Proof of Brexit without the Exit. Jelly for brains.
Absolute stupidity!!
March 22nd
The government has decided that it is a good idea to change the colour of the British passport from burgundy to blue after Brexit but has decided to give the contract to the Franco Dutch company based on price. How nonsensical is that?
First of all to change the colour to blue is merely a cosmetic decision, gesture politics to appeal to the masses, so they think, but there have been many companies which have gone bust because they had the idea of investing in an image change, especially on the shop front and ended up over extending themselves on something which is none productive to the bottom line.
The whole problem is that Britain is leaking money away from the general economy in many ways, with the topmost being legal tax avoidance of multinational companies who have a buying power over the smaller business operator who do pay their full whack of tax. Child benefit for children of foreign nationals whose children may not be living here and so the money is being sent out of the country and not spent locally.
Foreign countries running vital utilities, who may receive government subsidies and again where profits find their way abroad and there has been one mention of a railway company taking profits to invest in their own railway in their native country. Madness.
Selling off iconic British companies to foreign investors who then move production out of the country or own the product and then re badge the product under their own name.
These are just a few examples of many more and the comment by the spokesman this morning has justified such behaviour because we are in a global market. This indicates business as usual and a challenge to this was met with resistance.
So far there has been total nonsense over the events of Salisbury and the only sensible reaction has been from Jeremy Corbyn in a statesman like manner. From Blairism to Cameron there has been little change in ongoing agenda, therefore it must be suggested that the civil service within, and perhaps a shadow government is the culprit. It is quite obvious that Teresa May has dodged situations where there would be live open debate and that whenever there is a detailed policy announcement she is merely reading from a script.
23rd March:
This is a continuation from yesterday’s initial input. Despite being pushed for time in order to be out of the door in a timely manner, with just minutes to spare before posting, it was felt necessary to make comment about the passport issue and on returning home discovered that there was only 100 mb of data left until midnight.
This was just enough to allow the discovery of the fact that the tender for the UK Passport contract was submitted by our government on the European union’s electronic tendering journal and last October that a tender for the design of which it had been announced could be done by Germany or France. Additionally the end of the 10 year cycle for passports just happens to coincide with the pre announced deadline for Brexit in March 2018.
Now this is very interesting because this morning, the 23rd. of march, it was announced on the radio that negotiations will begin between the UK government and the European Council, Tusk’s domain, to discuss a trade outline agreement which must be completed by October ready for Parliament to give support, or not, ready for the March 29th deadline for actually leaving the EU.
Yesterday morning I had written more than intended despite time restraint and it may have looked a little out of context but I was aware of the possibility that what we have in yesterday,s announcement is actually a template which denotes further intentions during the ongoing negotiations.
Jacob Reese Mogg has pointed out how the government rolls over without having the belly tickled:
When it was mentioned that the French had won the contract because it was £50 million cheaper than the UK tender submission by De La Rue, a well established British company then it seemed that the bottom line was more important than the continuation of the company which is an employer and will pay company taxes into the economy as well as the workers who will be taxed and also spend their earnings locally thus benefiting society as a whole. This difference is roughly 10% of the whole contract.
The question then is who’s bottom line? Could there be a privatised element within the passport office? After all it is the UK citizen who ultimately pays the cost so therefore there must be a profit motive for awarding the contract to a foreign state, one which had deliberately screwed us over regarding our fishing waters as a condition of joining the EU in the first place.
The French themselves said that they would not allow passports to be manufactured outside of France for security reasons. This is an obvious consideration for the UK considering that migrants are flocking to France in the hope of illegally entering the UK. The French must be laughing their sock off.
Forgeries are a problem as it is without possible leakage into the Black Market via the French:
The result of the Brexit referendum has been known since June 2016 and the deadline for exit has already been announced yet the government deems it fit to tender for the passport contract under EU rules which should not really apply to us after so called departure next March, one year on from now.
It’s as if the people running the country are not so interested in acting for the National interest but rather are acting more like spivs perhaps for own self interest. Even last September the newspapers were already revealing that the design for the passport could go to a German or French company when this had traditionally been done in house by De La Rue. This information was initially revealed to the Sunday Times by a government insider September 2017.
A final Word:
[Quote]
‘British icon’
Earlier, De La Rue boss Martin Sutherland told the BBC’s Today programme:“Over the last few months we have heard ministers happy to come on the media and talk about the new blue passport and the fact that it is an icon of British identity.
“But now this icon of British identity is going to be manufactured in France.”
He added: “I’d like to ask Theresa May or Amber Rudd to come to my factory and explain to our dedicated workforce why this is a sensible decision to offshore the manufacture of a British icon.” [unquote]
The terminology you used as “leaking money” is an important point. Our economy year after year moves toward lower steps of ranking. There was a time Britain used to be named as biggest economy of the world, biggest producer of the coal of steel and of machineries. Two devastating world wars took their tolls. From 1990 onward UK has been forced to spend a lot of money for different projects of certain anonymous clubs. This expenses are being stolen from low paid, children, invalids, and senior citizens, from education, health, and welfares benefits.