Another new Brexit thread

[BobKowalski]

Again, all I'll ask is why does any of this matter when we are compliant already?

Do you think that Apple makes a different iPhone for every regulatory system that they sell into?

The statement I queried was ‘in trade, rules do not matter’. They matter. International trade is governed by rules and legal agreements. The rules can apply to standards, quality, how you treat your workers etc. Canada now includes provisos over women’s rights.

On specific products a company in country x will make products compliant with the rules of the country it is exporting to. If it’s a large trade bloc or the US, smaller countries will often adopt the rules and standards of the more dominant bloc or country which means they do not have two sets of standards, one for domestic market and one for overseas markets, an unnecessary and costly duplication.

Even though the country now adopts the others rules the goods will still require documentation, checks etc because there is no legal agreement in force between the countries. To eliminate the need for documentation and checks the two countries may enter into a legal agreement in which country x agrees to adopt into domestic law the standards of the other country and agree to keep aligned in the future and eliminate the need for admin and checks.

This is what the EU does in harmonising standards and rules across all 30 countries and it exports these standards to other non EU countries. If a country legally opts out then it is outside the EU’s regulatory control and jurisdiction and is then subject to extra administration costs and custom checks even if a company’s goods are compliant with EU standards and regs.

 

[mat]

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money...ank-N26-closing-UK-accounts-April-Brexit.html

 

[Len Rum]

Again, all I'll ask is why does any of this matter when we are compliant already?
Do you think that Apple makes a different iPhone for every regulatory system that they sell into?
But those standards are already transcribed into UK law so why will there be a problem?
We aren't going to decrease standards because why would we? I haven't seen any evidence of this or any reasoning as to why we would deharmonise regulation from the EU in any particular market.
We may start accepting chlorinated chicken and god knows what from the US but the US has to comply with our standards to sell here. It doesn't mean we have to change the standards of our own food production etc when selling to the EU.
Obviously the major downside to rule harmony is we have lost our say in them.

Mate it doesn't matter if we adhere to EU standards.
If we don't have an FTA with the EU our exports to them will be subject to price tariffs and paperwork and checks at the border which increase costs and delay.
If you don't believe me then listen to mick gove.

 

[Len Rum]

Could be worse. We could end up having to play in this chump's golf club where the fees are much higher and the club owner does his best to rip you off on a daily basis.

Have you got one of a sexy Australian blonde female playing golf?
That could be the pictorial representation of the 'Australian deal' we're after.

 

[inbetween]

Mate it doesn't matter if we adhere to EU standards.
If we don't have an FTA with the EU our exports to them will be subject to price tariffs and paperwork and checks at the border which increase costs and delay.
If you don't believe me then listen to mick gove.

I totally understand that, my argument is based upon an FTA which would mitigate much of the risks of Brexit.

No FTA or no deal would be idiotic definitely.

I see the trade negotiation problems as purely political because frictionless trade could be achieved very easily if we didn't have the political barriers, many others have managed it!

Canada have an FTA as do Japan and none of them needed to 'align', take ECJ oversight, join the EU or do anything else.

 

[BobKowalski]

Some border insights. Note Switzerland is in the Single Market but not the Customs Union. Source is via the Director of ‘U.K. in a changing Europe’

‘Switzerland,a country accustomed to carrying out customs checks on all goods has an error rate of around 20%- anything from incorrect weight to the stated value of the goods which originate from the invoice sent to the agent from the importer/exporter. This results in the truck being stuck at customs whilst the agent has to communicate with the importer/exporter to correct the invoice . What happens if it’s 5pm and the customer has gone home for the night ? Yup - the truck isn’t moving.

You can have as many 24 hour customs desks as you like in Dover but how many small business will have 24 hour offices ? I bet it’s not many ! That means any incorrect declaration won’t be corrected until the following day. Let’s assume the 20% rate in CH is accurate (it is because the agent in Basel told me ) - imagine a 20% rate on Circa 10k trucks leaving the U.K. / entering Calais - that’s around 1000 in each direction . Dover only has spaces for 500 trucks.

What will happen to the merchandise industry in the U.K. supplying all the brands around Europe ? Well - a lot of it is printed last minute and sent out with no need for checks/customs . Normally loaded as factory closes. What happens if it gets to dover and stopped and the papers are questioned ? Load doesn’t move. Driver doesn’t move. Customs closed until next morning. Means that load won’t move until following lunchtime’

Highlights the need for Custom Agents working on behalf of small businesses to ensure everything runs smoothly I guess. But you inject bureaucracy into any process you are inevitably going to slow everything down and add cost.

 

[BobKowalski]

I totally understand that, my argument is based upon an FTA which would mitigate much of the risks of Brexit.

No FTA or no deal would be idiotic definitely.

I see the trade negotiation problems as purely political because frictionless trade could be achieved very easily if we didn't have the political barriers, many others have managed it!

Canada have an FTA as do Japan and none of them needed to 'align', take ECJ oversight, join the EU or do anything else.

An FTA reduces friction and barriers. To get to frictionless you need a single market and customs union. Also FTA does little for services the barriers of which are difficult to break down. The EU Single market has less barriers to services than does the USA single market where individual states have strong service barriers meaning some services cannot be traded across state lines.

Neither Canada or Japan has frictionless trade with the EU. The alignment isn’t deep enough.

But you are correct in saying ‘frictionless trade could be achieved very easily if we didn’t have political barriers’ although maybe not the way you meant it. To get seamless frictionless trade in goods and services you need to eliminate all political barriers but Brexit is about erecting political barriers ie sovereignty, control etc. This is why Brexit always was a fallacy and ‘free trade’ is not what Brexit is about. Brexit is about raising barriers and protectionism.

 

[Len Rum]

I totally understand that, my argument is based upon an FTA which would mitigate much of the risks of Brexit.
No FTA or no deal would be idiotic definitely.
I see the trade negotiation problems as purely political because frictionless trade could be achieved very easily if we didn't have the political barriers, many others have managed it!
Canada have an FTA as do Japan and none of them needed to 'align', take ECJ oversight, join the EU or do anything else.

That's because Canada and Japan are 'distant' economies to the EU who don't represent a threat to them. They have a decent volume of trade with each other but nothing mega.
We on the other hand are a big economy on their doorstep with whom a large volume of trade is conducted.
So a simple no strings zero price tariff deal (like Canada and France) is not in the interests of the EU as the UK will undercut them on price by reducing costs ( less workers rights,less environmental protection costs etc etc).
Hence the EU's insistence on level playing field provisions.
This is a big thing for them AND BoJo has actually signed up to this in the political declaration. Whilst this is not legally binding the EU regard his agreement as a matter of honour and good faith to which the UK must be committed.

 

[M18CTID]

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money...ank-N26-closing-UK-accounts-April-Brexit.html

You read the article? Sounds like a bollocks excuse, especially as they didn’t launch in the UK until long after the vote to leave took place so it’s not like they didn’t know it was happening.

 

[Vic]

That's because Canada and Japan are 'distant' economies to the EU who don't represent a threat to them. They have a decent volume of trade with each other but nothing mega.
We on the other hand are a big economy on their doorstep with whom a large volume of trade is conducted.
So a simple no strings zero price tariff deal (like Canada and France) is not in the interests of the EU as the UK will undercut them on price by reducing costs ( less workers rights,less environmental protection costs etc etc).
Hence the EU's insistence on level playing field provisions.
This is a big thing for them AND BoJo has actually signed up to this in the political declaration. Whilst this is not legally binding the EU regard his agreement as a matter of honour and good faith to which the UK must be committed.

A bit naïve if they trusted Johnson, what?

 

[BobKowalski]

Remarkable.

‘Munich Security Conference this weekend is the Davos for diplomats, and defence chiefs. Macron, Pompeo, Zarif, AKK, Esler, Pelosi, Lavrov, Trudeau, Ghani, etc speaking. And representing Global Britain ? Absolutely nobody. UK boycotting the world’ @guardian

 

[BobKowalski]

Meanwhile back in NI...are we sure we left?

‘Lords Ctte session on the NI Brexit protocol. Opens with explanation that 300 pieces of EU legislation will have to continue to apply in NI. The EU is ‘agnostic’ on how this happens: Acts of Parl, regulations or whatever.’

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

 

[BobKowalski]

You read the article? Sounds like a bollocks excuse, especially as they didn’t launch in the UK until long after the vote to leave took place so it’s not like they didn’t know it was happening.

Faisal Islam (BBC) giving some insight as to why.

‘Seems in the press statement to be a reference to the timings in the Withdrawal Agreement - which I take as a reference to the refusal to extend implementation phase, and so requiring the bank to plan on basis of no trade deal/ no passporting and the temporary permissions regime. Anyway this matters not because n26 is big, it’s not, other competitors will hoover up customers.

But shows some of worlds most innovative companies, those that rely on those Europe wide standards, are starting to listen & make final judgements on direction of UK trade/reg policy. Basically N26 deposit protection for all its EU businesses is based on German deposit protection scheme. By end of this year they would have had to operate within UK scheme too. So this is bad for a German exporter expanding its business, but lessens competition in UK too.’

 

[bluethrunthru]

ahh - yet more Brexit lies - its all them foreigners in the EU's fault

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51415240

 

[Vic]

Hansard yesterday.

EU Single Market Access: Manufacturing and the Economy
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Figures released this morning by the Office for National Statistics show that GDP was flat in quarter four, growth is at one of its slowest rates since the financial crisis, the service sector is stagnating, and manufacturing has been particularly hard hit. When will the Chancellor accept the reality that these Tory Brexit plans are playing havoc with the economy, and damaging the wellbeing and prospects of all our constituents?

Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady will know that growth would have been hit by the uncertainty created in this Parliament before the general election. Since the general election, confidence is back because this country has said no to Marxism and has got on with Brexit.

Alison Thewliss
The Chancellor puts forward a ridiculous prospect of the choices facing this country, because Brexit is the real and present danger for the economy. Just-in-time manufacturing is a critical part of the economy. Elizabeth de Jong of the Freight Transport Association has said of the revelation that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s smart border will not be ready until 2025: “Frictionless trade has been kicked to the touchline… It’s going to be really costly for business.” Can the Chancellor tell me what impact four years of Brexit chaos at the border will have on the UK economy and jobs in manufacturing in all our constituencies?

Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady talks about the importance of manufacturing. Since the change in Government in 2010, we have seen 58% growth in auto manufacturing and 22% growth in aerospace manufacturing.

Me: has anyone got any idea where he gets 58% from? And why he didn't mention the slump since the referendum?

 

[mcfc1632]

Do you always take on face value what the person across the negotiating table says to you? If so I can only imagine how many times in your life you must have been right royally ripped off.

"Price for this house is £250,000". Bob = "Oh right then, here's the £250,000"

"The chicken dish comes with chips not mash sir". Bob = "OK can I pay extra for mash then".

etc etc etc.

There has been for 4 years a drooling by the 'usual suspects' over the every utterance of the EU and the desire to exult in its omnipotence

I have just visited the thread for the first time since Saturday...…………..

Page after page of the EU cheerleaders having some manner of collective wank as they cream themselves over the EU and run the UK down

I cannot believe any of them have ever taken part in preparing for serious negotiations

 

[mcfc1632]

I don't agree with your assessment that things have not moved on since 2016. There has been a fundamental and profound change.

Prior to last summer, we had two sides across the negotiating table, with one side - us - completely over a barrel, and the other side, fully cognisant of our desperation to not leave with "no deal", dictating whatever terms it wished. Safe in the knowledge that our only option was to suck it up.

This is no longer the case. The EU no longer have that luxurious negotiating position. The can be very confident that if they wish to serve up a load of shite, we will tell them to stuff it. Something they absolutely do not want. We need not debate whether we want it less, or not. What matters is that the EU do not want no deal. Finally, we have something to negotiate with.

As a result I am very confident some kind of deal will be done. It may only be a partial deal and further transition. But neither party wants no deal, so I would be staggered if no deal was the result come December. And I also expect the deal to be significantly better than what the EU is saying is possible today.

Completely correct

May/Robbins have cost the UK years of lost opportunity to prepare to engage in these negotiations properly - December 12th has reset the conditions in which the UK can approach negotiations

In summary, the UK was never going to see movement from the EU unless and until it faced both the prospect of a walk-away (no-deal) outcome and (as importantly) the political will to use it.

The EU has been 'irritated' by the suggestion that matters have to be largely finalised this year - it would be preparing to drag things out for many years - with extension following extension.

Every day brings further positioning statements by EU leaders as they entrench and prepare to face off - they are making the statements that are appropriate for them to make. Happily, we do not, any longer, have the situation of the sycophants dominating at Westminster and undermining the UK.

 

[mcfc1632]

Our replies are crossing I think.

It is not binary at all. We could agree a partial deal in December and further transition. And the EU are not spelling out what is possible. They are spelling out what they want. Nothing more. ANYTHING is possible. Tomorrow, they could agree to giving us all the same rights and privileges we have today, in perpetuity, outside of the EU. They do not want to do this, so are positioning with a load of made up red lines and we will see how much they flex. If they do not flex at all, then we will leave without a deal, and the world will keep spinning.

This is so obvious - it is why the EU will have been so satisfied to see the UK's negotiating position utterly undermined by the attempts to take 'no-deal' off the table - and so many of their acolytes on here supported that.

What you say is blindingly obvious - unless, as is clearly the case for some on here, your view is obscured by your head being so far up the EU arse that you take their every statement to be gospel/law

 

[mcfc1632]

I have done so before at length. Can't be arsed doing so again as you don't listen.
The only difficulty is the change over. Still the Government have a transition plan for that now, which will start to roll out in June regardless of how negotiations go. That said with the amount of Remainers in the Civil Service, they may fuck that up on purpose.

Imagine what level of preparation could have been done in 4 years - but first Cameron and then May prevented any appropriate preparations

Anyway what is done is done and the clock cannot be turned back.

The UK enters 2020 in a worse state than we were in 2017 thanks to May/Robbins and the WA - it looks like No-Deal will need to become the planning assumption - with possibly the usual EU 11th hour deal being agreed.

But the only thing May ever got right was that No-Deal is better than a bad deal