Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?


  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Never realised any of this, and to be honest, it's a pretty big thing not to cone into light. If anything it just shows how poor the Remain campaign was.
Yeah, that was my first thought too. Mental that such a massive decision was forced upon such a poorly informed electorate. Shame on both campaigns really.
It was one of the jokes with Cameron's EU Negotiations.
55VwmOu.png

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36449974

Also, it should be said there are clearly some problems with these rules.
  • An economic migrant could stay for as long as he/she wanted, as long as he wasn't a burden to the tax payer.
  • After three months you can ask jobless EU migrants to leave if they are a burden to the tax payer, but under current UK rules they need to be an economic burden for three additional months (or something similar).
But... something important then happened days before the EU referendum.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...enefits-to-unemployed-eu-migrants-judges-rule

Suddenly, the UK would have had the right to not pay unemployed EU migrants for five years!

Jobless EU migrants would no longer have been much of a burden at all to the UK Taxpayer.
 
I've not read about it in here. I think they probably would have though. Might have given them something more to complain about, but that line of argument could at least have been dampened

I guess the problem with the Remain campaign would be that they're essentially admitting they got it wrong by not enforcing it.

It seems like the strategy was deflect to the failures of the government onto the EU, not enough to actually make people vote to leave (because they never thought that was likely) but enough to shift the blame. From that moment the country has lurched from one chaotic problem to another.
 
It will certainly happen FBD, but it's not going to really help because....

1) Nothing can be arranged whilst Britain is in the European Union. Its actually illegal for Mr Fox to even negotiate trade deals whilst Britain remains a member. No one knows what Britain will come away with in terms of keeping existing European Trade Deals. And one of the reasons I am so anti-EU

If Brexit is delayed, or there are transitional arrangements, it could long delay any UK-USA deal Agreed.

2) There is still a decent chance that the USA will negotiate a deal with the EU, first, and that could even still include the UK. USA-EU negotiations have at least started, even if Trump, Brexit and controversy with TTIP has thrown spanners in the works. If the Canadian deal is anything to go by, Trump will not have the patience to wait 7 years.

3) The UK has a goods deficit but a services surplus. It doesn't really help to have greater access to goods if we can't sell our services in return. What exactly are we meant to be selling the USA? I fully support the idea of a free trade deal with the USA, but simply removing tax from US goods will cost the UK government, and would be rather pointless if we don't benefit. No, don't agree there...The UK Government currently has to pass on to the EU 80% of any Import Dutiers it collects, whther USA, China, Japan, etc. Outside the Customs Union, and until an FTA, the UK Government could keep all 100%. Thereafter, depends on the terms of the FTA, but any remaining Tariffs on US imports would be 100% to the UK Government

4) We cant replicate what we have with the EU with the US. If that's not the point, then fine, but it needs to be said. Agreed

If a car manufacturer in Germany needs to increase their stock of a certain part, they can buy it from Britain and expect it to appear overnight on cheap road freight - we are as competitive to Berlin as Italy or Poland are. My company is in the Logisitics business - we actually deliver fresh cream cakes, baked in Texas, to oil rig workers 60 mile off shore the Angolan coast within 36 hours. It can be done. UPS, FedEX, DHL exist for precisely this. For surface transport, OK it takes longer and is usually cheaper, but once you're over the two week introductory 'stretch ' in the Supply Chain, it's business as normal.

For the US, that simply isn't true. The Atlantic ocean adds cost and time, not to mention we are already geared towards the EU markets. I'll be contreversial and suggest that it's more the EU that is geared towards supplying the UK rather than the other way round. About 500 trucks a day return from the UK to continental Europe absolutely empty.

5) Negotiating trade deals is complicated, and takes a long time. Britain hasnt had a single trade negotiator in over 40 years (I think). Are we really going to manage to negotiate TWO major trade deals simultaneously? Agreed. But as the UK can't start negotiating with the USA until after leaving the EU, there won't be too much simultaneous negotiating with 'inexperienced' negotiators.

6) By the time the UK leaves the EU, the political landscape may have changed drastically.

Labour could be in power in the UK. Trump may have been empeeched in the US. If the transitional period includes staying in the customs union for 5 years, the Democrats may even have power again. The EU may have taken steps towards Federilisation with Macron. It could be a very different place. I want to believe it will...It needs to for everyone's sake.

........

Now I totally support the idea of free trade and free work areas between Canada, USA, Australia, New Zealand, etc. That sounds great... But we need to be realistic about the time scale and what it will actually achieve.

No arguments from me on that.
 
What the hell are you on about he and the rest have been banging the drum we fundamentally disagreed with that approach for nearly a year now. That we wouldn't be held to divorce talks first.

In case thats too hard to grasp here's words from the man himself, saying we're now in a worse position




FFS couldn't he have released this the day after they said 'no parallel talks' instead of 6 months later with a 2 year deadline ticking.
 
No, don't agree there...The UK Government currently has to pass on to the EU 80% of any Import Duties it collects, whether USA, China, Japan, etc. Outside the Customs Union, and until an FTA, the UK Government could keep all 100%. Thereafter, depends on the terms of the FTA, but any remaining Tariffs on US imports would be 100% to the UK Government
Good point, and to be honest, customs duties only counts for 0.4% of government tax receipts. I guess that shows the low-duty time we live in. But for us, services are so much more important than goods. This good really be a a case where a bad deal IS worse than no deal.
My company is in the Logisitics business - we actually deliver fresh cream cakes, baked in Texas, to oil rig workers 60 mile off shore the Angolan coast within 36 hours. It can be done. UPS, FedEX, DHL exist for precisely this. For surface transport, OK it takes longer and is usually cheaper, but once you're over the two week introductory 'stretch ' in the Supply Chain, it's business as normal.
Yeah, it can definitely be done. For oil rig workers, that would pretty much make sense anyway.

And I'm not saying that China can't compete with EU manufactured goods; that clearly isn't the case, but that the EU single market is a market where goods can be moved about cheaply, essentially overnight. Having warehouses in Milan, Germany and the UK is common, and goods can be moved about between then quickly and cheaply. It's a large 'domestic' market.

Compare that to the best a US-UK free trade agreement will produce; there will always be customs to clear because the UK will be a separate customs area, goods will always take longer to travel and be more expensive in doing so, because of the distance involved.

The UK-US agreement could hugely benefit both countries, but the will never recreate a domestic market agreement.
I'll be controversial and suggest that it's more the EU that is geared towards supplying the UK rather than the other way round. About 500 trucks a day return from the UK to continental Europe absolutely empty.
Entirely true.
 
Apologies for the scruffy way I've replied....Need to go out and it's just easier and quicker this way....

I'd be interested to know the price per unit of the said cream cake including transport cost, duties and other taxes.

If tariffs are paid and the government collects the money , hope the British people are aware that it is them who are paying and not the country who have exported the goods
 
I'd be interested to know the price per unit of the said cream cake including transport cost, duties and other taxes.

If tariffs are paid and the government collects the money , hope the British people are aware that it is them who are paying and not the country who have exported the goods
Well he was sending out to an oil rig, presumably under US control off the Angolian coast?

So maybe no duty or taxes at all?

But yes indeed, if sent to the UK, it is the UK buyer that will pay for it (same as VAT)... but in support of UK cream cake makers who do not need to pay it.

And the UK cream cake maker would pay income tax (on employees), National Insurance (on employees), and corporation tax amongst other things.

So Free Trade needs to be done fairly or can damage the economy
 
Well he was sending out to an oil rig, presumably under US control off the Angolian coast?

So maybe no duty or taxes at all?

But yes indeed, if sent to the UK, it is the UK buyer that will pay for it (same as VAT)... but in support of UK cream cake makers who do not need to pay it

But how does the cream cake get to the oil rig?

Noticed you added a bit - yes.

Another point is that although the UK would get all the duties, what has been conveniently left out is that the 27 other countries have also imported from outside the EU and all those goods are now in free circulation within the EU and the UK doesn't have to pay the duty on them whilst in the EU other than from the collective pot.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to take an unusual step and defend brexit.

It's indefensible from an economic standpoint, clearly, and it's indefensible from a logistical viewpoint so I won't even bother with that.

However, I will defend it from the notion of democratic principles. I happen to agree that a federalised Europe with a single body determining restrictions and allowing free movement for people would be a good thing.

I cannot, however, understand how allowing EU officials like Tony Blair, Juncker, John Major and Neil Kinnock to set policy for the entirety of Europe without ever needing to go through a voting process is democratic.

If we were to have a federal Europe it should be transparent and clear to everyone what the benefits (and there are many) could be but this "avoid the democratic process at all costs!" is dangerous. Look at what happens at any person in a position of power for a large time period and the results - usually unending corruption and the avoidance of any sort of accountability.
 
They are going the water this down so much it will be like we didn't leave. i hope
 
I'm going to take an unusual step and defend brexit.

It's indefensible from an economic standpoint, clearly, and it's indefensible from a logistical viewpoint so I won't even bother with that.

However, I will defend it from the notion of democratic principles. I happen to agree that a federalised Europe with a single body determining restrictions and allowing free movement for people would be a good thing.

I cannot, however, understand how allowing EU officials like Tony Blair, Juncker, John Major and Neil Kinnock to set policy for the entirety of Europe without ever needing to go through a voting process is democratic.

If we were to have a federal Europe it should be transparent and clear to everyone what the benefits (and there are many) could be but this "avoid the democratic process at all costs!" is dangerous. Look at what happens at any person in a position of power for a large time period and the results - usually unending corruption and the avoidance of any sort of accountability.

Who told you this?
 
However, I will defend it from the notion of democratic principles.

I cannot, however, understand how allowing EU officials like Tony Blair, Juncker, John Major and Neil Kinnock to set policy for the entirety of Europe without ever needing to go through a voting process is democratic.

What people need to remember is that, with any free trade agreement, there is always a body set up to deal with disputes, which is no way democratic. Often, but not always, it is the WTO.

When Australia set up "plain packaging" on their cigarettes, Ukraine opened a dispute against them on behalf Philip Morris. Five other countries also sued them. In no way shape or form is this "democratic". Australia however did win this dispute.

Obviously the EU goes way beyond that but it should be remembered that EU laws are created only when passing two chambers; the EU Parliament (democratically elected across the whole of Europe), and the Council of Ministers (hopefully democratically elected in each EU country).

However, obviously the EU treaties are not created by EU parliament, but negotiated by the EU28 countries. And once opted in, they are difficult to change (unless you leave) meaning you lose a bit of sovereignty to the EU. And the EU are very slow to change things that have been negotiated in the treaties (read:they don't).

Would a democratically elected EU head or heads help? Yes.

But I don't believe you are at all correct in your assessment.
 
He's not the brightest and can be as irrational and vindictive as the EU - he's shown that - so who knows ?

On the other hand, there isn't an FTA between the USA and the EU, so he wouldn't be putting much at risk as you suggest.

Unlike the EU Trump absolutely hate free trade agreements. In his opinion these deals give smaller countries a level playing field with the US and are therefore hurting the US worker interest. He won the elections by promising a new way of making trade deals that are heavily staked towards the US. This is not the right time to make trade deals with the US.
 
Who told you this?

Perhaps I am being too broad, I suppose I don't truly know the exact mechanics of EU governance and ignorance is what begets my fear of it - but it certainly seems like there are rather a large number of ex UK officials with impressive pensions who I recall being vociferous on the remain campaign.
 
Perhaps I am being too broad, I suppose I don't truly know the exact mechanics of EU governance and ignorance is what begets my fear of it - but it certainly seems like there are rather a large number of ex UK officials with impressive pensions who I recall being vociferous on the remain campaign.

Everything has to be voted for, some officials are appointed by others but that's no different to the UK where the PM isn't directly voted for by the country, they vote for their MP. I find the EU more democratic than the current UK system, for a start you have the House of Lords, I don't think any of those were voted in by the public.
 
When the heck have Tony Blair and John Major ever worked for the EU? This doesn't make any sense.

You're kidding, right? Google "tony Blair EU presidency". He's was desperately trying to become the president of the European Union for years.
 
I'm going to take an unusual step and defend brexit.

It's indefensible from an economic standpoint, clearly, and it's indefensible from a logistical viewpoint so I won't even bother with that.

However, I will defend it from the notion of democratic principles. I happen to agree that a federalised Europe with a single body determining restrictions and allowing free movement for people would be a good thing.

I cannot, however, understand how allowing EU officials like Tony Blair, Juncker, John Major and Neil Kinnock to set policy for the entirety of Europe without ever needing to go through a voting process is democratic.

If we were to have a federal Europe it should be transparent and clear to everyone what the benefits (and there are many) could be but this "avoid the democratic process at all costs!" is dangerous. Look at what happens at any person in a position of power for a large time period and the results - usually unending corruption and the avoidance of any sort of accountability.

The treaties that the UK signed up to were all subject to a parliamentary vote at Westminster, just like all other UK legislative changes. Nothing was forced on the UK and, on the whole, the EU was relatively pragmatic in recognising that the UK was slightly different to its continental partners. Maybe they could have thrown Cameron more of a bone in the early 2016 talks but they, like Cameron, probably thought Remain would win anyway.
 
Everything has to be voted for, some officials are appointed by others but that's no different to the UK where the PM isn't directly voted for by the country, they vote for their MP. I find the EU more democratic than the current UK system, for a start you have the House of Lords, I don't think any of those were voted in by the public.


The UK electors vote for their constituency MP. In voting for the particular MP, they can be 99.999999999% certain who that MP would support as Prime Minister. They can, equally, be 99.999999999% certain that they will not know who any Prime Minister will 'nominate' as an EU Commissioner on their behalf for the UK because it is never mentioned in the parties' manifestos. And they will never know who the Prime Minister will choose to vote for as Chief Commissioner beause that is never discussed in the GE manifestos either. That is what so many of us see as undemocratic.

Out of a thousand or so HoL members, about 850 were appointed by the same Politicos ( all parties ) who also decide(d) who to 'nominate' as EU Commissioners on behalf of the UK.

Same people, same system really - if you feel the HoL isn't democratic, I can't see how you can believe the appointment of EU Commissioners is democratic.

And don't get too hung up about cream cakes. I just used it as an example that moving anything from anywhere to anywhere else in a very short time critical delay is entirely possible these days. It might be cream cakes today, but there could also be a 280kg drill bit travelling from Texas to off-shore Angola at the same time, on the same planes / tenders and with the same transit time. And in answer to the questions - most of the rigs are owned by the Angolan Government and are operated by American drilling companies so I've no idea what the tax flow is with these. We just collect stuff in, usually, Lagos, and fly it down to Luanda where we hire tenders to deliver to the rigs - whether its cream cakes, toilet rolls or drill bits, anything in fact which is needed with a degree of urgency.

And the bit about once inside the EU, everything moves about quite efficiently.

Well, one of the reasons that the Dutch like the EU is that about 75+% of imports into the EU pass through Rotterdam, and the Dutch get to keep 20% of Tariffs collected on behalf of the EU. That's a lot of jobs and a lot of money from Tariffs fixed by the EU, not the Dutch, and why a NEXIT is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

As for efficiencies, yes of course there are time saving efficiencies moving stuff across borders inside the EU - but the 'old' TIR system coped quite well for decades. And an example of how these efficiencies are there for manufacturers, not for the public -

THe BMW Mini Plant in Oxford receives about 170 inbound trucks each day with components from all over Europe, which arrive in crates called ' gitterboxes ' all the same size, spec, etc, so that they can be handled uniformly once inside the Oxford Plant. The trucks then return back to Europe with nothing but empty gitterboxes from the previous deliveries to use for the next deliveries. Meanwhile, the finshed cars are then exported by a combination of road / rail / ship back into Europe.

Now this obviously suits BMW, but do you really believe that all these inefficiencies aren't factored into the price of a Mini when you buy it ? If you buy Spanish grown fruit and vegetables, do you really believe that you're only paying for the truck to bring them from Spain, and not for the empty truck returning to Spain ?

So all of us consumers are already paying for ( or should I say contributing to ) inefficient Supply Chains which more and more manufacturers use for their own benefit rather than for the benefit of us consumers because it's now easier to move 'stuff' around inside the EU.
 
The UK electors vote for their constituency MP. In voting for the particular MP, they can be 99.999999999% certain who that MP would support as Prime Minister. They can, equally, be 99.999999999% certain that they will not know who any Prime Minister will 'nominate' as an EU Commissioner on their behalf for the UK because it is never mentioned in the parties' manifestos. And they will never know who the Prime Minister will choose to vote for as Chief Commissioner beause that is never discussed in the GE manifestos either. That is what so many of us see as undemocratic.

Out of a thousand or so HoL members, about 850 were appointed by the same Politicos ( all parties ) who also decide(d) who to 'nominate' as EU Commissioners on behalf of the UK.

Same people, same system really - if you feel the HoL isn't democratic, I can't see how you can believe the appointment of EU Commissioners is democratic.

And don't get too hung up about cream cakes. I just used it as an example that moving anything from anywhere to anywhere else in a very short time critical delay is entirely possible these days. It might be cream cakes today, but there could also be a 280kg drill bit travelling from Texas to off-shore Angola at the same time, on the same planes / tenders and with the same transit time. And in answer to the questions - most of the rigs are owned by the Angolan Government and are operated by American drilling companies so I've no idea what the tax flow is with these. We just collect stuff in, usually, Lagos, and fly it down to Luanda where we hire tenders to deliver to the rigs - whether its cream cakes, toilet rolls or drill bits, anything in fact which is needed with a degree of urgency.

And the bit about once inside the EU, everything moves about quite efficiently.

Well, one of the reasons that the Dutch like the EU is that about 75+% of imports into the EU pass through Rotterdam, and the Dutch get to keep 20% of Tariffs collected on behalf of the EU. That's a lot of jobs and a lot of money from Tariffs fixed by the EU, not the Dutch, and why a NEXIT is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

As for efficiencies, yes of course there are time saving efficiencies moving stuff across borders inside the EU - but the 'old' TIR system coped quite well for decades. And an example of how these efficiencies are there for manufacturers, not for the public -

THe BMW Mini Plant in Oxford receives about 170 inbound trucks each day with components from all over Europe, which arrive in crates called ' gitterboxes ' all the same size, spec, etc, so that they can be handled uniformly once inside the Oxford Plant. The trucks then return back to Europe with nothing but empty gitterboxes from the previous deliveries to use for the next deliveries. Meanwhile, the finshed cars are then exported by a combination of road / rail / ship back into Europe.

Now this obviously suits BMW, but do you really believe that all these inefficiencies aren't factored into the price of a Mini when you buy it ? If you buy Spanish grown fruit and vegetables, do you really believe that you're only paying for the truck to bring them from Spain, and not for the empty truck returning to Spain ?

So all of us consumers are already paying for ( or should I say contributing to ) inefficient Supply Chains which more and more manufacturers use for their own benefit rather than for the benefit of us consumers because it's now easier to move 'stuff' around inside the EU.

The part about logistics is just such utter bullshit it warrants a more detailed reply when I'm back at home, but this can't just stand here uncontested. Holy feck.
 
The part about logistics is just such utter bullshit it warrants a more detailed reply when I'm back at home, but this can't just stand here uncontested. Holy feck.

I won't comment on logistics as it's way out of my line of work but, more fundamentally, why is the EU always presented as a lose for Britain? It's just as likely there are consumers in the rest of the EU who, in a purely short-term financial sense, pay slightly more for products due to components sourced from the UK as opposed to what something would cost imported tariff-free from China. Components that keep factories running and small towns viable.

And even this discussion of goods would be missing the point given the enormous net benefit the UK financial and other services sectors get from EU access.
 
I won't comment on logistics as it's way out of my line of work but, more fundamentally, why is the EU always presented as a lose for Britain? It's just as likely there are consumers in the rest of the EU who, in a purely short-term financial sense, pay slightly more for products due to components sourced from the UK as opposed to what something would cost imported tariff-free from China. Components that keep factories running and small towns viable.

And even this discussion of goods would be missing the point given the enormous net benefit the UK financial and other services sectors get from EU access.


You're right....The physical proximity of the UK to Mainland Europe is often overvalued seeing as export of UK manufactured products ( apart from cars ) is dwarfed by the revenues of banking / insurance / etc which the UK sells into the EU.
 
As for efficiencies, yes of course there are time saving efficiencies moving stuff across borders inside the EU - but the 'old' TIR system coped quite well for decades. And an example of how these efficiencies are there for manufacturers, not for the public -

THe BMW Mini Plant in Oxford receives about 170 inbound trucks each day with components from all over Europe, which arrive in crates called ' gitterboxes ' all the same size, spec, etc, so that they can be handled uniformly once inside the Oxford Plant. The trucks then return back to Europe with nothing but empty gitterboxes from the previous deliveries to use for the next deliveries. Meanwhile, the finshed cars are then exported by a combination of road / rail / ship back into Europe.

Now this obviously suits BMW, but do you really believe that all these inefficiencies aren't factored into the price of a Mini when you buy it ? If you buy Spanish grown fruit and vegetables, do you really believe that you're only paying for the truck to bring them from Spain, and not for the empty truck returning to Spain ?

So all of us consumers are already paying for ( or should I say contributing to ) inefficient Supply Chains which more and more manufacturers use for their own benefit rather than for the benefit of us consumers because it's now easier to move 'stuff' around inside the EU.

So, what would be your solution? Tossing the components over the canal via giant catapults? These goods still need to be delivered, standardized crates or not. How exactly does a decrease in efficiency for the manufacturer translate into an increase in efficiency for "the public"? What does that even mean? Do you really think products would become cheaper if we'd move away from a standardized supply chain management?
 
Better be good - I've worked in Logistics for 30-odd years....

When I've got time I will reply but so have I since 1985 not directly in logistics but commercial wise from procurement to sales and everything in between, shipping stuff from all over the world to all over the world, especially to and from Africa. Documentation, customs, inspections, finance, legal requirements, certification,shipping breakbulk, airfreight, courrier, containers. Until I retired last July, hooray!

I must admit I've never arranged shipment of a cream cake but have shipped a small spare part to entire factories.


However, the most important point is the 20% you keep talking about, which I've addressed in earlier posts. All 28 EU countries import from outside the EU thus once these goods are within the EU they in free circulation.
 
So, what would be your solution? Tossing the components over the canal via giant catapults? These goods still need to be delivered, standardized crates or not. How exactly does a decrease in efficiency for the manufacturer translate into an increase in efficiency for "the public"? What does that even mean? Do you really think products would become cheaper if we'd move away from a standardized supply chain management?

It might have a tiny bit to do with 26 countries exporting into 1, or 2 if some trucks progress to Ireland and going the other way erm ...chocolate cake doesn't take up much room.
 
Last edited: