Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Chips Lovell

Strazdas wrote: »

I keep reading stories like these in other discussion forums and in the FT. The UK "media" aren't reporting any of it (perhaps to do so would be seen as being critical of Brexit, which is verboten in any newspaper outside of The Guardian and FT).

While I think there's a number of pro-Brexit organs who wouldn't report it on principle, another reason why there isn't more reporting of it is because many of the companies themselves aren't making a public announcement about it. The time for making a big song and dance about it is over they feel. You only make ominous noises if you feel it will change something. Otherwise, you're just alienating UK customers by by saying you're cutting UK jobs.

Strazdas

Chips Lovell wrote: »

While I think there's a number of pro-Brexit organs who wouldn't report it on principle, another reason why there isn't more reporting of it is because many of the companies themselves aren't making a public announcement about it. The time for making a big song and dance about it is over they feel. You only make ominous noises if you feel it will change something. Otherwise, you're just alienating UK customers by by saying you're cutting UK jobs.

Yes, that's a very good point. Also for fear of a backlash and being accused of being disloyal to the country.

But I keep reading about it ; "My company has just moved 300 jobs to NL" etc.

strandroad

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

This ... just ... is incredible

Foreigners filling out Farage forms for trucks waiting in Farage garages, the headlines practically write themselves

Someone to blame when it all goes to hell... It's clearly Romania's fault.

listermint

Get Real wrote: »

Great find. I think privatisation of public services/national interests in Britain has also been a factor in Brexiteers voting for Brexit, percieving it to somehow be an EU issue.

Britain privatising its trains, prisons and now border paperwork I think actually has the opposite effect on jobs, and doesn't save any money.

For example, if this paperwork wasn't privatised and cost the govt (random figure) 1bn a year. But a company is offering to do it for 500million. It looks like on paper, 500 million is saved.

But instead of public servants, earning 40k a year, much of which is clawed back through income tax, vat, income tax from jobs created as money is spent in the local economy, all the money goes to people abroad, and the profit goes to the company.

Same with the prison service. It used to be a good job. Now some prisons are run by G4S with people on 11quid an hour. They've less disposable income to spend locally, they're generally lower skilled and immigrant backgrounds. People perceive this as "immigrants taking our jobs" but in reality, it's a former 40k pa job, being privatised for 20k per annum, and the profit being sucked up by a private company.

There's less money circulating within local economies, particularly in Northern England. Money that was previously government funded salaries, but at least was returned to the local economy through income tax, vat, domestic demand, people being able to afford to buy things. Rather than doing the same job earning far lower, renting a bedroom and trying to scrape by.

I'm all for capitalism and competition. But business should thrive on innovation. I don't think essential public services should be sold off on a tender, to one business, who's function is to suck that money away for shareholders.

This is it in a nutshell and the same can be said for so called benefit scroungers. The money spent is completely circular low income households spend their income directly back into the local economy. Almost immediately. Higher paying jobs the same but with additional money set into savings. Getting that savings money moving and working is a task. But if you remove those jobs offshore or the bulk of the original wage into a private contract the bulk of he spend is gone in the real economy.

Thatcher was a class a short sighted looper and her policies live on today in the Tories.

Imreoir2

forgottenhills wrote: »

Setting interest rates for your economy is one of many sovereign acts of a country. Since the introduction of the Euro the Irish government (or other Eurozone governments) cannot set interest rates to suit its own economy.

Incorrect, Ireland retains the soverign authority to leave the Eurozone and set its own intrest rates should it so wish. Such a move would have serious consequences and it is very unlikely that an Irish government would choose this willingly, but the choice is there.

Having the choice is where sovereignty lies, not in the form in which a country chooses to exercise that sovereignty. At present, Ireland along with other member states has chosen to set its interest rate in partnership with other countries through the Eurozone. That was and is a choice that Ireland has made, not something that was imposed against our will.

The Irish government has made the overall calculation that being part of the EU and the Eurozone suits our economey, we cannot cherrypick which parts of that arangement suit us best, but we can choose to engage or not to engage with the EU and Eurozone and our government has correctly assessed that engagemnt suits us best overall. Should that assessment change at some point, we are free to exercise our soverignty differently than our current choices.

Sam Russell

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Incorrect, Ireland retains the soverign authority to leave the Eurozone and set its own intrest rates should it so wish. Such a move would have serious consequences and it is very unlikely that an Irish government would choose this willingly, but the choice is there.

Having the choice is where sovereignty lies, not in the form in which a country chooses to exercise that sovereignty. At present, Ireland along with other member states has chosen to set its interest rate in partnership with other countries through the Eurozone. That was and is a choice that Ireland has made, not something that was imposed against our will.

The Irish government has made the overall calculation that being part of the EU and the Eurozone suits our economey, we cannot cherrypick which parts of that arangement suit us best, but we can choose to engage or not to engage with the EU and Eurozone and our government has correctly assessed that engagemnt suits us best overall. Should that assessment change at some point, we are free to exercise our soverignty differently than our current choices.

Just as the UK chose not to employ their sovereign choices with regard to non-EU immigration, we chose not to employ financial controls (even within the constraints of the Euro) to reduce the factors that led to the financial crash. The CB did not intervene to prevent 100% plus mortgages, or lending to developers way beyond their capacity to repay, allowing Irish developers to lose the run of themselves chasing crazy projects outside Ireland, and the Gov relying on Property Stamp Duty to fund day to day expenditure. The political class chased the bubble.

We (or at least some) have made mistakes, and we all paid the price.

Nody

Simply in case someone had some doubts about what will happen with car manufacturing in UK if a deal is not struck:

Nissan's chief operating officer Ashwani Gupta issued his most emphatic warning yet.

"If it happens without any sustainable business case obviously it is not a question of Sunderland or not Sunderland, obviously our UK business will not be sustainable, that's it," he told Reuters on Monday.

"Having said that, if we are not getting the current tariffs, it's not our intention but the business will not be sustainable. That's what everybody has to understand."

Nissan's Sunderland factory is considered to be one of Europe's most advanced and productive car plants and a key part of the region's economy, supporting thousands of jobs in the supply chain.

Full article is here.

joeysoap

Sunderland voted for Brexit.

MBSnr

The massive irony in this. The lack of UK trained staff to complete Brexit declarations has meant hiring Romanians and Indians to do it instead...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-18/brexit-creates-jobs-for-customs-staff-in-eastern-europe-india

fash

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Incorrect, Ireland retains the soverign authority to leave the Eurozone and set its own intrest rates should it so wish. Such a move would have serious consequences and it is very unlikely that an Irish government would choose this willingly, but the choice is there.

Having the choice is where sovereignty lies, not in the form in which a country chooses to exercise that sovereignty. At present, Ireland along with other member states has chosen to set its interest rate in partnership with other countries through the Eurozone. That was and is a choice that Ireland has made, not something that was imposed against our will.

The Irish government has made the overall calculation that being part of the EU and the Eurozone suits our economey, we cannot cherrypick which parts of that arangement suit us best, but we can choose to engage or not to engage with the EU and Eurozone and our government has correctly assessed that engagemnt suits us best overall. Should that assessment change at some point, we are free to exercise our soverignty differently than our current choices.

Aside from the fact that there is a fundamental difference between "sovereignty" and "power and influence". Ireland prior to being in the EU was in accordance with brexiter "logic" more sovereign - but reality meant it was a mere satellite of the UK with a currency pegged to sterling and a government having to do pretty much whatever the UK wanted Ireland to do.
With the UK now out of the EU, those tables have turned.

Capt'n Midnight

ambro25 wrote: »

We've seen Brexit own goals, and know of many to come...

...but this one will take some beating: U.K. companies are turning to cheaper overseas labor to complete their post-Brexit customs paperwork, creating jobs in countries such as Romania and India due to a shortage of trained staff in Britain.

Oh boy.

This has win written all over it :rolleyes:

The software isn't ready. The deal hasn't been done. There isn't clarity on lots of things. I can certainly see massive delays and costs where processes have to be updated as rushed jobs. Invoiceable rushed jobs.

[RANT]
I can massive delays where the lads query everything to park the SLA.


It's not like any of the big outsourcing companies are covering themselves in glory either. They are there to do one job. Extract as much money as possible from the client while spending as little as possible on staff and kit. Renewing the contract might sound like a priority but they know the client doesn't want to go through the pain of outsourcing again or more accurately can't afford to.


Opinion piece on outsourcing

Outsourcing = paying a middle-man more money to do the same job that you could do yourself.

Middle-men don't work overtime.

Middle-men don't care about anything not explicitly in their support contract.

Middle-men still have to employ the same number of people, if not more, and pay their salary, pensions, etc. at the same market rates.

Middle-men also add on profit for their shareholders to everything they do.

Middle-men don't do ANYTHING that you couldn't do yourself.

Middle-men don't really care if your stuff works or not, beyond getting you to sign next year's contract.

Middle-men require you to agree terms and conditions and to extra costs for EVERY change or difference you want to make.

I will never understand it.

[/RANT]

Snickers Man

Nody wrote: »

Simply in case someone had some doubts about what will happen with car manufacturing in UK if a deal is not struck:

Nissan's chief operating officer Ashwani Gupta issued his most emphatic warning yet.

"If it happens without any sustainable business case obviously it is not a question of Sunderland or not Sunderland, obviously our UK business will not be sustainable, that's it," he told Reuters on Monday.

"Having said that, if we are not getting the current tariffs, it's not our intention but the business will not be sustainable. That's what everybody has to understand."

Nissan's Sunderland factory is considered to be one of Europe's most advanced and productive car plants and a key part of the region's economy, supporting thousands of jobs in the supply chain.

Full article is here.

Another one to add to this thread from about a year ago, comparing and contrasting a Top Gear paean to the automotive manufacturing industry in Britain c 2013 to today.

Professor Moriarty

With all the chatter about a possible deal, it's important to remember that what is inevitably whistling down the tracks is already a Hobson's Choice. No CU, SM or alignment. It's a very hard Brexit or crash out. Them's the options.

Strazdas

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

With all the chatter about a possible deal, it's important to remember that what is inevitably whistling down the tracks is already a Hobson's Choice. No CU, SM or alignment. It's a very hard Brexit or crash out. Them's the options.

I get the impression the GBP aren't aware how bad a "deal" would be in reality. Their non existent media are failing to warn them about what will happen on January 1st. Most of the pertinent warnings I've seen have only shown up on Twitter.

joeysoap

I have friends in Newcastle. They voted remain as did Newcastle. Shouldn’t be mixed up.

Strazdas

joeysoap wrote: »

I have friends in Newcastle. They voted remain as did Newcastle. Shouldn’t be mixed up.

As did Liverpool and Manchester. Interestingly, urban areas with higher numbers of immigrants and ethnic minorities were more likely to vote Remain : Leave voting areas were often predominately white and with few immigrants.

murphaph

54and56 wrote: »

Not sure about Parcel Motel as I use PArcel Wizard and AddressPal more but I got an email from AddressPal yesterday preparing for Brexit. It basically said everything will carry on as normal from Jan 1st with the exception of customs duties which if applicable due to a No Deal or a very thin deal will result in AddressPal notifying me for payment of before the parcel is delivered. Same as if you were buying from any other country outside the EU.

Might actually be easier for Parcel Motel/Wizard as the vendor in theory will have to charge customs/tariffs when NI is selected as the delivery address given the risk that the item may not stay in NI and find its way into RoI per the WA.

My guess is if there's a No Deal or a thin deal which still sees a need for customs/tariffs in some situations our buying patterns will migrate towards EU alternatives to .co.uk based vendors whether thats Amazon, eBay or others.

I'm wondering how parcel motel or (in my case parcelwizard) will know how much duty/vat to apply to a parcel that presumably will have no customs declaration attached as the seller thinks they are shipping it domestically. I'm thinking smaller eBay purchases where the seller does not offer international shipping in the first place. I buy a lot of small bits and pieces for my hobby which are not really available outside the UK.

Nody

murphaph wrote: »

I'm wondering how parcel motel or (in my case parcelwizard) will know how much duty/vat to apply to a parcel that presumably will have no customs declaration attached as the seller thinks they are shipping it domestically. I'm thinking smaller eBay purchases where the seller does not offer international shipping in the first place. I buy a lot of small bits and pieces for my hobby which are not really available outside the UK.

That's one is relatively simple to be honest; slap on the highest VAT rate and let the end user reclaim the difference if needed. That way they will never be wrong in regards of undercharging the VAT (biggest potential issue for them) and their process to handle VAT becomes very simple. The question I'd be concerned about is how much they will charge for the service though; that's what is likely to make it not worth it.

murphaph

Nody wrote: »

That's one is relatively simple to be honest; slap on the highest VAT rate and let the end user reclaim the difference if needed. That way they will never be wrong in regards of undercharging the VAT (biggest potential issue for them) and their process to handle VAT becomes very simple. The question I'd be concerned about is how much they will charge for the service though; that's what is likely to make it not worth it.

There still remains the problem of used eBay purchases that don't have any paperwork. This is really common at present. I'm kind of expecting the worst but I'll be happy if they can simply slap the highest vat rate on based on a simple invoice which I'll have to request from all sellers in future.

I am sure the handling fee will double the effective price of many of my smaller purchases. I already send all these small bits via parcel wizard to the mother and she then bundles them all up into a large parcel and ships it to me in Germany (no reasonably priced parcel forwarder from UK to Germany at present) or I bring an extra suitcase on a visit.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Lets not have any racial sterotypes or generalisations, however beginly it is meant.

Please and thank you

CrabRevolution

20silkcut wrote: »

64 years ago at the time of the Suez Canal crisis, Britain was shown in no uncertain terms its place in world power.
World war 2 a decade previous starkly demonstrated the crumbling of their empire.
It is incredulous that they honestly believe they can strong arm the EU to succumb to their will in 2020.
Virtually nobody alive in Britain today has any memory of a time when they were a true superpower

Without going too far into pop psychology, maybe that's part of the problem?
Those who witnessed the decline of the British Empire were able to compare and contrast how things were before and what came to be. This gave them a realistic grasp on where they stood in the world and led them to take logical steps towards cooperation with other European states, first forming the EFTA before joining the then EC.

As you state however, those born since WW2 aren't burdened with this first hand awareness of seeing the UK's power decline. They're free to frame the past as anything they want, and a significant number choose to believe that before 1972 the UK was the same world dominating superpower it was in 1922 and that if it weren't for the EU they'd still be a superpower.

They've created their own "stab in the back" myth, where the UK was prospering until it was betrayed by joining the EC. Even if they say the UK was right to join the EC at they time, they'll claim "the EU now isn't what the UK joined in 1973, it's taken too much control" despite the fact that
1. The UK had final say over how much or how little "control" the EU had the whole time, and
2. Their claimed biggest issues like fisheries and trade deals were under EU oversight since day one, so how can they say it changed?

trellheim

Barnier's cancelled briefings to EU side. Must be very close now its pee or get off pot time


https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1329375413030825984

MBSnr

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Without going too far into pop psychology, maybe that's part of the problem?
Those who witnessed the decline of the British Empire were able to compare and contrast how things were before and what came to be. This gave them a realistic grasp on where they stood in the world and led them to take logical steps towards cooperation with other European states, first forming the EFTA before joining the then EC.

As you state however, those born since WW2 aren't burdened with this first hand awareness of seeing the UK's power decline. They're free to frame the past as anything they want, and a significant number choose to believe that before 1972 the UK was the same world dominating superpower it was in 1922 and that if it weren't for the EU they'd still be a superpower.

They've created their own "stab in the back" myth, where the UK was prospering until it was betrayed by joining the EC. Even if they say the UK was right to join the EC at they time, they'll claim "the EU now isn't what the UK joined in 1973, it's taken too much control" despite the fact that
1. The UK had final say over how much or how little "control" the EU had the whole time, and
2. Their claimed biggest issues like fisheries and trade deals were under EU oversight since day one, so how can they say it changed?

I think there's certainly an element of the above. I was living in the UK during the 1994/95 bendy banana media outcry. It was the first time I recall there being such a kickback about the EU in the UK. There was the usual "they're foreign so they don't understand us undertones" which has always been a trait but I do recall it became a talking and reference point, where before there was none.

At the time there was no easy means of fact checking (did we even consider it as an option?). So everyone was 'informed' by the Daily Mail, The Sun etc about this crazy EU law, and I'm sure a large part of the perceived EU resentment built from that point.

Strazdas

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Without going too far into pop psychology, maybe that's part of the problem?
Those who witnessed the decline of the British Empire were able to compare and contrast how things were before and what came to be. This gave them a realistic grasp on where they stood in the world and led them to take logical steps towards cooperation with other European states, first forming the EFTA before joining the then EC.

As you state however, those born since WW2 aren't burdened with this first hand awareness of seeing the UK's power decline. They're free to frame the past as anything they want, and a significant number choose to believe that before 1972 the UK was the same world dominating superpower it was in 1922 and that if it weren't for the EU they'd still be a superpower.

They've created their own "stab in the back" myth, where the UK was prospering until it was betrayed by joining the EC. Even if they say the UK was right to join the EC at they time, they'll claim "the EU now isn't what the UK joined in 1973, it's taken too much control" despite the fact that
1. The UK had final say over how much or how little "control" the EU had the whole time, and
2. Their claimed biggest issues like fisheries and trade deals were under EU oversight since day one, so how can they say it changed?

The whole thing is an urban myth created by current Brexiteers. Contrary to what they are claiming, the British press in 1973-75 was full of articles about "the European project" and "future political union".

Sam Russell

Strazdas wrote: »

The whole thing is an urban myth created by current Brexiteers. Contrary to what they are claiming, the British press in 1973-75 was full of articles about "the European project" and "future political union".

The devaluation of the GBP by 14% in 1967, following on from the 1948 devaluation meant a total devaluation of 40%. This gave rise to inflation, and significant austerity. The British economy was in crisis, and joining the EEC was a life raft they needed to inject some stability. De Gaul said 'Non' and it took until 1973 before they joined. In the mid 1970s, inflation hit 20%.

The UK economy had been a basket case since they 'won' the war (WW II) and were left with a huge national debt. They perhaps should have defaulted, but probably not.

The economy was dealt another blow when M. Thatcher came to power and applied her shopkeeper understanding of book keeping and economics to the National Exchequer and put in austerity on steroids that doubled unemployment to 3,000,000 in her first term and caused a further drop in GDP, causing further austerity, and more inflation. It is sobering to think that GB£10,000 invested D Marks in 1966, would now be worth €50,000.

The saviour was the CUSM and the move to selling financial services, and other dodgy derivatives to gullible investors. It was a massive boost to the EU economy, and boom time.

The history of UK economic management in the last 70 years is a tale of wrong decisions and disasters, with a few periods of good luck - like the exploitation of North Sea oil. However, contrast that with the Norwegian experience with their oil industry - they have a sovereign wealth fund of massive proportions that they guard very tightly and no national debt.

I would blame the FPTP voting system that gives a free ride to numpties that get elected to safe seats with zero talent at anything, but hang on till they get a bit of power just because they were able to hang on.

Strazdas

Sam Russell wrote: »

The devaluation of the GBP by 14% in 1967, following on from the 1948 devaluation meant a total devaluation of 40%. This gave rise to inflation, and significant austerity. The British economy was in crisis, and joining the EEC was a life raft they needed to inject some stability. De Gaul said 'Non' and it took until 1973 before they joined. In the mid 1970s, inflation hit 20%.

The UK economy had been a basket case since they 'won' the war (WW II) and were left with a huge national debt. They perhaps should have defaulted, but probably not.

The economy was dealt another blow when M. Thatcher came to power and applied her shopkeeper understanding of book keeping and economics to the National Exchequer and put in austerity on steroids that doubled unemployment to 3,000,000 in her first term and caused a further drop in GDP, causing further austerity, and more inflation. It is sobering to think that GB£10,000 invested D Marks in 1966, would now be worth €50,000.

The saviour was the CUSM and the move to selling financial services, and other dodgy derivatives to gullible investors. It was a massive boost to the EU economy, and boom time.

The history of UK economic management in the last 70 years is a tale of wrong decisions and disasters, with a few periods of good luck - like the exploitation of North Sea oil. However, contrast that with the Norwegian experience with their oil industry - they have a sovereign wealth fund of massive proportions that they guard very tightly and no national debt.

I would blame the FPTP voting system that gives a free ride to numpties that get elected to safe seats with zero talent at anything, but hang on till they get a bit of power just because they were able to hang on.

To sum up what you are saying, it was more likely that the UK was the political and economic basket case, not the EEC / EU.

As alluded to by several posters above, Brexiteers have never really come to terms with the collapse of the empire : probably a failure of the education system and of the media. Their relationship with WW2 is an illustration of this.

A Dub in Glasgo

Member of the EU team tested positive for COVID-19, talks suspended

Sam Russell

Strazdas wrote: »

To sum up what you are saying, it was more likely that the UK was the political and economic basket case, not the EEC / EU.

As alluded to by several posters above, Brexiteers have never really come to terms with the collapse of the empire : probably a failure of the education system and of the media. Their relationship with WW2 is an illustration of this.

Precisely - the UK was the sick man of Europe - throughout the sixties, seventies and mid eighties. Their whole manufacturing was bedevilled by strikes, poor productivity, poor investment, poor management, and failure to modernise. A true basket case. Their competitor in the sickness stakes was the Soviet Union, and we know what happened there.

When it came to cars, in the 1970s no-one wanted to buy the Morris Marina or the Austin Allegro. In fact no-one wanted to buy a Morris or an Austin. They closed down their coal industry, and the steel and ship building - as it was all uncompetitive compared with European cars, and Korean ships. Coal miners just need to be taught a lesson.

But finance was magic - quick buck merchants with red braces, big teeth and expensive tastes flooded the city. We will see what happens there next year.

Infini

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Member of the EU team tested positive for COVID-19, talks suspended

It's the Covid Conspiracy, its out to get all those malignant players!

Seriously though the timing couldn't be more astute if it's no deal then the UK just ran out of time and the EU team essentially got an out because their negotiators have been infected. If this doesn't set alarm bells ringing in the UK I dont know what will.

EU is essentially going to just wait it out in the end because we can withstand the damage in the medium term, the UK can't.

declanflynn

SNIP. No more silly comments please.