Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Leroy42

It isn’t really relevant what holidays they have now. The EU minimum is 20, and individual countries can legislate anyway to achieve that.

But they cannot be under it.

So now there is nothing to stop the HoC to amending legislation down to days.

Now, due to competition for talent, it will unlikely be effect the better paid. But as zero hours shows the UK is comfortable with the bending of the rules to suit industry.

But replace holidays with H&S regulation, driver hours, maximum working time, climate regulations etc etc.

Many businesses, particularly those whose main business is UK, including international companies with operations there, will be welcoming reductions in regulation and costs.

And if they are doing business in the EU then savings in labour costs etc will give them an advantage, even if some of that is lost through tariffs.

First Up

Leroy42 wrote:

And if they are doing business in the EU then savings in labour costs etc will give them an advantage, even if some of that is lost through tariffs.

Not tariffs. Delays at ports will do huge damage. Deviation from EU standards will take care of much of the rest.

brickster69

First Up wrote: »

Not tariffs. Delays at ports will do huge damage. Deviation from EU standards will take care of much of the rest.

Deviation from EU standards should not affect anything with EU - UK trade. Uk suppliers to the EU have to abide with EU standards and vice a versa. Same as any other country in the world that trades with the EU.

VinLieger

brickster69 wrote: »

Deviation from EU standards should not affect anything with EU - UK trade. Uk suppliers to the EU have to abide with EU standards and vice a versa. Same as any other country in the world that trades with the EU.

Nope, when you are in the EU anything you create or produce is done so under EU regulations and if you are caught not obeying those regulations you are subject to fines etc....

When outside the EU there's no oversight of production or way to enforce regulations and punish anyone not complying, you can say you are meeting them but there's no way to confirm that without constantly inspecting incoming shipments.

This then creates a massive blocker to trade vs their current situation where items can just pass into other countries without being inspected.

Leroy42

brickster69 wrote: »

Deviation from EU standards should not affect anything with EU - UK trade. Uk suppliers to the EU have to abide with EU standards and vice a versa. Same as any other country in the world that trades with the EU.

Well, a UK company wanting to sell into the EU will have to meet the EU standards. If the UK standards are lower then they face having effectively two versions of the same product. Not undoable, butvan additional cost.

And who bears that cost? Will they charge more in the EU, thus damaging competitiveness? This is exactly why the EU are demanding level playing field

brickster69

brickster69 wrote: »

Deviation from EU standards should not affect anything with EU - UK trade. Uk suppliers to the EU have to abide with EU standards and vice a versa. Same as any other country in the world that trades with the EU.

When you're talking out of your hole, it's advisable to avoid absolute statements like "should not affect anything". A border in the Irish Sea should not affect intra-UK trade either I suppose.

brickster69

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well, a UK company wanting to sell into the EU will have to meet the EU standards. If the UK standards are lower then they face having effectively two versions of the same product. Not undoable, butvan additional cost.

And who bears that cost? Will they charge more in the EU, thus damaging competitiveness? This is exactly why the EU are demanding level playing field

Surely if a company in the EU says to a UK company i wish to purchase 10,000 of a certain product made to EU standards. The UK company gives a price and produces that product to spec and delivers it.

If a non Eu company requests an order for the same product but it's standards are lower than the Eu's, hence cheaper to make and sell for. Why should the UK company be forced to make something to a higher standard and cost than what is requested by the customer?

reslfj

VinLieger wrote: »

When outside the EU there's no oversight of production or way to enforce regulations and punish anyone not complying, you can say you are meeting them but there's no way to confirm that without constantly inspecting incoming shipments.

Actually the EU even has inspectors in the US and South America among other things to ensure hormones and/or GMO foods are not used on farms raising cattle destined for the EU.

VinLieger wrote: »

This then creates a massive blocker to trade vs their current situation where items can just pass into other countries without being inspected.

This is just one of the Non Tariff Barriers - NTBs - that the UK Brexit will force upon its own exporters. Except for cars, farm and fish NTBs are a much larger problem for exporters than the fairly low tariffs.
Others are paperwork, delays, extra work for the EU27 customer, documenting the product as produced in UK, and much, much more.

On a large and well supplied market as the 450 million SM with many suppliers the prices are fixed by the market and UK products can't get a higher price.
The costs of NTBs will just have to be paid by the UK exporter.

For an EU product there will be much fewer NTBs or rather they will be much easier solved.

Little UK will simply have to accept EU product standards as is, mostly UK consumers will effectively end up paying both the tariffs and the cost of NTBs.
All UK import will face the same cost. Very far from all products can be produced in the UK - from too little food to most parts put into a UK assembled car. So prices in the UK can be raised.
EU exporters will to some degree see reduced sale due to tariffs and NTBs, but it will not impact prices much.

Lars

Leroy42

brickster69 wrote: »

Surely if a company in the EU says to a UK company i wish to purchase 10,000 of a certain product made to EU standards. The UK company gives a price and produces that product to spec and delivers it.

If a non Eu company requests an order for the same product but it's standards are lower than the Eu's, hence cheaper to make and sell for. Why should the UK company be forced to make something to a higher standard and cost than what is requested by the customer?

Exactly. They won't be forced but if they want to sell into the EU they need to meet the standards. Hence the name, standard.

The problem arises due to the domestic market. If the UK standards are lower then to compete the company will reduce its standards to the new lower requirements.

To sell into the EU they need to run a separate product, designed and tested based on different standards. That involves additional cost. Who is going to pay that cost?

Fine for larger companies but how is an SME going to cover the costs? Say I make widgets. Main market is the UK (I'm UK based) and so to match other domestic competitors I need to lower my standards. But part of my business is selling widgets to Ireland. I now need to get approval and produce a different product. That is extra cost. Irish customers cannot buy off me until I get formal approval.

First Up

Some posters here (and almost all Brexiteers) seem to have a low understanding of how international business is done these days. The genius of the EU is how it has helped 28 independent, sovereign countries replicate most of the advantages of a single large country (such as the US or China) by enabling seamless contact between commercial companies across the whole union.

Since the Single Market was established, complex but highly efficient supply chains have developed that allow specialist companies across the EU interact. The keys to this are (a) complete trust in what they are trading and (b) high speed, just in time delivery of what they all do to maximise efficiencies and minimise cost.

Goods move freely between producers and intermediaries so that components can be incorporated into finished goods, bulk items can be shipped, packed, stored and distributed to end users and all to the highest standards and lowest cost. There are many other benefits of membership of the Single Market; collaboration in research and much greater clout in trade negotiations with other countries being just two.

The UK has benefitted hugely from being part of these supply chains. UK companies have been able to build arrangements with German, Dutch, Italian, Spanish etc, as suppliers of materials and as routes to market. All of that is now in danger. No EU company will risk its supply/value chain to what might happen at ports, or UK products that can't be relied on to meet the standards of the dozens if not hundreds of other components or processes that build the final product.

These are the day to day realities of international business but they seem to be over the head of the Brexiteers. They don't understand what is at stake, and especially how companies all across the EU are just waiting to step in and replace UK companies.

The sad part is the Brexiteers won't even notice when or why it has happened.

Capt'n Midnight

brickster69 wrote: »

Nody, the EU have not won the case against Boeing. The US has against Airbus and been awarded what it can gain compensation for.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/13/ustr-weighing-100percent-tariffs-on-new-eu-products-including-whiskies.html

Boeing get Billions in subsidies from the military. https://www.boeing.com/defense/

They also get a HUGE chunk of NASA's budget. $20Bn and counting for SLS. Not bad when you consider Elon can deliver the same capability to Low Earth Orbit for $0.15Bn with a Falcon Heavy AND that Being are ONLY using off the shelf flight proven hardwarelike the space shuttle's engines and booster rockets and the European Space Agency's ATV and the engines from Centaur that have been flying since the 1960's. Money for old rope. The only new stuff is the shape of the propellent tanks and that's not rocket science :mad:

Boeing is pissed because they screwed up the new 737 that only has flight approval because it's grandfathered in. And it's an issue that could have been solved by training pilots about the changes to the engines instead trying to get software to fake it :mad:


The EU can still shaft Boeing by not certifying the new software until it actually works like it was supposed to.

amacca

First Up wrote: »

The sad part is the Brexiteers won't even notice when or why it has happened.

And if they do notice they won't admit that is the case either.

Capt'n Midnight

Shelga wrote: »

Is the UK paying the full £39 billion under this withdrawal agreement?

They have already paid a good chuck of it off. And will continue to do so until while the WA is in progress. So about half it will be paid regardless.

As I pointed out earlier the UK has recently upped it's payment* to the European Space Agency because they want to get space contracts.

* £350 million. Yes the number on the bus; because Brexit is an onmishambles

GM228

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Boeing get Billions in subsidies from the military. https://www.boeing.com/defense/

They also get a HUGE chunk of NASA's budget. $20Bn and counting for SLS. Not bad when you consider Elon can deliver the same capability to Low Earth Orbit for $0.15Bn with a Falcon Heavy AND that Being are ONLY using off the shelf flight proven hardwarelike the space shuttle's engines and booster rockets and the European Space Agency's ATV and the engines from Centaur that have been flying since the 1960's. Money for old rope. The only new stuff is the shape of the propellent tanks and that's not rocket science :mad:

Boeing is pissed because they screwed up the new 737 that only has flight approval because it's grandfathered in. And it's an issue that could have been solved by training pilots about the changes to the engines instead trying to get software to fake it :mad:


The EU can still shaft Boeing by not certifying the new software until it actually works like it was supposed to.

Boeing's problems have grown considerably in recent months beyond just the MAX8 issues, there are multiple issues which have since come to light and are costing Boeing billions.

The new Starliner is not off the shelf and the first launch programme yesterday failed miserably, it had what is called a MET failure and never reached the International Space Station, and guess what is being blamed, software!

It's not a case of the EU potentially shafting Boeing, none of the regulators are going to certify them until they are 100% working properly and rightly so, and also it was not a case of just training the pilots, the MCAS type software IS required as otherwise the aircraft would not conform to FAA Airworthiness Standards due to the changes (repositioning of the engines and wings) that they made to the airframe which results in abnormal nose-up pitching, without the software the planes would never fly.

Rain Ascending

brickster69 wrote: »

Surely if a company in the EU says to a UK company i wish to purchase 10,000 of a certain product made to EU standards. The UK company gives a price and produces that product to spec and delivers it.

You've touched on just one third of the problem posed by standards, namely the specification. You then need to address the next two as well:

• Certification - i.e. who determines that your specification meets the the standard? Post-Brexit, with no new arrangements in place, UK certifying bodies no longer can certify UK products -- instead UK manufacturers will have to apply to the equivalent bodies in the EU-27, often via third-party agents. Not impossible, but it implies additional costs that smaller companies can ill-afford.
• Enforcement and liability - i.e. how are the goods checked that they met the standards-conforming specification and who is liable if they are not? Again, enforcement varies from sector to sector, sometimes leading to onerous border inspections (e.g. for food/agricultural products). For liability, the onus moves from the UK exporter to the EU-27 importer - that's the kind of thing that make corporate lawyer types very, very twitchy.

If a non Eu company requests an order for the same product but it's standards are lower than the Eu's, hence cheaper to make and sell for. Why should the UK company be forced to make something to a higher standard and cost than what is requested by the customer?

I'm open to correction here, but I don't believe there is anything stopping an EU-based company producing a product within the EU to a specification that is lower than EU standard and then selling it outside the EU. What that company is prevented from doing is selling or using that product within the EU. So no change there for a UK company post-Brexit.

Where there could be a competitive advantage post-Brexit, is if the UK drops/changes its own standards - a company supplying the domestic market only, could then change its own specification to suit, undercutting EU competition. Whether or not the UK consumer would benefit is highly debatable - their choice of vendors is likely to be reduced.

Besides, any exporting company faced with two standards, say a higher EU one and a lower UK one, is likely to manufacture to the higher spec - maintaining two product variants is very costly in many manufacturing sectors.

Bottom-line: it is much, much harder to escape the orbit of EU standards than many Brexiteers imply, without incurring many hidden costs and barriers to trade.

Panrich

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well, a UK company wanting to sell into the EU will have to meet the EU standards. If the UK standards are lower then they face having effectively two versions of the same product. Not undoable, butvan additional cost.

And who bears that cost? Will they charge more in the EU, thus damaging competitiveness? This is exactly why the EU are demanding level playing field

And to get two versions that comply to different standards could require different production processes and skills to achieve the end product. If my EU standard widget cannot use certain components or processes that make my UK standard widget cheaper to produce, then there would be a possibility that two distinct and discrete production lines would be required. This may extend to even the premises and trained staff being independent of each other.

This would inevitably lead to companies in many market segments making a choice to target either EU or other markets exclusively. As the UK moves further from EU standards, this will reduce the competitiveness of those that choose to concentrate on the EU market.

Capt'n Midnight

brickster69 wrote: »

You are forgetting something. The UK has set it's minimum rate for tariffs on cars at 10%. No reason at all for it not to raise them to 25% for all countries to export to the UK.

Probably would be the best way to protect the car industry in the UK to be honest, considering the left hand drive element.

If America did the same then what ?

Japan is left hand drive.

EU regulations mean manufacturers and resellers must offer Left Hand Drive.

The Government has reduced the rate applied to HGVs in its Temporary Tariff Regime document from 25% to 16% - not the 10% that was originally planned.

So yeah, UK truckers will have to earn lots more to import vehicles.

Ford Transits are made in Turkey these days, which is in the EU customs union.

So its f*ck business all round.


Oh and 80% of cars made in the UK are exported.
- tit for tat ?
- they are so generic that even the UK don't buy them


https://www.smmt.co.uk/industry-topics/brexit/key-exports-data/

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

Some industry are, but far from all. With reduction of regulation, workers rights etc, many would be welcoming this.

Just think if Johnson removes the minimum holiday of 20 to be only 15. That's a massive saving in labour costs. Or H&S regulations, or environmental regulation. These are all significant extra costs to companies which outside the EU UK are free to discard.

Keep in mind UK as third party country are competing with China, Thailand etc. on working conditions and manufacturing; in fact they are ahead because they are likely to have a better trade deal than UK due to Boris. So all our Brexiteers who wants a brave new manufacturing world feel free to explain how the general UK population are going to be convinced to drop their living standards to compete with a Thai worker, or a Chinese farmer who emigrated to the city to work in one of the factories etc.. Because that's what third country means, ANY other non EU country in the world is now on same terms as UK in terms of exporting to EU; in most cases better terms due to existing FTAs so that's the competition.

fly_agaric

GM228 wrote: »

none of the regulators are going to certify them until they are 100% working properly and rightly so.

The US one maybe (??), sounds like their regulator is somewhat feeling the heat (from Boeing) for costing them money anyway if news stories are anything to go by.

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/12/787646809/faa-chief-pushes-back-on-boeing-pressure-to-return-737-max-jets-to-service?t=1576967125185

Apologies for the nothing to do with Brexit post...

GM228

fly_agaric wrote: »

The US one maybe (??), sounds like their regulator is somewhat feeling the heat (from Boeing) for costing them money anyway if news stories are anything to go by.

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/12/787646809/faa-chief-pushes-back-on-boeing-pressure-to-return-737-max-jets-to-service?t=1576967125185

Apologies for the nothing to do with Brexit post...

The FAA did not bow to Boeing and since then Boeing has announced it is stopping MAX8 production from January citing the FAAs position as the reason.

Anyway, back to Brexit...

Capt'n Midnight

No ones mentioned the UK defence sell off ?


UK approves £4bn US takeover of defence company Cobham

Just before 10pm on a Friday is an odd time for this kind of thing to be announced.

One defence analyst remarked that it was as if the government rather wanted no-one to notice what had happened.

Yeah. It's one of th oldest tricks in the book. Too late for Friday news at 10. Too late for most Saturday papers. Also too late for Sunday papers as they are done up early. And by Monday it's old news. :mad:


Boris Johnson has defended the controversial £4bn takeover of UK defence and aerospace company Cobham by a US private equity firm.

Former First Sea Lord Admiral Lord West said Cobham holds defence technologies which are "critically important".

For context only yesterday Ben Wallace: Armed forces 'must cut cloth to match ambition

NHS is next.

CelticRambler

First Up wrote: »

The genius of the EU is how it has helped 28 independent, sovereign countries replicate most of the advantages of a single large country (such as the US or China) by enabling seamless contact between commercial companies across the whole union.

In many respects, the EU is more integrated than the US, which retains many state-level controls and non-recognition of other states' regulations.

Anyone know if the British have increased their production/stock of EU-approved pallets?

GM228

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

No ones mentioned the UK defence sell off ?


UK approves £4bn US takeover of defence company CobhamYeah. It's one of th oldest tricks in the book. Too late for Friday news at 10. Too late for most Saturday papers. Also too late for Sunday papers as they are done up early. And by Monday it's old news. :mad:


Boris Johnson has defended the controversial £4bn takeover of UK defence and aerospace company Cobham by a US private equity firm.

For context only yesterday Ben Wallace: Armed forces 'must cut cloth to match ambition

NHS is next.

To be fair that's a private company which has been sold, not a public company or a "UK defence sell off", they just hold UK defence contracts.

Enzokk

stefanovich wrote: »

The bureaucrats in Brussels may need to skip their 3 hour lunches and do some work.

This thread is pure delusion. Boris was never going to get a majority. Now he is never going to get a trade deal.

He can get a trade deal, but what deal will be attainable is under debate. My assertion on him hitting a wall stands, but I am happy to concede much like Johnson spinning his deal as new when it was just May's deal with DUP thrown under the bus, it is possible he is able to sell BRINO as his promise to the public as well.

But maybe you can answer me this, how do you negotiate a deal within 6 months that has no quotas, tariffs or dumping and eliminates the need for documentation for goods moving from NI and the UK, but you also take back control of your trade deals and move away from institutions like the ECJ? Please be specific if you can as most trade people seem to think it is fantasy that this is possible at all.

Capt'n Midnight

GM228 wrote: »

The FAA did not bow to Boeing and since then Boeing has announced it is stopping MAX8 production from January citing the FAAs position as the reason.

Anyway, back to Brexit...

The Brexiteer mantra is that benefits from the rest of the world will replace the losses from the EU.

In this case the main operator of the 737 in the UK is the EU airline Ryanair.
Then again BA and Aerlingus are also EU airlines because Iberia.
As is Easyjet who recently registered to Austria or somewhere.
Monarch went bust so the largest remaining UK airline is ?


It's like they haven't thought this through.

GM228

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The Brexiteer mantra is that benefits from the rest of the world will replace the losses from the EU.

In this case the main operator of the 737 in the UK is the EU airline Ryanair.
Then again BA and Aerlingus are also EU airlines because Iberia.
As is Easyjet who recently registered to Austria or somewhere.
Monarch went bust so the largest remaining UK airline is ?


It's like they haven't thought this through.

easyJet, Jet2, FlyBe and Virgin Atlantic are the largest (and only) UK airlines in that order, easyJet is still a UK airline, but set up a subsidiary easyJet Europe in 2017 based in Austria at the time of Brexit uncertainty to ensure it had an EU licence.

Imreoir2

Enzokk wrote: »

He can get a trade deal, but what deal will be attainable is under debate. My assertion on him hitting a wall stands, but I am happy to concede much like Johnson spinning his deal as new when it was just May's deal with DUP thrown under the bus, it is possible he is able to sell BRINO as his promise to the public as well.

But maybe you can answer me this, how do you negotiate a deal within 6 months that has no quotas, tariffs or dumping and eliminates the need for documentation for goods moving from NI and the UK, but you also take back control of your trade deals and move away from institutions like the ECJ? Please be specific if you can as most trade people seem to think it is fantasy that this is possible at all.

I must say, I am really looking forward to reading the detailed and insightful post you are sure to get in responce your question. :pac:

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The Brexiteer mantra is that benefits from the rest of the world will replace the losses from the EU.

The mantra now seems to be that there won't be any losses. We've just had brickster, a poster engaged with this topic for a long time, say that countries with different standards can trade with each other just like countries inside the EU; that nothing should change even if the UK and EU diverge; that there will be no customs checks or delays.

Changing your entire understanding of the world seems preferable to admitting there will be losses from leaving the EU. There are only benefits to leaving.

Enzokk

Seems it is not just us on here that has the view that Brexit isn't that great,

https://twitter.com/MikeStuchbery_/status/1208489944232136704?s=20

Laura Kuenssberg seems to have let her mask slip as well,

https://twitter.com/Macerty/status/1208460355824959489?s=20

If that her is personal view, that the result had to be respected no matter what the consequences it explains her coverage of the election and the clear bias she has personally shown.

J Mysterio

RE Kuennsburg

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1208644882342043649

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1208649020798914562