Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Seth Brundle

Peregrinus wrote: »

My one criticism of the government is that they should have been more upfront about the consequences if the UK refuses to honour it's no-hard-border guarantee by committing to the backstop, or something equally effective.

AFAIK they have copnfirmed that a border in some shape or form would be required.
What more do you want them to say?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Letting people think that we could still avoid a hard border in that scenario played into the Brexiters' hands by giving them a basis for arguing that the backstop wasn't necessary/had a sinister purpose. And it discouraged business and people in Ireland from considering the prospect of a hard border, and how it might affect them, and what plans they might make to mitigate damage in that situation.

The EU & Irish government have repeated the position ad nauseaum that the backstop is necessary. The Brexiters are choosing not to believe this.
As for avoiding a no-deal, this remains an option for the UK. Should the Irish government approach be more pessimistic?

newport2

Russman wrote: »

This seems to be it alright, but I'm finding it really hard to get my head round the idea that they can really be that stupid/ignorant/self absorbed, call it what you will. I mean, every utterance from the Brexit cohort indicates they are, but I'm struggling to believe that they just don't get it - can this actually be the case ? Are they really operating on blind faith that the world will look after them just, well, because ?

Barclays tweet is basically almost saying to the EU "......ok lads, Brexit is one thing, but what do we do now to keep our factories going while we wait for the whole Brexit thing to resolve itself......."
Its staggering tbh, do they still not know what no-deal means ?

I played golf with an English guy last week. He was saying one of the key issues is that a lot of people over there have no interest or don't pay attention to politics. He says it's very different to here, where everyone has an opinion on everything. They seem to genuinely believe that brexit will not affect ordinary people.

Interestingly, he said if the Remain side of the brexit campaign had been run with just one line, that being "You will need a visa for your holidays if we leave", it would have won by a landslide.

Dymo

lawred2 wrote: »

What is it you'd like to know?

Ok small company imports from the UK, Northern Ireland and France how is a no deal going to effect the company.

What to expect in delays.
What are the new tariffs going to be.
Is there going to be Duty now as well as vat added to the cost of goods.
Exports to the UK will everything now need a goods certificate for export
Do they now need an export licence.
Should VAT now be added to UK orders.
How does it effect MOSS taxation.
Should the company stockpile now.
Is this longterm and should be planned for long term
Should the company seek alternative supplies in the EU and avoid the UK

lawred2

newport2 wrote: »

I played golf with an English guy last week. He was saying one of the key issues is that a lot of people over there have no interest or don't pay attention to politics. He says it's very different to here, where everyone has an opinion on everything. They seem to genuinely believe that brexit will not affect ordinary people.

Interestingly, he said if the Remain side of the brexit campaign had been run with just one line, that being "You will need a visa for your holidays if we leave", it would have won by a landslide.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/24/britons-may-need-visa-to-visit-europe-post-brexit-says-dominic-raab

As an aside - Raab is cynicism embodied

lawred2

Dymo wrote: »

Ok small company imports from the UK, Northern Ireland and France how is a no deal going to effect the company.

What to expect in delays.
What are the new tariffs going to be.
Is there going to be Duty now as well as vat added to the cost of goods.
Exports to the UK will everything now need a goods certificate for export
Do they now need an export licence.
Should VAT now be added to UK orders.
How does it effect MOSS taxation.
Should the company stockpile now.
Is this longterm and should be planned for long term
Should the company seek alternative supplies in the EU and avoid the UK

Fair enough but why would you wait for the government to tell you those things? In a no deal scenario the UK becomes a third country and as such the rules governing trade and commerce with third countries come into play.

These rules are in the public domain and if your business is dependent on UK trade it's in your interest to be already well versed in them.

As for stockpiling - well that's not something an Irish government call tell anyone to do really.. That will be on a case by case basis.

As for alternative supply chains? Sure many many companies have been seeking those since the Brexit vote. Figures speak for themselves - Ireland's dependence on UK imports has been reducing year on year.

Peregrinus

Seth Brundle wrote: »

AFAIK they have copnfirmed that a border in some shape or form would be required.
What more do you want them to say?

That Ireland will need to collect tariffs on good crossing the border from NI, for one thing, or coming into Irish ports from GB. That it may be necessary to impose other checks and controls. That trade with the rest of the EU via the GB landbridge is likely to be severely disrupted, and businesses engaged in that trade should be actively seeking out mitigation strategies.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

The EU & Irish government have repeated the position ad nauseaum that the backstop is necessary. The Brexiters are choosing not to believe this.
As for avoiding a no-deal, this remains an option for the UK. Should the Irish government approach be more pessimistic?

The Irish government should be realistic, and accept that no-deal is a very live possiblity, and should talk in some detail about what this will mean in practice if it does happen, so that nobody is suprised, when the time comes, by what it means.

Professor Moriarty

Cummings summarily sacked Javid's media advisor last night. Where did he get this authority? Why didn't Javid make the decision? Not that this could be construed as undemocratic of course.

is_that_so

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Cummings summarily sacked Javid's media advisor last night. Where did he get this authority? Why didn't Javid make the decision? Not that this could be construed as undemocratic of course.

Advisors are (well) paid, not elected.

BarryD2

newport2 wrote: »

I played golf with an English guy last week. He was saying one of the key issues is that a lot of people over there have no interest or don't pay attention to politics.... They seem to genuinely believe that brexit will not affect ordinary people.

Is that not broadly the case here too? Obviously there are people who are concerned but in my circles, I would say most just think it's a topic of ongoing boredom and sure, someone will sort it out and we'll all be grand etc.

LeinsterDub

Enzokk wrote: »

Negotiations will be ramping up, meetings schedules for twice a week with the EU for now.

Time to step up tempo of Brexit talks, says bullish Boris Johnson

I see a couple of problems with this, the EU has been put in a tough position by Johnson by framing no-deal as their choice and fault and that they are refusing to negotiate. This seems to have worked as there will be ongoing meetings with the UK to get the same deal. So that has worked well for the UK.

Firstly there is a case that will have a ruling this morning and we will see what the court finds. Government will fight this all the way to the Supreme Court though even if they lose this case.

Then we have the strategy to frustrate efforts in Parliament,



So they expect to lose the battle in the House of Commons but will then try to block it in the House of Lords. That is where the resignation of the George Young makes it interesting as the battle will be fought there as well.

This then gets me to the second problem, firstly what "new" deal will be offered that Johnson will take to Parliament.



So they are hoping there will be a new deal and this deal will be enough to scare MPs from Labour to vote for it. I feel we have been here before, right?

Then the last problem, if the government will try to frustrate the legislation that will instruct him to request an extension, what hope do they have themselves to negotiate a new deal, sell it to MPs to vote for it and then legislate for it in the time before 31st October? This is fanciful and those MPs deluding themselves that the plan is there and will work in the timeframe needs to wake up.

So we've gone from no negotiations until we remove the backstop to ramping up negotiations. It's not the EU's position that is crumbling.

Zubeneschamali

kowloon wrote: »

If the EU won't reopen negotiations, what exactly happens at these meetings?

The EU has repeatedly stated that the Political Declaration is open to amendment by negotiation. If the UK show up at meetings demanding the WA be opened, the backstop be dropped, etc. the EU representatives will politely say "no".

But on more than one occasion, the UK side has told the UK press that they are discussing things which the EU side later reports were never raised by the UK. It is just theater for the UK press.

BarryD2

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Irish government should be realistic, and accept that no-deal is a very live possiblity, and should talk in some detail about what this will mean in practice if it does happen, so that nobody is suprised, when the time comes, by what it means.

Precisely, our politicians have been very, very reticent to spell this out. That was OK a year and more ago but are the public to wait till the very eve to have the upsides & downsides put before them? Just like the financial crisis, it's all a case of 'nothing to see here, move on' - until the last minute, then 'boom'.

Peregrinus

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Cummings summarily sacked Javid's media advisor last night. Where did he get this authority? Why didn't Javid make the decision? Not that this could be construed as undemocratic of course.

A change introduced by the Johnson government is that Ministers' special advisers are no longer appointed by Ministers but are appointed on the nomination of Ministers by the Cabinet Office. This means they are responsible ultimately not to the Ministers they advise but to the Special Adviser to the Government - Dominic Cummings.

Professor Moriarty

is_that_so wrote: »

Advisors are (well) paid, not elected.

That's not the point though. Why didn't Javid do it? Is Cummings the HR manager for the UK government?

Edit: Peregrinus answered above.

lawred2

Peregrinus wrote: »

A change introduced by the Johnson government is that Ministers' special advisers are no longer appointed by Ministers but are appointed on the nomination of Ministers by the Cabinet Office. This means they are responsible ultimately not to the Ministers they advise but to the Special Adviser to the Government - Dominic Cummings.

that's unreal

ancapailldorcha

Enzokk wrote: »

I see a couple of problems with this, the EU has been put in a tough position by Johnson by framing no-deal as their choice and fault and that they are refusing to negotiate. This seems to have worked as there will be ongoing meetings with the UK to get the same deal. So that has worked well for the UK..

The rest of your post is about the UK. The EU has been preparing for this for a long time now. While they want the UK to stay, they've accepted that the UK leaving without a deal is a real possibility.

The only people in a tough position are the people of this country whether they realise it or not, especially those who want to stay in. Some of us are lucky enough to have EU passports so as long as flights still proceed as normal then we can at least remove ourselves from the eventual calamity of a no deal Brexit unless something happens to impede Johnson.

VinLieger

Be interesting to see if we get a revolt against cummings from ministers and civil servants sounds like he's going a bit power mad to achieve his ends. I know all the cabinet are brexiteer's but they are also politicians who are naturally pretty vain and self obsessed and these ones potentially even more so so having cummings treating them like children may set them off.

prawnsambo

I'm going to reply to this inside the quote. Apologies for that, but I'm not going to multi-quote, too time-consuming.

Dymo wrote: »

Ok small company imports from the UK, Northern Ireland and France how is a no deal going to effect the company.

What to expect in delays.
From France (assuming not using the landbridge) none. If using the landbridge, a few hours, maybe a day at most, depending on sailing schedule.


What are the new tariffs going to be.
From the UK, you'll need to look up the commodity code. Here. From France, none and from NI (imo) none.

Is there going to be Duty now as well as vat added to the cost of goods.
That's what tariffs are.

Exports to the UK will everything now need a goods certificate for export.
Yes. You'll need a lot of paperwork. Most (if not all) of what you're looking for can be found here.

Do they now need an export licence.
See above.

Should VAT now be added to UK orders.
Afaik, no. VAT is an EU tax. Again, the info above should clear that up.


How does it effect MOSS taxation.
See above.

Should the company stockpile now.
Probably. If duties are small, no reason to stop importing from the UK provided that stock requirements are not ordered on a JIT basis. This is a financial decision based on alternative supply chains and costs from the continent (if available). Also worth considering if such alternative supply chains are cash up front or on credit. Continental suppliers are not fond of credit terms for new customers and prefer cash.

Is this longterm and should be planned for long term.
This should be done on a case by case evaluation. Taking into account what I've outlined above.


Should the company seek alternative supplies in the EU and avoid the UK
Again, I think I've covered this above.

BarryD2

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's great the way you respond to facts with feelings. It really bolsters your position. Perhaps you could throw in an odd factoid to, y'know, counter what other posters are saying.

Listen to RTE1 radio now. For coverage on the difficulties facing importers. Importers who stock the shelves in our shops.

VinLieger

BarryD2 wrote: »

Listen to RTE1 radio now. For coverage on the difficulties facing importers. Importers who stock the shelves in our shops.

How about providing verifiable details for those of us unable to turn on the radio?

prawnsambo

BarryD2 wrote: »

Listen to RTE1 radio now. For coverage on the difficulties facing importers. Importers who stock the shelves in our shops.

Miriam O'Callaghan? You've got to be kidding me. Instead, why don't you have a look at my post replying to Dymo.

GM228

GM228 wrote: »

When someone says "they voted to leave", it's often met with the counter "but they didn't vote for no deal" type argument.

The point is it's not really a valid argument because you never get a vote on the terms of any referendum or the means of achieving the result of such a referendum.

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Well that’s cos in any sensible normal referendum everything is thought out and explained to all involved and especially the public before hand.

They did none of this.

Well not really, what the result of a Referendum means is spelt out, how it is achieved and any further related provisions is never so clear as that is a legislative matter, not a peoples vote matter.

When we change our Constitution it allows the Government to change legislation to implement measures accordingly, that is purely a matter for the Government, they can choose what measures to implement and can also choose to limit any scope of those measures so long as it is compatible with the Constitution and all measures introduced are presumed to be constitutional, the people have no say in such matters.

serfboard wrote: »

That's what we have the Referendum Commission for.

The Referendum Commission gives impartial advice on the substance of any change to our Constitution, not the resulting legislation or how those changes will be implemented, they do not and can not give advice on the exact details of how the result of the vote will be implemented afterwards, that is not their function and they have no statutory power to do so. In any case there are differences between the RC here and any advice given to the UK as they do not have a written Constitution to deal with.

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Well, you kinda do, if it's detailed properly to begin with and then discussed appropriately.

The discussion in the UK was full of "easiest deal in history", "we'll get a better deal than Norway", etc.....

Whilst we know there were false promises during the Referendum such as the £350M NHS rubbish and immigration issues I don’t believe (but open to correction) there were any “easiest deal in history” promises made in the campaign or indeed and specific promises around a deal. And even if there was were they official Referendum promises or just political rubbish spouted out for the media?

Podge_irl wrote: »

Except you do, constantly. When we vote in referendums we are voting on specific language that will be inserted/deleted/amended in the constitution. There is no question on implementation. There may be a debate on consequences but that is a different matter.

It is an incredibly valid argument because it was an incredibly poorly run and defined referendum and ultimately the most you could say is that it was giving an indication to parliament as to what to do. And now certain factions are attempting to ignore parliament.

Indeed, and the public indicated to Parliament they wanted to leave, not they wanted to leave but only if we got a deal.

As I stated previously I’m only playing devils advocate, but the over-riding point is that there was no option in the first instance to vote on deal or no deal so when people state “they voted to leave”, but “they didn’t vote to leave without a deal” it is not really an accurate argument to make because there was never a question of them voting on such a point.

Kermit.de.frog

BarryD2 wrote: »

Listen to RTE1 radio now. For coverage on the difficulties facing importers. Importers who stock the shelves in our shops.

So role over for the Brexit cabal is your answer?

If we did that Britain would kick us around forever more even though we are part of the world's largest single market.

Brexit is not our choice and we have to stand up for ourselves or be walked over.

CelticRambler

Dymo wrote: »

To be honest, I am interested in what their plans are myself it is nine weeks away and businesses still don't know how plan as they don't know what the government is planning, what measures they are going to implement.

Any business that trades with the UK has known since 2016 that Brexit in one form or another has been coming towards them. In the last year, they've known that a no-deal Brexit is increasingly likely. If that business has not taken any steps of their own to insulate themselves from the effect of trading with an unpredictable GB, then that's hardly the fault of the Irish government.

In the case of a business that's entirely built on imports from or exports to the UK, well that's no more of a special case than, for example, a VHS video rental store going bust because everyone switches to digital streaming services.

Stop moaning ffs

This is popping up this morning. Can the EU withdraw the deadline?

https://twitter.com/htscotpol/status/1167364663522332672?s=21

GM228

prawnsambo wrote: »

Should VAT now be added to UK orders.
Afaik, no. VAT is an EU tax. Again, the info above should clear that up.

Most EU states had a VAT type system long before the EU.

The UK has had such long before EU membership, it was just called a "Purchase Tax" before being renamed VAT when they joined the EU. It was introduced in 1940 to help the war effort, but remained until being renamed VAT in 1973 to comply with EU requirements, it was also a lot dearer than the EU VAT.


EDIT: I just realised I miss-read the post and the one it was referring to so ignore my history lesson

ath262

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

This is popping up this morning. Can the EU withdraw the deadline?

https://twitter.com/htscotpol/status/1167364663522332672?s=21

dont see how - the UK has to request an extension and then the EU Council(?) considers the request

ancapailldorcha

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

This is popping up this morning. Can the EU withdraw the deadline?

https://twitter.com/htscotpol/status/1167364663522332672?s=21

I doubt it. If they could, it might not be a good idea for them as they're just prolonging this farce. The UK has given notice to leave. It would probably set a bad precedent as well. I think the EU has handled this perfectly by trying to accommodate the UK and just letting them steer themselves towards catastrophe.

VinLieger

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

This is popping up this morning. Can the EU withdraw the deadline?

https://twitter.com/htscotpol/status/1167364663522332672?s=21

I dont see how, there has to be a day when everything stops, that's what october 31st is, in reality the deadline is really a week or two before because any changes made need to be ratified by the council


However this may be another part of the EU the UK does not understand and they all seem to think along the lines of Davis that things can be changed up until the last second.

Stop moaning ffs

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I doubt it. If they could, it might not be a good idea for them as they're just prolonging this farce. The UK has given notice to leave. It would probably set a bad precedent as well. I think the EU has handled this perfectly by trying to accommodate the UK and just letting them steer themselves towards catastrophe.

I hope you’re right.