copacetic
Member of DD Central
Posts: 305
Likes: 666
|
Post by copacetic on Dec 22, 2018 10:50:52 GMT
What is also laughable and a waste of our money is to begin "No Deal Planning" literally days before the date at which it might have to come into effect. "Managed No Deal", it sounds so tender and lovely, but what a deceitful phrase. Over here in the real world, our No Deal Planning is to shut down in the case of 'no deal' and just wait until order is restored. The only "In the event of no deal..." advice we received from HMG was that in the event of no deal impacting our specific area of work, we would need to engage the services of a specialist Customs and Excise company. We are a specialist Customs and Excise company.
While I don't know exactly what your line of business is this seems more like an opportunity for a lot of new business than a disaster scenario.
I import containers of goods from the far east on WTO terms. The way it works is we receive invoice, packing list and certificate of origin from our supplier. We forward to our shipping agent to do the customs clearance, pay the duty + VAT to HMRC before the container ship is in dock and the goods get delivered as soon as the container gets offloaded. There is no delay (very occasionally they do get pulled for a random inspection, I presume to check for illegal smuggling). This is the way it would work under a no deal scenario with the EU. It costs around £25 for the clearance and I suspect we're being gouged for the 5 minutes work it takes to submit the papers through an online portal.
The 2 major issues I can see is for low value imports/exports (say you send lots of parcels of £50) then the cost of processing does become a significant overhead percentage wise. The other is the NI border. At the moment lots of people cross the border to do their shopping depending on how the exchange rate is (at the moment the north is benefitting from a lot of southern customers). Physical border checks would certainly kill off a lot of this trade. Businesses also do a lot of lower value parcels and pallets across the border. If a courier had to clear 100 parcels or 20 pallets at a physical border post every time they crossed it would be a severe blow to that trade too.
Fortunately the simple answer to that problem is for the UK to declare they are moving to unilateral free trade and refuse to put any physical border checks on their side of the border. The ball will then be in the EU's court. Ireland won't want to put up a border post on their side and everyone will then be able to see if the EU political institution is really working in the national parliment's interests or serving it's own agenda.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Dec 22, 2018 11:05:42 GMT
<snip>
Fortunately the simple answer to that problem is for the UK to declare they are moving to a unilateral free trade deal and refuse to put any physical border checks on their side of the border. The ball will then be in the EU's court. Ireland won't want to put up a border post on their side and everyone will then be able to see if the EU political institution is really working in the national parliment's interests or serving it's own agenda.
I see this argument bandied around occasionally. Maybe you're right, but don't you think that's a bit of a gamble to take for a country's supply of essential goods? Say that were to happen - it would fundamentally undermine all that the EU stands for and the supposed penalties for leaving. The EU would know this, so don't you think they might be willing to go through the pain of enforcing borders to maintain their whole organisation? That seems rather more likely to me. Likewise, re: Ireland, are you sure that they would unilaterally not erect a border given that a) our politicians have said appalling things recently to them and much more importantly b) they would be under threat of being excluded from the EU themselves if they didn't? Given their stance in the last 2.5 years, I'd be incredibly surprised if they opted to join us in our suicide mission rather than reluctantly side with the EU. IMV, the EU would do anything to maintain the EU. Holding a gun to our own heads and threatening to shoot if we can't have free trade does not sound like a good plan A, B or C to me.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Dec 22, 2018 11:30:36 GMT
<snip>
Fortunately the simple answer to that problem is for the UK to declare they are moving to a unilateral free trade deal and refuse to put any physical border checks on their side of the border. The ball will then be in the EU's court. Ireland won't want to put up a border post on their side and everyone will then be able to see if the EU political institution is really working in the national parliment's interests or serving it's own agenda.
I see this argument bandied around occasionally. Maybe you're right, but don't you think that's a bit of a gamble to take for a country's supply of essential goods? Say that were to happen - it would fundamentally undermine all that the EU stands for and the supposed penalties for leaving. The EU would know this, so don't you think they might be willing to go through the pain of enforcing borders to maintain their whole organisation? That seems rather more likely to me. Likewise, re: Ireland, are you sure that they would unilaterally not erect a border given that a) our politicians have said appalling things recently to them and much more importantly b) they would be under threat of being excluded from the EU themselves if they didn't? Given their stance in the last 2.5 years, I'd be incredibly surprised if they opted to join us in our suicide mission rather than reluctantly side with the EU. IMV, the EU would do anything to maintain the EU. Holding a gun to our own heads and threatening to shoot if we can't have free trade does not sound like a good plan A, B or C to me. Most people who use WTO based arguments don't know the fine details of what WTO rules would mean in practice (I include myself in that ignorance) What I do know is that there are many more barriers to reverting to WTO rules than is alluded to. Also, you'd have to treat all countries equally, not just apply unilateral free trade to the EU, so it would probably be carnage for much UK industry facing unrestricted inward competition from China et al but continued restrictions on exports.
|
|
copacetic
Member of DD Central
Posts: 305
Likes: 666
|
Post by copacetic on Dec 22, 2018 19:35:07 GMT
The EU would know this, so don't you think they might be willing to go through the pain of enforcing borders to maintain their whole organisation? That seems rather more likely to me. ... IMV, the EU would do anything to maintain the EU. Holding a gun to our own heads and threatening to shoot if we can't have free trade does not sound like a good plan A, B or C to me. In this I think you are correct. The EU will do everything in it's power to maintain the EU, even to the detriment of its constituent countries. However I don't see this as a reason to stay but a rather more pressing reason to leave. The EU commission which sets the legislative agenda of the EU is far removed from democracy and we see little of what happens behind the closed doors from which they operate. As far as I can see protecting democracy is the most important thing we can do to ensure continued and lasting peace. However I do think Britain's departure will be a sufficient wake up call for national parliaments to get the EU machine under control so they don't tank their own economies. Don't forget the UK has a large trade deficit with the EU. Most people who use WTO based arguments don't know the fine details of what WTO rules would mean in practice (I include myself in that ignorance) What I do know is that there are many more barriers to reverting to WTO rules than is alluded to. Also, you'd have to treat all countries equally, not just apply unilateral free trade to the EU, so it would probably be carnage for much UK industry facing unrestricted inward competition from China et al but continued restrictions on exports. I include myself in that too! I just know that I import on WTO terms (ie. from a WTO member outside the EU to inside the EU which is itself a WTO member) and have described what's actually involved. For me the cost (time & monetary) is fairly insignificant compared to the value of goods imported (approx 0.1-0.3%). From what I understand though, Britain is a founding member of the WTO and it automatically reverts to WTO rules provided we can let the WTO what our most favoured nation tariffs will be (ie. we can use the current ones the EU has, or move to unilateral free trade - no tariffs for anybody, or move to our own custom set of tariffs). The most beneficial of these for long term economic growth is unilateral free trade. You make a very fair point that it will be carnage for some sectors of UK industry though. I don't want to sound callous, I'm aware that many people would lose their jobs and it might not be a smooth transition to a new one but to take an example look at the steel industry.
The UK's steel industry is inefficient and to compete with China they need to impose tariffs of 13-70% depending on the type of steel. From a quick search on google the UK steel industry employs 32000 people. If we moved to free trade most of these jobs would be lost. However the UK also produces many high quality steel manufactured products e.g. digger buckets made for JCB to name one of hundred of products, which are exported all over the world. This industry is efficient since it exports to other countries without government intervention despite having inflated costs due to purchasing steel at an uncompetitive price. When these companies can suddenly purchase their raw materials at world prices they become super competitive and can sell even more and thus employ more people making up for the jobs lost in steel production. Employment shifts from the inefficient industries to the efficient industries and everyone in the country that buys steel products from cars to cutlery benefits from lower prices.
|
|
kaya
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 718
|
Post by kaya on Dec 26, 2018 12:18:08 GMT
You cannot just 'opt out' of an increasingly global system of trade and governance. Europe is just part of that.
The show must go on, whatever.
'Brexit' is an illusion. A sop for the dissenters.
Turn off the 'news'.
|
|
yangmills
Member of DD Central
Posts: 83
Likes: 494
|
Post by yangmills on Dec 29, 2018 13:05:29 GMT
I find the problem with those who consider a no-deal Brexit, where we revert to WTO rules, to be an acceptable solution is that they are too focussed on tariffs. Tariffs do not prevent access to a market. They simply impose a tax on entry. The actual barrier is regulatory conformity, non-tariff barriers (NTBs) or, sometimes, as technical barriers to trade (TBTs). In order to access the Single Market, goods must comply with EU rules. Conformity is the way of overcoming the NTB.
WTO advocates will tell you that countries such as China, the US and Australia all trade with the EU without formal trade agreements, and therefore operate under WTO rules. The problem is that this is not true. WTO rules are a lowest common denominator and virtually nobody trades purely on WTO. Instead they develop bilateral trade agreements, the most important of which is the MRA (Mutual Recognition Agreement) on conformity assessment. This gets round the problem of border checks, as the EU will recognise paperwork on product testing and conformity certification. You then need to add in an agreement on Customs cooperation, to ensure that official paperwork and systems mesh, and you are on your way to "free trade". There are, in fact, 135 agreements between the EU and the United States, of which 55 are bilateral; there are 65 between the EU and China, of which 13 are bilateral; and 82 agreements between the EU and Australia, of which 18 are bilateral.
Now in a hard-Brexit, the UK becomes a third country and there will be precisely zero agreements between the UK and EU. The problem is that to develop the necessary bilaterals could take a very long time, easily 5-10 years (it took the Swiss that long). Moreover, we have to remember 80% of our GDP and 50% of our exports come from services and they are not part of WTO at all.
The best solution would have been to have a transitional arrangement for 2-3 years, then leave the EU and enter EFTA/EEA for say another 5 years. This would give far more freedom that many seem to appreciate both on labour mobility and only 27% of the EU acquis apply. This could have created breathing space to develop the necessary bilaterals. At that point you could either stay in EFTA or go it alone. Oddly prior to the referendum, many Leavers, even those who were quite hardline saw the EFTA/EEA solution as sensible. Suddenly after the vote, they all shifted to the right, while some Remainers refused to accept anyway exit at all. This polarization did us no favours.
Nonetheless, people do need to understand we've been in the EU for 40+ years so the idea that you can leave smoothly in 2 years is just an illusion. We live in a hugely integrated, globalized world. You cannot turn the clock back.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Dec 29, 2018 23:44:23 GMT
Nonetheless, people do need to understand we've been in the EU for 40+ years so the idea that you can leave smoothly in 2 years is just an illusion. We live in a hugely integrated, globalized world. You cannot turn the clock back. People don't seem to want to understand; they want to believe and feel and take a side. So here we are.
|
|
neal
Member of DD Central
Posts: 87
Likes: 55
|
Post by neal on Dec 31, 2018 12:44:27 GMT
Most people don't care about the politics behind the ideas. We all voted not knowing what we were really voting for.
|
|
|
Post by Proptechfish on Dec 31, 2018 13:22:45 GMT
Speak for yourself
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Dec 31, 2018 13:57:10 GMT
Assuming you're addressing neal , then I don't really see how his point is disputable. However fervent you are about the benefits of Brexit, are you really claiming that you knew even the basics of the deal that we're going to eventually end up with, back in 2016? In fact, do you claim to do so even now? In one of your recent posts, you lamented "we scored an own goal on the day after the referendum vote by dancing to EU's tune with Article 50", so clearly it hasn't gone exactly as you've hoped. Given that you've said that, you presumably advocate a No Deal as the way forward, which is currently only one of many possible outcomes, unless you know something the rest of us don't?
|
|
|
Post by Proptechfish on Dec 31, 2018 14:57:29 GMT
Assuming you're addressing neal , then I don't really see how his point is disputable. However fervent you are about the benefits of Brexit, are you really claiming that you knew even the basics of the deal that we're going to eventually end up with, back in 2016? In fact, do you claim to do so even now? In one of your recent posts, you lamented "we scored an own goal on the day after the referendum vote by dancing to EU's tune with Article 50", so clearly it hasn't gone exactly as you've hoped. Given that you've said that, you presumably advocate a No Deal as the way forward, which is currently only one of many possible outcomes, unless you know something the rest of us don't? It depends how you view politics, for me a political statement is never the truth or a lie. It's what you believe it to be so every point is disputable. As you have highlighted i did vote to leave, and for time i was willing to let the politicians beat out a deal that i could well have found agreeable. However within a few months i was reminded of how unbelievably incompetent politicians are. I think the only logical way out is a no deal. To use the Divorce analogy the UK and the EU have agreed to a divorce but now the UK is saying can we stay in the house for maybe 2 to 5 years. EU says sure but you have to carry on paying you share of the mortgage, oh and you can't use the gas, electric, the internet the TV and you will confined to one room and you will carry on paying child maintenance but you can't see the children (other EU countries) while your in the house. In a real divorce one party would have found alternative accommodation as priority then you start to negotiate the wind-down of the family home and the future relationship with the children. TM has 'negotiated' a very weak position and i stand by what i alluded to in a previous post that we need to leave full stop before any negotiation.
|
|
daveb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 245
Likes: 201
|
Post by daveb on Dec 31, 2018 17:09:58 GMT
I was interested in Christopher Booker's piece in the Sunday Telegraph this week. He is a longstanding critic of the EU but he appeared to be arguing we should be planning to stay in the EEA
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Dec 31, 2018 19:57:42 GMT
2019. Choices. 1. Brexit yes or no. ....No matter what divided country and ineffective parliament
2. General Election yes or no. Number 1 would still happen JC junior may get minoity government but we would still be exactly the same place except we would have no nuclear deterrent, massive job losses as companies pay off staff to pay corporation tax. Massive nationisation paid for by borrowing. We would need more than Five Fishes and a couple of loaves from JC junior to make that work.
Unavoidable answer.. we are screwed. Stock market down 5% year on year this year is only the beginning.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,953
Likes: 4,386
|
Post by agent69 on Dec 31, 2018 20:14:50 GMT
Stock market down 5% year on year this year is only the beginning. The stock market woes have little to do with brexit. It's a global issue caused mainly by the fat boy on the other side of the pond.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,953
Likes: 4,386
|
Post by agent69 on Dec 31, 2018 20:21:28 GMT
We all voted not knowing what we were really voting for. Such is the nature of voting.
However, it was obvious that disentangling ouselves from the EU was going to be a nightmare, and anyone who believed otherwise deserves all that they get.
|
|