Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

fash

salonfire wrote: »

Why do people view the extra paperwork and form filling needed on the British side as some massive obstacle than will hold back their businesses?

Everything is computerized, the form filling will be online which can be completed by automation. Once the automation program is working, minimal human work is needed.

With mobile data and tablets, the information and 'paperwork' are in the truckers hands in a small device and will come with QR codes. A quick scan of the QR code and away he goes to Europe.

Paperwork is not going to mean some trucker sitting in a cab rifling through reams of paper looking for a particular slip of paper while an exasperated custom officer looks on.

Britain could do very well indeed. Access to the Single Market tariff-free without the EU payments means more money in London.

The EU folded like a cheap tent.

Tariff/quota free if the content has a suitably high UK/EU content and with an extra 50k of public customs officers (plus many more private sector ones) and border queues.
The EU has a trade in goods surplus with the UK, the UK has a trade in services surplus with the EU. The EU gets its trade in good surplus protected, now unilaterally controls the trade in services and due to the rules of origin issue will suck marginal businesses out of the UK into the EU.
It probably does so with significant scope for unilaterally deciding the applicable level playing field standards too (I haven't seen anything on this yet).
And you call that a British victory where the EU folded like a cheap tent?
Some more British victories like that and the UK will cease to exist.

Leroy42

There will be a lot of crowing about tarriff free/quota free access for the UK in the press for the coming days (based on that Sun headline) but of course the real question is the standards. What have the UK given in terms of guarantees on standards, both now and more importantly when the EU changes its standards?

BonnieSituation

RobMc59 wrote: »

Perhaps you should read what I actually posted,I said the UK will soar imo

How will it soar?

Imreoir2

RobMc59 wrote: »

I didn't say it was being held back in theEU.I would have preferred to remain in the EU.
I believe if the UK has a reasonable relationship with the EU but can strike deals itself around the world it will do just fine.

Define just fine.
Is 5% worse off 'just fine'? Does just fine strech to 10% worse off?
How many peoples lives can be ruined and still have the situation skate by in the 'just fine' category?

peter kern

CelticRambler wrote: »

Most peculiar ... he makes no mention of the "enormous concessions" that a French government source told AFP the Brits made to get a deal at the last minute (as reported by Le Figaro)

I foresee fireworks in the near future ... probably moreso on the English side of the Channel than the Continental. :pac:

so according to your article all the people that said no provisional deal on the first january were wrong.

Imreoir2

RobMc59 wrote: »

As I've said, I believe if the UK has reasonably frictionless access to the EU but can still do it's own trade deals elsewhere it can prosper.
Regarding future boards historians,they'll probably laugh at some of the more extreme suggestions British posters have had to endure about how the UK is about to capitulate,beg for mercy etc etc..None of which has ever happened.

Except that time the British PM said no British Prime Minister could agree to a trade border in the Irish sea, then lost their job, and now we have a border in the Irish sea...

McGiver

If the UK indeed gets quota and tariff free access to the SM, assuming no payments, then doesn't this mean EFTA folks will get upset?

Because the UK gets quite a close deal but with no payments and fewer obligations (no FOM, no Schengen, no copycat SM legislative/regulatory alignment).

EFTA are paying for the SM access/integration plus they are also paying politically by closely aligning standards and regulatory framework...

road_high

Tbh I’d be delighted and relieved with no tariffs either way. They really are a hiding to nowhere as regards Ireland’s trading relationships back and forth with GB- on agricultural food exports and imports they’re crippling and we have an ancient tariff free relationship

Imreoir2

McGiver wrote: »

If the UK indeed gets quota and tariff free access to the SM, assuming no payments, then doesn't this mean EFTA folks will get upset?

Because the UK gets quite a close deal but with no payments and fewer obligations (no FOM, no Schengen, no copycat SM legislative/regulatory alignment).

EFTA are paying for the SM access/integration plus they are also paying politically by closely aligning standards and regulatory framework...

We will have to see the details, but it seems likely that the UK will also have to closely align on standards and regulations to maintain access. While the UK will have the right to diverge, divergance will mean loss of access.

road_high

McGiver wrote: »

If the UK indeed gets quota and tariff free access to the SM, assuming no payments, then doesn't this mean EFTA folks will get upset?

Because the UK gets quite a close deal but with no payments and fewer obligations (no FOM, no Schengen, no copycat SM legislative/regulatory alignment).

EFTA are paying for the SM access/integration plus they are also paying politically by closely aligning standards and regulatory framework...

I wonder is there payments for SM access though in the fine print?

Peregrinus

McGiver wrote: »

If the UK indeed gets quota and tariff free access to the SM, assuming no payments, then doesn't this mean EFTA folks will get upset?

Because the UK gets quite a close deal but with no payments and fewer obligations (no FOM, no Schengen, no copycat SM legislative/regulatory alignment).

EFTA are paying for the SM access/integration plus they are also paying politically by closely aligning standards and regulatory framework...

But they get the benefit of FoM and Schengen (they don't see these as burdens; seeing them as burdens is just a weird British thing like boarding schools, or Mr. Blobby). Plus, they get input into making the rules they have to abide by.

Podge_irl

Nody wrote: »

I'll answer this from my view; as everything else things changes over time and different companies do things differently; hence don't take this as gospel for how things are done today for company Y. We're a manufacturing company in the food sector doing six digits of truck movements cross country in Europe (not all related to Switzerland/Norway mind you).

Every pallet we were shipping in/out from Switzerland would have printed paperwork from our system with the details and breakdown of content that had to go with that pallet (required at customs border). This was digitally shared with our custom agency who then filed the paperwork on our behalf and paid the custom fees in advance and gave the truck driver the reference to give along with the paperwork at the border. The customs agent would verify that the filed paperwork matched with the papers he was given on what was on the actual truck. If we got unlucky the custom agent would ask us to open the truck and they would look inside as well (and if it was a a more dubious border they would take "samples" from random boxes which was in practice them taking things home instead). Because of how our trucks were required to be sealed they would then get paperwork with them confirming from the custom agent that they had opened the truck or we'd be fining the trucking company (truck drivers were bribed to bring in immigrants to UK and we've had our share of stolen goods as well).

Now if things were running smoothly and there were no major queues, weekends or build ups etc. they could be in and out in 15 to 30 min. If they had managed to misplace a paper, or the sending site did not give it to them etc. they could be there for days to sort things out. In worst case scenarios the issue was not the truck but the driver for some reason and we'd need to send another truck to pick up the goods instead. Now; this is only the first layer of issues; because remember that custom agency we were using? Well they would invoice us standard fee + custom fee. But that had to be reconciled back and we had disparities between what we shipped and what they paid for which if found in a government audit (and the government love to send their auditors for this, easy money...) would be expensive. For example if the sugar content in the crumbles shipped had changed in the factory but not in our system all duties were wrong and had to be corrected.

Which goes with the second problem; your logistics. We had about 95% of our volume contracted with 80% to 20 or so vendors in Europe. We had clearly out lined processes on how to handle customs, which border, which agency etc. Our providers in turn were only allowed to outsource the trucks one level down. I.e. we contract company A, they can hire company B and they are suppose to instruct company B on what to do, how to do it etc. Company B are not allowed in turn to contract to C etc. or put it on the spot market for freight (this was an excellent way to ensure our goods never arrived as the carrier company did not think it was odd someone took them up to drive it for 200 EUR on what was contracted as a 2000 EUR run...). We even ended up terminating our second largest truck company over it (to say they were shocked would be an understatement) after we caught them red handed one time to many. But the point being because you're usually not dealing with the final driver directly (outsourced in one or more layers down) even your instructions on what they are suppose to do tends to get lost "along the way".

This is a great macro level view of the problem. On a micro level - I live in Geneva. I couldn't use Amazon until a few years ago as the hassle of delivering to Switzerland just wasn't worth it for them. Even now a lot of companies won't deliver here. When they do you can end up paying double VAT (some companies will remove VAT on sale, most won't). But you pay processing fees on top of the VAT bill and the packages can be stuck in customs for days before you get them. You end up getting both packages and customs bills at the same time frequently.

I basically can't shop online the way people are used to. I can only do so among Swiss retailers (which tend to be pricey on most things, though some things such as electronics are equal). I cross the border multiple times a week as my running route from work takes me across the border. It's that close and easy to cross for people, but I've had to wait weeks for packages and pay plenty for the privilege of actually getting it delivered.

McGiver

Imreoir2 wrote:

We will have to see the details, but it seems likely that the UK will also have to closely align on standards and regulations to maintain access. While the UK will have the right to diverge, divergance will mean loss of access.

Yes but unlike EFTA no contributions/payments and no FOM, so that's a good result (from UK point of view), isn't it?

Capt'n Midnight

McGiver wrote: »

If the UK indeed gets quota and tariff free access to the SM, assuming no payments, then doesn't this mean EFTA folks will get upset?

Because the UK gets quite a close deal but with no payments and fewer obligations (no FOM, no Schengen, no copycat SM legislative/regulatory alignment).

EFTA are paying for the SM access/integration plus they are also paying politically by closely aligning standards and regulatory framework...

EFTA means the four freedoms including services.

Services surplus is worth a billion a fortnight to the UK

Peregrinus

McGiver wrote: »

Yes but unlike EFTA no contributions/payments and no FOM, so that's a good result (from UK point of view), isn't it?

What Capt'n Midnight said.

Plus, the flip side of the no contributions is the no participation in the programmes funded by the contributions. You have to put that on the debit side of the balance sheet.

And, while the no-tariff/no-quota trade deal gives the UK improved access to the single market relative to what a third country with no FTA would get, it's still access on much lousier terms than EFTA members enjoy - more bureaucracy, more delay, more expense. On one view, the UK is subject to whatever LPF requirements the FTA includes, and that imposes a degree of regulatory alignment, but it doesn't get anything like the frictionleess market access that EFTA members get from their regulatory alignment.

So, no; I don't think you're going to see any EFTA members rushing to leave EFTA and seek a UK-style deal instead.

This is a good result from a UK point of view if you take it that the UK wants to distance itself from the EU and is willing to pay a signficant economic price in order to acheive that. (Any notion that they will somehow recover this economic cost through better trade terms with third countries than the EU could secure is, charitably, a fantasy.) But the EFTA members joined EFTA precisely because they wanted to get closer to the EU.

fash

McGiver wrote: »

Yes but unlike EFTA no contributions/payments and no FOM, so that's a good result (from UK point of view), isn't it?

Not if you want to retire to the south of Spain it isn't - I e. FOM works both ways.
Furthermore there is freedom to provide services and no rule of origin issues on manufacturing chains - allowing integrated supply chains, specialisation, efficiency and competitiveness.

The contribution to the EU is minuscule compared to the benefit received and the bureaucracy reduced.

Plus as mentioned, FOM cuts both ways (wait until the Brits realise) - the DUP has ironically made the British second class citizens in Northern Ireland for example- but also FOM is a benefit to small businesses. Far easier to hire field workers from Bulgaria to pick fruit rather than the failure in 2020 or the upcoming costly mess related to short term visas.
Don't forget social welfare, health insurance etc. Also access to security information, Data equivalence etc.

There is and has to be a cost to each step away from the EU - in the medium term the UK will be unable to survive where it is - and will inevitably half rejoin the EU (perhaps a version of EEA) - but without its privileges.

robinph

Whatever Johnson is about to announce, please don't let him call it the Christmas Eve Deal or something to attempt to make it seem something greater than it is.

It's daft enough the Good Friday Agreement is called that, especially with that being a moving date. We don't need stupidly named deal, especially for this disaster. At least the GFA was something good.

murphaph

Surely a deal that focuses almost exclusively in goods and excludes services is to the net benefit of the party which has the trade surplus in goods, in this case the EU.

Anyway I'm happy to see them locked into a LPF if all this deal talk is true. This is a halfway house that can be repaired by a saner generation later. If they'd gone full North Korea it would have been potentially quite difficult to reason with them.

listermint

What I enjoy the most is everything literally everything the brexiteers said was project fear or fake news 4 years ago right up to early 2020.

They have now pivoted to say easily Solvable minor trifling problem.

It's a beauty and articles like the Sun's are only done to safe face for their editors proclaiming previously none of what's true is true.

The UK will be worse off from all of this ,it's not going to solve its problems and it's not going to solve it's social issues .

And most of all it is not to be trusted. That's now the biggest headline.

Kermit.de.frog

The UK will be an independent country again. A wonderful achievement and well done to them.

Maybe we'll be independent again someday. Other countries will see themselves curtailed by Brussels and will ask the logical question-why are the Brits a proud independent country with control over their laws and borders while we take our orders?

It's all going to unravel in the coming years. My bet is not on the Italians first out funnily enough. I think the French will be the first to go.

It's time to return to an EEC.

timetogo1

I think the old saying "Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it" fits here.
Id give the Italians and French more credit than that.

Lumen

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Other countries will see themselves curtailed by Brussels and will ask the logical question-why are the Brits a proud independent country with control over their laws and borders while we take our orders?

Which laws currently on the Irish statute book and ordered by the EU would you like to get rid of?

I assume you have a list to hand.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Please take the Irexit stuff to a new thread and leave this one focused on current events relating to Brexit. Thanks.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Mod: Please take the Irexit stuff to a new thread and leave this one focused on current events relating to Brexit. Thanks.

Posts deleted. No more please.

Kermit.de.frog

Today is a victory for democracy. All the fear mongering from remainers and attempts to frighten the public and undermine the vote of the British people came to naught.

They will be absolutely fine on their own, I have zero doubt about that.

Gerry T

Kermit.de.frog wrote:

Today is a victory for democracy. All the fear mongering from remainers and attempts to frighten the public and undermine the vote of the British people came to naught.

Brexit has cost the uk 200b so far, and counting. Thats before employing the 50,000 customs officials and dealing with the non tariff barriers.
But i do agree they will be ok, just poorer and restricted.

CelticRambler

peter kern wrote: »

so according to your article all the people that said no provisional deal on the first january were wrong.

That's a most peculiar slant to take on a post pointing out that the view on this side of the Channel is quite different to that proclaimed by the Sun editor.

Yes, if a provisional deal is brought in on Jan 1, then yes, anyone who expressed an opinion that there wouldn't be one will have been shown to have been mistaken. So what? That's the nature of discussing politics. Of far more relevance is which party has agreed "enormous concessions" to get such an agreement ... and I doubt it's the EU.

robinph wrote: »

Whatever Johnson is about to announce, please don't let him call it the Christmas Eve Deal or something to attempt to make it seem something greater than it is.

How about "Boris's Chirstmas Turkey Deal?" :pac:

From all that's gone before, and all that's needed in the future, I reckon we're looking at the prospect of Johnson signing a "Switzerland light" deal, becoming a perpetual net contributor and rule-taker and committing to long-term alignment with just about everything that matters to the EU under threat of seeing the whole deal torn up; and having delivered a pseudo-BRINO without any of the benefits of a real BRINO, Johnson will be pushed/do a runner early in 2021.

Choosehowevr.

Gerry T wrote: »

Brexit has cost the uk 200b so far, and counting. Thats before employing the 50,000 customs officials and dealing with the non tariff barriers.
But i do agree they will be ok, just poorer and restricted.

There'd be more customs officials than police in the UK lol

TP_CM

They really should have originally set the deadline to the end of January 2021. I mean setting the deadline a few days after Christmas was a bit silly or naive. 100s of officials around Europe now have to give up their Christmas to frantically go through this deal. I know it was a legal thing probably but still.

ancapailldorcha

TP_CM wrote: »

They really should have set the deadline to the end of January 2021. I mean setting the deadline a few days after Christmas was a bit silly or naive. 100s of officials around Europe now have to give up their Christmas to frantically go through this deal. I know it was a legal thing probably but still.

I don't think that that was legally possible. This was always how it was going to be.

We're going to see the press try and spin whatever token concessions the UK won as glorious victories secured at the eleventh hour but I don't see any long term benefit for the Conservative party here.