‘Still £5.4m of council debt’: Portsmouth’s unused Brexit border control post
As white elephants go, few come larger than £25m. That is the cost of the hi-tech border control post, built to government specifications to handle post-Brexit checks on goods entering the UK, that sits near the waterfront at Portsmouth international port.
The building has sat empty and unused for almost a year since its completion, after the UK government announced in April last year that the introduction of post-Brexit import checks would be delayed for a fourth time.
Since then, ministers have altered their plans for how goods will be inspected when they enter the country, with a full border strategy expected to be unveiled next month. Meanwhile, the local council faces an estimated £10m bill to cover its debts, maintenance and the cost of catering to the new changed requirements.
This is the sort of article that tries to shoehorn Brexit into a conversation where it is completely irrelevant.
Brexiteers lied to us all. About many things. One of which was that we could magically replace the EU with the US as a trade partner.
Complete nonsense. The only way we could achieve that is to become the 51st State of America, or the new Puerto Rico. Which isn't going to happen. Ever. And is probably the only thing Brexiteers and Remainers can agree on.
The US is, in many respects, similar to the EU. It has 50 Member States, and several overseas territories in their club. And, even more so than the EU, it is fiercely protectionist. Unless the US cannot produce something, it will provide trade barriers and financial assistance to its internal producers wherever it can.
We had 0 chance of a meaningful trade deal with the USA. In or out of the EU.
The sad fact is that Brexit is used by both sides of the debate to tell lies about trade deals with the USA. When, in reality, it is irrelevant to that. Free trade deals are not "dead"-they were never alive.
This is the sort of article that tries to shoehorn Brexit into a conversation where it is completely irrelevant.
Brexiteers lied to us all. About many things. One of which was that we could magically replace the EU with the US as a trade partner.
Complete nonsense. The only way we could achieve that is to become the 51st State of America, or the new Puerto Rico. Which isn't going to happen. Ever. And is probably the only thing Brexiteers and Remainers can agree on.
The US is, in many respects, similar to the EU. It has 50 Member States, and several overseas territories in their club. And, even more so than the EU, it is fiercely protectionist. Unless the US cannot produce something, it will provide trade barriers and financial assistance to its internal producers wherever it can.
We had 0 chance of a meaningful trade deal with the USA. In or out of the EU.
The sad fact is that Brexit is used by both sides of the debate to tell lies about trade deals with the USA. When, in reality, it is irrelevant to that. Free trade deals are not "dead"-they were never alive.
I wouldnt disagree with much of that. Other than the fact that leading Brexiteers were stating that any trade lost by leaving the EU, would be exceeded by the trade resulting from the US trade deal, that was a mere formality.
This is the sort of article that tries to shoehorn Brexit into a conversation where it is completely irrelevant.
Brexiteers lied to us all. About many things. One of which was that we could magically replace the EU with the US as a trade partner.
Complete nonsense. The only way we could achieve that is to become the 51st State of America, or the new Puerto Rico. Which isn't going to happen. Ever. And is probably the only thing Brexiteers and Remainers can agree on.
The US is, in many respects, similar to the EU. It has 50 Member States, and several overseas territories in their club. And, even more so than the EU, it is fiercely protectionist. Unless the US cannot produce something, it will provide trade barriers and financial assistance to its internal producers wherever it can.
We had 0 chance of a meaningful trade deal with the USA. In or out of the EU.
The sad fact is that Brexit is used by both sides of the debate to tell lies about trade deals with the USA. When, in reality, it is irrelevant to that. Free trade deals are not "dead"-they were never alive.
I wouldnt disagree with much of that. Other than the fact that leading Brexiteers were stating that any trade lost by leaving the EU, would be exceeded by the trade resulting from the US trade deal, that was a mere formality.
Agree.
Not least because I said exactly that in my 2nd/3rd paragraphs
People, particularly Brexiteers, can't get their heads round the simple fact that the USA is far more protectionist than the EU. Both Democrats and Republicans.
This is the sort of article that tries to shoehorn Brexit into a conversation where it is completely irrelevant.
Brexiteers lied to us all. About many things. One of which was that we could magically replace the EU with the US as a trade partner.
Complete nonsense. The only way we could achieve that is to become the 51st State of America, or the new Puerto Rico. Which isn't going to happen. Ever. And is probably the only thing Brexiteers and Remainers can agree on.
The US is, in many respects, similar to the EU. It has 50 Member States, and several overseas territories in their club. And, even more so than the EU, it is fiercely protectionist. Unless the US cannot produce something, it will provide trade barriers and financial assistance to its internal producers wherever it can.
We had 0 chance of a meaningful trade deal with the USA. In or out of the EU.
The sad fact is that Brexit is used by both sides of the debate to tell lies about trade deals with the USA. When, in reality, it is irrelevant to that. Free trade deals are not "dead"-they were never alive.
I wouldnt disagree with much of that. Other than the fact that leading Brexiteers were stating that any trade lost by leaving the EU, would be exceeded by the trade resulting from the US trade deal, that was a mere formality.
Agree.
Not least because I said exactly that in my 2nd/3rd paragraphs
People, particularly Brexiteers, can't get their heads round the simple fact that the USA is far more protectionist than the EU. Both Democrats and Republicans.
I was just disagreeing with the both sides bit. Brexit was relevant to the argument during the referendum campaign. We couldnt enter into a US trade deal while members of the EU. The Brexiteers put forward the argument that this was the only thing stopping a deal going ahead, and that a deal would be reached immediately after we left.
Wouldnt you say that most, if not every country will be try their very best to avoid ruining their own industry by allowing competing imports.
This is the sort of article that tries to shoehorn Brexit into a conversation where it is completely irrelevant.
Brexiteers lied to us all. About many things. One of which was that we could magically replace the EU with the US as a trade partner.
Complete nonsense. The only way we could achieve that is to become the 51st State of America, or the new Puerto Rico. Which isn't going to happen. Ever. And is probably the only thing Brexiteers and Remainers can agree on.
The US is, in many respects, similar to the EU. It has 50 Member States, and several overseas territories in their club. And, even more so than the EU, it is fiercely protectionist. Unless the US cannot produce something, it will provide trade barriers and financial assistance to its internal producers wherever it can.
We had 0 chance of a meaningful trade deal with the USA. In or out of the EU.
The sad fact is that Brexit is used by both sides of the debate to tell lies about trade deals with the USA. When, in reality, it is irrelevant to that. Free trade deals are not "dead"-they were never alive.
I wouldnt disagree with much of that. Other than the fact that leading Brexiteers were stating that any trade lost by leaving the EU, would be exceeded by the trade resulting from the US trade deal, that was a mere formality.
Agree.
Not least because I said exactly that in my 2nd/3rd paragraphs
People, particularly Brexiteers, can't get their heads round the simple fact that the USA is far more protectionist than the EU. Both Democrats and Republicans.
I was just disagreeing with the both sides bit. Brexit was relevant to the argument during the referendum campaign. We couldnt enter into a US trade deal while members of the EU. The Brexiteers put forward the argument that this was the only thing stopping a deal going ahead, and that a deal would be reached immediately after we left.
Wouldnt you say that most, if not every country will be try their very best to avoid ruining their own industry by allowing competing imports.
Brexiteers lied then. The Remain-supporting papers lie now.
A rather more interesting point is made in your last sentence (which I have put in bold). Because a lot of people say that. Whereas the answer is more complex than that.
When the UK (or anyone) joins a trade bloc such as the EU (or the US) trade-offs have to be made in relation to this. So-for example-in the EU there are all sorts of rules relating to trade. From banning member states distorting the Internal Market via subsidies in specific industries, to Freedom of Movement, Schengen etc. You have to allow competing imports within the trade bloc.
In return, Members expect to get Protection from people outside the trade bloc.
Let's look at the destruction of our coal mining industry in the late 1970s/early 1980s.
Internally, the then-Government had its own political agenda. It wanted that to happen. But it goes deeper than that.
At the time, the UK produced the cheapest coal in Europe per tonne. Poland's coal was more expensive to produce, but the Polish Government subsidised the cost to undercut the UK.
Poland was not in the EU at that time-if they had been, it would have been highly illegal. But-for whatever reason-the EU provided no protection whatsoever to the UK Mining industry. All it had to do was ensure that a tariff was placed on Polish coal to negate the Polish Govt subsidy. But it did nothing. Anyone think that would happen in America?
Countries do not always seek to even try and avoid ruining their own industry if there are political ideals/votes to be had. And neither does the EU.
This is the sort of article that tries to shoehorn Brexit into a conversation where it is completely irrelevant.
Brexiteers lied to us all. About many things. One of which was that we could magically replace the EU with the US as a trade partner.
Complete nonsense. The only way we could achieve that is to become the 51st State of America, or the new Puerto Rico. Which isn't going to happen. Ever. And is probably the only thing Brexiteers and Remainers can agree on.
The US is, in many respects, similar to the EU. It has 50 Member States, and several overseas territories in their club. And, even more so than the EU, it is fiercely protectionist. Unless the US cannot produce something, it will provide trade barriers and financial assistance to its internal producers wherever it can.
We had 0 chance of a meaningful trade deal with the USA. In or out of the EU.
The sad fact is that Brexit is used by both sides of the debate to tell lies about trade deals with the USA. When, in reality, it is irrelevant to that. Free trade deals are not "dead"-they were never alive.
I wouldnt disagree with much of that. Other than the fact that leading Brexiteers were stating that any trade lost by leaving the EU, would be exceeded by the trade resulting from the US trade deal, that was a mere formality.
Agree.
Not least because I said exactly that in my 2nd/3rd paragraphs
People, particularly Brexiteers, can't get their heads round the simple fact that the USA is far more protectionist than the EU. Both Democrats and Republicans.
I was just disagreeing with the both sides bit. Brexit was relevant to the argument during the referendum campaign. We couldnt enter into a US trade deal while members of the EU. The Brexiteers put forward the argument that this was the only thing stopping a deal going ahead, and that a deal would be reached immediately after we left.
Wouldnt you say that most, if not every country will be try their very best to avoid ruining their own industry by allowing competing imports.
Brexiteers lied then. The Remain-supporting papers lie now.
A rather more interesting point is made in your last sentence (which I have put in bold). Because a lot of people say that. Whereas the answer is more complex than that.
When the UK (or anyone) joins a trade bloc such as the EU (or the US) trade-offs have to be made in relation to this. So-for example-in the EU there are all sorts of rules relating to trade. From banning member states distorting the Internal Market via subsidies in specific industries, to Freedom of Movement, Schengen etc. You have to allow competing imports within the trade bloc.
In return, Members expect to get Protection from people outside the trade bloc.
Let's look at the destruction of our coal mining industry in the late 1970s/early 1980s.
Internally, the then-Government had its own political agenda. It wanted that to happen. But it goes deeper than that.
At the time, the UK produced the cheapest coal in Europe per tonne. Poland's coal was more expensive to produce, but the Polish Government subsidised the cost to undercut the UK.
Poland was not in the EU at that time-if they had been, it would have been highly illegal. But-for whatever reason-the EU provided no protection whatsoever to the UK Mining industry. All it had to do was ensure that a tariff was placed on Polish coal to negate the Polish Govt subsidy. But it did nothing. Anyone think that would happen in America?
Countries do not always seek to even try and avoid ruining their own industry if there are political ideals/votes to be had. And neither does the EU.
I dont follow that argument. If our Government didnt want to import Polish coal they surely wouldnt have?
I appreciate you don't follow the argument. So I will try and explain.
When you are in the EU, there are supposed to be rules protecting the Members. Like, for example, imports to Ireland from the UK.
Polish coal was being bought throughout the EU at the subsidised price. I expect that the EU did this both to save money and because the UK Govt was happy for them to do so.
The point is-it was at that time the European Economic Community. Not a plaything for Governments. UK or EU.
I appreciate you don't follow the argument. So I will try and explain.
When you are in the EU, there are supposed to be rules protecting the Members. Like, for example, imports to Ireland from the UK.
Polish coal was being bought throughout the EU at the subsidised price. I expect that the EU did this both to save money and because the UK Govt was happy for them to do so.
The point is-it was at that time the European Economic Community. Not a plaything for Governments. UK or EU.
My point is that the UK Government didnt have to import Polish coal. Poland werent members therefore the EU had no control over subsidies. I dont understand the point of subsidising a product and selling it to all and sundry. When the more you sell, the more it costs you.
I appreciate you don't follow the argument. So I will try and explain.
When you are in the EU, there are supposed to be rules protecting the Members. Like, for example, imports to Ireland from the UK.
Polish coal was being bought throughout the EU at the subsidised price. I expect that the EU did this both to save money and because the UK Govt was happy for them to do so.
The point is-it was at that time the European Economic Community. Not a plaything for Governments. UK or EU.
My point is that the UK Government didnt have to import Polish coal. Poland werent members therefore the EU had no control over subsidies. I dont understand the point of subsidising a product and selling it to all and sundry. When the more you sell, the more it costs you.
Wow. Economics, particularly macro-economics, seems to have passed you by. So I will give you a really simple example.
Country A produces coal at £100 per tonne. Country B produces coal at £95 per tonne.
Country A & B both have VAT at 20%. Country A reduces VAT to 10%, knocking its price down to £90 per tonne. Sells 10 times the amount, thereby raising more Revenue than before.
Understand now?
Of course the EU has power in relation to subsidies. Simply by raising import tariffs. Because that is the whole point of being in a trade bloc.
Comments
As white elephants go, few come larger than £25m. That is the cost of the hi-tech border control post, built to government specifications to handle post-Brexit checks on goods entering the UK, that sits near the waterfront at Portsmouth international port.
The building has sat empty and unused for almost a year since its completion, after the UK government announced in April last year that the introduction of post-Brexit import checks would be delayed for a fourth time.
Since then, ministers have altered their plans for how goods will be inspected when they enter the country, with a full border strategy expected to be unveiled next month. Meanwhile, the local council faces an estimated £10m bill to cover its debts, maintenance and the cost of catering to the new changed requirements.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/still-5-4m-council-debt-050023175.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/style/keir-starmer-faces-labour-brexit-173424460.html
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/brexit-food-trade-barriers-have-cost-uk-households-7bn-claims-new-study/ar-AA1bEsv5?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=6b9209fabbdf44019b54a836d5f161ee&ei=113
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/brexit-known-historic-economic-error-110612954.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/ex-tory-minister-chris-patten-034517773.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/labour-needs-honest-debate-brexit-115734901.html
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/brexit-regrets-growing-as-more-voters-say-it-has-a-negative-effect-on-economy-nhs-and-services-poll-shows/ar-AA1c3JLl?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=8db473bd3d394699bc6576f72f1163d7&ei=8
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/brexit-failed-led-donkeys-billboard-095900898.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/rishi-sunak-white-house-jolly-050028745.html
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/sunak-seeks-to-resell-us-special-relationship-as-economic-alliance-but-free-trade-deal-hopes-are-dead/ar-AA1cdK4m?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=6eaf59bc17f64a87bfd144f3139dcaa3&ei=13
Brexiteers lied to us all. About many things. One of which was that we could magically replace the EU with the US as a trade partner.
Complete nonsense. The only way we could achieve that is to become the 51st State of America, or the new Puerto Rico. Which isn't going to happen. Ever. And is probably the only thing Brexiteers and Remainers can agree on.
The US is, in many respects, similar to the EU. It has 50 Member States, and several overseas territories in their club. And, even more so than the EU, it is fiercely protectionist. Unless the US cannot produce something, it will provide trade barriers and financial assistance to its internal producers wherever it can.
We had 0 chance of a meaningful trade deal with the USA. In or out of the EU.
The sad fact is that Brexit is used by both sides of the debate to tell lies about trade deals with the USA. When, in reality, it is irrelevant to that. Free trade deals are not "dead"-they were never alive.
Other than the fact that leading Brexiteers were stating that any trade lost by leaving the EU, would be exceeded by the trade resulting from the US trade deal, that was a mere formality.
Not least because I said exactly that in my 2nd/3rd paragraphs
People, particularly Brexiteers, can't get their heads round the simple fact that the USA is far more protectionist than the EU. Both Democrats and Republicans.
Brexit was relevant to the argument during the referendum campaign.
We couldnt enter into a US trade deal while members of the EU.
The Brexiteers put forward the argument that this was the only thing stopping a deal going ahead, and that a deal would be reached immediately after we left.
Wouldnt you say that most, if not every country will be try their very best to avoid ruining their own industry by allowing competing imports.
A rather more interesting point is made in your last sentence (which I have put in bold). Because a lot of people say that. Whereas the answer is more complex than that.
When the UK (or anyone) joins a trade bloc such as the EU (or the US) trade-offs have to be made in relation to this. So-for example-in the EU there are all sorts of rules relating to trade. From banning member states distorting the Internal Market via subsidies in specific industries, to Freedom of Movement, Schengen etc. You have to allow competing imports within the trade bloc.
In return, Members expect to get Protection from people outside the trade bloc.
Let's look at the destruction of our coal mining industry in the late 1970s/early 1980s.
Internally, the then-Government had its own political agenda. It wanted that to happen. But it goes deeper than that.
At the time, the UK produced the cheapest coal in Europe per tonne. Poland's coal was more expensive to produce, but the Polish Government subsidised the cost to undercut the UK.
Poland was not in the EU at that time-if they had been, it would have been highly illegal. But-for whatever reason-the EU provided no protection whatsoever to the UK Mining industry. All it had to do was ensure that a tariff was placed on Polish coal to negate the Polish Govt subsidy. But it did nothing. Anyone think that would happen in America?
Countries do not always seek to even try and avoid ruining their own industry if there are political ideals/votes to be had. And neither does the EU.
If our Government didnt want to import Polish coal they surely wouldnt have?
When you are in the EU, there are supposed to be rules protecting the Members. Like, for example, imports to Ireland from the UK.
Polish coal was being bought throughout the EU at the subsidised price. I expect that the EU did this both to save money and because the UK Govt was happy for them to do so.
The point is-it was at that time the European Economic Community. Not a plaything for Governments. UK or EU.
Poland werent members therefore the EU had no control over subsidies.
I dont understand the point of subsidising a product and selling it to all and sundry.
When the more you sell, the more it costs you.
Country A produces coal at £100 per tonne.
Country B produces coal at £95 per tonne.
Country A & B both have VAT at 20%.
Country A reduces VAT to 10%, knocking its price down to £90 per tonne. Sells 10 times the amount, thereby raising more Revenue than before.
Understand now?
Of course the EU has power in relation to subsidies. Simply by raising import tariffs. Because that is the whole point of being in a trade bloc.