Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 09:58 AM

That is another thing I haven't got clear in my head - If companies currently use UK as a point of entry for import for distribution across EU27, will they want to incur two levels of tariffs in the future? How would this impact on ports. Would exporters want to do thorough the hassle of shipping to both UK and EU 27? As 88% of the market would be mainland Europe in the event of a drop in trade going through UK ports, where the money be found to maintain the employment levels of dock workers?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 10:40 AM

As I understand it, importers and exporters are currently looking to make new arrangements.

Dock workers? Not many of them left, now that so much is automated. Truckers and delivery drivers will be hit, though.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 11:37 AM

"It will of course be necessary for the fruit, vegetables, cheese, meat, etc imported to Ireland from Europe to come via France or the Netherlands rather than through the UK after Brexit, because otherwise these imports would be hit by two lots of tariffs - one to bring them into the UK from Europe, the second to reimport them into Ireland (ie Europe again) from the UK."

WHY?

The Convention on International Transport of Goods Under Cover of TIR Carnets (TIR Convention) is a multilateral treaty that was concluded at Geneva on 14 November 1975 to simplify and harmonise the administrative formalities of international road transport. (TIR stands for "Transports Internationaux Routiers" or "International Road Transports".) The 1975 convention replaced the TIR Convention of 1959, which itself replaced the 1949 TIR Agreement between a number of European countries. The conventions were adopted under the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). As of January 2018, there are 73 parties to the Convention, including 72 states and the European Union.

The TIR Convention establishes an international customs transit system with maximum facility to move goods:

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 11:53 AM

Isn't the TIR convention mainly so that containers, etc, don't have to be opened up when passing through countries on the way to other countries? (I was baffled in my youth to see that many lorries bore the word "TIR", meaning "Country" in Irish, and a trucker explained this to me.

I don't think TIR means duties don't have to be paid by exporters, which is how Britain is treating these goods at the moment (as far as I know).

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 01:16 PM

Thompson. If in transit from one eu country to another via the uk, then under the TIR convention, no duties would be paid entering or exiting the uk.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 02:57 PM

Genuine question here about no duties being paid. If the UK cannot charge a anything for goods crossing the UK on transit to the EU does that mean that roads and infrastructure can be used but we get no benefit from it?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 05:00 PM

That is the current situation Dave.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 05:09 PM

The subject seems a little confusing
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3564827/EU-court-threat-UK-foreign-trucks-levy-Brussels-officials-claim-10-day-toll-unfa


http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-2593608/Foreign-juggernauts-pay-drive-UK-roads.html

Post brexit I would envisage the playing field being leveled even more.
It seems very uneven at present.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 06:05 PM

I was against going into the Common market in 1974.

I voted for Brexit.

For many reasons.

I don't think Brexit will happen in any meaningful way. None of the nobs believe in it.

A couple of days ago the national news gave up their entire mid day broadcast to scare stories. Very reminiscent of the millennium bollocks - planes would fall out of the sky, every computer would stop, life as we know it would cease.

The people in charge simply don't believe in Brexit. Its not going to happen. The arguments are for nothing.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 06:21 PM

"The people in charge simply don't believe in Brexit. Its not going to happen. "
I wish I could believe you Al - do you really think the destruction of a country's economy and the welfare of it's people are more important than saving face after this fiasco?
And besides, there are only so many terrorist linked parties to be bribed ans o many £Billions of the taxpayers money to bribe them with   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 10:05 PM

we'll see.

I think they'll tell the people its happened. perhaps on paper it will have.

But the EU will still screw us up with regulations, whilst ignoring them themselves and practicing protectionism under various guises. The Spanish will still be out there doing to our fishing waters what they did to their own years ago.

Its a bit like services led economic recovery, some daft sods will believe its happened despite all evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think its a bit like the permissive society. I never felt permitted to do anything much. Same old shit, with a new label.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 03:14 AM

But the EU will still screw us up with regulations, whilst ignoring them themselves

I am not sure what you mean by that, Al. The EU is made up of its members, of which we are currently one. If the EU apply regulations they have to be approved by the UK as well. I am not at all sure if any country has approved regulations and then ignored them. The 'them and us' does not apply as we are one of them anyway!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 03:30 AM

"But the EU will still screw us up with regulations, whilst ignoring them themselves"
I'm afraid that sums up the British approach to the E.U. from day one
Rather than treating it as an organisation they became part of it was always "them and us"
If the E.U. was "screwing Britain" - it was Britain screwing herself.
Ireland did extremely well out of the E.U. because they considered herself part of it - it was the predatory bankers who ******* up the booming economy not Europe.
In Britain, you can add the corrupt and inept politicians with their bogus claims for expenses for their Duck Palaces.
The E.U. is now doing its level best to prevent threat of a slide back to the days of 'The Troubles' and further economic chaos that British narrow-minded bigotry has put back on the agenda
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 03:51 AM

Ireland, the country doing so well that they import much of their food from UK manufacturers, yet threaten to close their airspace to the UK post brexit.
Does anyone else see a fatal flaw in this blatant attempt at blackmail?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 03:56 AM

Ireland can bring in food from other sources. You seem to have no idea of the weakness of the UK position. Hopefully the government can be persuaded to see sense and make the concessions which the EU rightly demand.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 04:04 AM

I think it will be unpredictable, other than those with little money will still have little money, property prices possibly might fall in Ireland for a short while

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 04:11 AM

David Carter. Yes they can. Providing they can find the suppliers, shipping, distribution, and customers willing to pay the increased costs.As yet Ireland has very little direct trade with Europe. Most of the trade is with north west europe, and I believe I am correct in saying, as yet zero direct links exist.
I do not envisage seeing too many happy bunnies when they study the resultant inflation added to their food bill.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 04:52 AM

David Carter. not just my thinking.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/unique-brexit-exposure-could-cost-ireland-billions-each-year-467105.html

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 05:16 AM

Of course, if Brexit is going to cost Ireland 'Billions more', presumably the EU will help them out with this, as their intransigence over the border issues will be a major part of the cause. Although the EU coffers will already have been severely depleted by the loss of a major contributor.
Perhaps Ireland will take it as a glimpse of their future relations with the EU.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 07:53 AM

"Intransigence over the border issues?" There WAS no border issue until the UK took a unilateral and silly decision to cause a border issue by voting for brexit without giving a thought to that border. We were all a bit too obsessed by the "fact" that we were being swamped by foreigners and by reading fake numbers on the side of a bus to bother our little heads with trivia such as that border, and that attitude went right to the top. So now you want the EU and the Irish to sort out the mess, and you call them "intransigent" when WE can't come up with a resolution. Odd.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 08:30 AM

well to be honest, i think there are those of us who have done business in Europe and know the actuality of the EU, and those who are repelled by the racism of the EDL.

I sympathise with both points of view.

I've stopped responding to all the shit calling me a narrow minded little Englander racist on facebook.

I think rational debate went out of the window a long time ago. The EU isn't a bad idea, but its run by crooks. Why wouldn't it be, they're politicians. As Dennis Skinner says, at least outside the EU, we'll only have our own lot of crooks to deal with.

But like I say, it won't happen. There'll be some sort of flummery to appease the referendum voters, but the fix is in. Theresa May did not and does not believe in Brexit. Why would she, tory constituencies never felt the chill winds. Tories Thatcher, Major, Cameron, Blair weren't daft - they took care of voters they needed. Blair wasn't a tory - but he needed the marginal seats.

To compare an economy like Ireland, horse racing and dancing at the crossroads, with an economy of England is daft. Paul MacCartney could afford to buy everyone in Ireland a drink and an ice cream. If he had to buy everyone in England a drink, he'd keep his wallet in his pocket.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 08:50 AM

The only reason the UK/Irish border is a problem is that the EU chose to make it one.
So now you want the EU and the Irish to sort out the mess, and you call them "intransigent" when WE can't come up with a resolution
The UK have come up with answers, but they were not acceptable to the EU.
The EU seem to consider this a good negotiating tool. But so far, as with so many other subjects, they have not come up with their own ideas, nor accepted any of those put forward by UK.
So 'intransigence' is exactly the word I would use.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:05 AM

There WAS no border issue until the UK took a unilateral and silly decision to cause a border issue by voting for brexit without giving a thought to that border.

I think labeling all those that voted for brexit as being stupid does nothing to take the argument forward, besides being extremely insulting.
Britain and Ireland had free movement of nationals of the two countries since 1923details here
There is no reason for this to change. Random checks have been carried out on all incoming people since 1997, contrary to the view held by some on this forum.
If the EU and Ireland cannot come up with a solution then they have to swallow some major expenditure, and Ireland the loss of a massive import/export market. Eventually that will cause the intransigence to evaporate. Should that not happen the Irish people will be most unimpressed.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:09 AM

The EU intransigence predates the referendum. Remember David Cameron sat in a row boat with Merkel et al? He went to get reforms from the EU to present to the UK referendum voters and got nothing. Even he could not spin what he got as reform.

The EU is like a stuck record. You can't have a conversation with a stuck record.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:20 AM

As I said earlier, the EU is just the sum of its component countries, including the UK. If the UK were negotiating with the EU they were negotiating with themselves as well. OK, the others could outvote the UK but at least inside the EU we also got to veto any laws they propose if required. Once outside the EU we will have no such control and if we wish to deal with the EU, which we undoubtedly will, we will still have to conform to their rules but this time we will have no say what those rules are.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:21 AM

...or to put it a little more crudely, I would rather have them in the tent pissing out that outside pissing in. (LBJ on Hoover?)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:24 AM

So nobody saw us as being inside the tent, and getting pissed on?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:31 AM

Stanron, that was nothing to do with the border issue. Whatever other EU intransigence issue you're referring to, there was no EU intransigence over the border before the referendum as there was no border issue. Cameron went off to get concessions from the EU full of hubris and, quite rightly, he was told where to get off. Negotiating with a tough and much larger partner isn't like falling out on Mudcat where certain persons may be given to calling you far worse things than "intransigent" just because they disagree with you. You have to play the game, which may involve smiling sweetly through gritted teeth. If you end up calling EU negotiators intransigent because you can't get your way, you're in severe danger of, er, making them intransigent.

The referendum was extremely ill-advised and the campaign was all heat and very little light. In those circumstances the only safe thing to do was vote for the status quo and throw the bloody thing back to the politicians to think again. So it was silly (the word I used, by the way, not "stupid") to vote leave, and it isn't just leave voters who will get the come-uppance they deserve, unfortunately.

And being silly is a very human thing. After all, billions of people believe in God.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:33 AM

Ireland isn't making any threats. The airspace rules are part of international agreements, as is the border question.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:33 AM

Was the hoover inside or outside the tent when LBJ pissed on it, Dave? I hope it wasn't plugged in. Very dangerous!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:35 AM

I really don't know how I can put this any differently. The UK are (for now) part of the EU. If you saw it as the EU pissing on us then we were also pissing on ourselves. We are a major and integral part of the EU and if you want to blame the EU for anything then our representatives in that organisation are equally to blame and, ultimately, so are we for voting them in. It is not an us and them situation, It is an us and us.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:37 AM

I dunno where you could plug a Hoover in a tent anyway! (Sorry Raggy - Can we be allowed a few asides? :-) )

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:40 AM

but at least inside the EU we also got to veto any laws they propose if required.
No, we had a veto in a few, limited, areas.

In the special legislative procedure:
The assent procedure is used to approve certain key decisions such as the accession of new member states, and the approval of Commissioners.
Assent requires an absolute majority of MEPs to approve a decision.
A 'majority' does not mean unanimity.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:54 AM

I really don't know how I can put this any differently. The UK are (for now) part of the EU. If you saw it as the EU pissing on us then we were also pissing on ourselves. We are a major and integral part of the EU and if you want to blame the EU for anything then our representatives in that organisation are equally to blame and, ultimately, so are we for voting them in. It is not an us and them situation, It is an us and us.

Once again, NO!.
Since issuing article 50 many decisions are being taken by "The 27" and we are already being excluded.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:59 AM

We shouldn't be in Ireland.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 10:03 AM

are we being excluded? i thought we had chosen to leave. maybe they are kindly letting the UK know how to get used to not having a say in decisions that effect us. the scots, of course, know all about that

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 10:10 AM

The sad thing is that the leave side has successfully misrepresented the EU and the UK as chronically adversarial. In general, EU laws and regulations are drafted after massive consultation intended to avoid conflict and dissent, and the UK is one of the most influential partners. Taking suggested new policies as far as a vote is the uncommon exception, not the rule, and, as a major partner, we have a big say in whether important new laws are passed. In some cases we have a veto on our own, in some cases we can team up with just a handful of other countries to say no. In some cases our population size is taken into account, not the fact that we are one in 28. Rarely do we have laws imposed on us, even more rarely anything incredibly significant, and NEVER by "unelected bureaucrats in Brussels."   There is no point in having 28 countries enduring various levels of discontent all the time over regulations, in fact the EU would rapidly fall apart were that to be the case. Even though the UK has recently been the most argumentative partner, our huge influence has ensured that almost all EU law is agreeable to this country. There really is no argument here. If you really want to make a Big Thing about "taking back control of our laws," you'd better be ready with some substantial areas of current disagreement to put forward in support. And don't think that the size of duck eggs or the straightness of cucumbers will cut it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 10:11 AM

OK Nigel, we WERE part of the EU until article 50. The rest of the statement still stands. Will you stop nitpicking now before the thread gets closed again?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 10:12 AM

Steve Shaw appears to be saying that because the EU was not intransigent over the border when the border was not an issue, it's intransigence since, or before on other issues is irrelevant. This does not follow. The EU is being intransigent over the Irish border. The EU has been intransigent over other issues in the past. The EU's inability to be flexible on any issue causes problems for the UK and the EU. Once we are out of the EU we will be free from some of the problems that come from EU intransigence.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 10:14 AM

Well said, Pete.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 10:16 AM

Well you didn't clarify that earlier, Stanron. We were actually talking about the border but you chose to widen it. Still, you've clarified your opinion now. I don't agree with you, but cheers anyway.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 10:21 AM

Project fear goes into warpspeed as Governor of the BofE becomes blatantly political with his speeches. I look forward to seeing him fired!


https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/gbp-live-today/9625-gbp-to-eur-and-usd-fresh-blow-from-governor-carney

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 11:01 AM

I didn't find much iin Mark Carney's speech particularly political. It is part of his job to set out the prospect for the economy over the next year or two, and since March 2019 falls in that period he had to mention the prospect of leaving and outline what the expect the effects to be. In fact, he would be amiss not to.

The only really political comment was that the prospect of a no deal is 'uncomfortably close' - I accept that is not a 'it is close, let's all whoop and cheer' stance. But it is no different, really, to Raab's "risk of a no deal by accident" or May trying to get a deal. It is fully in line with the government position, I would say.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 11:24 AM

I thought it was a bit political:
Carney also revealed the Bank of England recently ran a Brexit no deal exercise that saw property prices plummet by a third, interest rates go up to 4%, unemployment up to 9%, and a full blown recession

The Governor also refuses to say the 21 month transition period will be long enough to adjust the economy for Brexit, "we’ll take the two years. We’ll make it enough".

In view of the predictions he was making before the referendum, which failed to come true, I thought he might have learned to keep quiet.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 11:34 AM

But if they did run those models which showed that, what should Carney say?

"I am not telling your predictions for the economy of the next two years" - I reckon that would start a panic.

Or say "We have run no models"? That's the same, but adding in that no one would believe him which would make people things were even worse than they could imagine. Result: an even bigger panic.

No, I reckon the best thing is to report what the model found. Then people can decide for themselves whether to believe the results of the model. And, of course, they should also accept their responsibility whatever decisions they take opposing it, should the model prove to be more or less right.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 11:46 AM

And should the model prove more or less totally wrong, how many more times should he be allowed to discuss forecasts?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 11:57 AM

Mystic Meg is allowed to make off the wall forecasts, because they are of no consequence.
However Forecasts from the Governor of the Bof E have real time impacts and consequences. If public forecasts were part of his job description no doubt he would be a leading light at the BBC, like his flyweight brother in arms Lineker. But his job carries responsibilities to all of us. Time to give him his cards and repatriate him back to the land of Trump.

We would all be better off if he shut his mouth and got on with his day job.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 11:58 AM

The model is based on a "no deal" scenario. With luck, we will never get to find out if it was right or not. Otherwise we will have a no " deal" and know within a year whether the model is looking close or not. But I see that while you accept there may be a period where the country suffers for a period just after a no deal, I think we are still missing any sort of indication from the Leavers how deep and how long this could be. Like Carney's model, we recognise the uncertainties and caveats needed. But some indication would be welcome. And then we can see if that is closer in the same timescales.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 12:06 PM

Nigel, Carney is the Governor of the Bank of England. As such it falls to him to forecast the projected future of the value of the pound and the possible impacts of various changes which affect it.

It would be incredibly remiss of him not to inform the country of the possible outcomes of a no deal, soft or hard Brexit.

I have noticed the fairly recent increasing usage of the term "project fear" which I interpret as a cover for items leavers would rather consider we didn't think about or discuss.

It smacks of "la la la, I didn't hear that, I want to believe in unicorns and fairies at the bottom of the garden."

Many of us continue to have very serious concerns about the future of our country, the future of ourselves, and the future of our children and grandchildren.

It is Mark Carneys job to warn us of potential pitfalls.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 12:15 PM

No, 'Project Fear' relates to the catastrophe which was forecast would follow immediately if we voted leave.
We voted leave and the forecasts proved to be almost totally wrong.

The same type of forecasts are being made again now, and are being described as 'Project Fear', or 'Project Fear mark2' on the basis that the original was so inaccurate.