Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

10000maniacs

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/uknews/boris-johnson-moves-to-calm-biden-s-brexit-fears-over-northern-ireland/ar-BB1aOb6v?ocid=msedgdhp

Johnson is still coming out with the same rhetoric on his illegal amendments to the Internal Market bill claiming their only aim is to "protect and uphold the Good Friday Agreement".
Biden ain't going to buy that lie.

CelticRambler

rugbyman wrote: »

To whom does he pay this money, and who benefits from it.
Perhaps the withdraal Agreement will sort this .,/has sorted this

The other scenario I have read of is a truckload of beef, or cheese going to the UK, England , a large amount of money will have to be paid by the exporter.

So, to whom will it be paid? since its bad news ,I assume the exporter pays it, Who gets the money?

Unless I'm missing some nuance in your question, you're referring to import tariffs, and it's (nominally*) the importer who pays - exactly the same as when you buy something from the States or China and it gets held at customs waiting for you to cough up. In the case of livestock (or deadstock) these imports will be passing through a phyto-sanitary checkpoint upon entry into the other trading bloc (or not, if the British one hasn't got the staff) and I would imagine there'll also be a customs agent hanging around making sure that the paperwork includes a receipt for tariffs paid.

* nominally the importer, because for price-sensitive products, the exporter will have to drop their price to compete with other suppliers.

rugbyman

reply to both 1000 maniacs, and celtic rambler

as I typed the question about the lamb, i did comment that the WA agreement may have made that situation irrelevant, N.I remains sort of in the EU
Can i go back to the lorry load od beef getting on the ferry to Holyhead. load of good boxed beef worth 200,000 euro
Since we are told no deal will be bad for us (Ireland) this implies that the nominal importer ,say Tesco UK pays a lot of money, the Irish exporter having dropped his price considerably(to the amount of the tafiff)
To whom does Tesco pay the money, they have got the beef ,pre tariff at a cheaper price, if, as seems likely its to HM GOV, do they gain?

Whether the exporter can afford to export at a lower price is another matter

Nody

rugbyman wrote: »

reply to both 1000 maniacs, and celtic rambler

as I typed the question about the lamb, i did comment that the WA agreement may have made that situation irrelevant, N.I remains sort of in the EU
Can i go back to the lorry load od beef getting on the ferry to Holyhead. load of good boxed beef worth 200,000 euro
Since we are told no deal will be bad for us (Ireland) this implies that the nominal importer ,say Tesco UK pays a lot of money, the Irish exporter having dropped his price considerably(to the amount of the tafiff)
To whom does Tesco pay the money, they have got the beef ,pre tariff at a cheaper price, if, as seems likely its to HM GOV, do they gain?

Whether the exporter can afford to export at a lower price is another matter

The local country takes the tariff payment into their budget. The problem is however that if you have let's say a 10% tariff and no way to lower the cost that price will be passed on by the company (.e.g. Tesco) to the consumers and it becomes an additional tax (because it's not only 10% straight up but then you add VAT etc. on top of that as well meaning the tariff cost + tariff handling by Tesco + VAT etc. is the actual price paid at the till). This is why when Trump was claiming trade wars is great it's a false economy because the consumer are the once paying it and they are paying significantly more than the outright tariffs because no country I'm aware off has turned around and said "We'll lower taxes for everyone but these additional tariffs we're pulling in".

rugbyman

Thank you Nody

What if HM GOV then say to Tesco, listen this country needs meat, we are now free to take if from all over the world, unlike before, but we need a certain amount from Ireland, We (HMGOV) dont need the levy money, we didnt have it before, so call it zero tariff. Can the WTO 'punish' HMGOV

Nody

rugbyman wrote: »

Thank you Nody

What if HM GOV then say to Tesco, listen this country needs meat, we are now free to take if from all over the world, unlike before, but we need a certain amount from Ireland, We (HMGOV) dont need the levy money, we didnt have it before, so call it zero tariff. Can the WTO 'punish' HMGOV

Yup; this then falls under the "Most Favored Nation" clause in WTO and how it's implemented basically. The MFN basically says "All WTO countries have the right to export to your country at the lowest tariff any of the WTO countries has outside FTA". What this means in practice if UK says "US imports for beef will be zero tariff but Brazil beef will be 10% 'cause we want to" they can be taken to WTO court. The court in turn can issue a ruling that Brazil lost 100 million USD due to this unfair treatment and has the right to implement countertariffs for 100 million USD accordingly as compensation. If UK on the other hand sign a FTA stating "US Beef up to a gazillion tons a year is tariff free; anything beyond that pays normal tariffs" then Brazil has no leg to stand on. This is why FTAs are important because they let you agree deals outside what you need to offer to all other countries and why FTAs are usually tailored and haggled over in the details on qoutas etc. Also worth noting that WTO is on a country to country basis; UK could in theory tell Tesco "You get to import 100 ton of US beef tariff free, Saintsbury you get 50 tons US beef free" but what ever the UK state gives out has to be with in it's country qouta as per the FTA agreed.

CelticRambler

rugbyman wrote: »

Can i go back to the lorry load od beef getting on the ferry to Holyhead. load of good boxed beef worth 200,000 euro
Since we are told no deal will be bad for us (Ireland) this implies that the nominal importer ,say Tesco UK pays a lot of money, the Irish exporter having dropped his price considerably(to the amount of the tafiff)
To whom does Tesco pay the money, they have got the beef ,pre tariff at a cheaper price, if, as seems likely its to HM GOV, do they gain?

rugbyman wrote: »

What if HM GOV then say to Tesco, listen this country needs meat, we are now free to take if from all over the world, unlike before, but we need a certain amount from Ireland, We (HMGOV) dont need the levy money, we didnt have it before, so call it zero tariff. Can the WTO 'punish' HMGOV

You're mixing several different scenarios there. Nody has already answered the WTO side of things, but the story begins much earlier in the process: first, the government will look at the country's current beef consumption, and then announce to the food industry as a whole (supermarkets and food processors) something along the lines of "as from 15th March, there will be no tariffs on beef imports from countries on our approved suppliers list." Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the EU countries don't make the list.

At that stage, it's up to the individual importers to decide where they want to get their beef from. What we'd expecting is that Tesco would continue to import Irish beef, package and promote it as the premium product it is, and pay the tariffs as and when each lorry load of cattle comes into the country. At the same time, though, they'll tell their Tesco's Finest lasagne-maker to knock a few pence off the price of the meal, so that producer will go looking for cheaper meat, and will probably decided that a tariff-free container full of industrial-grade American beef is good enough and at the right price.

But all of that is giving rather too much credit to the government. As we have seen with the Japanese deal, the current administration doesn't really care (and probably doesn't even know) about the value of or demand for individual products. Members of the food industry with friends in high places will lobby their pet politicians to organise tariffs - and trade deals - in such a way as to favour their other friends in the supply chain.

At the end of the day, wholesale customers in the UK will have HMC&R's IBAN in their "frequently use" list of payees, and will have someone sending tariff payments as soon as they're notified of the arrival of the consignment at Holyhead, Dover or wherever.

reslfj

rugbyman wrote: »

Question, only slightly off topic.

i am fairly well read on these matters and worked all my life in cross channel transport.

Only two specific items re tariffs under WTO rules have i read about.

One is a lamb from N.I. going south for Slaughter will incur a 'Levy' i.e a payment needing to be made of 40 pounds. So, assuming that the N.I.farmer has to pay the money, therefore he gets 40 pounds less than the value of the lamb.
If this is correct ,N.I. loses
To whom does he pay this money, and who benefits from it.
Perhaps the withdrawal Agreement will sort this .,/has sorted this

AFAIK, under WA, no deal and WTO rules:

NI produced goods can be sold - commercially - into the RoI and indeed into all of EU's SM without any levy and using EU VAT rules as per the WA NI protocol.

There should not be any new payments for such NI products. But there will be (expensive) paperwork.

rugbyman wrote: »

The other scenario I have read of is a truckload of beef, or cheese going to the UK, England , a large amount of money will have to be paid by the exporter.

So, to whom will it be paid? since its bad news ,I assume the exporter pays it, Who gets the money?

This has me puzzled, if the answer is very simple i will get my coat....

If the beef has been produced entirely within NI, the UK gov can (and likely will) allow tariff free sale (import) to the island of GB. Note beef will normally be traceable by chip or markings back to the (NI) farm or even to the individual animal.

If the beef is from the RoI or indeed from any EU26 member state the UK's WTO MFN tariff for - in this case - beef will have to be paid to the UK government (HMRC). Again new paperwork needed. Tariffs for meat are mostly very high too.

Products from the island of GB destined for any EU27 state should pay the EU WTO MFN tariff (and likely import VAT) upon/before arrival in Dover, Dublin or Belfast.
That is unless the product has NI as final destination and is unlikely to end up in any EU27 state the tariff will have to be paid. In Belfast payments is to the UK government (HMRC) on behalf of the EU and the money will eventually end up in Brussels.

You should always make distinction between who transfers the money to the relevant governments and who ends up actually paying the bill.

The more or less free competition on the market will allow or prevent a rise in prices and this determines how large a share the seller and the byer will each pay of the total extra trade-costs.

Lars

CrabRevolution

Dominic Raab seems to have a set pattern of responding to criticism or opposition by claiming that they simply don't understand what they're talking about. Often accompanied by a claim that he's spoken to "senior people" on the other side (never ever named of course) and that he has personally explained the situation and convinced them to drop their opposition.

MBSnr

Not sure this was mentioned earlier in this thread (article is 3 days old) but all checks on trucks from ROI to Wales via Holyhead port will be carried out in England until a new Anglesey facility is built. Would make deliveries to Wales much more disruptive and expensive.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/holyhead-ports-post-brexit-customs-checks-will-be-done-in-england-until-new-island-facility-built/ar-BB1aJ9ft

Geuze

rugbyman wrote: »

Question, only slightly off topic.

i am fairly well read on these matters and worked all my life in cross channel transport.

Only two specific items re tariffs under WTO rules have i read about.

One is a lamb from N.I. going south for Slaughter will incur a 'Levy' i.e a payment needing to be made of 40 pounds. So, assuming that the N.I.farmer has to pay the money,therefore he gets 40 pounds less than the value of the lamb.
If this is correct ,N.I. loses

To whom does he pay this money, and who benefits from it.
Perhaps the withdraal Agreement will sort this .,/has sorted this

The other scenario I have read of is a truckload of beef, or cheese going to the UK, England , a large amount of money will have to be paid by the exporter.

So, to whom will it be paid? since its bad news ,I assume the exporter pays it, Who gets the money?

This has me puzzled, if the answer is very simple i will get my coat....

Note that Lars above has probably a better answer.

amacca

reslfj wrote: »

Products from the island of GB destined for any EU27 state should pay the EU WTO MFN tariff (and likely import VAT) upon/before arrival in Dover, Dublin or Belfast.
That is unless the product has NI as final destination and is unlikely to end up in any EU27 state

I wonder how likely it is that a large volume of goods that were unlikely to end up in the EU27 will actually end up there tariff free?

McGiver

CrabRevolution wrote:

Dominic Raab seems to have a set pattern of responding to criticism or opposition by claiming that they simply don't understand what they're talking about. Often accompanied by a claim that he's spoken to "senior people" on the other side (never ever named of course) and that he has personally explained the situation and convinced them to drop their opposition.

And he's lying as well. Goebels propaganda.

Mr Raab said: "We've been very clear we are absolutely committed to respect the Good Friday Agreement but our argument is, and it was good to have the opportunity when I was in Washington to explain, it is the EU who has put pressure on that with the approach it has taken.

"We want to resolve all those issues with the EU - obviously the negotiations are ongoing, there is a good chance of a deal if we get the flexibility from the EU on fisheries and level-playing field.

"I'm confident we will navigate all of those issues sensitively, correctly, and, as I said, we listen very carefully to our American friends, particularly on the Hill and in the Irish lobby - they feel very invested in the Good Friday Agreement, we understand that, and I pay tribute to what George Mitchell and Bill Clinton did - but it is not the UK which is putting it at risk, it is the approach of the EU."

Peregrinus

amacca wrote: »

I wonder how likely it is that a large volume of goods that were unlikely to end up in the EU27 will actually end up there tariff free?

Not very. NI has limited port capacity and the total volume of goods that could be imported into NI is tiny, compared to the size of the EU market.

Plus, under the NI Protocol the default arrangement is that all goods imported into NI are assumed to be at risk of entering the EU market, and must pay the EU tariff. It's up to the Joint Committee to establish rules and processes for identifying goods that aren't at risk, and so don't have to pay the tariff, and those rules and processes can be tweaked if they turn out to have gaps.

I'm really uncertain as to how can Raab even comment as to whether or not the UK Gov's position respects the GFA.

Sam Russell

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm really uncertain as to how can Raab even comment as to whether or not the UK Gov's position respects the GFA.

He admitted to the HoC committee, while Brexit Secretary and the GFA was central to the Brexit process, that he had not read the GFA (all 34 pages of it).

He is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Leroy42

I just don't understand why the journalist dance around the main point.

Johnson agreed the WA, cabinet approved it being put forward to the HoC, the Tory party voted for it. What has changed that now the likes of Raab, and the rest of the cabinet, now see it as such a threat to the union?

Did they knowingly, or unknowingly, put forward legislation that turns out is a threat to the union?

It is a pretty serious case to answer, whichever path they choose to go down on why it is now a problem. They either knowingly put the union at risk or were so poor at their job that they allowed such an agreement to pass.

But instead, we get vague answers about how it needs to be corrected, it is for the sake of the union etc and the discussion gets lost.

ErnieG

Leroy42 wrote: »

Johnson agreed the WA, cabinet approved it being put forward to the HoC, the Tory party voted for it. What has changed that now the likes of Raam, and the rest of the cabinet, now see it as such a threat to the union?

Did they knowingly, or unknowingly, put forward legislation that turns out is a threat to the union?

Their spin is that they acted rationally at all times, but couldn't possibly have anticipated the skullduggery of the EU.

From 12th Sep:
https://www.thejournal.ie/brussels-boris-johnson-5202805-Sep2020/

extract:

Writing in the Telegraph, Johnson said: “We are now hearing that unless we agree to the EU’s terms, the EU will use an extreme interpretation of the Northern Ireland protocol to impose a full-scale trade border down the Irish sea.

“We are being told that the EU will not only impose tariffs on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, but that they might actually stop the transport of food products from GB to NI.

I have to say that we never seriously believed that the EU would be willing to use a Treaty, negotiated in good faith, to blockade one part of the UK, to cut it off; or that they would actually threaten to destroy the economic and territorial integrity of the UK.
He said “in the last few weeks” he learned his negotiators had discovered there “may be a serious misunderstanding about the terms” of the Withdrawal Agreement he signed in October.

BluePlanet

The Brexiteers must be nervous as they are ramping up their spin machine.
Who is the target audience?
Certainly not the EU and i doubt the incoming Biden administration either.
I think it's for their domestic audience. Trying to save their own political careers as the iceberg nears.

trellheim

uk govt going OH FK ( he's in the HoL)

https://twitter.com/KilclooneyJohn/status/1325766477841043461

What happens if Biden moves on and the Indian becomes President. Who then becomes Vice President?

According to twitter this is already being talked about in the dems


stand by for tweet deletion in 10,9,8

The Raging Bile Duct

No insults please.

The Raging Bile Duct

The guy has form in this area:

10000maniacs

trellheim wrote: »

uk govt going OH FK ( he's in the HoL)







According to twitter this is already being talked about in the dems


stand by for tweet deletion in 10,9,8

I can just imagine the anger and depression in the Taylor household when the Pennsylvania postal ballots were coming in. :pac:

54and56

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

The guy has form in this area:

I honestly can't imagine living such a bitter, small minded and ignorant life.

Can the HoL even censure him?

Mr.Wemmick

BluePlanet wrote: »

The Brexiteers must be nervous as they are ramping up their spin machine.
Who is the target audience?
Certainly not the EU and i doubt the incoming Biden administration either.
I think it's for their domestic audience. Trying to save their own political careers as the iceberg nears.

Absolutely. They are playing the hard men of politics who do not need the US or the EU. All empty words thrown about to look good at home. Not working though as we in the UK think they're a crowd of numpties. A joke!

I fully expect behind the scenes there's a cap-in-hand situation happening with Biden and the EU. If not now, then very soon.. and when Johnson does another U turn, he'll try to hide it.

eire4

54and56 wrote: »

I honestly can't imagine living such a bitter, small minded and ignorant life.

Can the HoL even censure him?

If they cannot that is a disgrace as obviously that kind of racist language is totally wrong and unacceptable.

Going Strong

Lads, we're fecked now.


John Redwood has told Joe Biden to get back in his box.


https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news/westminster-news/conservative-mp-john-rewood-warns-joe-biden-6215718


A Brexiteer MP has penned what pro-Brexit newspapers have described as a 'warning letter' to president-elect Joe Biden over Brexit.

John Redwood said he accepted that Biden now has a "clear mandate" in America, but he also claimed there was a "larger percentage mandate" for the EU referendum result, despite both equating to around 52% of the overall vote.

The Brexiteer also told the new leader of the country that the election result also demonstrated that Donald Trump had "considerable support for his Republican vision" with 70 million votes.

He wrote: "The UK’s EU referendum gave us a larger percentage mandate for exit than your own convincing win, so you will understand the importance to us of becoming a truly independent country again on 1 January next year."

He urged the president-elect to work with the British government to achieve its goals on both sides of the Atlantic, denying there was a Tory plot to undermine the Good Friday Agreement (GFA).

trellheim

Lord Kilclooney has deleted the tweet. Obviously had a phone call from on high.


In other news Obama is being floated on twitter as possible UK ambassador lol

Spanish Eyes

eire4 wrote: »

If they cannot that is a disgrace as obviously that kind of racist language is totally wrong and unacceptable.

Bet he wouldn't say the same about Pritti Patel, India via Uganda and ESCAPED into the arms of the UK, but that woman does not want immigrants ok

roosterman71

John Major has been speaking and he has ripped through the Tories and Brexit. To sum up his statement - it's an absolute cluster**** run by liars and clowns

https://twitter.com/antoguerrera/status/1325877143163842561?s=20