Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11638
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Sun Jul 12, 2020 7:43 pm

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
yep more than happy if it removes us from the clutches of the EU


It is fine if you think 600billion Pounds / 10.000pounds per citizen, is a price to pay, but you never were in the "clutches" of the EU, whatever that even mean. And more importantly, it was never disclosed beforehand, before the 2016 vote, that it would be that expensive to do. Quite important information to have to reach a decision, don't you think?
.


The problem with your numbers 90% is theoretical it is assuming the economy would have moved in a certain way you can’t miss what you never had.

But one estimate that the government has actully spent on Brexit is 4.4 billion pounds by Andrew MacAskill from Reuters March 5th via the NAO so you can conclude by the end of the year another couple of billion, worth every penny if you ask me.


No, the question was if 600bn / 10.000 per citizen was ok, and you answered yes. Which is ok if you think that, that is your choice, but you cannot say now that 10bn is ok. The 200bn is including the economic consequences of the Brexit saga. Only quoting the government spending is presenting only a fraction of the true cost and thus is misleading.


A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
Did you actually read why?
If he does its a commercial decision to meet production start due to disruptions of Covid-19


Sure, I have read the stated reason and the additional benefit of producing in the EU instead of the UK: you can sell it in the EU, not just in the UK.


So are you saying anything made in the UK after January 1st 2001 cannot be sold in the EU.... that’s an interesting way to put it


No, nowhere did I say that, so don't put words in my mouths.

BTW 2021, we are in the '20-ish already. ;)

A101 wrote:
You do reliase that Ineos Automotive was formed after the referenda, I imagine he was also intending to sell to the EU market when he decide to build manufacturing plants in both the UK and Portugal Portugal (chassis and body) and UK (final assembly)


You realize that with a desired hard Brexit the prices of UK made cars will skyrocket within the EU.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2686
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Sun Jul 12, 2020 9:20 pm

A manufacturer in the UK is certainly able to sell his product to the EU, provided the product lives up to all current EU regulations. Regulations which the UK will not be able to participate formulating. When selling his wares to the EU, they will be subject to an import tax which his EU competitors are not. To boot, the government of the EU based competitor may well have been instrumental in creating the applicable EU regulations.

That is hardly the definition of a level playing field, and it's not intended to be so either.

As for "taking back control", it's an absolute meaningless and incorrect statement, as the UK never lost any control to start with. Through a combination of indifference, incompetence and ineptitude, the UK failed to control non-EU immigration and failed to take advantage of the provisions inherent in the EU freedom-of-movement, specifically that an EU national moving to another EU country may be deported if they are unable to sustain themselves.

On the other hand, the UK has to a very large part been instrumental in bending the EU to its will, by building alliances with likeminded countries (typically Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden ), were never forced to join either the Schengen or Euro, and obtained large discounts for historical reasons. Discounts which the UK had a veto against being withdrawn, if such a proposal was ever fielded on a serious level. There are large sections of EU regulations which bear a strong UK footprint, notably financial services and insurance.

To put it as clearly as possible: The UK had two sound and safe feet planted solidly on very firm ground, but chose to take a double-barrelled shotgun to both of them and turn firm ground into a muddy cesspit for absolutely no good reason at all. It is the very definition of complete and utter idiocy.
Signature. You just read one.
 
olle
Posts: 2066
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Sun Jul 12, 2020 10:08 pm

B777LRF wrote:
A manufacturer in the UK is certainly able to sell his product to the EU, provided the product lives up to all current EU regulations. Regulations which the UK will not be able to participate formulating. When selling his wares to the EU, they will be subject to an import tax which his EU competitors are not. To boot, the government of the EU based competitor may well have been instrumental in creating the applicable EU regulations.

That is hardly the definition of a level playing field, and it's not intended to be so either.

As for "taking back control", it's an absolute meaningless and incorrect statement, as the UK never lost any control to start with. Through a combination of indifference, incompetence and ineptitude, the UK failed to control non-EU immigration and failed to take advantage of the provisions inherent in the EU freedom-of-movement, specifically that an EU national moving to another EU country may be deported if they are unable to sustain themselves.

On the other hand, the UK has to a very large part been instrumental in bending the EU to its will, by building alliances with likeminded countries (typically Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden ), were never forced to join either the Schengen or Euro, and obtained large discounts for historical reasons. Discounts which the UK had a veto against being withdrawn, if such a proposal was ever fielded on a serious level. There are large sections of EU regulations which bear a strong UK footprint, notably financial services and insurance.

To put it as clearly as possible: The UK had two sound and safe feet planted solidly on very firm ground, but chose to take a double-barrelled shotgun to both of them and turn firm ground into a muddy cesspit for absolutely no good reason at all. It is the very definition of complete and utter idiocy.


UK has been using "Free movement" to extreme extent for the financial industry. The financial industry in London serving EU is built on free movement.

One of the biggest demands from UK in the negotiations is actually to keep free movement for selected groups such as artist UK experts like financial industry etc to have full free movement right within EU without restrictions.
 
A101
Posts: 1961
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Sun Jul 12, 2020 10:52 pm

Dutchy wrote:

No, the question was if 600bn / 10.000 per citizen was ok, and you answered yes. Which is ok if you think that, that is your choice, but you cannot say now that 10bn is ok. The 200bn is including the economic consequences of the Brexit saga. Only quoting the government spending is presenting only a fraction of the true cost and thus is misleading.




LOL, that doesn’t make sense. But for you’re sake let’s make it a trillion in theoretical ££ can’t hurt me/us as it never existed

You are talking about a theoretical reduction that may or may not have happened and on money which does not exist, the global economy has been in decline just as the UK as well as the Eurozone well before even Germany the economic powerhouse only narrowly avoided a technical recession last year. That article by Andrew MacAskill using the NAO report is the actual figures spent by UKGov its not a theory its real £££. So there is nothing misleading about it at all. As I said you can miss or included something that does not exist.

Dutchy wrote:
Sure, I have read the stated reason and the additional benefit of producing in the EU instead of the UK: you can sell it in the EU, not just in the UK.

No, nowhere did I say that, so don't put words in my mouths.



I can only respond to what you write. Make it more clear then

Producing in EU besides just producing in UK means you can sell it in EU. That infers that manufacturing in UK does not meet EU standards or regulations

Dutchy wrote:
BTW 2021, we are in the '20-ish already


LOL: you got me on a typo, but by geez to be 20 years younger again and with the benefit of hindsight I’d certainly be a lot richer

Dutchy wrote:

You realize that with a desired hard Brexit the prices of UK made cars will skyrocket within the EU.


Yep as by you’re definition EU produced vehicles will also skyrocket with all the extra tariffs etc
 
A101
Posts: 1961
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Sun Jul 12, 2020 11:02 pm

olle wrote:
B777LRF wrote:
A manufacturer in the UK is certainly able to sell his product to the EU, provided the product lives up to all current EU regulations. Regulations which the UK will not be able to participate formulating. When selling his wares to the EU, they will be subject to an import tax which his EU competitors are not. To boot, the government of the EU based competitor may well have been instrumental in creating the applicable EU regulations.

That is hardly the definition of a level playing field, and it's not intended to be so either.

As for "taking back control", it's an absolute meaningless and incorrect statement, as the UK never lost any control to start with. Through a combination of indifference, incompetence and ineptitude, the UK failed to control non-EU immigration and failed to take advantage of the provisions inherent in the EU freedom-of-movement, specifically that an EU national moving to another EU country may be deported if they are unable to sustain themselves.

On the other hand, the UK has to a very large part been instrumental in bending the EU to its will, by building alliances with likeminded countries (typically Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden ), were never forced to join either the Schengen or Euro, and obtained large discounts for historical reasons. Discounts which the UK had a veto against being withdrawn, if such a proposal was ever fielded on a serious level. There are large sections of EU regulations which bear a strong UK footprint, notably financial services and insurance.

To put it as clearly as possible: The UK had two sound and safe feet planted solidly on very firm ground, but chose to take a double-barrelled shotgun to both of them and turn firm ground into a muddy cesspit for absolutely no good reason at all. It is the very definition of complete and utter idiocy.


UK has been using "Free movement" to extreme extent for the financial industry. The financial industry in London serving EU is built on free movement.

One of the biggest demands from UK in the negotiations is actually to keep free movement for selected groups such as artist UK experts like financial industry etc to have full free movement right within EU without restrictions.



I covered this before, it’s also included in CETA as well as the WTO mode 4 under service suppliers nothing unusual in the request to include it in the FTA. It would work both ways for UK/ EU workers for companies doing business with each other

The CETA is a comprehensive trade agreement, which covers virtually all sectors and aspects of Canada-EU trade, including labour mobility. The CETA's temporary entry provisions make it easier for highly skilled EU professionals and business people to temporarily enter Canada.


https://www.lexology.com/library/detail ... 33b38a5210
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11638
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Jul 13, 2020 6:11 am

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

No, the question was if 600bn / 10.000 per citizen was ok, and you answered yes. Which is ok if you think that, that is your choice, but you cannot say now that 10bn is ok. The 200bn is including the economic consequences of the Brexit saga. Only quoting the government spending is presenting only a fraction of the true cost and thus is misleading.


LOL, that doesn’t make sense. But for you’re sake let’s make it a trillion in theoretical ££ can’t hurt me/us as it never existed

You are talking about a theoretical reduction that may or may not have happened and on money which does not exist, the global economy has been in decline just as the UK as well as the Eurozone well before even Germany the economic powerhouse only narrowly avoided a technical recession last year. That article by Andrew MacAskill using the NAO report is the actual figures spent by UKGov its not a theory its real £££. So there is nothing misleading about it at all. As I said you can miss or included something that does not exist.


Ok, your assertion is that there is no economic effect of Brexit, none. It is proven that it is not the case. There is nothing theoretical about it. So it is very misleading only mentioning a small part of the damage caused by Brexit and say "I am ok with that". Just as the bus was misleading.

As I said before, you are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
You realize that with a desired hard Brexit the prices of UK made cars will skyrocket within the EU.


Yep as by you’re definition EU produced vehicles will also skyrocket with all the extra tariffs etc


The tariff will be 10%. So the car produced will be 10% more expensive making an UK produced car uncompetitive.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
JJJ
Posts: 3654
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Jul 13, 2020 7:07 am

A101 wrote:
Yep as by you’re definition EU produced vehicles will also skyrocket with all the extra tariffs etc


EU manufactured cars have a big local market and several big tariff-free export markets.

British industry OTOH will have a much harder time justifying its existence, especially foreign owned.
 
LJ
Posts: 5290
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Jul 13, 2020 8:06 am

A101 wrote:
The problem with your numbers 90% is theoretical it is assuming the economy would have moved in a certain way you can’t miss what you never had.

But one estimate that the government has actully spent on Brexit is 4.4 billion pounds by Andrew MacAskill from Reuters March 5th via the NAO so you can conclude by the end of the year another couple of billion, worth every penny if you ask me.


I don't think the a mount currently spend should be considered the cost of Brexit. It's only part of it. if you hire 500 additional customs agents (on top of the ones you probably already hired) and assume an average pay of GBP 20k per employee (that't the cost for the employer), this would mean an additional cost of GBP 10mn for those employees alone per year. Add to this the cost of actually running the facility and systems and you get a much higher figure per year. This figure still excludes the cost which companies have to make as they need to hire people for the red tape and extra stock piling. These costs are annual costs and thus aren't in the figure currently spend nor budgeted (at least I do not get the impression that the goign costs are incorporated in the GBP 705mn).

One can argue that part of these cost will float back to the economy in the form of consumption and taxes, but in the end, it's still a cost which needs to be paid by someone initially. If that someone is the government, it can only mean either cut spending or raising taxes. If that someone is a company, it can only mean raising the cost price (reducing other cost should be excluded as the company should have done this regardless of Brexit). Raising cost price means either less profit or no sale as the price is too high. As both the negative and positive impact of the additional cost for Brexit is unknown, I prefer to look at the direct costs only and thus disregard any money flowing back into the economy due to more civil servants or other employees.
 
olle
Posts: 2066
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Jul 13, 2020 8:19 am

EHIC is about to expire meaning that brittish older people will have problem to live periods inside EU;

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/ne ... 15276.html

What about Erasmus? One of the biggest export success of the UK is universities and Erasmus has been a big part of the success financing the studies.

I am currently living in torrevieja / Alicante over the summer. I bought the appartment from a british lady worrying over the EHIC card. Today the brittish ios not settling as much over here anymore. It is scandinavians moving in and brittish moving out.
 
noviorbis77
Posts: 1004
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:23 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:00 am

LJ wrote:
A101 wrote:
The problem with your numbers 90% is theoretical it is assuming the economy would have moved in a certain way you can’t miss what you never had.

But one estimate that the government has actully spent on Brexit is 4.4 billion pounds by Andrew MacAskill from Reuters March 5th via the NAO so you can conclude by the end of the year another couple of billion, worth every penny if you ask me.


I don't think the a mount currently spend should be considered the cost of Brexit. It's only part of it. if you hire 500 additional customs agents (on top of the ones you probably already hired) and assume an average pay of GBP 20k per employee (that't the cost for the employer), this would mean an additional cost of GBP 10mn for those employees alone per year. Add to this the cost of actually running the facility and systems and you get a much higher figure per year. This figure still excludes the cost which companies have to make as they need to hire people for the red tape and extra stock piling. These costs are annual costs and thus aren't in the figure currently spend nor budgeted (at least I do not get the impression that the goign costs are incorporated in the GBP 705mn).

One can argue that part of these cost will float back to the economy in the form of consumption and taxes, but in the end, it's still a cost which needs to be paid by someone initially. If that someone is the government, it can only mean either cut spending or raising taxes. If that someone is a company, it can only mean raising the cost price (reducing other cost should be excluded as the company should have done this regardless of Brexit). Raising cost price means either less profit or no sale as the price is too high. As both the negative and positive impact of the additional cost for Brexit is unknown, I prefer to look at the direct costs only and thus disregard any money flowing back into the economy due to more civil servants or other employees.


Customs officers are more around £35,000-£40,000 once shift allowances are brought in. Starting pay is around £26,000.
 
LJ
Posts: 5290
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:23 am

Seems that "Project Fear" wasn't far of the truth regarding cost of Brexit for UK firms.

https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-britain-takes-shape-paperwork-red-tape-bureaucracy/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-customs-centres-kent-lorry-park-eu-exit-ashford-a9616486.html

BTW the FT reports that a figure of GBP 7bn (or GBP 134.6mn) is to be expected as total cost for UK firms to trade with the EU. However, as I don't have a subscription I cannot link to and read the article.
 
Olddog
Topic Author
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:42 am

I very much doubt that the lorry parks will be ready for 01/01/21, when you factor all that needs to be built. The Chineses working 24/24 7d/7 might be able to do so but it is the only country that could.
Signature censored
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11638
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:55 am

LJ wrote:
Seems that "Project Fear" wasn't far of the truth regarding cost of Brexit for UK firms.

https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-britain-takes-shape-paperwork-red-tape-bureaucracy/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-customs-centres-kent-lorry-park-eu-exit-ashford-a9616486.html

BTW the FT reports that a figure of GBP 7bn (or GBP 134.6mn) is to be expected as total cost for UK firms to trade with the EU. However, as I don't have a subscription I cannot link to and read the article.


From the linked independent article: "at a cost previously estimated by HM Revenue and Customs at anything up to £20bn a year."

Compared to: gross £15.5 billion in 2018 and net contribution of £7.8 bn.

Of course, those can't be compared 1 on 1 and the 20bn a year HM Revenue and Customs have calculated, is just for the red tape. But hey, at least it is a clear result: Britain has taken control to expand the red tape needed.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
bennett123
Posts: 9625
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Tue Jul 14, 2020 11:58 am

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-53398487

Huawei: UK prepares to change course on 5G kit supplier

I wonder what this will do for trade talks with China?
 
Olddog
Topic Author
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:07 pm

It just means that the uk bet on trump. We will see in November if that bet pays off
Signature censored
 
LJ
Posts: 5290
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:36 pm

Olddog wrote:
I very much doubt that the lorry parks will be ready for 01/01/21, when you factor all that needs to be built. The Chineses working 24/24 7d/7 might be able to do so but it is the only country that could.


AFAIK only Kent needs to be open and the remainder between 01-01-2021 and 31-07-2021 as they're going to phase in the checks. Needless to say this will be good news for those in the construction business as they know their client needs to have everything ASAP and thus can ask for more money.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4105
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:43 pm

I think the US generally wants to reset our relationship with China. We can do without announcing eternal love for Xi, nor fits of racial hate. We are in a way super important allies as well as competitors.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
LJ
Posts: 5290
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:53 pm

bennett123 wrote:
I wonder what this will do for trade talks with China?


Probably not that much anymore as the UK already made that worse when it announced it may be handiing out passports to 3mn citizens of Hong Kong.
 
olle
Posts: 2066
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:56 pm

 
ChrisKen
Posts: 975
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:15 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:53 pm

olle wrote:


We already had layers of red tape. Brexiteers blamed it on the EU, rather than it's correct origin.....our own civil service/parliament.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11638
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:05 pm

Trade Secretary says Boris Johnson’s Brexit border plans could help smugglers and be vulnerable to WTO challenge

Boris Johnson’s Brexit border plans may be vulnerable to international legal challenge and will help smugglers, the international trade secretary has warned in a leaked cabinet letter.

Liz Truss wrote to Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, and Michael Gove, the chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, saying she had “key areas of concerns” about the prime minister’s plans for Northern Ireland.


Source

Given this is from inside the Cabinet and Liz Truss herself is a arch Brexiteer, we can only concluded her analyses is right and that the Government's plan is quite vulnerable.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2005
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Thu Jul 16, 2020 1:01 pm

Another day, another Brexiteer blaming everyone else for their own shortcomings.

In this case, perceived “poison pills” in the very WA that they cheered on mere months ago.

“Given that history, it is ironic that now the EU wants Britain to pay billions in “reparations”, as though we had lost a war, for the privilege of leaving the EU bloc, secede territory in Ireland and quite possibly be constrained in our ability to compete by restrictions on state aid, including tax, regional and investment policy, all through the mechanism of the poison pill which is the WA.”

And hence, the inevitable:

“ The final, tangible treachery of the Remain camp came in the poison pill that is the rump of the withdrawal treaty, which needs to be excised from the new Withdrawal Agreement (WA) in this final stage of the negotiations on future arrangements. The report (by the Center for Brexit Policy) not only shows what the negative impacts will be of not doing so but also sets out how it can be done and why it can be justified. Furthermore, it is made clear that it is entirely legitimate within the terms of the treaty and of international treaty norms to repudiate the WA should that be necessary.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... throw-bin/

So there you have it. The legally binding WA that Brexiteers - including at least one here - insisted had been changed for the better, is once again ready for the bin.

And, of course, it is remainers’ fault that Brexiteers didn’t actually change it enough to make it what they wanted, and then went out and cheered it.

Now it’s time to trash the WA because it no longer suits the Brexiteers. I suppose the UK could do that. The only problem is....well, what’s the point of negotiating treaties and agreements if they can be discarded in months. Funny thing is, a certain Asian country is doing the same thing to a treaty it signed with the UK, and many in the UK seem upset about it.

On the bright side, Brexiteer Longworth’s words hopefully confirm what at least one Brexiteer here has wrongly denied all along - that a lot of the negotiation issues these days are rooted in the UK not respecting the legally binding WA, rather than the non-legally ponding PD.
 
olle
Posts: 2066
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Thu Jul 16, 2020 2:07 pm

The different is that uk want changes before the inc is dry.

China at least waited 30 years :-)

By the way uk goverment is furious over france because refugees and illegal immigrants is not stopped to leave france...
 
Olddog
Topic Author
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Thu Jul 16, 2020 2:10 pm

A very inter sting article: https://tamebay.com/2020/07/amazon-fba-brexit-bombshell-efn-and-pan-european-fba-ends-for-uk.html

I guess in January I will get way less advertising from amazon.co.uk :)

The Amazon FBA Brexit bombshell has dropped which will significantly impact your Amazon business from the 1st of January 2021. Amazon’s UK FBA operations will be split from the EU with no more EFN (European Fufilment Network) and an end to Pan-European FBA inventory transfers between the UK and EU.

Amazon FBA Brexit Bombshell 1 – EFN
EFN allows you to fulfil orders from any Amazon European marketplace, while you ship your goods to Amazon’s fulfilment centres in just one country such as the UK.

From the 1st of January 2020 goods in Amazon’s UK fulfilment centres will no longer be used to fulfil orders in Europe. Effectively your sales opportunity from selling on Amazon UK dropped from 446 million EU consumers to 66 million brits.
Amazon FBA Brexit Bombshell 2 – Pan-European FBA

Currently, with Pan-European FBA, when you send your products to fulfilment centres in the UK, Amazon distribute them for storage across Europe. Your products become Prime eligible and visible to millions of customers, with faster delivery while you pay only UK local fulfilment fees.

This will end for stock in Amazon UK warehouses on the 1st of January 2021. However if you send stock to an Amazon warehouse in Europe then it will still be distributed to other European warehouse, with the exception that it won’t be sent back to the UK.

The difference between EFN and Pan-European FBA
EFN is effectively keeping your stock in the UK and picking up the shipping cost when you get an international sale. Pan-European FBA means only paying local shipping charges but Amazon can move your stock out of the UK into Europe so that it is closer to the end customer and can be fulfilled quicker.

EFN is an easy way into international selling whereas Pan-European FBA will generally involve having higher levels of inventory. Ending both of these programs for UK merchants means if you want to sell into Europe you will have to split your stock, send some to FBA in the UK and some to FBA in at least one other European country.
Sales impact

Whilst Amazon say that the changes will apply from the 1st of January 2021, in reality you might find impacts of the Amazon FBA Brexit bombshell start to impact you earlier. For instance, if you already have stock in Pan-European FBA it is feasible that Amazon will repatriate your stock before the end of the year and certainly are likely to stop sending your stock to Europe at an earlier date. This means that certainly around Christmas, perhaps sooner, your European sales will start to decline.

Definitely, from the 1st of January 2021, if you do nothing then the full impact of the Amazon FBA Brexit bombshell will be a complete cessation of your European sales.
Signature censored
 
LJ
Posts: 5290
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Thu Jul 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Olddog wrote:
A very inter sting article: https://tamebay.com/2020/07/amazon-fba-brexit-bombshell-efn-and-pan-european-fba-ends-for-uk.html

I guess in January I will get way less advertising from amazon.co.uk :)


To be honest, this is one of the reasons why I'm against Brexit (and contrary to some Brits, Brexit does affect me whilst living in The Netherlands). I've bought many times on Amazon.co.uk in the past as the prices are usually lower than on the continent (especially Playmobil)... I wouldn't be surprised if some UK retailers don't ship to the The Netherlands anymore after December 31st (and not only those on Amazon.co.uk).
 
A101
Posts: 1961
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:10 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
Another day, another Brexiteer blaming everyone else for their own shortcomings.

In this case, perceived “poison pills” in the very WA that they cheered on mere months ago.

“Given that history, it is ironic that now the EU wants Britain to pay billions in “reparations”, as though we had lost a war, for the privilege of leaving the EU bloc, secede territory in Ireland and quite possibly be constrained in our ability to compete by restrictions on state aid, including tax, regional and investment policy, all through the mechanism of the poison pill which is the WA.”

And hence, the inevitable:

“ The final, tangible treachery of the Remain camp came in the poison pill that is the rump of the withdrawal treaty, which needs to be excised from the new Withdrawal Agreement (WA) in this final stage of the negotiations on future arrangements. The report (by the Center for Brexit Policy) not only shows what the negative impacts will be of not doing so but also sets out how it can be done and why it can be justified. Furthermore, it is made clear that it is entirely legitimate within the terms of the treaty and of international treaty norms to repudiate the WA should that be necessary.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... throw-bin/

So there you have it. The legally binding WA that Brexiteers - including at least one here - insisted had been changed for the better, is once again ready for the bin.

And, of course, it is remainers’ fault that Brexiteers didn’t actually change it enough to make it what they wanted, and then went out and cheered it.

Now it’s time to trash the WA because it no longer suits the Brexiteers. I suppose the UK could do that. The only problem is....well, what’s the point of negotiating treaties and agreements if they can be discarded in months. Funny thing is, a certain Asian country is doing the same thing to a treaty it signed with the UK, and many in the UK seem upset about it.

On the bright side, Brexiteer Longworth’s words hopefully confirm what at least one Brexiteer here has wrongly denied all along - that a lot of the negotiation issues these days are rooted in the UK not respecting the legally binding WA, rather than the non-legally ponding PD.



Yes I do know you are referring to me, but please get the context right.

I have said all along that if it were up to me I would have srapped the entire WA and the only thing that would have been negotiated would have been the financial aspect of the divorce bill, and I have been very consistent in that message, it’s just you choose to ignore it as it doesn’t suit you’re narrative

But I do stand by what I said that the changes that were made to the WA are for the better to the UK.


We have been over the history before in regards to why we are at this point in the last thread no need to regurgitate it again.

But if the UK were to scrap the WA I would be a very happy, but I know it’s not likely to happen.


You also point to the Chinese and HK and compare it, but I don’t see the UK making repressive laws towards those who protest about Brexit and gaol them do you?
 
olle
Posts: 2066
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:32 pm

As I understand it not much of the 39 billion will be left to be paid after 2022. It has been connected to obligations into the current budget and the period when it is still connected to SM etc.
Last edited by olle on Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
olle
Posts: 2066
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:35 pm

Brexit divorce bill year by year;

https://www.bbc.com/news/51110096

So when the Brexit date was 31 October 2019, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) estimated that the bill had fallen to £32.8bn.

It has not given a fresh estimate based on the 31 January 2020 Brexit date, but Reality Check sought some guidance from the OBR on how to calculate it.

The first thing to do is to subtract from the bill the EU budget fees the UK continued to pay in November and December of 2019. The OBR estimated this would be £1.62bn.

That leaves January 2020 to factor in. The OBR said the total for 2020 would be £10.69bn. To work out January's figure, you would expect to divide it by 12.

Actually, it's more like 14% because the EU usually requests a higher proportion of the contributions earlier in the year. That gives a total for the divorce bill of just under £30bn.

The OBR expects most of this to be paid by 2022, with some relatively small payments still being made until the 2060s.
 
Olddog
Topic Author
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Jul 17, 2020 7:56 am

What you with ultra brexiters is a permanent attempt to rewrite history for a more extreme version of the break up.

The idea that only the financial aspect was to discuss is just a fantasy.

Re-writing history

There are some very obvious problems with this proposal – even leaving aside the legal issues involved in breaking the WA - which involves a substantial re-writing of history. The UK signed the WA less than six months ago, as an international treaty. It was signed by Boris Johnson, following his much-trumpeted re-negotiation, and was put to the electorate as the ‘oven ready deal’ which was the centre piece of his re-election. At that election, the Brexit Party initially threatened to run a candidate in every seat if Johnson didn’t scrap the WA but then withdrew that demand and did not field candidates in Tory-held seats. John Longworth, then a Brexit Party MEP (he was later expelled from it), welcomed this change of strategy (£) on the grounds that “the Government’s exit agreement is Brexit and, whilst it has drawbacks, could result in a good deal”. No talk of a “poison pill” then. The Brexit Party itself garnered 2% of the vote and did not win any seats.

Thereafter, the WA Act was passed by a large majority in the House of Commons with support from ERG MPs, including Paterson. Did they not want the British Parliament to make its own decisions? It may be that some MPs did not read or understand it: if so, tough. They should have done their job properly. It may be that they believed it was all up for re-negotiation in the future: if so, tough. They were wrong. As for Longworth, as a, by then, Conservative MEP he also voted (in the European Parliament) for the WA and at the time said that as a result we will leave the EU and “become once again an independent, sovereign nation”. Now he says it was drawn up by “fools or knaves” and is incompatible with being “a truly sovereign nation”.

The proposition that Johnson had no time to re-negotiate properly is nonsense both because the time frames were of his choice and because he himself declared it to be “a great new deal” and the Conservative Party manifesto for the 2019 election also described it as such. The Conservative Party website explicitly said that those who criticized it (in context, this presumably meant Farage) were wrong and that the deal did indeed “take back control”. And even – to be far more charitable than is warranted – if none of that were true, it’s simply absurd to think that any country can conduct itself in such a manner as to rip up major international agreements within months of signing them because it hadn’t created an adequate process to consider the commitments it was making.

The Ultras have never accepted the WA

The roots of this latest outburst from the Brexit Ultras go deep, as regular readers of this blog will know. Immediately after the 2019 election I wrote:

“I suspect that many in the ERG will now be thinking that Johnson’s deal was only the bastard offspring of May’s ill-fated premiership and the ‘remainer parliament’, and feel no allegiance to it. They kept quiet during the election campaign, which required them to pledge support for Johnson’s deal, but that won’t necessarily last. For one thing, many of them are rebels by temperament, with a track record going back in some cases to John Major’s premiership, and ruthlessly indifferent to party loyalty or discipline …. With all that said, in the aftermath of his fresh election victory and on a scale that was so unexpected, it is far more likely that the ERG will keep their powder dry. But all that means is that even as Brexit ‘gets done’ they will hold on to the belief that the WA meant that ‘this was not really Brexit’ and will be watching keenly – in both senses of the word – for further ‘betrayals’.”

That suspicion has now proved correct – though how much overt support the current campaign against the WA will have amongst Tory MPs remains to be seen. It might be tempting to dismiss he CBP Report as the work of a fringe minority group of cranks. But that would be a very serious mistake. Over and over again, this group or one of its other incarnations has quickly seen its initially outlandish positions become mainstream, aided by the way that, as new research shows (figure 2), MPs affiliated with groups like the ERG and Leave means Leave (co-founded by John Longworth) get disproportionate media attention. The concerted way in which they are pushing this new message leads me to think it could rapidly gain traction.

Indeed, as I suggested in a more recent post, there have already been ominous signs that the government – and, implicitly, Dominic Cummings – regard the WA as ‘defective’, with the potential to lead Britain down the path to international pariahdom. I thought then, and still think, that even this government would not renege on an international treaty at least unless no trade deal is reached in which case the pressure to do so will intensify perhaps to irresistibility. The proposition in the CBP report, of course, is that whether or not there is a deal the WA should be ditched.

It is, frankly, an insane idea – politically, legally and diplomatically - but it grows from the long-evident way that the Ultras are never satisfied with Brexit, however hard and in whatever form. This is partly because the ideas they have of what is possible are total fantasy, and so as soon as they encounter reality, as they did in the Article 50 negotiations, they are doomed to be ‘betrayed’. But the deeper issue is that there is, actually, a desire to be betrayed, a desire always to be campaigning for something even more extreme, always to be insisting that Brexit is being denied them. In the most recent example, as in the past, this extends to denouncing as betrayal even things that they themselves have supported or voted for in the past. It is a pathology which has totally deformed British politics so that, now, at the moment of their victory, they are still complaining, still unhappy, still spitting out vitriol, still blaming remainers.
Signature censored
 
A101
Posts: 1961
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Jul 17, 2020 10:47 am

Olddog wrote:
What you with ultra brexiters is a permanent attempt to rewrite history for a more extreme version of the break up.

The idea that only the financial aspect was to discuss is just a fantasy.

Re-writing history

There are some very obvious problems with this proposal – even leaving aside the legal issues involved in breaking the WA - which involves a substantial re-writing of history. The UK signed the WA less than six months ago, as an international treaty. It was signed by Boris Johnson, following his much-trumpeted re-negotiation, and was put to the electorate as the ‘oven ready deal’ which was the centre piece of his re-election. At that election, the Brexit Party initially threatened to run a candidate in every seat if Johnson didn’t scrap the WA but then withdrew that demand and did not field candidates in Tory-held seats. John Longworth, then a Brexit Party MEP (he was later expelled from it), welcomed this change of strategy (£) on the grounds that “the Government’s exit agreement is Brexit and, whilst it has drawbacks, could result in a good deal”. No talk of a “poison pill” then. The Brexit Party itself garnered 2% of the vote and did not win any seats.

Thereafter, the WA Act was passed by a large majority in the House of Commons with support from ERG MPs, including Paterson. Did they not want the British Parliament to make its own decisions? It may be that some MPs did not read or understand it: if so, tough. They should have done their job properly. It may be that they believed it was all up for re-negotiation in the future: if so, tough. They were wrong. As for Longworth, as a, by then, Conservative MEP he also voted (in the European Parliament) for the WA and at the time said that as a result we will leave the EU and “become once again an independent, sovereign nation”. Now he says it was drawn up by “fools or knaves” and is incompatible with being “a truly sovereign nation”.

The proposition that Johnson had no time to re-negotiate properly is nonsense both because the time frames were of his choice and because he himself declared it to be “a great new deal” and the Conservative Party manifesto for the 2019 election also described it as such. The Conservative Party website explicitly said that those who criticized it (in context, this presumably meant Farage) were wrong and that the deal did indeed “take back control”. And even – to be far more charitable than is warranted – if none of that were true, it’s simply absurd to think that any country can conduct itself in such a manner as to rip up major international agreements within months of signing them because it hadn’t created an adequate process to consider the commitments it was making.

The Ultras have never accepted the WA

The roots of this latest outburst from the Brexit Ultras go deep, as regular readers of this blog will know. Immediately after the 2019 election I wrote:

“I suspect that many in the ERG will now be thinking that Johnson’s deal was only the bastard offspring of May’s ill-fated premiership and the ‘remainer parliament’, and feel no allegiance to it. They kept quiet during the election campaign, which required them to pledge support for Johnson’s deal, but that won’t necessarily last. For one thing, many of them are rebels by temperament, with a track record going back in some cases to John Major’s premiership, and ruthlessly indifferent to party loyalty or discipline …. With all that said, in the aftermath of his fresh election victory and on a scale that was so unexpected, it is far more likely that the ERG will keep their powder dry. But all that means is that even as Brexit ‘gets done’ they will hold on to the belief that the WA meant that ‘this was not really Brexit’ and will be watching keenly – in both senses of the word – for further ‘betrayals’.”

That suspicion has now proved correct – though how much overt support the current campaign against the WA will have amongst Tory MPs remains to be seen. It might be tempting to dismiss he CBP Report as the work of a fringe minority group of cranks. But that would be a very serious mistake. Over and over again, this group or one of its other incarnations has quickly seen its initially outlandish positions become mainstream, aided by the way that, as new research shows (figure 2), MPs affiliated with groups like the ERG and Leave means Leave (co-founded by John Longworth) get disproportionate media attention. The concerted way in which they are pushing this new message leads me to think it could rapidly gain traction.

Indeed, as I suggested in a more recent post, there have already been ominous signs that the government – and, implicitly, Dominic Cummings – regard the WA as ‘defective’, with the potential to lead Britain down the path to international pariahdom. I thought then, and still think, that even this government would not renege on an international treaty at least unless no trade deal is reached in which case the pressure to do so will intensify perhaps to irresistibility. The proposition in the CBP report, of course, is that whether or not there is a deal the WA should be ditched.

It is, frankly, an insane idea – politically, legally and diplomatically - but it grows from the long-evident way that the Ultras are never satisfied with Brexit, however hard and in whatever form. This is partly because the ideas they have of what is possible are total fantasy, and so as soon as they encounter reality, as they did in the Article 50 negotiations, they are doomed to be ‘betrayed’. But the deeper issue is that there is, actually, a desire to be betrayed, a desire always to be campaigning for something even more extreme, always to be insisting that Brexit is being denied them. In the most recent example, as in the past, this extends to denouncing as betrayal even things that they themselves have supported or voted for in the past. It is a pathology which has totally deformed British politics so that, now, at the moment of their victory, they are still complaining, still unhappy, still spitting out vitriol, still blaming remainers.


Rewriting history LOL she just leaves key events out of it.

I notice in it she fails to mention that Johnson had less than 3mths to renegotiate the WA he only became PM on 24 July 19( remember those assertions on this very forum that BJ would be the shortest serving PM in the history of the UK), all the while the EU steadfastly refused that they would reopen it, he also had a very pro remain speaker of the house as well as a majority pro remain Parliament and that he either renegotiate the WA by the 31 October 19 or face the Benn Act, the time frame was not his choice his only extension was the one forced on him by the Benn Act

The European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Benn Act) which was passed on the 4th September had left left Government at the mercy of Parliment on wether to accept a no deal exit in which we all know that that House would not have approved it and most likely lead to revoke A50

The renegotiated WA was agree on the 17th October19 , Johnson became PM on the 24th July. The surrender Act (Benn Act) really forced Johnson’s hand no one could have renegotiated a complete New WA in less than 3mths mission impossible

PM May started negotiations on 19 June 17 and signed off on her deal on the 14 November 2018 17mths


Maybe she should not talk about re-writing history when she does it herself
 
AeroVega
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:32 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Jul 17, 2020 5:16 pm

Ah yes, those damn Remainers! It's all their fault. It's always their fault.

You know what? You can always unilaterally ditch the WA. Who's stopping you?

Just do it. See what happens. And don't forget to blame the Remainers!
 
A101
Posts: 1961
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Jul 17, 2020 7:04 pm

AeroVega wrote:
Ah yes, those damn Remainers! It's all their fault. It's always their fault.

You know what? You can always unilaterally ditch the WA. Who's stopping you?

Just do it. See what happens. And don't forget to blame the Remainers!



Well they certainly didn’t make it easy they certainly put more pressure on Johnson to make compromise after compromise and hand the EU more bargaining power, if they were that hell bent on trying to stop us leaving the EU why vote for it in the 1st place

As I said earlier I will be very happy if they ditch the WA. It should never have been drawn up the way it was in the 1st place under May
 
bennett123
Posts: 9625
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Jul 17, 2020 7:44 pm

I thought that we were talking about the new improved WA agreed by Boris.
 
olle
Posts: 2066
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Jul 17, 2020 7:55 pm

you mean the WA where Tories threw DUP under the bus?
 
AeroVega
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:32 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Jul 17, 2020 8:05 pm

bennett123 wrote:
I thought that we were talking about the new improved WA agreed by Boris.


No, no. We are talking about the horrible WA that the Remainers tricked Boris into. Can you imagine, letting the Northern Irish people decide their own fate? Or paying for commitments made in the past?
 
olle
Posts: 2066
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Jul 17, 2020 8:42 pm

Ms May and the original WA was based on pleasing DUP and pro UK in NI.

The DUP was fooled ;-) They went against the will of NI, supported brexit and then they was thrown out when Tory did not need them any more.

Will protestants in NI ever trust a Tory in the future?
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4105
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Jul 17, 2020 10:00 pm

Before the GFA the Republic of Ireland was horribly under the control of a hierarchical religion. No more. The ROI now is less influenced by conservative religiosity than the US. NI, be they of any or no persuasion can be comfortable on the entire island (except for those who like coercing others with their religion).
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
LJ
Posts: 5290
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Sat Jul 18, 2020 8:06 am

A101 wrote:
AeroVega wrote:
Ah yes, those damn Remainers! It's all their fault. It's always their fault.

You know what? You can always unilaterally ditch the WA. Who's stopping you?

Just do it. See what happens. And don't forget to blame the Remainers!



Well they certainly didn’t make it easy they certainly put more pressure on Johnson to make compromise after compromise and hand the EU more bargaining power, if they were that hell bent on trying to stop us leaving the EU why vote for it in the 1st place

As I said earlier I will be very happy if they ditch the WA. It should never have been drawn up the way it was in the 1st place under May


Thus you wouldn't mind having a border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, something which the people living in Northern Ireland don't want.

BTW as far as I recall, the UK has actually left the EU on January 31st. Thus the UK got what they've voted for.
 
A101
Posts: 1961
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Sat Jul 18, 2020 8:10 am

olle wrote:
Ms May and the original WA was based on pleasing DUP and pro UK in NI.

The DUP was fooled ;-) They went against the will of NI, supported brexit and then they was thrown out when Tory did not need them any more.

Will protestants in NI ever trust a Tory in the future?



And that was May’s own doing overplayed her hand when she was had a majority Government and went to an election and came away with a minority Government before she even started A50 negotiations. I don’t think she thought that one through very well. :shakehead:
 
A101
Posts: 1961
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Sat Jul 18, 2020 8:50 am

LJ wrote:
A101 wrote:
AeroVega wrote:
Ah yes, those damn Remainers! It's all their fault. It's always their fault.

You know what? You can always unilaterally ditch the WA. Who's stopping you?

Just do it. See what happens. And don't forget to blame the Remainers!



Well they certainly didn’t make it easy they certainly put more pressure on Johnson to make compromise after compromise and hand the EU more bargaining power, if they were that hell bent on trying to stop us leaving the EU why vote for it in the 1st place

As I said earlier I will be very happy if they ditch the WA. It should never have been drawn up the way it was in the 1st place under May


Thus you wouldn't mind having a border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, something which the people living in Northern Ireland don't want.

BTW as far as I recall, the UK has actually left the EU on January 31st. Thus the UK got what they've voted for.



Nope i would not be troubled about a customs border for goods, we’ve had a CTA since 1922 for free movement between north and south, as for third party nationals I’m not particularly worried about them either as there would be as its tourism for both countries. There will always be operations for illegal’s
 
Olddog
Topic Author
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Sat Jul 18, 2020 8:53 am

The NI border will need to be very harsh or become a smugling entry in the SM.....
Signature censored
 
olle
Posts: 2066
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Sat Jul 18, 2020 10:56 am

overplaying the hand or not, it shows that any agreements with a UK tory regime is not worth the paper it is written on...

Anything can be up to negotiations 6-12 month later.
 
JJJ
Posts: 3654
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Sat Jul 18, 2020 11:10 am

A101 wrote:


Nope i would not be troubled about a customs border for goods,


A lot of Northern Irish business owners (and quite a few in the South) are. Gibraltarians also voted overwhelmingly against Brexit because they know what a border does.

It's very easy to downplay something that doesn't affect you (at least immediately).
 
A101
Posts: 1961
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Sat Jul 18, 2020 11:38 am

JJJ wrote:
A101 wrote:


Nope i would not be troubled about a customs border for goods,


A lot of Northern Irish business owners (and quite a few in the South) are. Gibraltarians also voted overwhelmingly against Brexit because they know what a border does.

It's very easy to downplay something that doesn't affect you (at least immediately).



It’s just one aspect of regaining sovereignty, and a price worth paying until Northern Ireland get serious and petition for a border poll under the GFA
 
AeroVega
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:32 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Sat Jul 18, 2020 12:04 pm

A101 wrote:
Nope i would not be troubled about a customs border for goods


The WA will let the people of Northern Ireland decide where they want the customs border to be. Granted, it will be in the Irish see for a couple of years, but that is only because that is the best practical solution at the moment. If the Northern Irish want to move the customs border to the island then they can achieve that through democratic means in the future.
 
olle
Posts: 2066
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Sat Jul 18, 2020 12:28 pm

AeroVega wrote:
A101 wrote:
Nope i would not be troubled about a customs border for goods


The WA will let the people of Northern Ireland decide where they want the customs border to be. Granted, it will be in the Irish see for a couple of years, but that is only because that is the best practical solution at the moment. If the Northern Irish want to move the customs border to the island then they can achieve that through democratic means in the future.


The chance of this with a Catholic majority in NI is?

We are probably closer to a united ROI then NI border with ROI...
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4105
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Sat Jul 18, 2020 12:47 pm

And all NI children have the option growing up for an ROI passport, hence all of the opportunities of the EU. I suspect that will be a rite of passage - a job in Europe for a while - summertime for college kids, ski bum in the Alps, whatever. They probably will find the ROI equally hospitable.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2005
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Sat Jul 18, 2020 12:55 pm

A101 wrote:
Yes I do know you are referring to me, but please get the context right.

I have said all along that if it were up to me I would have srapped the entire WA and the only thing that would have been negotiated would have been the financial aspect of the divorce bill, and I have been very consistent in that message, it’s just you choose to ignore it as it doesn’t suit you’re narrative

But I do stand by what I said that the changes that were made to the WA are for the better to the UK.


But still unpalatable? As I recall, you also said the UK had a chance to scrap the whole thing after the GE. It didn’t. So what’s the deal with all these prominent Brexiteers now demanding it be scrapped? How did this WA go from being acceptable a few months ago to unacceptable today?

Mission creep?

Dishonesty?

A101 wrote:
We have been over the history before in regards to why we are at this point in the last thread no need to regurgitate it again.

But if the UK were to scrap the WA I would be a very happy, but I know it’s not likely to happen.


We’re only here because prominent Brexiteers who previously supported the WA and celebrated it as proof positive that they could get the EU to make concessions, are now demanding that the WA be scrapped because the EU won’t budge.

Yes, it really is as silly as it sounds. Can’t blame remainers for pointing and laughing at Longworth’s indignation.

A101 wrote:
You also point to the Chinese and HK and compare it, but I don’t see the UK making repressive laws towards those who protest about Brexit and gaol them do you?


I point to the fact that a lack of respect for an international treaty is causing not a little anger in the UK, but that hasn’t stopped Brexiteers from advocating breaking a different one.

But it is an interesting point you make. “Enemies of the people” is an excellent descriptor of the justification being used to repress HK. It’s also the language used by Brexiteers to describe the UK independent judiciary that is charged with - and that executes - it’s mandate to stop Parliament from turning the UK into a majoritarian totalitarian state. “Traitors”, “enemy of the people, “the surrender act” etc - all language used by Brexiteers - is the language used to justify repression. I imagine we will see it used in HK going forward.

Really, notwithstanding which ideological god one worships, it’s all about “my way or the highway”, isn’t it? With Brexiteers like Longworth, any compromise is too much.

And when he doesn’t get his way, it’ll be the remainers fault. Those damn “enemies of the people”. Fortunately, the UK’s institutions - the judiciary, the civil service etc - are standing firm.

Just goes to show the importance of an independent judiciary - and what it’s absence means for the people in HK. A point that I am certain will be lost on Brexiteers of Longworth’s ilk.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2005
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Sat Jul 18, 2020 1:14 pm

A101 wrote:
Olddog wrote:
What you with ultra brexiters is a permanent attempt to rewrite history for a more extreme version of the break up.

The idea that only the financial aspect was to discuss is just a fantasy.

Re-writing history

There are some very obvious problems with this proposal – even leaving aside the legal issues involved in breaking the WA - which involves a substantial re-writing of history. The UK signed the WA less than six months ago, as an international treaty. It was signed by Boris Johnson, following his much-trumpeted re-negotiation, and was put to the electorate as the ‘oven ready deal’ which was the centre piece of his re-election. At that election, the Brexit Party initially threatened to run a candidate in every seat if Johnson didn’t scrap the WA but then withdrew that demand and did not field candidates in Tory-held seats. John Longworth, then a Brexit Party MEP (he was later expelled from it), welcomed this change of strategy (£) on the grounds that “the Government’s exit agreement is Brexit and, whilst it has drawbacks, could result in a good deal”. No talk of a “poison pill” then. The Brexit Party itself garnered 2% of the vote and did not win any seats.

Thereafter, the WA Act was passed by a large majority in the House of Commons with support from ERG MPs, including Paterson. Did they not want the British Parliament to make its own decisions? It may be that some MPs did not read or understand it: if so, tough. They should have done their job properly. It may be that they believed it was all up for re-negotiation in the future: if so, tough. They were wrong. As for Longworth, as a, by then, Conservative MEP he also voted (in the European Parliament) for the WA and at the time said that as a result we will leave the EU and “become once again an independent, sovereign nation”. Now he says it was drawn up by “fools or knaves” and is incompatible with being “a truly sovereign nation”.

The proposition that Johnson had no time to re-negotiate properly is nonsense both because the time frames were of his choice and because he himself declared it to be “a great new deal” and the Conservative Party manifesto for the 2019 election also described it as such. The Conservative Party website explicitly said that those who criticized it (in context, this presumably meant Farage) were wrong and that the deal did indeed “take back control”. And even – to be far more charitable than is warranted – if none of that were true, it’s simply absurd to think that any country can conduct itself in such a manner as to rip up major international agreements within months of signing them because it hadn’t created an adequate process to consider the commitments it was making.

The Ultras have never accepted the WA

The roots of this latest outburst from the Brexit Ultras go deep, as regular readers of this blog will know. Immediately after the 2019 election I wrote:

“I suspect that many in the ERG will now be thinking that Johnson’s deal was only the bastard offspring of May’s ill-fated premiership and the ‘remainer parliament’, and feel no allegiance to it. They kept quiet during the election campaign, which required them to pledge support for Johnson’s deal, but that won’t necessarily last. For one thing, many of them are rebels by temperament, with a track record going back in some cases to John Major’s premiership, and ruthlessly indifferent to party loyalty or discipline …. With all that said, in the aftermath of his fresh election victory and on a scale that was so unexpected, it is far more likely that the ERG will keep their powder dry. But all that means is that even as Brexit ‘gets done’ they will hold on to the belief that the WA meant that ‘this was not really Brexit’ and will be watching keenly – in both senses of the word – for further ‘betrayals’.”

That suspicion has now proved correct – though how much overt support the current campaign against the WA will have amongst Tory MPs remains to be seen. It might be tempting to dismiss he CBP Report as the work of a fringe minority group of cranks. But that would be a very serious mistake. Over and over again, this group or one of its other incarnations has quickly seen its initially outlandish positions become mainstream, aided by the way that, as new research shows (figure 2), MPs affiliated with groups like the ERG and Leave means Leave (co-founded by John Longworth) get disproportionate media attention. The concerted way in which they are pushing this new message leads me to think it could rapidly gain traction.

Indeed, as I suggested in a more recent post, there have already been ominous signs that the government – and, implicitly, Dominic Cummings – regard the WA as ‘defective’, with the potential to lead Britain down the path to international pariahdom. I thought then, and still think, that even this government would not renege on an international treaty at least unless no trade deal is reached in which case the pressure to do so will intensify perhaps to irresistibility. The proposition in the CBP report, of course, is that whether or not there is a deal the WA should be ditched.

It is, frankly, an insane idea – politically, legally and diplomatically - but it grows from the long-evident way that the Ultras are never satisfied with Brexit, however hard and in whatever form. This is partly because the ideas they have of what is possible are total fantasy, and so as soon as they encounter reality, as they did in the Article 50 negotiations, they are doomed to be ‘betrayed’. But the deeper issue is that there is, actually, a desire to be betrayed, a desire always to be campaigning for something even more extreme, always to be insisting that Brexit is being denied them. In the most recent example, as in the past, this extends to denouncing as betrayal even things that they themselves have supported or voted for in the past. It is a pathology which has totally deformed British politics so that, now, at the moment of their victory, they are still complaining, still unhappy, still spitting out vitriol, still blaming remainers.


Rewriting history LOL she just leaves key events out of it.

I notice in it she fails to mention that Johnson had less than 3mths to renegotiate the WA he only became PM on 24 July 19( remember those assertions on this very forum that BJ would be the shortest serving PM in the history of the UK), all the while the EU steadfastly refused that they would reopen it, he also had a very pro remain speaker of the house as well as a majority pro remain Parliament and that he either renegotiate the WA by the 31 October 19 or face the Benn Act, the time frame was not his choice his only extension was the one forced on him by the Benn Act

The European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Benn Act) which was passed on the 4th September had left left Government at the mercy of Parliment on wether to accept a no deal exit in which we all know that that House would not have approved it and most likely lead to revoke A50

The renegotiated WA was agree on the 17th October19 , Johnson became PM on the 24th July. The surrender Act (Benn Act) really forced Johnson’s hand no one could have renegotiated a complete New WA in less than 3mths mission impossible

PM May started negotiations on 19 June 17 and signed off on her deal on the 14 November 2018 17mths


Maybe she should not talk about re-writing history when she does it herself


It is still patently absurd to hold anyone other than Johnson responsible for signing the WA deal. He could have walked away. He didn’t. Instead he - and many Brexiteers - treated it as a victory. As was his prerogative.

The evolving acceptability of the WA to Brexiteers is a function of their cognitive and/or intellectual capabilities, not a function of the actual WA or how it came into being.

I’m going to flog this dead horse some more: the circumstances surrounding how the WA came into being only mattered when the PM was considering putting pen to paper.

Once the UK committed pen to paper, all of those ordinary or extraordinary circumstances ceased to matter.

That decision to commit pen to paper was cheered by Brexiteers. Brexiteers own whatever follows. All of it.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2005
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Sat Jul 18, 2020 1:18 pm

A101 wrote:
JJJ wrote:
A101 wrote:
It's very easy to downplay something that doesn't affect you (at least immediately).



It’s just one aspect of regaining sovereignty, and a price worth paying until Northern Ireland get serious and petition for a border poll under the GFA


Lol - I guess we all agree that a price that English Brexiteers don’t have to pay, is a price they think is worth paying.

English Brexiteers really don’t respect other UK citizens, do they?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], BowlingShoeDC9, TheF15Ace, USPIT10L and 52 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos