Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Seth Brundle

This is the fourteenth incarnation of our Brexit discussion thread.

Please bear the following in mind before posting:

• Insults directed at popular figures are not acceptable in this forum
• Please do not post memes, videos or comedy links here
• Please do not be uncivil to other posters
• Please use the report function to alert the mods when necessary
• Discussion of Sinn Féin's longstanding policy of abstention from Westminster is not suitable for this thread. Posts on this subject may be deleted

Previous thread is here:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058099620

List of threadbanned users:
@Kermit.de.frog

breezy1985

54and56 wrote: »

Was sent this by a pal today which if true proves the point that a picture (or a graphic) speaks a thousand words.

Whenever anyone in the UK wonders why importing and exporting goods, using services across EU borders or simply travelling into and out of the EU has become so much more difficult post Brexit they should just be directed to this or a similar graphic.



Would love to find a higher quality version.

Is it possible that once the media glare dies down the UK can do a load of little individual deals which will essentially make them an EFTA without people noticing ?

listermint

breezy1985 wrote: »

Is it possible that once the media glare dies down the UK can do a load of little individual deals which will essentially make them an EFTA without people noticing ?

Not a hope. The EU are not creating Switzerland mark II

timetogo1

Brexit creating new jobs


in France

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/23/cheshire-cheesemaker-says-business-left-with-250000-brexit-hole?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other&__twitter_impression=true

Investment that would have been spent in the UK, moving to the EU.

I know many companies were doing this quietly (the company I work for moved loads of jobs from London after 2016, it didn't do any big bang, just jobs that people left were hired in EU countries, mine didn't exist in Dublin before 2019) post referendum.

The main question is why did it take the end of the transition for these companies to realise that they'd need to move investment to the EU. For all last year it was looking like no deal or a crap deal.

tubercolossus

breezy1985 wrote: »

Is it possible that once the media glare dies down the UK can do a load of little individual deals which will essentially make them an EFTA without people noticing ?

No.

ancapailldorcha

breezy1985 wrote: »

Is it possible that once the media glare dies down the UK can do a load of little individual deals which will essentially make them an EFTA without people noticing ?

Yes but it'll take many years and a change of government.

Nate--IRL--

Michel Barnier interviewed in the latest episode of RTE’s podcast “Brexit Republic” - well worth a listen.

https://podcast.rasset.ie/podcasts/audio/2021/0122/20210122_webexclusi-brexitrepublic-franklyspe_c21897230_21897231_232_.mp3

Nate

20silkcut

breezy1985 wrote: »

Is it possible that once the media glare dies down the UK can do a load of little individual deals which will essentially make them an EFTA without people noticing ?

Which line represents the single market in that diagram

breezy1985

20silkcut wrote: »

Which line represents the single market in that diagram

Does any one single line represent it ?

looksee

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Michel Barnier interviewed in the latest episode of RTE’s podcast “Brexit Republic” - well worth a listen.

https://podcast.rasset.ie/podcasts/audio/2021/0122/20210122_webexclusi-brexitrepublic-franklyspe_c21897230_21897231_232_.mp3

Nate

I only listened to part of that but he's amusing in his - I am not going to plamas you, you are just as important as all the other countries directly affected, the EU undertakes to protect all members. And - don't be bothering me with Irish-specific details, go and read the document.

Obviously has a vast and total understanding of the whole thing - and Brexit is Brexit, if they don't like the result well tough, we are protecting EU concerns and jobs. Great! I will listen to the rest later.

20silkcut

breezy1985 wrote: »

Does any one single line represent it ?

Apologies for this basic question but is Turkey in the single market?

Professor Moriarty

20silkcut wrote: »

Apologies for this basic question but is Turkey in the single market?

Customs Union.

breezy1985

20silkcut wrote: »

Apologies for this basic question but is Turkey in the single market?

We have a customs treaty with them.

I don't know why you are directing these questions at me as if you are trying to catch me or teach me in some weird round about way .

I was just thinking maybe in time the UK will try get closer or into one of those bubbles behind its own people's backs

Sam Russell

breezy1985 wrote: »

We have a customs treaty with them.

I don't know why you are directing these questions at me as if you are trying to catch me or teach me in some weird round about way .

I was just thinking maybe in time the UK will try get closer or into one of those bubbles behind its own people's backs

You mean like the way they got out of all those bubbles.

I think it might help the graphic if they included North Korea.

peter kern

Sam Russell wrote: »

You mean like the way they got out of all those bubbles.

I think it might help the graphic if they included North Korea.

would you not argue that the uk is defacto in the customs union and north korea is far from that

Nody

peter kern wrote: »

would you not argue that the uk is defacto in the customs union and north korea is far from that

UK is very much not in the customs union; it's one of the major driver of issues currently with stories of VAT surcharges and what not. UK has a basic thin FTA and nothing more; this is one of the driving issues of Brexit currently.

ancapailldorcha

peter kern wrote: »

would you not argue that the uk is defacto in the customs union and north korea is far from that

No. Countries in the customs union cannot negotiate their own free trade agreements so this was never an option for political reasons.

peter kern

Nody wrote: »

UK is very much not in the customs union; it's one of the major driver of issues currently with stories of VAT surcharges and what not. UK has a basic thin FTA and nothing more; this is one of the driving issues of Brexit currently.

what are the tangible benefits of turkey over uk? its certainly not in steal and agriculure products .

would i be right in saying if chesshire cheese was based in turkey they
would have to pay tariffs on top of the health certificate ? ok that would be wrong since it is processed food

20silkcut

breezy1985 wrote: »

We have a customs treaty with them.

I don't know why you are directing these questions at me as if you are trying to catch me or teach me in some weird round about way .

I was just thinking maybe in time the UK will try get closer or into one of those bubbles behind its own people's backs

Not trying anything I genuinely did not know the status of Turkey.

Capt'n Midnight

20silkcut wrote: »

Apologies for this basic question but is Turkey in the single market?

Customs Union since 1995 which covers all industrial goods including processed foods. Queues at the border because no free movement and checks for agri products.

Turkey is a rule taker for CU rules and has to accept Free Trade Deals done by the EU on everything covered by the CU.

The Customs Union entered into force on 31 December 1995. It covers all industrial goods but does not address agriculture (except processed agricultural products), services or public procurement. Bilateral trade concessions apply to agricultural as well as coal and steel products.

So Turkey can make it's own deals with the UK for food, but the white Ford Transit vans beloved of UK small business are now covered by the UK-EU deal.

In case you haven't been paying attention those vans are now made in Turkey, a country with the same vehicle output as the UK.


You may remember when GAMA were building the Ballincollig bypass down in Cork, and paying their Turkish workers Turkish wages ?

Capt'n Midnight

timetogo1 wrote: »

Brexit creating new jobs


in France

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/23/cheshire-cheesemaker-says-business-left-with-250000-brexit-hole?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other&__twitter_impression=true

Investment that would have been spent in the UK, moving to the EU.

I know many companies were doing this quietly (the company I work for moved loads of jobs from London after 2016, it didn't do any big bang, just jobs that people left were hired in EU countries, mine didn't exist in Dublin before 2019) post referendum.

The main question is why did it take the end of the transition for these companies to realise that they'd need to move investment to the EU. For all last year it was looking like no deal or a crap deal.

Blessed are the cheesemakers.

There was lots of talk about being able to trade on WTO rules in the UK, but not pointing out that most WTO trade is bulk, so high paperwork costs per order can easily be adsorbed. But kudos to Honda for pointing out it would cost them £2.1m in paperwork. And that's in an industry with huge volumes of a limited number of products and the production lines run for years. And as a global enterprise they have lots of experience with import/export and a pathological fixation on efficiency and reducing unnecessary costs.

If Honda costed it at £2.1m back in 2018 the people wanting it done properly tomorrow are going to be very, very disappointed.

The reason companies are setting up centres in the EU is to avoid paperwork. So they can use ONE set of paperwork to get bulk shipments into the CU and then freely move the goods from there.


Being in the CU was great for small UK companies. Now they will have to work some combination of charging more, reducing margins, go via an EU centre, or stop trading with EU customers. And visa versa, except that the UK has also added VAT rules with zero threshold. The EU will be bringing in similar VAT rule but with a much higher threshold and they've delayed for six months because Covid.

Capt'n Midnight

peter kern wrote: »

what are the tangible benefits of turkey over uk? its certainly not in steal and agriculure products .

Turkey, like Norway and Iceland exports food and raw materials. The UK is a nett importer of those.

Most of the UK-Turkey trade is covered by EU rules so same volumes of paperwork and checks and costs.

The bilateral EU-Turkey agreements have been rolled over, but rules of origin paperwork now needed too.

However, Tukey will only recognise UK's rules of origin paperwork for one year instead of two the other way round and for some things Turkey benefits from lower tariffs due to the UK’s Most Favoured Nation tariff schedule. It's another full price DFS sofa.

CelticRambler

Picking up on something from the tail end of Thread XIII ...

sondagefaux wrote:

Nissan had better have something equivalent to this for its EV batteries, or they'll be obsolete pretty soon.

AlmightyCushion wrote:

I would doubt the pretty soon part of your post. Nearly 6 years ago these guys said they would have this battery within a year. Now they are saying by 2025. You should take these lofty claims of massive improvements in battery technology with a healthy dose of salt because they have happened many times over the past few decades and they never live up to the claims or do and come with serious caveats that make them not workable.

20silkcut wrote:

Batteries will never compare with a 1.4 or 1.6 Diesel engine going up hills or over bad twisty roads or heating a car on a cold morning.
It’s all fantasy. Sort of like brexit fuelled by ideology.

listermint wrote:

Completely off topic but wildy hyperbolic too. Over to the ev forum to be proven wrong.

Whatever about the hyperbole and merits of EVs, this one single topic does, in fact, encapsulate the worst risks of the Brexit gamble. Whatever way you look at it, batteries are a desperate way to store energy for locomotion, so for the foreseeable future, EVs are dependent on a network of charge points and - as we've already seen - there is no real coherence in the industry as to the how-when-where-what of these, never mind a well-established set of unwritten rules for users.

But if the UK underwrites any manufacturer's move towards battery production, it will need to underwrite some kind of charging network too; and the UK is a net importer of the electricity needed to feed that network - importing it from the EU. Other than what they get from the EU, they've asked the French and the Chinese to look after their domestic generation. That's a lot of commitment (and international agreement) pegged to one single form of locomotive power. It would only take one someone, somewhere, to bring a viable, storable, more convenient alternative power source to the automotive sector to wipe all that investment off UK Inc's balance sheet.

While countries in the EU must also think about what direction they want to nudge the industry, they have considerably more scope for sharing the risk, for encouraging research collaborations, and for establishing continent-wide distribution protocols for whatever comes next.

CelticRambler

timetogo1 wrote: »

The main question is why did it take the end of the transition for these companies to realise that they'd need to move investment to the EU. For all last year it was looking like no deal or a crap deal.

I think Simon Spurrell answers that:

“It’s as if someone forgot to negotiate this part of the deal, they forgot that there needed to be an exemption or allowance for the direct consumer sales.

“We ship to the USA, Canada, Norway, etc, all non-EU countries; we have never had a problem with at all. It is an oversight in the agreement that does not affect EU producers at all, but is a dead stop for all UK producers selling into the EU via online sales,” he added.

He declares himself to be a Remainer who decided to make the best of Brexit once it was done - but those quotes illustrate how even Remainers really didn't understand what they were giving up. There's no "oversight" in the agreement - his company ships to the USA, Canada and Norway on the back of rules applied in those countries that allow for certain exemptions for certain products being imported by certain customers. There was never enough attention paid by GB voters to what the EU rules would be. One can't extrapolate exemptions from one jurisdiction to another, but that's what both Leavers and Remainers have done throughout this saga.

Sam Russell

CelticRambler wrote: »

Picking up on something from the tail end of Thread XIII ...





Whatever about the hyperbole and merits of EVs, this one single topic does, in fact, encapsulate the worst risks of the Brexit gamble. Whatever way you look at it, batteries are a desperate way to store energy for locomotion, so for the foreseeable future, EVs are dependent on a network of charge points and - as we've already seen - there is no real coherence in the industry as to the how-when-where-what of these, never mind a well-established set of unwritten rules for users.

But if the UK underwrites any manufacturer's move towards battery production, it will need to underwrite some kind of charging network too; and the UK is a net importer of the electricity needed to feed that network - importing it from the EU. Other than what they get from the EU, they've asked the French and the Chinese to look after their domestic generation. That's a lot of commitment (and international agreement) pegged to one single form of locomotive power. It would only take one someone, somewhere, to bring a viable, storable, more convenient alternative power source to the automotive sector to wipe all that investment off UK Inc's balance sheet.

While countries in the EU must also think about what direction they want to nudge the industry, they have considerably more scope for sharing the risk, for encouraging research collaborations, and for establishing continent-wide distribution protocols for whatever comes next.

That is reminiscent of the car assembly that Ireland started in the 1950s to get round protection of manufacturing. We had no parts manufacture, nor a steel industry, so CKD (completely knocked down) kits were imported and assembled into cars in various small factories. This enabled the government to put high import tariffs on fully built cars. Now it worked for a while when cars could be assembled or built on bricks and then driven out to the showroom. Once, real assembly was required, that was the end of it.

This could well be what will happen to battery manufacture/assembly in the UK. They do not have the raw materials, and do not currently manufacture the batteries. They should ask themselves why they do not have that.

breezy1985

20silkcut wrote: »

Not trying anything I genuinely did not know the status of Turkey.

Ah ok. I thought you were asking questions you knew the answer to. That map a while ago is about the limit of my knowledge

liamog

Sam Russell wrote: »

That is reminiscent of the car assembly that Ireland started in the 1950s to get round protection of manufacturing. We had no parts manufacture, nor a steel industry, so CKD (completely knocked down) kits were imported and assembled into cars in various small factories. This enabled the government to put high import tariffs on fully built cars. Now it worked for a while when cars could be assembled or built on bricks and then driven out to the showroom. Once, real assembly was required, that was the end of it.

This could well be what will happen to battery manufacture/assembly in the UK. They do not have the raw materials, and do not currently manufacture the batteries. They should ask themselves why they do not have that.

The Nissan announcement re battery manufacturing in Sunderland doesn't really change much. Nissan used to manufacturer their own battery packs in Sunderland (since 2012), they sold off that side of the business to the Chinese Envsion group in early 2019. It's now called AESC and still supplies batteries for the Nissan Leaf. They have a capacity of 1.9 GWh/yr which is enough to build 47,500 Leaf 40kWh packs. If you dig into the recent announcement, what they are really doing is saying they will now produce the 62kWh packs in Sunderland alongside the 40kWh packs to meet place of origin rules. This is basically a denser cell in the same form factor and overall packaging.

The real test will be if they decide to produce the upcoming Ariya in Sunderland, as that will represent a new form factor for the battery pack, and require serious investment. The current EU trade agreement means we'll have 0% tarrifs on cars by 2026, so tariff wise, Nissan could keep the jobs in Japan and have to meet Japanese rules of origin instead.

sondagefaux

breezy1985 wrote: »

Is it possible that once the media glare dies down the UK can do a load of little individual deals which will essentially make them an EFTA without people noticing ?

People would notice a return to free movement of people, which all of the EFTA states* have with the EU, whether as part of the EEA Agreement or bilaterally, as with Switzerland.

You don't get to trade with the EU on Single Market terms unless you permit free movement of people.

The exceptions for NI (which don't cover trade in services anyway) and Liechtenstein wouldn't be granted to the entire UK.

*Liechtenstein has been exempted from allowing free movement of people into Liechtenstein, by consent of the other EEA parties. This is because its total population is only about 39,000 of whom about 1/3 are immigrants anyway.

Larbre34

14th thread? 114th thread I daresay.

Brexit will be an active discussion until its reversed, be it 5 or 55 years time.

sondagefaux

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Turkey, like Norway and Iceland exports food and raw materials. The UK is a nett importer of those.

Most of the UK-Turkey trade is covered by EU rules so same volumes of paperwork and checks and costs.

The bilateral EU-Turkey agreements have been rolled over, but rules of origin paperwork now needed too.

However, Tukey will only recognise UK's rules of origin paperwork for one year instead of two the other way round and for some things Turkey benefits from lower tariffs due to the UK’s Most Favoured Nation tariff schedule. It's another full price DFS sofa.

Turkey has a customs union with the EU, although it doesn't include agricultural products except processed ones (eg. tomato paste, but not tomatoes) and, despite the diagrams doing the rounds, it is not in the EU Customs Union.

The EU and Turkey also have a trade agreement to supplement their customs union agreement.

This is the element of the trading relationship between the EU and Turkey that the UK has rolled over, not the customs union.

And that's why rules of origin certification is needed for UK-Turkey trade, as trade agreements require proof that goods traded originate sufficiently in the parties to qualify for the preferential tariffs set out in the agreement.

sondagefaux

timetogo1 wrote: »

Brexit creating new jobs


in France

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/23/cheshire-cheesemaker-says-business-left-with-250000-brexit-hole?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other&__twitter_impression=true

Investment that would have been spent in the UK, moving to the EU.

I know many companies were doing this quietly (the company I work for moved loads of jobs from London after 2016, it didn't do any big bang, just jobs that people left were hired in EU countries, mine didn't exist in Dublin before 2019) post referendum.

The main question is why did it take the end of the transition for these companies to realise that they'd need to move investment to the EU. For all last year it was looking like no deal or a crap deal.

He complains that there are no exemptions or special provisions in the trade agreement for online consumer sales, regarding this as an oversight, and goes on to say:

“Our business had high hopes of continued growth in the EU market, after seeing the avoidance of the no-deal and announcement of a free trade deal.

“What has only become clear in the last week is that our successful B2C [business to consumer] online sales to EU consumers is now impossible to operate,” he said.

Why would he think that the EU would have granted concessions to the UK when the UK said clearly that it was going to try to become a rival of the EU?

His decision to invest in France is going to be repeated many times over by British-based enterprises and also to some extent by EU-based enterprises who want to make trading with Britain easier.

But the relative sizes of the two markets means that far more investment is likely to flow into the EU than into Britain.

sondagefaux

peter kern wrote: »

would you not argue that the uk is defacto in the customs union and north korea is far from that

A customs union doesn't just abolish tariffs between its members, but it also requires all its members to impose a common tariff on products from outside the customs union. Once a product is imported into a customs union member and the tariff is paid there, it is in free circulation within the customs union and no further tariffs are payable if it is exported within the customs union.

Let's say I'm in Germany and I import a car from the USA. I pay the import tariff when it enters Germany. I can now export that car to France and the French importer doesn't have to pay any import tariff. Not only that, but the rate of import tariffs I pay when I import cars from the USA into Germany is the same as I would have paid if I imported cars from the USA into France, as both are members of the same customs union and have the same tariff rates on imports from outside the customs union, a common external tariff.

Now let's say I import a car into Britain from the USA and export it to France.

I will have to pay the UK import tariff which may be a different rate from the EU tariff.

The French importer will have to pay the EU tariff when the car enters France despite the trade agreement with the UK.

This is because the trade agreement between the UK and the EU only abolishes tariffs on goods that originate in their respective customs territories, not on goods from elsewhere and also because the UK and EU have separate tariffs on imports, not a common external tariff.

It's more complex than this in reality: goods traded between the EU and the UK can contain parts or ingredients or materials from other countries up to a limit (45% is the standard limit) and still qualify for tariff expemption under the agreement, as can goods that are imported from other countries and sufficiently transformed in either the UK or EU.

Proof that goods meet these requirements, as set out in the rules of origin of the trade agreement, is required before they qualify for tariff exemption.

Getting this proof requires certification which costs money to obtain.

This isn't required for trade between members of a customs union.

In addition, Britain is now outside the Single Market, so proof that British products meet EU standards is now required, again requiring certification which costs money to obtain.

peter kern

sondagefaux wrote: »

Turkey has a customs union with the EU, although it doesn't include agricultural products except processed ones (eg. tomato paste, but not tomatoes) and, despite the diagrams doing the rounds, it is not in the EU Customs Union.

The EU and Turkey also have a trade agreement to supplement their customs union agreement.

This is the element of the trading relationship between the EU and Turkey that the UK has rolled over, not the customs union.

And that's why rules of origin certification is needed for UK-Turkey trade, as trade agreements require proof that goods traded originate sufficiently in the parties to qualify for the preferential tariffs set out in the agreement.

ok this makes sense . thanks for the answers
so turkey is kind of a 90 % member of the customs union since some products are not part of this
now one more question if you dont mind, in the barrnier ladder turkey is bellow ukraine. is the custom union deal with the eu the same as turkey or is it different?
and what are the advantages for the ukraine which abides to the ECJ, over turkey ?

sondagefaux

peter kern wrote: »

ok this makes sense . thanks for the answers
so turkey is kind of a 90 % member of the customs union since some products are not part of this
now one more question if you dont mind, in the barrnier ladder turkey is bellow ukraine. is the custom union deal with the eu the same as turkey or is it different?
and what are the advantages for the ukraine which abides to the ECJ, over turkey ?

Neither the UK nor Ukraine have a customs union deal with the EU. They have trade agreements.

Ukraine indirectly comes under the CJEU's jurisdiction rather than directly, and only in a very limited way for the purposes of its Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with the EU (DCFTA).

Under this agreement, Ukraine has agreed to abide by and implement many of the Single Market rules.

The Single Market is a union too, but for regulations rather than tariffs.

Being in the Single Market, or implementing its rules, means you are covered by one set of rules which are valid in all the countries that implement those rules.

This makes trade much easier.

Imagine you make soap in France and export it to all the other countries in the EU.

Within the Single Market, there is one set of rules, the Cosmetics Regulation, that govern safety standards for the production of cosmetic products, including soap, which includes rules about what ingredients you can and cannot use in soap.

Without a Single Market, each of the 27 EU countries could have different safety standards for soap, with different rules about what ingredients you can and cannot use in soap.

That would make trading far more difficult as you would have to know and comply with 27 sets of rules if you wanted to sell your soap in all 27 countries.

In the Single Market you only have to know and comply with one set of rules and once your soap is approved for sale in France, it's approved for sale in all 27 EU countries, plus the other Single Market countries that are not in the EU.

Ukraine is not in the EU and not in the Single Market, but it does implement Single Market type rules in some sectors and accepts indirect CJEU jurisdiction in effect. This makes it easier to export the Ukranian goods covered to the EU.

In many cases, especially where goods are highly regulated and tariffs are low or abolished, having the same regulations is better than having no tariffs.

For example, the Cheese Guy (see up thread) can send his cheese to the EU without his customers having to pay import tariffs. This would also be the case if the UK had a customs union with the EU that covered processed agricultural products, like Turkey has.

But outside the Single Market, he has to pay for an Export Health Certificate to prove that his cheese meets EU standards. The cost of these is £180 per certificate in Britain.

That's not too bad if he's sending a truck load of cheese worth £18,000 to the EU as you only need one certificate per consignment.

But he also needs one certifucate per consigment when he sends a customer a gift pack of cheese worth £25.00.

The fact that rhere are no import tariffs for his customers, and wouldn't be in a Turkey-EU style customs union between the UK and the EU, doesn't help him in this situation.

So a customs union alone, let alone a trade agreement that abolishes tariffs, isn't enough to remove all barriers to trade.

Non-tariff barriers, such as having different product standards, or having to provide certification for exports, can be even more expensive than tariffs.

It's one of the major reasons behind the creation of the Single Market.

The EEC had implemented a customs union between its members by the late 1960s (there was a transitional period from its foundation in 1957) but there were still too many non-tariff barriers to trade between member states.

So the Single Market, implemented from 1993, abolished most of them and continues to abolish any remaining ones, mainly through regulatory harmonisation, having one set of rules applicable throughout the Single Market.

Ukraine isn't in the Single Market but it aligns with it closely enough under its DCFTA provisions to make trade with the EU easier than just abolishing tariffs or having a customs union does.

Nate--IRL--

Excellent and clear explanation.

Nate

Enzokk

So the current advice for companies struggling with red tape is to set up a new company within the EU.

Set up shop in Europe, government advisers tell Brexit-hit businesses

British businesses that export to the continent are being encouraged by government trade advisers to set up separate companies inside the EU in order to get around extra charges, paperwork and taxes resulting from Brexit, the Observer can reveal.

In an extraordinary twist to the Brexit saga, UK small businesses are being told by advisers working for the Department for International Trade (DIT) that the best way to circumvent border issues and VAT problems that have been piling up since 1 January is to register new firms within the EU single market, from where they can distribute their goods far more freely.

The heads of two UK businesses that have been beset by Brexit-related problems have told the Observer that, following advice from experts at the Department for International Trade, they have already decided to register new companies in the EU in the next few weeks, and they knew of many others in similar positions. Other companies have also said they too were advised by government officials to register operations in the EU but had not yet made decisions.

I feel sorry for those that will lose their job to colleagues in EU countries, but they had a chance to rule out this scenario and they still voted for it in 2019.

sondagefaux

Enzokk wrote: »

So the current advice for companies struggling with red tape is to set up a new company within the EU.

Set up shop in Europe, government advisers tell Brexit-hit businesses



I feel sorry for those that will lose their job to colleagues in EU countries, but they had a chance to rule out this scenario and they still voted for it in 2019.

Is this part if the Global Britain strategy?

They'd want to hurry up before the British state dissolves.

https://mobile.twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1353044013776035840

Igotadose

Enzokk wrote: »

So the current advice for companies struggling with red tape is to set up a new company within the EU.

Set up shop in Europe, government advisers tell Brexit-hit businesses



I feel sorry for those that will lose their job to colleagues in EU countries, but they had a chance to rule out this scenario and they still voted for it in 2019.

So, how soon before Liz Truss walks that back and sacks a few of them? Quite remarkable to see this, basically HMG waving the white flag. I suppose "Fcuk business" has had its effect on business. And they'll vote with their feet.

CelticRambler

sondagefaux wrote: »

The Single Market is a union too, but for regulations rather than tariffs.

Being in the Single Market, or implementing its rules, means you are covered by one set of rules which are valid in all the countries that implement those rules.

This makes trade much easier.

In the context of people in GB suddenly waking up to the reality of Brexit, and demanding that someone does something about the problems, it's worth pointing out that harmonised, permanently aligned, rules and regulations are what the British Government really, really, really doesn't want to agree to. So what ministers are dismissing as "teething problems" are in fact permanent deformities.

Enzokk wrote: »

So the current advice for companies struggling with red tape is to set up a new company within the EU.

From a companion article, here's another facepalm:

But over the past three weeks he – like others – has had to confront another huge, potentially existential, problem resulting from Brexit that came out of the blue, and in a dark moment made him think of shutting the company down a fortnight ago.

He discovered from customers in Europe that they were being asked by couriers to pay VAT upfront on the goods he was sending to them – as a condition, in effect, of getting customs clearance – and the customers, unsurprisingly, were refusing.

Nothing "out of the blue" about that, as anyone with an ounce (or gramme) of import-export experience would know. :rolleyes: Yet again, someone (reporter or business man, hard to know to which should be attributed the phrase ...?) failing to appreciate how tightly integrated into the EU was the so-successful pre-Brexit economy.

Now, will we see more and more examples of this over the full year ahead, or will upper lips be stiffened quickly and the population carry on?

tubercolossus

sondagefaux wrote: »

Neither the UK nor Ukraine have a customs union deal with the EU. They have trade agreements.

Ukraine indirectly comes under the CJEU's jurisdiction rather than directly, and only in a very limited way for the purposes of its Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with the EU (DCFTA).

Under this agreement, Ukraine has agreed to abide by and implement many of the Single Market rules.

The Single Market is a union too, but for regulations rather than tariffs.

Being in the Single Market, or implementing its rules, means you are covered by one set of rules which are valid in all the countries that implement those rules.

This makes trade much easier.

Imagine you make soap in France and export it to all the other countries in the EU.

Within the Single Market, there is one set of rules, the Cosmetics Regulation, that govern safety standards for the production of cosmetic products, including soap, which includes rules about what ingredients you can and cannot use in soap.

Without a Single Market, each of the 27 EU countries could have different safety standards for soap, with different rules about what ingredients you can and cannot use in soap.

That would make trading far more difficult as you would have to know and comply with 27 sets of rules if you wanted to sell your soap in all 27 countries.

In the Single Market you only have to know and comply with one set of rules and once your soap is approved for sale in France, it's approved for sale in all 27 EU countries, plus the other Single Market countries that are not in the EU.

Ukraine is not in the EU and not in the Single Market, but it does implement Single Market type rules in some sectors and accepts indirect CJEU jurisdiction in effect. This makes it easier to export the Ukranian goods covered to the EU.

In many cases, especially where goods are highly regulated and tariffs are low or abolished, having the same regulations is better than having no tariffs.

For example, the Cheese Guy (see up thread) can send his cheese to the EU without his customers having to pay import tariffs. This would also be the case if the UK had a customs union with the EU that covered processed agricultural products, like Turkey has.

But outside the Single Market, he has to pay for an Export Health Certificate to prove that his cheese meets EU standards. The cost of these is £180 per certificate in Britain.

That's not too bad if he's sending a truck load of cheese worth £18,000 to the EU as you only need one certificate per consignment.

But he also needs one certifucate per consigment when he sends a customer a gift pack of cheese worth £25.00.

The fact that rhere are no import tariffs for his customers, and wouldn't be in a Turkey-EU style customs union between the UK and the EU, doesn't help him in this situation.

So a customs union alone, let alone a trade agreement that abolishes tariffs, isn't enough to remove all barriers to trade.

Non-tariff barriers, such as having different product standards, or having to provide certification for exports, can be even more expensive than tariffs.

It's one of the major reasons behind the creation of the Single Market.

The EEC had implemented a customs union between its members by the late 1960s (there was a transitional period from its foundation in 1957) but there were still too many non-tariff barriers to trade between member states.

So the Single Market, implemented from 1993, abolished most of them and continues to abolish any remaining ones, mainly through regulatory harmonisation, having one set of rules applicable throughout the Single Market.

Ukraine isn't in the Single Market but it aligns with it closely enough under its DCFTA provisions to make trade with the EU easier than just abolishing tariffs or having a customs union does.

You know, I'm beginning to suspect that the EU might be rather good at all this trade regulation business. And vice versa for the UK.

You might say they've bin done up like a UKIPPER!

Harry Palmr

UK Government will be telling musicians to live in France to avoid red tape next.

ArmaniJeanss

I'd guess the advice to set up in the EU isn't official advice, probably just a functionary who'd heard enough sob stories about export issues and decided to tell the businesses how they could get around it.

Presumably it would actually work for Cheshire Cheese Man.
Instead of sending £50 boxes that each require a £180 cert, send a weekly/monthly truck with a £15K block of cheese that still only requires one £180 certificate to a warehouse in Hamlet-de-France. Then as foreign orders come in send the details to Hamlet-de-France every day and get them to break it down to smaller product for sending to the EU customers.

I think it works. Albeit he suddenly doesn't need quite as many staff in the UK and is instead employing French people to do the cutting, wrapping and posting, and these employees pay income tax to the French revenue. And all the VAT would also be paid to the French revenue.

Harry Palmr

France and the Benelux countries could be on to a winner.

druss

Harry Palmr wrote: »

UK Government will be telling musicians to live in France to avoid red tape next.

I'm fairly sure that the Guardian article reference to "advice from experts at the Department for International Trade" means civil servants, as opposed to UK Government.

And, in fairness, the experts can only recognise the reality of the situation. I'd imagine the UK government response would mumble about teething problems, COVID, and imply that the company had failed to prepare properly.

druss

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I'd guess the advice to set up in the EU isn't official advice, probably just a functionary who'd heard enough sob stories about export issues and decided to tell the businesses how they could get around it.

Presumably it would actually work for Cheshire Cheese Man.
Instead of sending £50 boxes that each require a £180 cert, send a weekly/monthly truck with a £15K block of cheese that still only requires one £180 certificate to a warehouse in Hamlet-de-France. Then as foreign orders come in send the details to Hamlet-de-France every day and get them to break it down to smaller product for sending to the EU customers.

I think it works. Albeit he suddenly doesn't need quite as many staff in the UK and is instead employing French people to do the cutting, wrapping and posting, and these employees pay income to the French revenue. And all the VAT would also be payed to the French revenue.

Same conclusion. It's a rational response. Half a viable company is better than saying nothing and the company closing.

Sam Russell

druss wrote: »

Same conclusion. It's a rational response. Half a viable company is better than saying nothing and the company closing.

Basically it is a fulfilment centre. He sends a truck over filed with his £25 boxes, and one cert, and the centre then sends them out as requested.

He needn't even own the centre. It could be operated by a logistics company like Amazon.

peter kern

sondagefaux wrote: »

Neither the UK nor Ukraine have a customs union deal with the EU. They have trade agreements.

Ukraine indirectly comes under the CJEU's jurisdiction rather than directly, and only in a very limited way for the purposes of its Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with the EU (DCFTA).

Under this agreement, Ukraine has agreed to abide by and implement many of the Single Market rules.

The Single Market is a union too, but for regulations rather than tariffs.

Being in the Single Market, or implementing its rules, means you are covered by one set of rules which are valid in all the countries that implement those rules.

This makes trade much easier.

Imagine you make soap in France and export it to all the other countries in the EU.

Within the Single Market, there is one set of rules, the Cosmetics Regulation, that govern safety standards for the production of cosmetic products, including soap, which includes rules about what ingredients you can and cannot use in soap.

Without a Single Market, each of the 27 EU countries could have different safety standards for soap, with different rules about what ingredients you can and cannot use in soap.

That would make trading far more difficult as you would have to know and comply with 27 sets of rules if you wanted to sell your soap in all 27 countries.

In the Single Market you only have to know and comply with one set of rules and once your soap is approved for sale in France, it's approved for sale in all 27 EU countries, plus the other Single Market countries that are not in the EU.

Ukraine is not in the EU and not in the Single Market, but it does implement Single Market type rules in some sectors and accepts indirect CJEU jurisdiction in effect. This makes it easier to export the Ukranian goods covered to the EU.

In many cases, especially where goods are highly regulated and tariffs are low or abolished, having the same regulations is better than having no tariffs.

For example, the Cheese Guy (see up thread) can send his cheese to the EU without his customers having to pay import tariffs. This would also be the case if the UK had a customs union with the EU that covered processed agricultural products, like Turkey has.

But outside the Single Market, he has to pay for an Export Health Certificate to prove that his cheese meets EU standards. The cost of these is £180 per certificate in Britain.

That's not too bad if he's sending a truck load of cheese worth £18,000 to the EU as you only need one certificate per consignment.

But he also needs one certifucate per consigment when he sends a customer a gift pack of cheese worth £25.00.

The fact that rhere are no import tariffs for his customers, and wouldn't be in a Turkey-EU style customs union between the UK and the EU, doesn't help him in this situation.

So a customs union alone, let alone a trade agreement that abolishes tariffs, isn't enough to remove all barriers to trade.

Non-tariff barriers, such as having different product standards, or having to provide certification for exports, can be even more expensive than tariffs.

It's one of the major reasons behind the creation of the Single Market.

The EEC had implemented a customs union between its members by the late 1960s (there was a transitional period from its foundation in 1957) but there were still too many non-tariff barriers to trade between member states.

So the Single Market, implemented from 1993, abolished most of them and continues to abolish any remaining ones, mainly through regulatory harmonisation, having one set of rules applicable throughout the Single Market.

Ukraine isn't in the Single Market but it aligns with it closely enough under its DCFTA provisions to make trade with the EU easier than just abolishing tariffs or having a customs union does.

thanks a mil ! really appreciated.

Capt'n Midnight

Covid has made shipping from China more expensive. But Brexit adds to that. It could be understood if it was protectionism, but most UK manufacturing offshored yonks ago.

One shipping line recently offered freight rates of $12,050 for a 40ft container from China to Southampton, but charged just $8,450 for the same container to travel from China to Rotterdam, Hamburg, or Antwerp.
...
"Most of the carriers just don't want UK cargo because of the issues when the vessels dock, so mainly they're favouring European ports and we are having to truck containers over," said freight forwarder Craig Poole.

He said that adds a cost of up to £2,000 per container, and takes an extra seven to ten days to reach the delivery point in the UK.

For business-owners like Helen White, the difficulties affecting the shipping industry can't be solved quickly enough.

"Lots of little start-ups are really hurting," she said. "It has been paired with logistical nightmares across Europe as well. It just feels like logistics is falling apart at the moment. It's hard to see where the resolution is."

mrunsure

Are there any statistics showing what proportion of Irish citizens have taken advantage of free movement, other than to go to the UK? It would be interesting to compare that to the proportion of UK citizens who did the same, other than to go to Ireland.

breezy1985

mrunsure wrote: »

Are there any statistics showing what proportion of Irish citizens have taken advantage of free movement, other than to go to the UK? It would be interesting to compare that to the proportion of UK citizens who did the same, other than to go to Ireland.

If we are talking about people going to work I would say the Irish would outweigh the English in most places except maybe Germany. But that's just going on my own experiences.

Retiring to the Mediterranean would be a different story I would say though

listermint

mrunsure wrote: »

Are there any statistics showing what proportion of Irish citizens have taken advantage of free movement, other than to go to the UK? It would be interesting to compare that to the proportion of UK citizens who did the same, other than to go to Ireland.

There are more Brits in EU nations than any other nationalities across the EU 27.

Which is why it's more odd they've killed fom because they were the biggest users