If Brexit were a Monty Python skit...

[Scooter]

...it would be less of a farce:

Post-Brexit passports set to be made by Franco-Dutch firm

The post-Brexit blue passport will not be produced by the British firm that makes the current burgundy version, with sources suggesting the contract will be awarded to a Franco-Dutch firm instead.

Changing the colour is regarded by some Brexiters as a powerful symbol of Britain’s restored sovereignty.

But the British firm De La Rue has lost out on the contract to make them, its chief executive confirmed on Thursday morning. It is understood that Gemalto, which is listed on the French and Dutch stock exchanges, won the race for the £490m printing job.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Thursday morning, the chief executive of De La Rue, Martin Sutherland, challenged the prime minister or the home secretary to “come to my factory and explain my dedicated workforce why they think this is a sensible decision to offshore the manufacture of a British icon”.

He said he would appeal against the decision, and he refused to guarantee that no jobs would be lost at the Gateshead plant the firm uses to produce the burgundy version.

Sutherland acknowledged that his firm had been beaten on price in an open competition, but he said that was unfair. He said that in France, as a foreign-based firm, De La Rue would be barred from bidding to produce the French passport.

The Labour MP John Spellar said “no other EU country behaves like this”, claiming others “support their industry”. Such decisions had driven the Brexit vote, he said.

The Home Office said on Wednesday night that no final decision had been made on where the new passports would be printed. A spokeswoman said: “We are running a fair and open competition to ensure that the new contract delivers a high quality and secure product and offers the best value for money for customers.

“We do not require passports to be manufactured in the UK. A proportion of blank passport books are currently manufactured overseas, and there are no security or operational reasons why this would not continue.”

Theresa May told the House of Commons in February: “It is right that from autumn 2019 we will issue new blue and gold passports, which have always been the UK’s colours of choice for our passports. It is absolutely right that after we leave the European Union we return to deciding the colour of passports that we want, not that the EU wants.”

De La Rue issued a profit warning on Tuesday, telling investors its profits for the coming year are likely to be “at the lower end of the current consensus range”, without giving further details.

The pro-Brexit former cabinet minister Priti Patel described the decision on the contract as perverse.

The Liberal Democrats’ Brexit spokesman, Tom Brake, said: “The blue passport saga is turning into a farce. First it was established that we did not have to leave the EU to have blue passports. Now we learn that the passports will be printed by a foreign company. And to add insult to injury, we will pay over the odds for them because the value of the pound has fallen since Brexit and they will have to be imported.”

Eloise Todd, of the pro-remain pressure group Best for Britain, said: “The new pro-Brexit blue passports were supposed to be a statement of intent and now we find out they are to be made by the French or the Dutch. The irony is unreal.”

Gemalto offers what its website calls an “end to end ePassport solution”, and is involved in the production of 30 countries’ passports.

Under EU competition rules, large public procurement contracts must be offered to companies across the the bloc.

It is unclear how the government’s approach may change after Brexit, but countries seeking to strike new trade deals with the UK are likely to seek enhanced access to public contracts.

[rubato]

https://www.economist.com/news/britain/ ... d-could-it

How bad could it get?

The government’s own economic analysis finds that Brexit will damage the economy

DURING the Brexit referendum campaign in 2016, gloomy economic forecasts by the Treasury were dismissed by Leavers as “Project Fear”. Many now gleefully note that, at least in the short run, they proved spectacularly wrong. Ministers like Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, insist there are no downsides from Brexit.

It is thus odd that, unlike then, the government refuses to produce any official forecasts for Brexit. In December David Davis, the Brexit secretary, who had boasted of his department’s rigorous impact assessments, told the Commons Brexit committee that they did not in fact exist. Yet early this year he had to share a leaked confidential draft of the government’s own EU exit analysis with the committee, which has now published it on its website.


The analysis is comprehensive, looking at tariffs and non-tariff barriers as well as migration effects. It is based on three models for post-Brexit trade relations. These are the European Economic Area (EEA), which means staying in the EU’s single market like Norway; a free-trade agreement (FTA) similar to the EU’s with Canada; and trading only on World Trade Organisation (WTO) terms. Cumulative GDP growth in 15 years’ time is trimmed in all three cases, by an average of 1.6 percentage points for the EEA option, 4.8 points under an FTA and 7.7 points on WTO terms (see chart). These numbers are similar to most outside forecasts.

The sectoral and regional effects of the models are striking. The industries that suffer most include chemicals, food and drink, cars and retailing. The areas of the country hit hardest include the north-east, the north-west and the West Midlands, all of which voted heavily for Brexit. London escapes relatively lightly. The public finances suffer too. The FTA option will add £55bn ($75bn) to annual public borrowing in 15 years’ time.

https://www.ft.com/content/33c51a40-0c5 ... ca06376bf2

Please use the sharing tools found via the email icon at the top of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/33c51a40-0c5 ... ca06376bf2

Leave-voting areas to be hit hardest by Brexit
Impact report says UK growth will be reduced regardless of talks outcome
Vote Leave campaigners during the referendum on EU membership in 2015 © AFP

Parts of the UK that voted Leave in the 2016 EU referendum will suffer most as a result of Brexit, according to a government impact assessment.

The study found that the north-east and the West Midlands would suffer the biggest hit to growth, while London, which voted heavily for Remain, would be the least affected.

The regional data are part of an analysis compiled by government economists that found growth would be reduced over the next 15 years, whatever the results of Brexit negotiations.

The most effected areas have already started asking for handouts to protect them from the fruits of their own stupidity. Britain's Trump voters. Older, less educated, more xenophobic, poorer.

yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

The only reason the work was given to a French firm, was due to EU rules. Tell me why we need to be dictated to by Brussels again?

[ex-khobar Andy]

I think Brexit is daft; but in defense of the EU 'rules' which presumably are based on fair competition between member states, a contract should go to the low bidder. Now while the regulations may (and I think should) have exceptions for obvious national emblems such as flags and (maybe) passports, I am sure that there are instances of British companies supplying goods or services which the French or Germans or Latvians feel should be done locally. If the rules are not being applied properly or are written to favor one country over another that's a different matter.

Having been a government contractor for various states and the feds in the US for 30 plus years, I can tell many stories about how it works here. My favo(u)rite is one in which we (I lived in Buffalo at the time) bid on a job to New York State: we were beaten by a couple of percent on a (IIRC) approximately $2 million job by a Pennsylvania company. When I pointed out to the state that out-of-state transportation costs, which they would bear, would be far greater than any savings I was told - "Well, that's a different budget." As a NY state taxpayer and as someone responsible for making sure we had enough work for 100 or so employees I was flabbergasted. I ended up checking the NYS procurement regulations (if you suffer from insomnia I have a cure for you) and I had no case because they had been properly applied. And although we lost that specific contract with NY, we were the providers of similar services to at least CA, NJ, AK, TX, FL, PA and several others I have forgotten. I presume that my counterparts in those states were bitching to their regulators about that work going out of state. I did try to be magnanimous when I ran into them at conferences.

[Scooter]

The only reason the work was given to a French firm, was due to EU rules.

That does not appear to be true:

Sutherland acknowledged that his firm had been beaten on price in an open competition, but he said that was unfair. He said that in France, as a foreign-based firm, De La Rue would be barred from bidding to produce the French passport.

[Gob]

And who allowed France to opt out of the National Interest clause? The EU.

The EU is a French/ German stitch up.

[Bicycle Bill]

THE NEW PASSPORT FOR
THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND

(a French firm won the contract, remember)

-"BB"-

[BoSoxGal]