronavirus meeting in three days' time
Boris Johnson’s plan to walk away from talks with the EU by the end of June unless there is a “broad outline” of a Canada-style free trade deal has been met with dismay in Brussels. EU diplomats reportedly believe a “dramatic crisis” lies ahead this summer.
France’s Europe minister Amelie de Montchalin said the bloc would refuse to accept “artificial deadlines” in trade talks. “We do not accept time pressure,” Montchalin told an audience at Chatham House in London on Friday.
Mr Johnson will convene the government’s Cobra committee in response to a growing number of cases of the coronavirus – but has been ridiculed for scheduling an “emergency” meeting for Monday.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-news-live-brexit-no-deal-eu-heathrow-labour-leadership-latest-a9364346.html
EU diplomats predict summer ‘drama’ over trade talks
Plenty of criticism mounting after Boris Johnson’s government threatened to pull out of trade talks with the EU by the end of June unless there is a “broad outline” of a Canada-style deal. Ministers will then start preparing us all for a no-deal crash out onto World Trade Organisation (WTO) terms at the end of 2020.
EU sources told The Times there would be a “dramatic crisis” over the summer.
One unnamed European ambassador said “there will be a lot of drama” around June, but suggested the possibility of an agreement would rumble on into the autumn.
Mujtaba Rahman, the respected analyst at the Eurasia Group, said “the mood among senior EU officials regarding Monday’s start of UK trade talks is extremely gloomy”.
He added: “Expectations have adjusted that EU might end up trading with UK like US or China, on WTO terms.”
EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier said only: “We will stick to all our prior commitments in the Political Declaration. We want an ambitious & fair partnership with the UK in the future.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-news-live-brexit-no-deal-eu-heathrow-labour-leadership-latest-a9364346.html
Mujtaba Rahman
@Mij_Europe
·
27 Feb
After spending the week in Bxl, I can report that the mood among senior EU officials regarding Monday's start of UK trade talks is extremely gloomy. Expectations have adjusted that EU might end up trading with UK like US or China, on WTO terms. A thread on how I see things 1/
Mujtaba Rahman
@Mij_Europe
·
27 Feb
I agree with most in Bxl that odds of no deal are rising & space for a deal is shrinking - & rapidly. This is largely driven by
@10DowningStreet
super-hardline on divergence, & the need to square this with EU's expectations on the level playing field 2/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-news-live-brexit-no-deal-eu-heathrow-labour-leadership-latest-a9364346.html
Follow
Mujtaba Rahman
@Mij_Europe
MD Europe
@EurasiaGroup
; formerly HM Treasury & European Commission. Adjunct Prof, Sciences Po; Senior Research Fellow, LSE. Views & analysis are mine
London, Bxl, EU
eurasiagroup.net/people/mrahman
After spending the week in Bxl, I can report that the mood among senior EU officials regarding Monday's start of UK trade talks is extremely gloomy. Expectations have adjusted that EU might end up trading with UK like US or China, on WTO terms. A thread on how I see things 1/
I agree with most in Bxl that odds of no deal are rising & space for a deal is shrinking - & rapidly. This is largely driven by
@10DowningStreet
super-hardline on divergence, & the need to square this with EU's expectations on the level playing field 2/
7:30 am · 27 Feb 2020·Twitter for iPhone
56
Retweets
173
Likes
Replying to
@Mij_Europe
The EUs now-final mandate has 3 major asks of UK on LPF: 1) dynamic alignment on state aid; 2) a commitment to not go below env, social, labour & fiscal standards that will be in place at the end of the transition; & 3) an aim to maintain regulatory coherence with EU in future 3/
Senior EU officials tell me that the last bit (3) is where member states turned the screws the most. The EU's original mandate only spoke of the UK not rowing back on env, social, labour & fiscal standards from where they sit when Govt formally exits transition at end of year 4/
The revised text also throws in a forward looking element. Not the full bell & whistles of dynamic alignment - which means EU legislates & UK adopts & transposes, like Norway - but something softer. "A system for two adults", in the words of one official involved in the talks 5/
However, the bigger conclusion for me is not where the EU mandate landed - a slight toughening from the
@EU_Commission
original proposal - but where it *could* have landed. & what this tells us about the EU's internal political dynamic in phase 2 6/
The French wanted dynamic alignment on all of it. They lost the argument, but suspect they knew they would. What they've won, however, is arguably far more important. The recognition that they'll be the toughest, most important critic to bring on board in this round of talks 7/
Frankly, in light of tough UK messaging, especially ambiguity
@10DowningStreet
has fostered around implementation of the Irish protocol, I'm surprised Paris didn't win *more* support from EU capitals over mandate 8/
Indeed, senior EU officials tell me they purposely chose to leave some wiggle room for
@MichelBarnier
to manoeuvre & do a deal. But EU still doesn't feel they actually know what Govt's bottom line *really* is. There are, remarkably, *no* back channels with
@DavidGHFrost
9/
So no ground has been prepared in private; all officials in Bxl can go off are public statements.
@michaelgove
statement in Commons today which will draw attention to mandate Govt won in December’s election as basis for UK's stance - not last year's deal - is a case in point 10/
HOWEVER, the *biggest* problem - greater than the slightly tougher EU mandate,
@EmmanuelMacron
position or poor information flows between key UK & EU officials - is time, which in some ways will undermine the EU's leverage & increases risks of serious miscalculation. Why? 11/
Because senior EU officials concede that it will be *impossible* to agree internally among the 27 which UK sectors/products should be hit with retaliatory EU tariffs if UK doesn't comply with EU's LPF demands. There's simply no time to have a line-by-line tariff negotiation 12/
The referendum showed that there was a small majority in favour of leaving the EU.
Nevertheless it was a majority.
The referendum didn't specify anything else, and leaving with no deal was never discussed.
There was always going to be a negotiation on the terms under which we left.
The choice was always going to be remaining very closely aligned, not quite so aligned, or completely diverging.
Every qualified economist agreed that the more we diverged, the more we would affect trade, and the more damage we would do to our economy.
Theresa May didn't quite pass the Withdrawal Agreement.
The WA only covered citizens rights, Irish border, and how much we owed the EU.
The WA also included a Political Declaration, which was a non legal and binding outline of the trade negotiations.
Her PD kept us closely aligned, and set out a customs arrangement, which was likely to cause little damage to the economy.
Jacob Rees-Mogg, and Boris both voted for it.
Many MPs are now saying they prefer it, to the Boris deal.
There was no bullying by the EU.
What did they bully us into?
We agreed how much we owed, citizens will retain their rights, and Theresa May chose one method to sort out the border, Boris chose another.
The Boris method was the original solution offered by the EU, a solution that both PMs said that they could never accept.
Yet Boris did and has lied about it ever since.
There was no bullying.
Along comes Boris.
All he did to get the WA passed was to accept the EUs original Irish border solution, and changed the non legal and binding PD.
That was it and he became a hero.
The blame for TMs WA not going through rests with the Tories themselves.
The ERG stopped it going through.
There has never been a mandate for no deal, and Parliament has voted against this many times.
There has only been a mandate to leave the EU.
We could leave and remain closely aligned, completely diverge, or leave without a deal.
In each instance we would be leaving, although remaining closely aligned would cause the least damage to our economy, and no deal the most.
Boris is adamant that we will completely diverge, which will be damaging, and may result in no deal.
MPs aren't allowed to use the term no deal any more, they must call it an Australian deal.
Australia don't have a deal with the EU.
How stupid could you be?
He obviously thinks that voters are very gullible.
EU bullying is a myth.
Logic dictates that both sides want a deal, as both sides lose out in the case of no deal.
The EU is a rules based organisation.
We were members for many years and played an important role in formulating these rules.
Now that we are leaving we don't want to accept these rules.
We want the penny and the bun.
We have conceded no ground and nobody has been played.
If Boris wanted to he could get a fantastic trade deal that would cause the least damage to our economy, but he has no intention.
A Boris from the start would have left us in exactly the same position.
Whilst I agree with most of what you say,I disagree with the above.It's the same for any negotiation/battle,if your opponent smells blood they'll go in for the kill.The PM and her team were weak,the EU were strong in their stances.That early weakness set the tone for future talks,we were then always the underdog just trying to survive the EU onslaught.I personally blame TM & her weak lily-livered team for the position we are now in(with Boris in charge).You can't go in to a battle half hearted and in my opinion that's what TM done and now we're paying the price.
Boris is setting out to get a sh1t deal from the EU.
His plan is to completely diverge.
The EU has made it clear from day one that the closer we align the better deal we can have.
Boris wont align full stop.
Hence the sh1t deal.
I think the negotiations are more similar to something like Tescos negotiating with say Heinz beans.
Tescos are the UKs biggest supermarket, and probably sell millions of Heinz beans,
Heinz beans are probably the biggest beans producer in the UK, maybe the world.
So when the deal comes up for renewal, if the bloke that Heinz sends around, comes back without a deal, they would fire him and send someone else.
Not doing a deal would affect both companys profits.
If Heinz lost Tescos they would be laying off staff.
So they always do a deal, and always will.
You cant walk into a Tesco that doesn't have Heinz beans in stock.
The similarity is that starting off it is in the interests of both sides to get a deal
Tesco know they cant screw them too much on the price, because Heinz have to make a profit to stay in business.
If Boris was working for Heinz he would be the first person to lose the Heinz contract.
So stock up while you can, just in case.
At the start of the EU negotiations both sides wanted a good deal.
Now Boris doesn't.
Liam Fox said it would be the easiest deal in human history.
Boris doesn't want a comprehensive trade deal, but he will blame the EU.
He is already reneging on stuff that has been agreed.
Nobody will trust the UK in future trade deals.
Top business people are much cleverer than politicians.
If this had involved 2 companies, UK ltd, and EU ltd, the deal would have done a couple of years ago, and everyone would be happy.
Many leave voters just wanted to leave the EU, and didn't have any thoughts beyond that.
So we have now left, and they should be happy.
Many remain voters would have been happy to leave had we remained closely aligned, and caused little damage to the economy.
So a Norway type deal could have started to reunite the country.
Boris is doing the complete opposite.
I don't understand what ground you think we have lost, or what the EU have gained.
The only thing that has been agreed on, is the WA.
The only contentious issue in the WA, was the Irish border arrangements.
The EU came up with a solution, which TM wouldn't agree to.
TM then came up with the backstop, because she said that no British PM could agree to an Irish Sea border.
The EU immediately agreed to the backstop replacing their solution.
Boris then slagged off the backstop, before eventually voting to pass the WA.
After becoming PM, he also said clearly that he wouldn't ever agree to a border in the Irish Sea.
This was before reverting to the EUs original solution, and putting a border in the Irish Sea.
There are a number of MPs from different parties wishing they had voted for the TM version.
The EU haven't been difficult, and as far as I can see have only objected to us wanting the penny and the bun.
Boris is on a path that he has chosen, and must own it.
Any price we pay should be invoiced to Boris.
He says he wants to get a Canada deal by December, which the EU wont give him.
Nevertheless the Canada deal with the EU, took 7 years to negotiate, and almost 3 years to implement.
We have 10 months left.
Impossible.
He sends out his silly argument troops to tell us that it wont take long because we are already aligned.
This is a stupid argument, as he wants diverge.
To say that it could be done quicker because we are aligned would make absolute sense if we planned to remain aligned, but not if the alignment has to be undone, as we completely diverge.
Divergence, when you are aligned is surely as time consuming as starting from scratch.
Maybe more time consuming, where it may be advantageous to start with a blank sheet of paper.
He must think we are all gullible.
The translation of the Japan deal into 20 plus languages of the EU membership, prior to ratification, took over 4 months.
We have got 10 left, or no deal.
The Sun believes "the coronavirus has not been Boris Johnson's finest hour... yet".
But the Daily Express is more supportive of the prime minister, saying he "is right to make dealing with the coronavirus his top priority", as he revealed on Friday.
Market chaos
Many of the newspapers focus on what the Daily Telegraph's front page describes as "stock market chaos" - the plummeting value of shares worldwide, in response to the coronavirus.
The i newspaper's headline is "virus shock to global economy" and the paper quotes one broker as saying "the panic mode is full on".
Another explains that "the fear of the unknown is causing traders to lose their nerve and just cut and run".
The Times expresses disappointment that the former Chancellor Sajid Javid did not get to deliver what the paper describes as his "radical budget plans".
Mr Javid, who stepped down earlier this month during a cabinet reshuffle, has given an interview to the paper in which he says he had intended to cut 2p from the basic rate of income tax.
He was apparently also keen to reduce stamp duty and offer relief for capital investment.
Under the headline "right ideas", the paper argues that "the government needs to think boldly if it is to achieve the radical transformation of Britain it has promised".
The Guardian is angry about the humanitarian crisis in northern Syria - caused by the government offensive, backed by Russia, against rebels in the city of Idlib.
It suggests the international community has been prompted to call for an end to hostilities not just because of the horrors caused by the fighting - but also in response to Turkey's announcement that it will no longer prevent Syrian refugees travelling to Europe.
"What it takes to puncture indifference," its leader says, "is not the suffering of ordinary men, women and children - but the prospect that they might escape it by coming to our shores".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-51684050
Boris Johnson's 'oven ready' Brexit is going nowhere near the oven
It fell to Michael Gove to explain that the 'oven ready' Brexit has already been scraped into the bin
Yes that’s right. The “oven ready” Brexit deal, the Brexit pot noodle (“just add water” – just add ****), already is no more.
All of the pledges that Boris Johnson signed up to then begged the voters to please, just let him, sign and pass into law have already been tossed away. All the assurances on environmental protections, workers rights and so on and so on, have been tossed away.
It would be Michael Gove’s job to come to the despatch box of the House of Commons and explain the government’s “negotiating position” in its forthcoming trade talks with the EU. Which is to say, explain how it bears no relation to anything the voters have ever expressed an opinion on before.
Gove, of course, is the right man for the job. It is not yet four years since he gave what now stands a very serious contender for the most mendacious speech in British political history, the one where he explained how the chances of the UK leaving the EU without any kind of trade deal in place were about as likely as “Jean-Claude Juncker joining Ukip.”
It would be strange, for most people, to be a leading figure now, in a government with a huge majority, and to be very deliberately working to bring about the precisely disastrous outcome that you yourself promised could never possibly happen.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-michael-gove-brexit-oven-ready-a9364161.html
Boris Johnson warned failure to fulfill Irish border commitments will ‘significantly damage’ Brexit trade deal chances
Delivering on promises of controls on goods is ‘test of good faith’ for prime minister, Ireland warns
Boris Johnson has been warned that a failure to fulfil commitments on the Irish border which he signed up to in his Brexit divorce deal last October will “significantly damage” the UK’s chances of a favourable trade agreement with the EU.
Irish foreign minister Simon Coveney said that the implementation of checks and controls on goods passing from the British mainland to Northern Ireland will be a “test of good faith and trust” for Mr Johnson’s government, without which future relations will not be easy.
And the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier voiced “surprise” at signals from London that the UK has not begun the process of preparing for checks which are due to begin at the end of the Brexit transition period on 31 December.
He said that a joint committee, including a representative of the European Commission, will be established next month to monitor preparations and ensure the UK is “rigorously” living up to its obligations.
Looking ahead to trade talks due to begin on Monday and conclude by the end of the year, Mr Barnier warned: “If we want to succeed in the very short time that Mr Johnson has chosen, we need to make sure we don’t start backtracking where we should be making progress.”
“All of this is part of a treaty which has been ratified by the chamber of the House of Commons in London and become British law. We will respect our commitments and we expect the UK to do likewise.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-news-brexit-irish-border-eu-trade-deal-latest-a9359176.html
How much will my Council Tax rise in April 2020? Search by postcode for your area
Your Council Tax bill is going to rise in 2020/21, and no matter what your bands or discount, your family is set to be hit. Whether you're Band A or Band H, use our online calculator to work out how yours will go up in April
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/how-much-council-tax-rise-21566560
An EU deal completed by December.
Increased spending in a number of areas, including NHS, social care, education, to name but a few.
More increased spending in left behind areas in order to level up.
Increased spending on infrastructure projects like HS2, and 40 new hospitals etc.
The Tories have a fiscal rule that dictates that they can borrow for infrastructure projects, but not for day to day costs.
The general consensus seems to be that it is currently a good time to borrow money.
This rule clearly means that they can borrow the massive funding required for HS2, and the 40 hospitals, but not the money to pay for 20,000 coppers, 50,000 nurses, 6,000 GPs, and the 50,000 new recruits required to process the new Brexit paperwork.
So the Tories are promising massive increases in spending, both in areas where they are allowed to borrow money, and day to day costs where they are not.
The obvious concern about borrowing huge amounts of money is that it has to be repaid.
This could be accomplished by increased income, or cutbacks elsewhere.
The Boris plan for the EU trade deal undoubtedly involves less trade with our biggest trading partner.
Forget the forecasts, because those on the other side of the argument, just claim they are not true, but claims of a reduction in our GDP of up to 9% have been mooted.
Whichever way you look at it less trade means less income for the Treasury.
Loan repayments further reduce your income.
The Boris trade negotiations have to result in less trade.
Therefore to massively increase spending on day to day stuff, without borrowing money, can only be accomplished by increasing taxes.
Various options have been discussed, like the first rise in fuel duty since 2011, reducing pension tax relief, and increasing income tax, on top of the planned Council Tax increases, which will increase Local Authority budgets, rather than benefit the Treasury.
So the Baldrick, I mean Boris plan seems to be to massively increase spending while at the same time purposely reducing the size of our economy, and to take on massive loans.
If you had a friend that confided in you that they planned to build an extension, finance a new car, book a Caribbean holiday, while at the same time reducing their working hours from full time to part time, when they are currently just making ends meet. You would surely consider it a foolish plan, and try to talk them out of it.
Come back Theresa May.
The top civil servant in the Home Office has resigned and said he intends to claim against the government for constructive dismissal.
Sir Philip Rutnam said there had been a "vicious and orchestrated" campaign against him in Home Secretary Priti Patel's office.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51687287