Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

MBSnr

Something that I only read about the other day was the VAT implications of Brexit. The UK is changing the way VAT is collected from 1st Jan.

It's a direct result of Brexit. Basically this post sums it up the probable reason.

It'll have some serious effects for Ireland. Apart from buying items from a UK seller and probable tariffs, we all wonder how PM/PW from NI will function in 2021.

Also my suppliers I work with source from the UK and I already pay a mark up as the wholesalers they source from (and some manufacturers direct), treat the UK and Ireland as one market for distribution. So the Irish reseller is actually based in the UK. I can't imagine the wholesalers will bother in the short term to change this setup and we'll just pay even for the item as it transits through the UK reseller to Ireland.

listermint

MBSnr wrote: »

Something that I only read about the other day was the VAT implications of Brexit. The UK is changing the way VAT is collected from 1st Jan.

It's a direct result of Brexit. Basically this post sums it up the probable reason.

It'll have some serious effects for Ireland. Apart from buying items from a UK seller and probable tariffs, we all wonder how PM/PW from NI will function in 2021.

Also my suppliers I work with source from the UK and I already pay a mark up as their wholesalers they source from and some manufacturers, treat the UK and Ireland as one market for distribution. So the Irish reseller is actually based in the UK. I can't imagine the wholesalers will bother in the short term to change this setup and we'll just pay even for the item as it transits through the UK reseller to Ireland.

It's nearly November, if your supplier's haven't made sizeable efforts to find alternate sources outside the UK then they need a good kick in the hole

Sam Russell

VAT will change after Brexit for GB.

Prior to the single market, VAT was payable on import. After the SM, it was charged by the seller unless the purchaser was a registered VAT trader. If the seller had a volume of trade above a specified level then they would charge VAT at the Irish rate, and remit the funds to Revenue.

I would imagine this is the system that will apply from 01-01-2001. Exports form GB will not (should not) charge VAT on exports, but importers will pay at point of import. How NI fits into this is not clear.

Smugglers and fraudsters charter suggests itself.

MBSnr

listermint wrote: »

It's nearly November, if your supplier's haven't made sizeable efforts to find alternate sources outside the UK then they need a good kick in the hole

Hmm I'd imagine it's fairly widespread in Ireland and not just my suppliers.... I buy IT equipment from two of the largest Dublin business IT suppliers, which mostly comes from stock held in the UK, or travels through the UK to Dublin as the manufacturer is still treating the UK and Ireland as one distribution area. Obviously build to demand and other items ship directly from the factory in Poland or where ever.

woejus

Sam Russell wrote: »

I would imagine this is the system that will apply from 01-01-01-2001

Smugglers and fraudsters charter suggests itself.

2021?

HMRC will be up to their eyes in paperwork in 2021. They won't be able to stop every potential fraud scheme that is no doubt being prepared.

You're correct about the fraudster's charter IMO. If I were to design a scenario to enable wide scale VAT refund fraud, the prevailing situation would be it. Shared border, different tax regimes, swathes of experienced, underemployed smugglers and scammers in the NI border area... it's perfect.

View

MBSnr wrote: »

Something that I only read about the other day was the VAT implications of Brexit. The UK is changing the way VAT is collected from 1st Jan.

It's a direct result of Brexit. Basically this post sums it up the probable reason.

It'll have some serious effects for Ireland. Apart from buying items from a UK seller and probable tariffs, we all wonder how PM/PW from NI will function in 2021.

Also my suppliers I work with source from the UK and I already pay a mark up as the wholesalers they source from (and some manufacturers direct), treat the UK and Ireland as one market for distribution. So the Irish reseller is actually based in the UK. I can't imagine the wholesalers will bother in the short term to change this setup and we'll just pay even for the item as it transits through the UK reseller to Ireland.

If goods are exported from the EU to a non-EU country, VAT should not be charged on them by the seller. If a person or company has paid VAT (because they bought them in a shop), they are entitled to reclaim any VAT they have paid on them.

Once the transition period ends, any VAT charged on goods directly sourced in the U.K. should not be chargeable or should also be reclaimable if paid. If the goods directly transit through the U.K. (ie in a sealed container) from another EU country to Ireland, no U.K. VAT should be applied to them as the VAT should have been applied in the seller’s country.

Sam Russell

The GB VAT system is fairly clear (well sort of - we know how it should be) but NI is different. If I buy widgets from Sollihul, I will pay VAT plus tariffs on import. If I buy them from Lurgan, it is not clear how it will work unless the NI VAT system talks to the Revenue VAT system in a meaningful way.

We must wait to see how the IM bill (if it ever gets to be an act) works, and see how resolute Revenue are.

How much easier it would be if we had a united Ireland.

Aside from this, how will GB registered cars and trucks feature in all this?

BluePlanet

Leroy42 wrote: »

That is what the UK want, same as when they launched the IM bill.

EU take the higher ground, continuing to talk. Regardless of what happens, deal no deal whatever, EU and UK will always be talking so pointless to stop now.

If the UK actually want a No Deal then there is absolutely nothing the EU can do to get a deal over the line.

The EU continuing to seek talks now, is just a sign of weakness or desperation.
That's exactly how the Tories will read it.

Leroy42

BluePlanet wrote: »

If the UK actually want a No Deal then there is absolutely nothing the EU can do to get a deal over the line.

The EU continuing to seek talks now, is just a sign of weakness or desperation.
That's exactly how the Tories will read it.

No, I mean the UK want the fault of a no deal to be layed at the feet of the EU.

The problem, as Marr showed today in his interview with Gove, is that Gove, Johnson, Farage etc were all claiming that they would be in charge, that a deal would be easy, that a failure to secure a deal would be a failure of statecraft.

So people are very likely to accept that the EU are at fault, but then ask the not unreasonable question as to why they couldn't have anticipated that or looked for ways to stop it.

That if the risk of risk of No Deal was always there, they claimed it wasn't, then was BRexit ever worth the risk?

Joe_ Public

BluePlanet wrote: »

If the UK actually want a No Deal then there is absolutely nothing the EU can do to get a deal over the line.

The EU continuing to seek talks now, is just a sign of weakness or desperation.
That's exactly how the Tories will read it.

The extremists and those looking to cash in want no deal but that's never been the official leave position, as gove reiterated several times this morning. They need a deal and the longer they leave it, the more it's going to be dictated on eu terms, i think.

Capt'n Midnight

Leroy42 wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that the reason why they use Australian type deal is A) it avoids mentioning no deal but Australia has a number of side deals with regards to certain standards etc?

Totally different circumstances. Like Norway Oz exports raw materials and food and imports manufactured goods. The EU is a major food exporter too. And can usually source raw materials closer to home. For the EU Oz is close to the exact opposite to the UK.


https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2020/10/16/brexit_how_can_it_be/

The UK won't "become like Australia". Because we *do* have a comprehensive low-friction trade agreement with our nearest neighbour -- the Closer Economic Relations treaty with New Zealand (and our Constitution has an invitation to New Zealand to join the Commonwealth of Australia). We also have a trade agreement with our next-nearest neighbours, the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement. As you'd expect we also have FTAs with major trading partners like USA, China and Japan. These treaties are the result of over twenty-five years' sustained effort. Ironically an effort initiated by the UK ending Commonwealth Preference to join the EU (which caused an economic crisis in Australia).

Australia doesn't yet have a trade agreement with the EU. The issues there are around agricultural goods, and especially the ever-increasing application by the EU of 'appellation' to limit competition. So trade with the EU occurs on WTO terms. This is no great drama for Australia as the EU is on the other side of the world -- and thus not tightly integrated into production chains. Whereas for UK firms European firms are a few hundred kilometres away and production processes have become tightly interwound.

Australia's situation is in no way comparable to a UK having no trade agreement with the EU and seeking to trade with close-by nations under WTO terms.

So, in my own head, the UK are banking on the idea that No Deal is never going to happen, things won't suddenly stop.

Falling is not a problem. The sudden stop is.

Yes the EU would like a deal with the UK. But not at any cost. And all the UK posturing is for the domestic market one hopes. The reality of WTO is how far the clock rock rolls back. And no I can't see the EFTA allowing the current UK back in. (Yes I could see an independent Scotland joining ASAP)

Yeah, before the single market, there was the common market. Before the common market the UK was in the EFTA. The EFTA was a kind of copy of the EEC with a bunch of other countries which weren't in the EEC and the driving force behind setting it up was UK. The UK's reason for setting it up was because it was becoming clear the EEC wouldn't have them. Once the UK had got the EFTA set up it carried on lobbying to get into the EEC as it became clear that the EFTA wasn't good enough to sort out its economy.

So basically you have to go back to 1959 to get to the point where the UK wasn't in some kind of European trading bloc.

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

VAT will change after Brexit for GB.

It's the final frontier.

https://twitter.com/WilliamShatner/status/1316887009198141441

View

Leroy42 wrote: »

No, I mean the UK want the fault of a no deal to be layed at the feet of the EU.

The problem, as Marr showed today in his interview with Gove, is that Gove, Johnson, Farage etc were all claiming that they would be in charge, that a deal would be easy, that a failure to secure a deal would be a failure of statecraft.

So people are very likely to accept that the EU are at fault, but then ask the not unreasonable question as to why they couldn't have anticipated that or looked for ways to stop it.

That if the risk of risk of No Deal was always there, they claimed it wasn't, then was BRexit ever worth the risk?

The Brexiters will always (try to) lay the blame on the EU and will do so irrespective of whether there is a deal or not, and irrespective of how good the deal is.

The blunt reality is that the EU could give the Brexiters a deal that is better than EU membership and that has more benefits for the U.K. and less, or even no, obligations for it, and Brexiters will claim they are being hard done by.

It’s a no win situation for the EU and, given that, there is no point in trying to offer the Brexiters any form of good deal.

Sam Russell

View wrote: »

The Brexiters will always (try to) lay the blame on the EU and will do so irrespective of whether there is a deal or not, and irrespective of how good the deal is.

The blunt reality is that the EU could give the Brexiters a deal that is better than EU membership and that has more benefits for the U.K. and less, or even no, obligations for it, and Brexiters will claim they are being hard done by.

It’s a no win situation for the EU and, given that, there is no point in trying to offer the Brexiters any form of good deal.

The EU would LIKE a deal but not at any price. The UK NEED a deal - any deal.

View

Sam Russell wrote: »

The EU would LIKE a deal but not at any price. The UK NEED a deal - any deal.

You are thinking far too logically there.

The Conservative party voter base are likely to regard a deal - even the most minimal one - as an act of high treason. The Conservative party leadership need their voter base more than they need a deal with the EU, hence they are under as much pressure to go for “no deal” as they are to go for a deal.

Intransigence and stupidly have proved to be a winning electoral formula for them so far and they are as about as likely to rush to abandon it as our own politicians were to rush to shoot the “Celtic tiger” before it turned and mauled us.

fash

Question to the crowd: from a historical Tory perspective, it is rather surprising that "the unfettered right to give state aid" is the particular hill the UK wants to die on. Of course Brexitism contains several non historic Tory values- but it seems a much more convenient hill than "we want the freedom to reduce workers rights", "we want the freedom to reduce environmental protection" "we want the freedom to reduce good standards" from an internal opposition perspective (see opposition to dropping food standards in relation to US deal for example).
Anyone think there is an ulterior motive, and if so what would that be?


Secondly, EU expressed "optimism" over the weekend about how things were going. If one were being cynical, much like how the UK was expressing optimism 1-2 weeks ago, is such optimism real - or a way of putting pressure on the UK not to walk away? "Hey those guys were almost there - why did you walk?" Etc. Thoughts?

RobMc59

listermint wrote: »

Robs a reformed remainer. He seems to think the rules for trade with the EU which the EU have actually written down and babe repeated various times over and over for the past 4 years may actually be bull **** and not rules at all ....


... I suppose we will see.

What's a reformed remainer?I've always been a remainer,never wanted the UK to leave.Love for my country has often gotten me into trouble here,although I'm aware the actions of Johnson and co plus other extreme brexiteers are indefensible and have dragged the UK to the precipice.
Having said that,I'd say on the bullsh*tting scale the UK government probably contributes 80% with the EU weighing in around 20%.

ancapailldorcha

fash wrote: »

Question to the crowd: from a historical Tory perspective, it is rather surprising that "the unfettered right to give state aid" is the particular hill the UK wants to die on. Of course Brexitism contains several non historic Tory values- but it seems a much more convenient hill than "we want the freedom to reduce workers rights", "we want the freedom to reduce environmental protection" "we want the freedom to reduce good standards" from an internal opposition perspective (see opposition to dropping food standards in relation to US deal for example).
Anyone think there is an ulterior motive, and if so what would that be?

I think you've overcomplicated this a bit to be honest. It's been happening for a while but the shift from economics to culture as the most important motive in Politics has been happening for a while now. Dead is the Conservative party of Cameron which governed in coalition with the Lib Dems for the first half of the decade. Once Cameron left, there was a tangible shift when May took over announcing a scepticism in "untrammelled free markets". Since Johnson took over, the shift has been more apparent with Johnson only sticking his head above the parapet for culture war issues.

As regards state aid, that's an easy one. Dominic Cummings seems to think that, free from Brussels' red tape and with vast swathes of capital, Britain can invent its own tech companies and "level up" the abandoned areas (with blackjack and hookers possibly). EU state aid rules do make allowances for investing in and encouraging the development of deprived areas so it would seem that Cummings wishes to go much farther than this.

Then of course you have the lobbyists pushing for laxer rules on regulation, the environment, etc but that has always been going on.

fash wrote: »

Secondly, EU expressed "optimism" over the weekend about how things were going. If one were behind cynical, much like how the UK was expressing optimism 1-2 weeks ago, is such optimism real - or a way of putting pressure on the UK not to walk away? "Hey those guys were almost there - why did you walk?" Etc. Thoughts?

What you need to remember is that we only get the theatrics from senior government ministers. The real negotiations are being done behind closed doors and kept quiet for obvious reasons.

If the EU expressed optimism then it must think that the UK is willing to compromise on its mutually exclusive goals but only time will tell.

Infini

BluePlanet wrote: »

On the basis of Johnson's letter, the EU should shut the door on talks now and use the remaining time to put the negotiation progress in deep freeze (to be thawed out later when Britain is ready to do business), and prep for a no deal WTO relationship.

There is probably time for some temporary bespoke border infrastructure here, until they get the the construction crews going for more permanent fixtures. We've wasted 3 years for this sh*tshow and it's been a real possibility from day one.
The state of preparedness here firmly a competency of government.

Honestly I've considered their actions and behaviour to basically decide their government is a write off. That being said I also agree the EU should continue to talk but to hold their ground. If talks fail it should be the UK who triggers it, let boris and co own the problem they created, but also make it clear ths EU isn't going anywhere, if they want an agreement they'll still be there but the UK has no power to decide an agreement they have to negotiate in good faith and honestly I dont see that happening until the cùntservatives and their ideological bull**** are ejected from goverment.

Spanish Eyes

Did I dream it or were the parties to go "into a tunnel" with no media reporting to get this moving or what? Might have read it in the Express. LOL.

fash

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think you've overcomplicated this a bit to be honest. It's been happening for a while but the shift from economics to culture as the most important motive in Politics has been happening for a while now. Dead is the Conservative party of Cameron which governed in coalition with the Lib Dems for the first half of the decade. Once Cameron left, there was a tangible shift when May took over announcing a scepticism in "untrammelled free markets". Since Johnson took over, the shift has been more apparent with Johnson only sticking his head above the parapet for culture war issues.

As regards state aid, that's an easy one. Dominic Cummings seems to think that, free from Brussels' red tape and with vast swathes of capital, Britain can invent its own tech companies and "level up" the abandoned areas (with blackjack and hookers possibly). EU state aid rules do make allowances for investing in and encouraging the development of deprived areas so it would seem that Cummings wishes to go much farther than this.

Again, perhaps I being unfairly cynical and perhaps the Tories are being honest about their intentions. However, if I were the UK and wanted to come up with a fake reason to reject EU control, I would definitely go with "state aid" - it sounds so much more wholesome than "we want to screw the people/the environment/food standards". Could it be that Cummings doesn't actually believe he can pick a trillion dollar tech company in advance?

What you need to remember is that we only get the theatrics from senior government ministers. The real negotiations are being done behind closed doors and kept quiet for obvious reasons.

If the EU expressed optimism then it must think that the UK is willing to compromise on its mutually exclusive goals but only time will tell.

The EU definitely engages in a certain amount of PR albeit not the level of theatrics, lies and propaganda one gets from the UK - for example they use transparency as a weapon. They also try to get their story out their first. Certainly most negotiation is going on behind closed doors - but for the EU to express optimism, "we are very flexible and willing to make additional compromises" and "we are so close/almost there now" - creates slightly more difficulties for the UK to throw in the towel at this stage.

Joe_ Public

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Did I dream it or were the parties to go "into a tunnel" with no media reporting to get this moving or what? Might have read it in the Express. LOL.

No, you're not dreaming it. There were positive briefings from both sides prior to negotiations last week, tentative suggestions that they might be tunnel bound by the time of the eu summit. The eu side genuinely seemed to be taken by surprise that the UK would unilaterally suspend talks, if that's indeed what they have done. Which leads me to think it was the UK side just coming out with that on the hoof, Johnson realising he was just looking more ridiculous with another deadline passing and, almost retrospectively, coming up with the "talks but no talks" fudge.

Imreoir2

Joe_ Public wrote: »

No, you're not dreaming it. There were positive briefings from both sides prior to negotiations last week, tentative suggestions that they might be tunnel bound by the time of the eu summit. The eu side genuinely seemed to be taken by surprise that the UK would unilaterally suspend talks, if that's indeed what they have done. Which leads me to think it was the UK side just coming out with that on the hoof, Johnson realising he was just looking more ridiculous with another deadline passing and, almost retrospectively, coming up with the "talks but no talks" fudge.

It's possible to see this playacting as the prep work for climbing down and doing a deal.

Much of the Brexiteer criticism over the last few years has been on the lines that the UK rolled over without a fight. That is what much of the criticism of May was based on. The UK could have gotten a better deal had they creadibly been willing to walk away without a deal, had they fought up to the last second etc etc.

It is in fact credible at this point to see this process resulting in no deal, so check on that criteria. It could be that Johnson is preparing to justify a resulting deal as the best that could have been acheived and that they did everything they could to gain every possible concession from the EU.

If they were preparing for a major climbdown, what else would we expect them to do, meekly hold up their hands and say sorry for all the bs?

Time will tell.

Joe_ Public

Imreoir2 wrote: »

It's possible to see this playacting as the prep work for climbing down and doing a deal.

Much of the Brexiteer criticism over the last few years has been on the lines that the UK rolled over without a fight. That is what much of the criticism of May was based on. The UK could have gotten a better deal had they creadibly been willing to walk away without a deal, had they fought up to the last second etc etc.

It is in fact credible at this point to see this process resulting in no deal, so check on that criteria. It could be that Johnson is preparing to justify a resulting deal as the best that could have been acheived and that they did everything they could to gain every possible concession from the EU.

If they were preparing for a major climbdown, what else would we expect them to do, meekly hold up their hands and say sorry for all the bs?

Time will tell.

Yeah, i think that's not a bad take. Some of the same bs went on this time last year before they climbed down and did a deal on NI which they then went and sold to their base as the eu backing down and reopening the WA. So i can easily see something similar going down this time around too, they'll get royally done over but a few minor concessions on fishing or whatever will be fashioned into a massive victory the likes of which haven't been seen before. People will be so weary, they might just accept it and move on. All this talk of them wanting no deal, but i think most of the polls have consistently shown only a minority in favour of it, including on the leave side.

CelticRambler

It might be worth remembering that even with the most majorest of climbdowns, there simply isn't enough time left for anything to be agreed and put into effect by 31st December, other than a bare bones Canada minus deal.

So however positively Johnson might try to spin his capitulation, the people of Britain are still going to pay a hefty price, and any feel good factor from the triumphalist press conference will only last as long as it takes for that pain to kick in.

ancapailldorcha

CelticRambler wrote: »

It might be worth remembering that even with the most majorest of climbdowns, there simply isn't enough time left for anything to be agreed and put into effect by 31st December, other than a bare bones Canada minus deal.

So however positively Johnson might try to spin his capitulation, the people of Britain are still going to pay a hefty price.

I don't know about that. The UK already complies with all single market legislation and rules. The problem there is politically selling it to the public but I don't see any alternative save for no deal.

RobMc59

CelticRambler wrote: »

It might be worth remembering that even with the most majorest of climbdowns, there simply isn't enough time left for anything to be agreed and put into effect by 31st December, other than a bare bones Canada minus deal.

So however positively Johnson might try to spin his capitulation, the people of Britain are still going to pay a hefty price, and any feel good factor from the triumphalist press conference will only last as long as it takes for that pain to kick in.

If the EU were going to offer a Canada style deal why would it be a `minus` deal?
I was under the impression the UK wanted a Canada style deal.

ancapailldorcha

RobMc59 wrote: »

If the EU were going to offer a Canada style deal why would it be a `minus` deal?
I was under the impression the UK wanted a Canada style deal.

The UK wants to retain the benefits of the single market. This necessitates a closer deal than CETA.

The Raging Bile Duct

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's the final frontier.

https://twitter.com/WilliamShatner/status/1316887009198141441

Jesus, why would anyone, outside of the likes of Amazon, bother their holes going through that rigmarole to export to the UK?

Imreoir2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't know about that. The UK already complies with all single market legislation and rules. The problem there is politically selling it to the public but I don't see any alternative save for no deal.

Yes, it would actually take quite a bit longer to negotiate a bare bones FTA as you get into line by line discussions on tarrifs. An off the shelf deal that keeps the UK closer to the EU would be much quicker, but harder for the British government to sell politically.

It's possible that, if a deal is done, it will keep the UK closer to the EU than we might expect given what has been going on. This might be sold as a "freedom to win freedom" transitional trade deal.

Edit: But that might be undue optimism on my part.