Britain outside the EU - Page 156

OLD BOY · 05-09-2021, 10:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

That’s the point…

There aren’t any requirements for foot or road traffic exports/imports in the NZ-Australia systems, so using their "technology" as a comparison to posit there is a similar solution already in place is not congruent with actuality.

---------- Post added at 09:30 ---------- Previous post was at 09:25 ----------

I’m not getting "carried away" - I’m using 40 years experience in implementing large scale Business Systems to point out the complexity of what is required, rather than your simplistic "the technology is there" mantra, based on who knows what? I pointed out that one aspect of the "technology" that you said is "already there" is in fact not "there", and is over a decade late, and won’t go live for nearly two years.

You said

As stated above, you are comparing apples with orang-utans - You keep using "the technology is there" as your "get out of jail" card - the technology to provide a solution to the Eire/EU - NI/UK cross-border traffic and imports and exports isn’t there, and probably won’t be for 5-10 years.

I understand that you have vast experience in IT, Hugh, and that you know so much more than the rest of us on this subject so we may as well just shut up

but I really do have to challenge you on this.

You seem to be confused about the argument I am making. The technology is there, otherwise the government would not have suggested it. What isn't there is the system they want to introduce to make it work. That can be devised using existing technology.

The example I would give you is this. There is an existing technology called 'blockchain'. Most on here will have heard of this, and it is already being used for cryptocurrencies. Hence, it should be obvious that it is a very secure way of monitoring and recording.

The way this would work is that a unique code would be generated for each item, and it would contain information on the product's origin and who has handled it on every step along the way. So by this method, the origin of all goods transported would be recorded and this would provide the guarantees required, including certificates of origin for everything passing thrrough the border.

I do not dispute that the system would need to be developed, and this would take time, but the technology is there already. For the transitional period, we would need an extension to the present arrangement.

Hopefully, I have made this clear enough for everyone to understand.

**Hugh** · 05-09-2021, 11:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I understand that you have vast experience in IT, Hugh, and that you know so much more than the rest of us on this subject so we may as well just shut up

but I really do have to challenge you on this.

You seem to be confused about the argument I am making. The technology is there, otherwise the government would not have suggested it. What isn't there is the system they want to introduce to make it work. That can be devised using existing technology.

The example I would give you is this. There is an existing technology called 'blockchain'. Most on here will have heard of this, and it is already being used for cryptocurrencies. Hence, it should be obvious that it is a very secure way of monitoring and recording.

The way this would work is that a unique code would be generated for each item, and it would contain information on the product's origin and who has handled it on every step along the way. So by this method, the origin of all goods transported would be recorded and this would provide the guarantees required, including certificates of origin for everything passing thrrough the border.

I do not dispute that the system would need to be developed, and this would take time, but the technology is there already. For the transitional period, we would need an extension to the present arrangement.

Hopefully, I have made this clear enough for everyone to understand.

Nice ad hominem attack…

Anyway, back to your proposition that "The technology is there, otherwise the government would not have suggested it"…

https://www.openaccessgovernment.org...sasters/92990/

Quote:

the National Program for IT (NPfIT) was hailed to be the largest public-sector IT program ever attempted in the UK. The project was set to revolutionise the use of healthcare informatics in the NHS, with integrated electronic patient records, an online ‘choose and book’ service, and digital referral and prescription systems. But after ten years’ work on the project which was punctuated by delays, stakeholder opposition, and issues with implementation, the program was finally shelved in 2011, costing the taxpayer over a staggering £10 billion.

https://techmonitor.ai/leadership/st...grammes-it-nao

Quote:

The reasons government major programmes hit hurdles

The NOA identifies four key themes it sees repeated in major programmes that encounter problems.

Scope – the remit of the project is poorly defined or not aligned with overall objectives or strategy.

Cost and schedule – the limits of schedule and cost estimates are not taken into account, leading to unrealistic promises.

Interdependencies – many of these programmes include multiple objectives and contributors, which are often not managed effectively.

Governance and oversight – programme management doesn’t adapt or change as the project develops.

Quote:

Technology projects cited include the Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ) electronic tagging programme for offenders, which saw the government attempt to develop bespoke tags for criminals combing radio frequency and GPS tracking. The project was delivered six years late and more than £60m over its initial £130m budget, and was described by MPs on the Commons Public Accounts Committee as a “catastrophic waste of public money which has failed to deliver the intended benefits”.

Part of the reason the scheme stumbled was because interdependencies and roles were ill-defined, the report says. The MoJ expected Capita, its main contractor, to act as integrator for the different elements of the programme and manage three other suppliers, but “Capita was contractually not responsible for the work and performance of the other suppliers, and considered it lacked leverage to perform the integrator role”. This led to a lengthy dispute and delay, which eventually resulted in the MoJ taking the integration role back in-house.

Once again, it’s nothing to do with the "technology", it’s to do with understanding and agreeing requirements, it’s linking the "technologies" up and ensuring that they do all work together, and it’s doing this whilst in a period of constant pressure because of changing priorities.

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, the reimbursement & surveillance technologies don’t exist yet.

"Technology" is easy(ish), processes, people, & politics, and understanding the interdependencies are hard.

mrmistoffelees · 05-09-2021, 11:45

Blockchain is not a currently viable solution, it’s still in its infancy & it suffers from many issues when supported for the use case you’re advising, these are chiefly

Lack of regulation, this by proxy makes it currently insecure
Scalability
Speed
And now the big one, severe difficulties interpreting into legacy services.

OLD BOY · 05-09-2021, 12:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

Nice ad hominem attack…

Anyway, back to your proposition that "The technology is there, otherwise the government would not have suggested it"…

https://www.openaccessgovernment.org...sasters/92990/

https://techmonitor.ai/leadership/st...grammes-it-nao

Once again, it’s nothing to do with the "technology", it’s to do with understanding and agreeing requirements, it’s linking the "technologies" up and ensuring that they do all work together, and it’s doing this whilst in a period of constant pressure because of changing priorities.

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, the reimbursement & surveillance technologies don’t exist yet.

"Technology" is easy(ish), processes, people, & politics, and understanding the interdependencies are hard.

At last! That is what I was saying - the technology is there.

The fact that there is incompetence within the Civil Service to properly frame specifications, etc is an entirely different matter.

What I am not clear on, however, is whether the blockchain method would reduce or eliminate the need for surveillance. We do have drones, of course!

My thinking was that blockchain technology would record the movement of products at various stages of their journey, so it would be obvious if products went astray.

I do not dispute at all that introducing a system such as this will take time. I think the government would be better giving this project to one of the computer giants to put together. It would be far speedier and without the number of glitches that we normally expect from government computer contracts. The NHS one was a disaster.

**Hugh** · 05-09-2021, 13:00

Erm, the NHS contracts were awarded to some of the biggest players in the IT industry, including Accenture, CSC, Atos Origin, Fujitsu and BT…

As a review of the fiasco stated

https://www.henricodolfing.com/2019/...-disaster.html

Quote:

Understanding the problem

"Top-down" projects are much more likely to fail than "bottom-up" projects, and NPfIT was top-down project par excellence. I identify a top-down project as one done for political reasons: and this can be both genuinely Political with a capital P in the public sector or a "vanity" or CEO-inspired project in the private sector. The history of public sector ICT and outsourcing is littered with politically-inspired projects that failed.

The motivation to commence NPfIT came from Cabinet level and it's hard to argue against the fact that many of its aims were entirely laudable. But there is a big gap between laudability and deliverability. The decision to commence any project - let alone one which will transform a fundamental building block of a nation's healthcare system - must be made by the right people who really know about the issues involved. It's unfortunate for civil servants and the departments they run that they have to carry the can for projects devised by ministers that often only make sense on the political drawing board and are almost impossible to translate into reality.

In the Libra Magistrates system, Fujitsu were awarded the contract

https://www.softwareadvisoryservice....ject-failures/

Quote:

Libra System for Magistrates

The initial bid for the Libra project to provide a national system for 385 magistrates was £146 million from Fujitsu. However, before a final deal was even signed, Fujitsu raised the price to £184 million after the company’s board said it wasn’t able to support the charging basis on which the bid was submitted. They had not taken all the costs into account and “made some inappropriate… revenue assumptions”, according to the National Audit Office. Ten months later, Fujitsu asked for a higher price yet again, as their forecasts showed a deficit of £39 million over the life of the deal.

Ernst and Young advised the Lord Chancellor’s Department that Fujitsu’s financial model was unreliable. However, at this point the project was too important to let the supplier default. 18 months into the contract, the deal was renegotiated, increasing payments to Fujitsu to £319 million. Even so, Fujitsu still faced losses of up to £200 million. The next quote proposed by Fujitsu for £389 million was rejected by the department. The department ended up signing a contract with STL instead to provide Libra’s core software. However, Fujitsu still received most of the money, gaining tens of million pounds, despite not being contracted to deliver the software.

The problem with most of these failures is that they’re seen as "technology" projects, when in fact they’re Business projects with a technology base - if you don’t understand and agree detailed businessrequirements, you’ll never deliver what is required.

OLD BOY · 05-09-2021, 13:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Blockchain is not a currently viable solution, it’s still in its infancy & it suffers from many issues when supported for the use case you’re advising, these are chiefly

Lack of regulation, this by proxy makes it currently insecure
Scalability
Speed
And now the big one, severe difficulties interpreting into legacy services.

Fair points. But I would point out that the cryptocurrency system must be pretty secure as people are putting a lot of their money into it. The Bank of England is also considering using blockchain, so it must offer some viable solutions.

As for regulations, well, that is up to the government to create those regulations. These are things to do to make it work, not obstacles that cannot be overcome.

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘speed’ - the blockchain system is fast and efficient. Are you talking about speed of implementation?

I don’t see scalability as a big problem - surely, if the Bank of England is seriously considering this, it must not present major issues.

Legacy services? Surely, this new system would require all systems to be brought into line. It would be a complete overhaul.

It will take time, of course it will, but it is achievable, and if both sides agree that this is a solution, I’m sure we can find a way to manage the transitional period. We can start with eliminating the unnecessary bureaucracy, which is what so many businesses are finding difficult to manage. It just isn’t this difficult to export and import to and from other countries.

Carth · 05-09-2021, 13:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

But I would point out that the cryptocurrency system must be pretty secure as people are putting a lot of their money into it. The Bank of England is also considering using blockchain, so it must offer some viable solutions.

In my humble opinion, that ranks as one of the funniest posts this year

Sephiroth · 05-09-2021, 13:16

To selectively quote from the quote in Hugh's post:

Quote:

It's unfortunate for civil servants and the departments they run that they have to carry the can for projects devised by ministers that often only make sense on the political drawing board and are almost impossible to translate into reality.

I certainly accept that statement. However, in the case of a customs system, I don't think that particular aphorism holds true.

mrmistoffelees · 05-09-2021, 13:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Fair points. But I would point out that the cryptocurrency system must be pretty secure as people are putting a lot of their money into it. The Bank of England is also considering using blockchain, so it must offer some viable solutions.

As for regulations, well, that is up to the government to create those regulations. These are things to do to make it work, not obstacles that cannot be overcome.

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘speed’ - the blockchain system is fast and efficient. Are you talking about speed of implementation?

I don’t see scalability as a big problem - surely, if the Bank of England is seriously considering this, it must not present major issues.

Legacy services? Surely, this new system would require all systems to be brought into line. It would be a complete overhaul.

It will take time, of course it will, but it is achievable, and if both sides agree that this is a solution, I’m sure we can find a way to manage the transitional period. We can start with eliminating the unnecessary bureaucracy, which is what so many businesses are finding difficult to manage. It just isn’t this difficult to export and import to and from other countries.

Have a read here https://towardsdatascience.com/the-b...ed-5cce48f9d44

Regarding eliminating bureaucracy. It’s about to get worse, Taf posted earlier in this thread about a delivery from France arriving overnight. This is due to the U.K. not currently implementing the same checks that the EU currently are. These come in at the end of next month I believe ? Why ? Because they’re required

---------- Post added at 13:27 ---------- Previous post was at 13:16 ----------

The BoE are considering potential use cases, it’s a lot more complex than you portray

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/news...gital-currency

**Hugh** · 05-09-2021, 15:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Fair points. But I would point out that the cryptocurrency system must be pretty secure as people are putting a lot of their money into it. The Bank of England is also considering using blockchain, so it must offer some viable solutions.

As for regulations, well, that is up to the government to create those regulations. These are things to do to make it work, not obstacles that cannot be overcome.

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘speed’ - the blockchain system is fast and efficient. Are you talking about speed of implementation?

I don’t see scalability as a big problem - surely, if the Bank of England is seriously considering this, it must not present major issues.

Legacy services? Surely, this new system would require all systems to be brought into line. It would be a complete overhaul.

It will take time, of course it will, but it is achievable, and if both sides agree that this is a solution, I’m sure we can find a way to manage the transitional period. We can start with eliminating the unnecessary bureaucracy, which is what so many businesses are finding difficult to manage. It just isn’t this difficult to export and import to and from other countries.

https://towardsdatascience.com/the-b...i=a2fe48f4a60a

Quote:

The battle for a scalable solution is the blockchain’s moon race. Bitcoin processes 4.6 transactions per second. Visa does around 1,700 transactions per second on average (based on a calculation derived from the official claim of over 150 million transactions per day). The potential for adoption is there but is bottlenecked currently by scalability.

A study published by Tata Communications in 2018 showed that 44% of organizations in its survey are adopting blockchain, but also alludes to the universal problems that arise from deploying new technologies. From an architectural level, the unsolved problem of scalability is emerging as a bottleneck to blockchain adoption and practical applications.

As Deloitte Insights puts it, “blockchain-based systems are comparatively slow. Blockchain’s sluggish transaction speed is a major concern for enterprises that depend on high-performance legacy transaction processing systems.”

**Hugh** · 06-09-2021, 15:08

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2021/...244990-brexit/

Quote:

Ireland expects UK to extend Brexit grace periods - Varadkar

The Tánaiste has said Ireland expects Britain to announce further extensions to post-Brexit grace periods on goods imports into both Northern Ireland and into the rest of the United Kingdom.

Leo Varadkar said: "The expectation is that the United Kingdom will announce a further extension of the grace periods, not just in relation toNorthern Ireland but also imports from the EU and Ireland into the UK."

He was speaking following a meeting in London with Britain's cabinet office minister Michael Gove, who he said had told him that Britain "doesn't want to walk away from the protocol but does want to make it more workable."

Sephiroth · 06-09-2021, 15:25

I wonder what's buried in Varadkar's remarks. I've read the article and Hugh has not omitted anything of importance.

Is the Tanasty (Varadkar) correctly reflecting the position of the Teashop (Martin)?

Is the EU behind him on this?

If the answer to both the above is "yes", then it would be interesting to hear the UK Guvmin's planned steps and timeline to have the customs side of the Protocol implemented so that iut operates efficiently. It would also be interesting to know whether British meat can still arrive in NI without impediment; that would seem to me to be a stumbling block and public opinion plays into this.

The EU's actions on the AZ vaccine (including trashing it) has soured public opinion of the EU.

mrmistoffelees · 07-09-2021, 14:35

Lord Frosty kicking the can down the road again.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b1915026.html

Carth · 07-09-2021, 16:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Lord Frosty kicking the can down the road again.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b1915026.html

Yep, should have banned all meat products to & from N.I.

that'll learn em

Sephiroth · 07-09-2021, 17:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carth

Yep, should have banned all meat products to & from N.I.

that'll learn em

Er - NI's not the enemy. How about not importing meat products from Eire?