I always think of Freeports as being Game of thrones style medieval towns with stone jetties with a colourful motley collection of ner do wells as its inhabitants - far from the reality of a container facility at Felixstowe sadly
in answer to your precise q no because in bonded warehouses you are not supposed to process things, they just sit there
we DO have inward processing relief ofc which allows processing and removal
my theory is that the UKG proposal conflates a number of ideas and is not really a freeport (or at least not in the sense usually intended) but rather a form of economic development zone that cannot go beyond what was possible within the EU without seriously breaking some common sense economic and fiscal principles
FOR TOO LONG THIS GREAT NATION HAS LANGUISHED WITHOUT FREEPORTS WHICH THE DIKTATS OF THE FACELESS BRUSSELS BUREAUCRATS FORBADE!
BUT NOW GLOBAL BRITAIN WILL HAVE FREEPORTS AND THEY WILL MAKE US RICH BECAUSE FREEPORTS AND THE CONTINENTALS WILL BE GREEN WITH ENVY FOR THEY HAVE NONE!!
"...in UK terms aren't we just talking about glorified bonded warehouses?"
quite. plus the hope that it will spur pirates to land their goods here while we allow a safe passage of time for the goods to turn mainstream and compliant with all laws and customs declaration (EU included)
How are they proposing to deal with goods leaving one freeport for another (inland) freeport? Will they have to follow specified routes? Will there be freeport corridors? Or will they just check out then check back in again subject to a guarantee?
Should I? For any additional reason over rapping with you :)
Separately, but relatedly, I do note that according to the UN:
'The conclusion is that FTZs as originally conceived do not exist any more in the European Union. The Commission does allow the establishment of free zones within its territory but its definition of free zone is a very narrow one.'
from a customs office of departure in one country to a customs office of destination in another country;
without requiring extensive and time-consuming border checks at intermediate borders;
while, at the same time, providing customs authorities with the required security and guarantees.
The TIR system not only covers customs transit by road but a combination is possible with other modes of transport (e.g., rail, inland waterway, and even maritime transport), as long as at least one part of the total transport is made by road.
To date, more than 33,000 international transport operators had been authorised (by their respective competent national authorities) to access the TIR system, using around 1.5 million TIR carnets per year.
clergs - if we are discussing this seriously - yes agree with your last para here:
"..but rather a form of economic development zone that cannot go beyond what was possible within the EU without seriously breaking some common sense economic and fiscal principles"
except whoever wrote that paper visited a jetty and a fuel farm in Singapore and watched rotterdam from afar and thought yes...we create a hodge podge of the two. At the same time not having a clue how will you get the economics to work here. Which trade / commodity / service gap are they trying to fill which is not already there in the European waters and at a much cheaper price? This might be an excellent idea off the US coast but geographically we are bummed to be next to Europe.
0
0
*holds breath*
0
0
tl;dr?
0
0
48 pages? why would u do this?
0
0
no I would rather spike myself in the eye with a barbecue skewer
0
0
I always think of Freeports as being Game of thrones style medieval towns with stone jetties with a colourful motley collection of ner do wells as its inhabitants - far from the reality of a container facility at Felixstowe sadly
0
0
not sure I get the thinking behind them, in UK terms aren't we just talking about glorified bonded warehouses?
0
0
aha sumo! thank you for being here
in answer to your precise q no because in bonded warehouses you are not supposed to process things, they just sit there
we DO have inward processing relief ofc which allows processing and removal
my theory is that the UKG proposal conflates a number of ideas and is not really a freeport (or at least not in the sense usually intended) but rather a form of economic development zone that cannot go beyond what was possible within the EU without seriously breaking some common sense economic and fiscal principles
0
0
I've read through it. It reads like the whole thing was conceived of by someone who's never been outside.
Also, the end of page 33 clearly demonstrates why justified text shouldn't be used.
Some of the questions though. If they don't know the answers already, they have no business being in charge.
0
0
ps 48 pages is really not that bad
0
0
FOR TOO LONG THIS GREAT NATION HAS LANGUISHED WITHOUT FREEPORTS WHICH THE DIKTATS OF THE FACELESS BRUSSELS BUREAUCRATS FORBADE!
BUT NOW GLOBAL BRITAIN WILL HAVE FREEPORTS AND THEY WILL MAKE US RICH BECAUSE FREEPORTS AND THE CONTINENTALS WILL BE GREEN WITH ENVY FOR THEY HAVE NONE!!
0
0
It's essentially carving out little bits of land and turning them into pirate fiefdoms.
I wonder if they have in mind to turn all the car plants into freeports to try and sort supply chain issues.
0
0
"...in UK terms aren't we just talking about glorified bonded warehouses?"
quite. plus the hope that it will spur pirates to land their goods here while we allow a safe passage of time for the goods to turn mainstream and compliant with all laws and customs declaration (EU included)
0
0
as above
no we are not
0
0
How are they proposing to deal with goods leaving one freeport for another (inland) freeport? Will they have to follow specified routes? Will there be freeport corridors? Or will they just check out then check back in again subject to a guarantee?
0
0
Not yet.
Should I? For any additional reason over rapping with you :)
Separately, but relatedly, I do note that according to the UN:
'The conclusion is that FTZs as originally conceived do not exist any more in the European Union. The Commission does allow the establishment of free zones within its territory but its definition of free zone is a very narrow one.'
https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/pub_2377_fulltext.pdf#page=…
0
0
cabotage i suspect - relaxed for all to breathe some life into it
0
0
The TIR Convention establishes an international customs transit system with maximum facility to move goods:
The TIR system not only covers customs transit by road but a combination is possible with other modes of transport (e.g., rail, inland waterway, and even maritime transport), as long as at least one part of the total transport is made by road.
To date, more than 33,000 international transport operators had been authorised (by their respective competent national authorities) to access the TIR system, using around 1.5 million TIR carnets per year.
0
0
lears it is not specified HOWEVER I understand in the US they use "technology" to allow this to happen
0
0
i'm not being sarcastic with those scare quotes just dubiou
0
0
clergs - if we are discussing this seriously - yes agree with your last para here:
"..but rather a form of economic development zone that cannot go beyond what was possible within the EU without seriously breaking some common sense economic and fiscal principles"
except whoever wrote that paper visited a jetty and a fuel farm in Singapore and watched rotterdam from afar and thought yes...we create a hodge podge of the two. At the same time not having a clue how will you get the economics to work here. Which trade / commodity / service gap are they trying to fill which is not already there in the European waters and at a much cheaper price? This might be an excellent idea off the US coast but geographically we are bummed to be next to Europe.
0
0
we should just devolve tax powers to regional counsels
keep VAT at westminster, maybe some sort of federal defence levy too
0
0
I sincerely hope we undercut the EU in the most aggressive way possible. Singapore-on-Thames? Yes please.
Join the discussion