I ended the previous blog post by asking whether the Police, the Swedish Transport Agency (Trafikverket) and their European counterparts have the resources to enforce the rules imposed by the new mobility package.
My understanding is that Sweden, for the moment at least, has not yet allocated any extra resources to this task.
There is a risk that the mobility package will become a toothless legislation with no effect.

I have previously expressed some concern that the new mobility package might push even more drivers away from the industry, as it will be both cumbersome and time-consuming to keep up with.

I agree that it’s important to clamp down on operators who break rules, cheat and exploit cheap labour. It’s great that the new rules are being introduced, however to a certain degree. They have to be simple enough to follow for those involved; if they are too complicated, many working hours will be wasted on 'paperwork'.

At the same time, there must be a clear plan on how the new rules will be enforced. For the time being, I am pretty sure that the Swedish traffic police and the Swedish Transport Agency – with a few exceptions – have no idea how or what they must do to enforce the new mobility package.
From what I have heard, no additional resources or tools have yet been provided.

And as I’m writing this blog post, I hear on the radio that yet another young person in Sweden has been shot dead. I can't help but wonder if the police will be able to prioritise the enforcement of the mobility package when there is so much that needs to be done with these gangs.

Perhaps it is time for the EU to set up a special authority to focus on the transport industry in all Member States?
After all, what you feed will eventually grow.

Politicians in Brussels have created a massive new piece of paper. This time, they aim to put even higher demands on the transport sector and not least its drivers.

I agree that it’s important to clamp down on operators who break rules and cheat. But we should stop and ask ourselves whether they have gone a little too far this time, as the new mobility package will be both cumbersome and time-consuming, not least for the drivers.

There is a risk that this will push even more drivers to quit, and then it’s only a matter of time before we have a shortage of half a million drivers in Europe.

The idea behind the new mobility package is solid. EU politicians are hoping that it will lead to healthier competition, while at the same time improving conditions for drivers who have had a rough time up until now. But like I said, I am quite convinced that a large number of drivers will change professions, because it will be both cumbersome and time-consuming to carry out transport across borders and have [A1] different salaries in the countries crossed. In addition, the car has to be returned to its country of origin, which will almost certainly create a large number of unnecessary journeys with empty vehicles that are completely insane in terms of the environment.

Well, as you can imagine, there will be a lot of new things to keep track of for both drivers and companies in the transport sector. Not least for those who have to keep track of and administer all the charges.

Another big question is whether the Police and the Transport Agency (Transportstyrelsen) and their European counterparts will have the resources to enforce the new legislation.

But that's a whole other topic that we will discuss at another time.

The changes are proposed to enter into force on 2 and 21 February 2022.

Minister invites industry to discuss how to avoid transport chaos – it was about time!!

Minister of Infrastructure Thomas Eneroth recently announced what Sweden should do in order to avoid ending up where the UK currently is in terms of driver shortages.
He intends to start by inviting representatives of the haulage industry, trade unions and relevant authorities to a round table discussion.
Why didn't we see this coming sooner?

The background to the Minister's actions is the recent high-profile shortage of drivers in the UK, which has resulted in shortages of a number of goods in shops, not least fuel. According to The Times, there is a shortage of 400,000 drivers in Europe. I think it's even more.

It's been nearly five years since I predicted this and first wrote about the issue here on the blog. 

The reason is the poor wages and the conditions of often being away from home for long periods of time. At the same time, wages have increased in countries such as Poland, which has led to many people moving back home and taking up employment there instead.

Those who have benefited most from the squeeze on transport prices are the consumers. How many of us have not stood in a shop with a product in our hands and wondered how on earth can it be this cheap? How much did the worker who made it earn and how much did it actually cost to transport it here?

But in the future, we can expect a general price increase.

One of the main reasons for the low transport prices is that the rest of the industry has been very good at pushing down prices for us transport companies. But with the rising costs of containers and fuel, there is a sudden understanding for the fact that transport and logistics prices have risen. And thanks to the high-profile crisis in the UK, higher prices are also being accepted in many places because drivers need higher wages.

The new mobility package created by politicians in Brussels also adds to the shortage, as it becomes both cumbersome and time-consuming to carry out cross-border transport, with different pay in the countries that you pass through. In addition, the car will have to be returned to its country of origin, which will almost certainly create a large number of unnecessary journeys with empty vehicles that are completely insane in terms of the environment.

But that's another story, to which I will return.

Thomas

I care a great deal about the environment, which is reflected in this blog. The climate is a global issue, and we need to find a solution before it’s too late. Several countries are currently investing in fusion energy projects. Projects that have been underway for several years and that are getting closer to becoming a reality. But why is Sweden not part of the fusion power development? And when can this become a reality?  

Imagine if, within the near future, we could have an energy source that could solve not just the problems of a few countries, but the energy problems of the whole world. I’m talking about fusion energy, which might be the answer to the world's energy problems. 

We humans cannot do without the technology we are used to living with today. And when the world's energy supply is dominated by fossil fuels that are destroying our environment, we need to find alternative sources of energy that don't have the same environmental impact. Fusion energy might be the answer.  

There are already projects underway that aim to produce fusion energy in the future. In France, for example, 35 countries have joined forces to build the world's largest fusion power plant, ITER. Unfortunately, Sweden is not involved in this fusion energy development.  

But what is fusion energy? Fusion power is the same type of energy that powers the sun and the stars, and it involves the fusion of atomic nuclei. You could call it a miniature sun. Nuclear power, on the other hand, is called fission and involves the splitting of atomic nuclei, leaving behind radioactive waste. Fusion power, on the other hand, does not. In other words, it is an energy source that can supply the whole world with energy without much impact on the environment!  

To demonstrate how close we are to this becoming our reality, China has already managed to reach 120 million Celsius for a total of 101 seconds. They currently hold the world record for fusion energy. And by 2025, ITER in France is scheduled to be completed and they expect to be fully operational by 2035. 

When reading about fusion energy, I find it hard to find any drawbacks whatsoever. Except that it requires a lot of funding, and the fact that it doesn't work for more than 101 seconds so far. But honestly, who thought that we would leave our horses at home and take the car instead? Who thought that we would be able to "send letters" without stamps? Who thought that we would control our lives through smartphones? 

I believe this could be one of the future energy sources that can solve the energy problems we have in the world, and I wish Sweden would take a leap and contribute to the development.  

Thomas 

The debate about renewable energy sources such as wind power is distorted. We can't rely solely on wind turbines, which will not in themselves be able to supply our energy needs, and which have major disadvantages for the environment, animals, and humans.

Although wind power is a renewable source of energy, it has been shown to have major negative effects on the environment. Wind turbines emit a loud noise which disturbs residents living near windfarms and can also disturb and frighten wild and domestic animals – not least birds. In addition, the turbines kill a large number of insects, such as bumblebees and bees, which are fundamental for continued life.

When windfarms are deployed in our oceans and lakes, they also harm marine life.
Just to construct a 10 MW offshore wind turbine, you need either a 5,000-tonne concrete foundation or a 1,000-tonne steel one. The tower requires around 600 tonnes of steel, the hub another 100 tonnes, the generator yet another 450 tonnes and the rotor blades 40 tonnes of composite material. Is this really climate friendly?

Even when windfarms are being deployed places where there is a lot of wind, it is not possible to rely on wind turbines as our only source of energy. There may be long periods without enough wind, and this requires alternative sources for electricity generation.

Also, wind turbines must be replaced after about 15 to 20 years. By comparison, nuclear power plants have a life expectancy of about 80 years and hydropower plants about 100 years. Comparing the material requirements of nuclear and wind power for the same amount of energy produced, wind power requires 70 times more concrete and 20 times more steel than nuclear power.

Many say that wind power is the answer.
But how can it be considered sustainable?

Thomas

I have on a number of occasions expressed my scepticism regarding high-speed rails in Sweden.
And here's another post emphasising my view on the matter.
High-speed trains are not necessarily faster, greener, or cheaper.
The construction of a new main railway line in Sweden has a huge environmental impact as all the steel and concrete has to be produced, transported, and installed. When this new main line is operational in 2050, both air and road traffic will already be emission-free.
Why not improve and maintain the railways we already have?

The biggest challenge ahead for us and the rest of the transport sector is to reduce our sector's climate impact while transport is expected to increase. 

Spain, Germany, France, and several other European countries already have a large network of high-speed rail lines. An audit carried out by the European Court of Auditors in 2018 found that many of these lines are considered ineffective.

One of the major attractions of high-speed trains is that they are allegedly very fast. According to the audit however, the trains often run at speeds well below top speed in practice. In the six countries examined by the European Court of Auditors, trains averaged only 45% of top speed. Plus, it can cost up to SEK 4 billion extra for every minute the journey is cut.

In Sweden, there is talk of our new main line being completed as late as 2050. By then, both air and road traffic will have switched to electricity and other zero-emission fuels and be entirely emission-free.

Moreover, it will not be very cost-effective. The single biggest disadvantage of high-speed railways is its construction. The construction itself has a huge environmental impact as all the steel and concrete has to be produced, transported, and installed.

In Sweden, the Swedish Transport Administration (Trafikverket) has been investigating the possibility of improving existing railway between Stockholm and Gothenburg/Malmö instead of building a new one. This would cost about half as much.

Not least for the environment.

Thomas

 

By 2030, there will be 30 million zero-emission cars on European roads.
This is only one of several tough EU goals, and it will be exciting to follow and take part of this one in particular. Those of you who read my blog regularly know that I have since long highlighted the promise and benefits of hydrogen as an energy source.
Without hydrogen, it will be impossible to reduce carbon emissions by 90% by 2050, which is the overall target.

Along with batteries, hydrogen is being singled out as one of the innovative technologies needed to achieve the climate goals. At the same time, this development is expected to create millions of new jobs.

Against this backdrop, the European Commission announced last summer that it will invest €430 billion by 2030 to make hydrogen part of our future energy sources.

This means that we now have an opportunity to benefit from the huge investments that the EU is making in hydrogen technology. In addition, the government has created opportunities for companies to invest through various initiatives.

This is the reason that NTEX have long-standing discussions with both AB Volvo and Gasum on how we as companies can take advantage of this new technology. The more you learn about this area, the clearer it becomes that we are facing a technological revolution in the transport sector. Even something as simple as refuelling requires special protective equipment as the gas is chilled to around 170 degrees below zero Celsius. This means that the fuel tank is almost comparable to a thermos.

Hydrogen was also the theme of one of the interesting seminars I attended during Almedalen Week. The title was: "The Transformation of Road Transport – What Does It Look Like and What Will It Mean?"

The seminar was organised by Vätgas Sverige and was attended by representatives from the European Comission, Volvo Trucks, Chalmers University of Technology, Vätgas Sverige and politicians, among others.

Questions raised included:
What will the new mobility technology entail?
What will our way of transport look like in five years' time?
What political decisions and support are needed to make the transition a reality?

If you want to take part in the seminar, you can do so via this link: https://almedalsveckanplay.info/62019

The fact that rising global temperatures are affecting the environment has not escaped anyone’s notice.
But did you know that in the long run, this will also open up a new shipping route between Asia and Europe? In a few years' time, the Northeast Passage will be ice-free, and Sweden and the Port of Gothenburg will become an even greater priority than they are today. It will then be the first stop for large cargo ships on the Asia-Europe route.
This being said, I would once again like to stress the importance of widening and deepening the Port of Gothenburg as soon as possible.

There is every reason to believe that Gothenburg will, within a few years, be the first stop in Europe for the enormous cargo ships that come fully loaded from Asia. By then, the Port of Gothenburg must have been dredged and widened. Otherwise, these ships won't be able to enter the port and will have to go on to ports such as Hamburg and Rotterdam, where they will most likely unload all their cargo instead.

This is also where they will be fully loaded before heading back to Asia. There is therefore a high risk that they will not be able to enter Gothenburg on their return journey to the Far East either. This scenario would be a complete disaster, not least for the environment. Should this be the case, all containers that are currently unloaded and loaded from these gigantic ships will instead have to be transported between the Port of Gothenburg and other European ports by truck.

In 2018, the government announced their decision and budget to deepen the Port of Gothenburg, but so far, nothing has happened. This decision is, according to many, myself included, one of the most important decisions made during this entire term of office.

It is now up to the land and environmental courts to approve the project. If they do, the project can apparently be completed by 2026.
I think it should be possible to speed up this process.

Efficient imports and exports via the Port of Gothenburg are vital for Sweden's economy in the future as well.

Thomas Ström

World's largest cargo ships run half-full to and from Gothenburg

For years now, many of us have been saying that the Port of Gothenburg needs to be made deeper and wider so that the biggest cargo ships don't have to go come and go with half as much cargo as they can actually carry. In 2018, the government announced their decision and budget to deepen the port, but so far, nothing has happened.
It is now up to the land and environmental courts to approve the project. If they do, the project can apparently be completed by 2026.
Does it really have to take that long?

Efficiency and a greater respect for the environment are driving the trend towards even larger ships. It is not difficult to understand that it's cheaper to load a large ship than a small one. That's why more and more shipping companies are investing in building huge ships, and ports need to keep up and develop at the same pace in order to be able to handle cargo in the best possible way.

One incident that clearly shows what can happen to these large ships in shallow ports and passages is the case of the Ever Given – the ship that got stuck in the Suez Canal a while ago. It was quite the ordeal. The whole of world trade was affected, which is not surprising given that each day, roughly 50 ships transport about 10 billion USD worth of goods through this particular passage.

At present, there are about 80 ships that are roughly the size of the Ever Given and another 60 are under construction right now. Fully loaded, they weigh over 200,000 tonnes!
These ships can carry more than 20,000 containers (20-foot). In this context, it's easy to understand the data from the Bloomberg News, which claims that the container capacity of the world's ships has doubled these last ten years.

These are the ships that operate on the Europe-Asia route, loading consumer goods and intermediate goods in China and Singapore and then heading for Europe via the Suez Canal after passing through India. Here in northern Europe, they dock at ports such as Antwerp, Hamburg, Rotterdam and Gothenburg.

It's fortunate that Gothenburg is the last port on this route, as it is the only port that these ships cannot call at with a full load. They have to come half full, which means that Sweden cannot accommodate a fully loaded modern cargo ship.
And apparently, we won't be able to do so until 2026.

Once in Gothenburg, traditional Swedish exports such as wood, paper, machinery and other engineering products are loaded onto the ship. But like I said, they can only be loaded half-full in Sweden's and the Nordic countries' largest container ports.

The ships will thus be larger, more modern and more efficient, requiring huge investments, while the Port of Gothenburg will at best be able to accommodate them and load them full in five years' time. 

Can't they speed up the process?

It has now been confirmed that the Swedish government intends to shut down Bromma Stockholm Airport, without yet having presented a plan on the expansion and development of Arlanda Airport.
In fact, the government hasn't even guaranteed that Arlanda will at all be expanded. This is a rash decision, and the fact that it has been made in 2020, the year of the pandemic, is preposterous.

In the light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the aviation sector is now facing their greatest challenge to date. And then comes the decision to shut down Bromma airport. It is widely known that the Green Party (Miljöpartiet) don't take kindly to aviation. No news there. But no matter what opinion you might have on the matter, we must agree that it is deeply irresponsible to use the current crisis as an excuse to make this decision.

Regular readers of my blog know that I oppose this shutdown. Our last hope is the Centre Party (Centerpartiet), who have yet to decide on the matter.

This is a rare opportunity for a political party – to have the chance to stand up for a political issue that has been as defining as the Centre Party’s compassion for rural Sweden. It just so happens that this very group that will be hit hardest if the airport will be shut down. So, the real question is whether the Centre Party can stand their ground or not.

As recently as April 27th, municipal commissioner Anders Ågren from the Moderate Party (Moderaterna) wrote an op-ed in Swedish local paper Västerbottens-Kuriren, declaring that this was a rash and unfair decision, seeing as it was founded on the state of the air traffic in the midst of an ongoing pandemic. He continues to express that it is: "deeply irresponsible and a blow to the whole nation which has come to depend on good airport infrastructure back and forth from the capital for work, business and growth."

In his op-ed, Ågren also states that Bromma Airport is a nation-wide concern, which I have also mentioned in previous blog posts.

The whole of Sweden – especially the business sector – is dependent on functional domestic flights and efficient flight connections to and from Stockholm. Bromma is a key complement to Arlanda for cities like Umeå. According to Ågren, a substantial part of the flights back and forth from Umeå Airport go through Bromma.

If you have read my previous blog posts, I'm sure you’re aware that I fully agree with Ågren's view that this decision shows that the government lacks fundamental understanding of the importance of efficient flight connections around the country.

Furthermore, Ågren states that it's remarkable that the government hasn't consulted any politicians or local businesses in Umeå or other parts of the nation, who will be deeply affected by this decision. Supposedly, not even the aviation sector has been consulted. If this is correct, it is a truly catastrophic!

Odds are that the Centre Party will again turn their coats and show that they are not a trustworthy political party.
Before the government decides on shutting down Bromma Airport, there are a lot of us who need guarantees combined with concrete decisions and investments in the Arlanda expansion.

 THOMAS STRÖM

 

As I have previously written on the blog, Swedavia has contacted Ibrahim Baylan, Sweden's Minister for Business, Industry and Innovation, during an internal investigation to notify him that it is not possible to run Bromma Airport with profit during the ongoing pandemic.
Therefore, they want to discontinue operations and invest in Arlanda Airport instead.
Private operator ACR (Aviation Capacity Resources AB) has now emerged with the opposite approach and wants to take over the operation of the airport.
And so, I ask myself this important question: why not let this operator take over Bromma Airport?

ACR is already established in air traffic management and currently manages the air traffic at 17 Swedish airports. Along with the new group, Bromma Airport Group (BAG), ACR has advocated a take-over of the operation of Bromma Airport.

Wilhelm Wohlfart, CEO at ACR, shares my exact view and considers Bromma Airport a key hub for the whole country, and not just Stockholm. I completely agree. In a press release, Wohlfart says:

“Large investments have been made in Bromma Airport these last years to make the airport more accessible and better adapted to a larger number of air travellers.”

“In addition, there are better conditions for sustainable air-traffic at Bromma Airport than at Arlanda Airport, as the traffic at Bromma largely consists of propeller traffic and traffic of other speed schedules (smaller aircraft).”

“With our experience and Bromma Airport Group's combined knowledge, ACR can smoothly take over operations and make Bromma an attractive and profitable airport again.”

Like I said, Bromma Airport is very important when it comes to access to the capital for smaller cities around the country, not least cities in the far north. As the rail services are so poor, these cities' local economy is extremely dependent on regional airports with quick flight connections back and forth from Stockholm. Bromma has been developed into a distinct and smart domestic airport with a passenger-friendly and easy-to-access profile. Furthermore, large sums have been invested in recent years to allow the airport to function for a long time to come.

Another aspect to consider is Bromma's size and location close to the city centre, which is critical for essential transportation such as air medical services and organ transport, which fully depend on quick and safe flight connections.

ACR confirms that there are a number of investors, collaborators and other interested parties behind them who will guarantee a smooth operation of the airport, would a take-over occur.

If you add to this the costs of dismantling Bromma Airport and developing Arlanda Airport, I can't help but wonder – why not just let ACR take over the operations of the airport?

Thomas Ström

The Swedish Transport Administration's direction framework for the plan period 2022–2033, commissioned by the Swedish government, is abundantly clear when it comes to the state of our infrastructure.
“Maintenance of railways and road networks must take precedence over new investments.”
According to the Swedish Transport Administration, the cost to resume neglected maintenance has amounted to SEK 66 billion – funds that have not been included in the government's budget.
Meanwhile, Sweden's infrastructure debt amounts to approx. SEK 250 billion, according to experts.

In a time when investments in new developments and high-speed trains are being discussed, the Swedish Transport Administration has issued a warning regarding the widely neglected maintenance of Swedish roads and railways. According to the Swedish Transport Administration, the cost to resume neglected maintenance amounts to SEK 66 billion. The largest concern is the fact these funds have not been included in the budget for the upcoming plan period.

Mårten Bergman, Director of Infrastructure Policy at Svenskt Näringsliv, shares his concerns in a recently published article in Swedish business paper Dagens Industri:
“The Swedish Transport Administration sheds a light on the fact that we no longer have control over the accelerating rate of degradation.”
“Four years ago, the authority brought up the fact that low-traffic roads and railways, among them connector roads that are vital for the basic industry, were in bad shape. Now, the need for maintenance arises in high-traffic roads as well.”
I must say, I agree with Bergman. If this continues, it will be hard to maintain high-quality freight forwarding services in Sweden.

More than 60 per cent of all government-owned roads were built before 1970. Back then, traffic was completely different. These roads are thus constructed for significantly fewer and lighter transports than we have today. Since then, the wear and tear has been greater than the resources for expansions, reinvestments and maintenance.
The Swedish Transport Administration writes in their report:
“The main challenges are to address the neglected maintenance in roads and constructions built between 1950 and 1970, as well as adapting our road network to new and higher total load capacities.”

According to experts’ calculations, restoring the road network to its original condition will cost several hundred billion Swedish kronor. They say that the Swedish infrastructure debt is close to SEK 250 billion, which is a few billions more than the calculated total cost for the debated high-speed trains that will run on new main railway lines.

Therefore, the Swedish Transport Agency issues a warning about Sweden's infrastructure and the neglected maintenance of our roads. In this context, I have a hard time understanding why our politicians place such large focus on railways. The government's expenditure on road maintenance has come to a halt during the 2000's, in relation to the amount of traffic. During 2018, the operating and maintenance costs amounted to 0,13 SEK per vehicle-km – the same as in the 1990's.

I hope that you, our politicians in parliament, will keep this in mind when you consider the government's infrastructure proposition – because it will serve as a template for both costs and priorities well into the 2030's.

Thomas

When I write this, I am hearing on the radio that electric car sales have skyrocketed in several countries during 2020.
According to the science news on the radio, this had had many experts believe that the transition to a sustainable transport system may be quicker than previously predicted.
I share that belief, especially when it comes to the transport sector. But the prices on these vehicles must be suppressed, and those who buy transports must realize why sustainable transports costs more.

One of the countries where sales more or less exploded during the last quarter of 2020 is Europe’s “Car-Mecca”, the very car conservative Germany, which is also Europe’s largest and most important car market. Only in December, sales increased sevenfold compared to December 2019. This means that 14 per cent of all manufactured cars in Germany in December 2020 were electric. But it is not only in Germany the trend is clear. Several other European countries show similar numbers. In Sweden, for example, a third of all new car sales during 2020 was electric or plug-in hybrids. And over half of all new cars sold in Norway were pure electric.

Meanwhile, the truck manufacturers have sped up the process to follow on the same path. Volvo and Scania have already started manufacturing fully electric trucks, and we see reports that the up-and-comer Volta Trucks from Sweden has received orders of more than 2 billion SEK. The same company recently raised more than 160 million SEK in capital, from an American venture capital firm, among others.
It will be very exciting to follow that project.

Thus, it will not be long until we will see more completely silent trucks and tractors with trailers on our Swedish roads. Everyone wants to, in some way or another, contribute to a sustainable development.
But the issues at hand are about money and range. Today, an electric truck is around four to five times as expensive as a traditional truck. With today’s quotes for transport and logistics, such an investment will never be profitable.
Of course, the Swedish Government subsidize parts of the purchase, around 1 million SEK for a truck costing 5 million SEK, but it will still remain a much larger investment.

While truck manufacturers work towards suppressing the prices, clients buying transports – and in the end – the end customers must prepare on paying more for future transports than they are paying today. Sustainable transportation is simply more expensive to execute. But hopefully it will also mean that the costs of producing batteries, fuel cells and complete drivelines will lower with time.

We at NTEX follow this development closely, which I will get back to in future blog posts.

Thomas Ström

 

 

How have you experienced Brexit? Are you loosing much due to Brexit? Things at NTEX must have been much easier now when a hard Brexit was avoided? These are only a few of the questions my colleagues and I have received after new year’s. The answer is simple: It will become tougher, more time consuming and more expensive than before.

The most startling is that so few companies are prepared on what the UK’s exit from the European Union really means when it comes to transports to and from the British Isles. This goes for all industries. And companies of all sizes. Fact of the matter is that more large European companies acts as if this doesn’t concern them. But it will, mark my words. Many companies will be utterly unpleasantly surprised.

The English companies are among those worse prepared. They have not prioritized this at all. This will definitely have disastrous consequences during the year.
“Will we really need these forms? Should we really all of a sudden need to declare customs for our goods which we have imported/exported in the same way for ages?”. 
Yes, you do. And before new protocols are in place and this bureaucracy is managed in an easy and natural way, there will be chaos, queues and other time consuming processes. 

During the past year’s last months, many chose to stock up on goods and other which they normally import or export from the UK. This has led to the pressure on the British boarder in the beginning of this year has been unusually low. In fact, you would have to go years back in time to see such a low traffic to and from the British boarder as we saw the first few weeks of the year. But they have already, at boarder control, declined several trailers and cars without the proper documentation for the goods they carried.
And it will get even worse. We will have to count with chaos and confusion.

But as I have said before; NTEX is well prepared. We have already trained our employees in and outside of the UK to meet this challenge, and to assists old as well as new customers.

Thomas