[Politics] Brexit

WATFORD zero said:

I’ll explain one more time for the hard of understanding.

Britain has submitted a new schedule of quotas and tariffs to the WTO. These define what volumes of goods we will import and the tariffs we will charge on those volumes (effectively managing the volumes of imports) and are based on the EU quotas and tariffs.

In excess of 20 members have objected to our submissions and negotiations are at a halt. The WTO allows for disputes (which under WTO, can take years to resolve) by allowing the continuation of existing quotas and tariffs in the interim. This is what the EU will use as they have also had their submission for reduced quotas objected to, and a number of Brexiteers have referred to this interim position as the solution to ‘no deal’.

However, for all major trading nations and blocs, Britain does not have any existing quotas or tariffs, as they have always traded under the EU’s Schedules. We do have some negotiated tariffs and quotas for some smaller economies where the EU decided it wasn’t cost effective to negotiate for the EU as a whole.

So, from the day we leave we will revert to the WTOs default tariffs (there are no default quotas) for all major economies and trading blocs. This means that not only will be charging the highest possible tariffs on all imports, but the EU will start charging us tariffs on all goods exported to them. (Currently 95% of our lamb exports go to the EU and these will be subject to a tariff of 50% from day 1). We also lose control of import volumes due to the lack of quotas.

Some interesting figures from Parliament on volumes and tariffs here https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmenvfru/348/34805.htm

We don’t have to apply the tariffs (another Brexiteer argument) but we must treat all WTO members the same (Most Favoured Nation). So, for instance, if we decide not to apply the import tariffs on meat, we destroy the British Beef, Lamb and Pork industries by undercutting them with non-tariffed imports.

The above reasons are why no other nation in the world would ever consider trading solely on WTO defaults.

Besides which, we have no procedures, systems or staff in place to operate any of the above in 90 days time.

Before you go running off desperately trying to find something wrong with what I’ve written above, I can save you the bother. If you can contain your excitement for a few more weeks, Her Majesty’s Government will confirm what I have been telling you for the last 2 and a half years, that ‘no deal’ isn’t going to happen anyway

*edit* And for the benefit of [MENTION=17469]melias shoes[/MENTION], this is just a little of what you don't understand

Click to expand...

Thunder Bolt said:

2016

[tweet]705375753303683072[/tweet]

2018

[tweet]1078206349148708865[/tweet]

Click to expand...

Herr Tubthumper said:

Just read the government has dished out 108m in contracts to shipping companies with no tender process, no due-diligence and no competition. Oh, my, god. This is absolutely ripe for corruption; I wonder how many Tories are now rubbing their hands after this? Don’t be surprised to soon hear one or more Tory MPs have investments in these companies.


Grubby and shady nation.

Click to expand...

Herr Tubthumper said:

Just read the government has dished out 108m in contracts to shipping companies with no tender process, no due-diligence and no competition. Oh, my, god. This is absolutely ripe for corruption; I wonder how many Tories are now rubbing their hands after this? Don’t be surprised to soon hear one or more Tory MPs have investments in these companies.


Grubby and shady nation.

Click to expand...

Plooks said:

Ones who have been here longer than a lot of British citizens!? When are you taken your check? How do we know you are not a risk to this country?

Click to expand...

Herr Tubthumper said:

The government have given no details regarding the “criminality” side of things whatsoever. Are families now living under anxiety because father has a speeding conviction from 20 years ago? Teen daughter might be deported as she got caught shoplifting a deodorant due to peer-pressure a few years ago?
.

Click to expand...

Plooks said:

This is so racist it is actually umbeilevable! You HAVE to be on a wind up. You think a foreign born person living here for 30 years and has commited no crime needs a background check but a British born person of 20 years old who has a criminal record is ok!?
The only reason you are treating them differently is because of the place of their birth and that is discrimination plain amd simple.

Click to expand...

pastafarian said:

Racist?? How do you know the foreign born person has committed no crime without checking the criminal records.

Click to expand...

ManOfSussex said:

You do realise that unless you're on a watch-list or have criminal notoriety you can basically enter the USA no problem? The US Department of Homeland Security would have to make an individual request via Interpol to access The PNC here for example. Unless you're male, called Muhammad, come from Bradford, spent the last 6 months in Pakistan and are travelling to The USA for the first time on your own, they 'aint going to check pasta.

Just because you heard a brexit backing, tory toff say 'take back control of our borders, tally ho, what, what' - Behave. Someone I went to school with who got done for dealing has been to Florida without a visa. (and I went to best academically performing comprehensive school in East Sussex, located just outside Hastings in a well heeled middle class market town so goodness only knows what oiks there must have been in schools in Hastings itself at the time - really nasty wrong 'un's )

Click to expand...

Plooks said:

How do we know the British have not? You are saying forgien born need to but British born not? That is flat out racist unless you can explain what the difference is without bringing birth place into it.
I have half a mind to report your post for racism.

Click to expand...

ManOfSussex said:

You do realise that unless you're on a watch-list or have criminal notoriety you can basically enter the USA no problem? The US Department of Homeland Security would have to make an individual request via Interpol to access The PNC here for example. Unless you're male, called Muhammad, come from Bradford, spent the last 6 months in Pakistan and are travelling to The USA for the first time on your own, they 'aint going to check pasta.

)

Click to expand...

Plooks said:

Can't explain why it is not racist can you...

Click to expand...

Plooks said:

Racist, xenophobic...whatever it is in any specific situation.

Click to expand...

Hastings gull said:

Well, well well -a leftie toff going to school in Battle, who then moans about Tory toffs -who would ever have though that they could be capable of such hypocrisy! Not for you, the toff, a school in poor Hastings with all those awful working class plebs.

Click to expand...

Plooks said:

No. Where did I say that. I said it is racist/xenophobic to ask for checks for people who have lived here longer than people born here!

Click to expand...

beorhthelm said:

its implied, or assumed fair enough. i suppose it is a bit xenophobic to restrict people convicted of crimes abroad from coming into the country. not racist though. find a country that doesnt do this, some will apply similar rules to vistors officially.

Click to expand...

pastafarian said:

Foreign nationals that have been here longer than British citizens should be exempt from criminal checks........really? Did you even think before typing that. Oddly enough i dont need to confirm my status so wont be needing a criminal check. Did you want all British nationals to have a check to be British yet want exemptions for foreign nationals.........you are upside down.



“The government have given no details regarding the “criminality” side of things whatsoever”…? ? ?……………except of course where the government has given details of the criminality side of things. Details that are viewable online for all.

Nope there wont be deportations for shoplifting a can of deodorant or a speeding ticket 20 years ago…….but ramp up the fear and the bedwetting……you know it makes sense.



Home Office
EU Settlement Scheme: suitability requirements
01 November 2018


https://assets.publishing.service.g...data/file/756616/euss-suitability-v1.0ext.pdf

Initial assessment of suitability


This section tells you about the initial assessment of suitability and referral of an application from UK Visas & Immigration (UKVI) to Immigration Enforcement (IE). Where the result of the check of the Police National Computer (PNC), the Warnings Index (WI) or immigration records indicates that:
• the applicant has, in the last 5 years, received a conviction which resulted in their imprisonment
• the applicant has, at any time, received a conviction which resulted in their imprisonment for 12 months or more as a result of a single offence (it must not be an aggregate sentence or consecutive sentences)
• the applicant has, in the last 3 years, received 3 or more convictions (including non-custodial sentences) unless they have lived in the UK for 5 years or more
• the applicant is the subject of an existing deportation or exclusion order
• the case is of interest to Criminal Casework in respect of deportation or exclusion, for example where the applicant is in prison and the case is awaiting deportation consideration
• the applicant has entered, attempted to enter or assisted another person to enter or attempt to enter into a sham marriage, sham civil partnership or durable partnership of convenience (or IE is pursuing action because of this conduct)
• the applicant has fraudulently obtained, attempted to obtain or assisted another person to obtain or attempt to obtain a right to reside in the UK under the EEA Regulations 2016 (or IE is pursuing action because of this conduct)
• the applicant has participated in conduct that has resulted in them being deprived of British citizenship

you must refer the case to IE for a case by case consideration of the individual’s conduct under the public policy, public security or public health test as set out in the EEA Regulations 2016.


A case is not to be referred to IE where:

• a recorded decision has been made not to pursue deportation or to revoke a deportation order in respect of the applicant and they have not committed any further offence that meets the referral criteria since that decision
• a previous decision to deport the applicant was overturned on appeal, the Home Office is not appealing that decision and the applicant has not committed any further offence that meets the referral criteria
• the applicant received a custodial sentence and at the time the applicant was in prison, the applicant’s conviction did not meet the criteria for referral to the Home Office and the applicant has not committed any further offence that meets the referral criteria

Applicants with a past conviction or convictions who were not referred to the Home Office for deportation consideration at that time.


Where an applicant has a past conviction or convictions which were not referred to the Home Office for deportation consideration under the policy in place at the time, as set out in the list below, and they have not committed any further offence that meets the referral criteria, the application can be considered without referral to IE:
• prior to 1 April 2009, Home Office policy was to consider the deportation of an EU citizen (or their family member) where they had received a single custodial sentence of 24 months or more
• on 1 April 2009, this was reduced to 12 months for sexual, violent or drugrelated convictions
• on 14 January 2014, the 12-month criterion was applied to all other convictions, and a further criterion was included of 6 or more custodial sentences for any offence in the last 3 years
• this was further amended on 27 January 2014 to a custodial sentence of 12 months or more for any offence and 4 or more custodial sentences for any offence in the last 3 years
• on 1 April 2015, the criterion of a single offence resulting in a custodial sentence of 12 months or more was retained, and the low level persistent offending criterion was reduced to 3 convictions in the last 3 years
• from 6 October 2015, the sentencing criterion was removed for all EU cases and since then, HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) have referred all EU and non-EU citizen foreign national offenders to the Home Office for deportation consideration

Overseas criminality

Where an applicant has declared previous overseas criminality, or a check of the PNC or WI indicates that an applicant:
• was previously extradited from the UK
• is the subject of a European Arrest Warrant (EAW)
• has an overseas conviction

you must make further enquiries to establish if there is police interest (in EAW cases) or to establish further information about an overseas conviction. Further guidance on how to conduct an overseas criminal record check can be found at: Criminal casework requests to ACRO for criminal activity checks abroad. All requests must be approved by a senior caseworker.

Before conducting an overseas criminal record check, it may be necessary to contact the applicant to obtain further information about their overseas conviction. An applicant may be contacted by telephone or in writing or invited to an interview to provide additional information in person.

Once the outcome of an overseas criminal record check is known, consideration must be given to whether any previous convictions require referral to IE for a case by case consideration of a decision to deport under the EEA Regulations 2016.


Pending prosecutions

Where an applicant has declared a pending prosecution or the PNC or WI check reveals a pending prosecution, you must refer to the guidance at: Pending Prosecutions.


https://assets.publishing.service.g...data/file/756616/euss-suitability-v1.0ext.pdf

Click to expand...

Herr Tubthumper said:

What’s the “asset publishing service”? Going back to my original point....I could not find the info on the Home Office website....which is where I’d expect to see it.

Click to expand...

pastafarian said:

Actually your original point was not that you couldnt find any info but a declaration that NO details have been given by the gov whatsoever...........which is clearly not the case

"The government have given no details regarding the “criminality” side of things whatsoever. Are families now living under anxiety because father has a speeding conviction from 20 years ago? Teen daughter might be deported as she got caught shoplifting a deodorant due to peer-pressure a few years ago?"

Click to expand...