Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Seth Brundle wrote: »

AFAIK they have copnfirmed that a border in some shape or form would be required.
What more do you want them to say?

That Ireland will need to collect tariffs on good crossing the border from NI, for one thing, or coming into Irish ports from GB. That it may be necessary to impose other checks and controls. That trade with the rest of the EU via the GB landbridge is likely to be severely disrupted, and businesses engaged in that trade should be actively seeking out mitigation strategies.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

The EU & Irish government have repeated the position ad nauseaum that the backstop is necessary. The Brexiters are choosing not to believe this.
As for avoiding a no-deal, this remains an option for the UK. Should the Irish government approach be more pessimistic?

The Irish government should be realistic, and accept that no-deal is a very live possiblity, and should talk in some detail about what this will mean in practice if it does happen, so that nobody is suprised, when the time comes, by what it means.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Cummings summarily sacked Javid's media advisor last night. Where did he get this authority? Why didn't Javid make the decision? Not that this could be construed as undemocratic of course.

Advisors are (well) paid, not elected.

Enzokk wrote: »

Negotiations will be ramping up, meetings schedules for twice a week with the EU for now.

Time to step up tempo of Brexit talks, says bullish Boris Johnson

I see a couple of problems with this, the EU has been put in a tough position by Johnson by framing no-deal as their choice and fault and that they are refusing to negotiate. This seems to have worked as there will be ongoing meetings with the UK to get the same deal. So that has worked well for the UK.

Firstly there is a case that will have a ruling this morning and we will see what the court finds. Government will fight this all the way to the Supreme Court though even if they lose this case.

Then we have the strategy to frustrate efforts in Parliament,



So they expect to lose the battle in the House of Commons but will then try to block it in the House of Lords. That is where the resignation of the George Young makes it interesting as the battle will be fought there as well.

This then gets me to the second problem, firstly what "new" deal will be offered that Johnson will take to Parliament.



So they are hoping there will be a new deal and this deal will be enough to scare MPs from Labour to vote for it. I feel we have been here before, right?

Then the last problem, if the government will try to frustrate the legislation that will instruct him to request an extension, what hope do they have themselves to negotiate a new deal, sell it to MPs to vote for it and then legislate for it in the time before 31st October? This is fanciful and those MPs deluding themselves that the plan is there and will work in the timeframe needs to wake up.

So we've gone from no negotiations until we remove the backstop to ramping up negotiations. It's not the EU's position that is crumbling.

is_that_so wrote: »

Advisors are (well) paid, not elected.

That's not the point though. Why didn't Javid do it? Is Cummings the HR manager for the UK government?

Edit: Peregrinus answered above.

I'm going to reply to this inside the quote. Apologies for that, but I'm not going to multi-quote, too time-consuming.

Dymo wrote: »

Ok small company imports from the UK, Northern Ireland and France how is a no deal going to effect the company.

What to expect in delays.
From France (assuming not using the landbridge) none. If using the landbridge, a few hours, maybe a day at most, depending on sailing schedule.


What are the new tariffs going to be.
From the UK, you'll need to look up the commodity code. Here. From France, none and from NI (imo) none.

Is there going to be Duty now as well as vat added to the cost of goods.
That's what tariffs are.

Exports to the UK will everything now need a goods certificate for export.
Yes. You'll need a lot of paperwork. Most (if not all) of what you're looking for can be found here.

Do they now need an export licence.
See above.

Should VAT now be added to UK orders.
Afaik, no. VAT is an EU tax. Again, the info above should clear that up.


How does it effect MOSS taxation.
See above.

Should the company stockpile now.
Probably. If duties are small, no reason to stop importing from the UK provided that stock requirements are not ordered on a JIT basis. This is a financial decision based on alternative supply chains and costs from the continent (if available). Also worth considering if such alternative supply chains are cash up front or on credit. Continental suppliers are not fond of credit terms for new customers and prefer cash.

Is this longterm and should be planned for long term.
This should be done on a case by case evaluation. Taking into account what I've outlined above.


Should the company seek alternative supplies in the EU and avoid the UK
Again, I think I've covered this above.

BarryD2 wrote: »

Listen to RTE1 radio now. For coverage on the difficulties facing importers. Importers who stock the shelves in our shops.

How about providing verifiable details for those of us unable to turn on the radio?

GM228 wrote: »

When someone says "they voted to leave", it's often met with the counter "but they didn't vote for no deal" type argument.

The point is it's not really a valid argument because you never get a vote on the terms of any referendum or the means of achieving the result of such a referendum.

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Well that’s cos in any sensible normal referendum everything is thought out and explained to all involved and especially the public before hand.

They did none of this.

Well not really, what the result of a Referendum means is spelt out, how it is achieved and any further related provisions is never so clear as that is a legislative matter, not a peoples vote matter.

When we change our Constitution it allows the Government to change legislation to implement measures accordingly, that is purely a matter for the Government, they can choose what measures to implement and can also choose to limit any scope of those measures so long as it is compatible with the Constitution and all measures introduced are presumed to be constitutional, the people have no say in such matters.

serfboard wrote: »

That's what we have the Referendum Commission for.

The Referendum Commission gives impartial advice on the substance of any change to our Constitution, not the resulting legislation or how those changes will be implemented, they do not and can not give advice on the exact details of how the result of the vote will be implemented afterwards, that is not their function and they have no statutory power to do so. In any case there are differences between the RC here and any advice given to the UK as they do not have a written Constitution to deal with.

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Well, you kinda do, if it's detailed properly to begin with and then discussed appropriately.

The discussion in the UK was full of "easiest deal in history", "we'll get a better deal than Norway", etc.....

Whilst we know there were false promises during the Referendum such as the £350M NHS rubbish and immigration issues I don’t believe (but open to correction) there were any “easiest deal in history” promises made in the campaign or indeed and specific promises around a deal. And even if there was were they official Referendum promises or just political rubbish spouted out for the media?

Podge_irl wrote: »

Except you do, constantly. When we vote in referendums we are voting on specific language that will be inserted/deleted/amended in the constitution. There is no question on implementation. There may be a debate on consequences but that is a different matter.

It is an incredibly valid argument because it was an incredibly poorly run and defined referendum and ultimately the most you could say is that it was giving an indication to parliament as to what to do. And now certain factions are attempting to ignore parliament.

Indeed, and the public indicated to Parliament they wanted to leave, not they wanted to leave but only if we got a deal.

As I stated previously I’m only playing devils advocate, but the over-riding point is that there was no option in the first instance to vote on deal or no deal so when people state “they voted to leave”, but “they didn’t vote to leave without a deal” it is not really an accurate argument to make because there was never a question of them voting on such a point.

Dymo wrote: »

To be honest, I am interested in what their plans are myself it is nine weeks away and businesses still don't know how plan as they don't know what the government is planning, what measures they are going to implement.

Any business that trades with the UK has known since 2016 that Brexit in one form or another has been coming towards them. In the last year, they've known that a no-deal Brexit is increasingly likely. If that business has not taken any steps of their own to insulate themselves from the effect of trading with an unpredictable GB, then that's hardly the fault of the Irish government.

In the case of a business that's entirely built on imports from or exports to the UK, well that's no more of a special case than, for example, a VHS video rental store going bust because everyone switches to digital streaming services.

prawnsambo wrote: »

Should VAT now be added to UK orders.
Afaik, no. VAT is an EU tax. Again, the info above should clear that up.

Most EU states had a VAT type system long before the EU.

The UK has had such long before EU membership, it was just called a "Purchase Tax" before being renamed VAT when they joined the EU. It was introduced in 1940 to help the war effort, but remained until being renamed VAT in 1973 to comply with EU requirements, it was also a lot dearer than the EU VAT.


EDIT: I just realised I miss-read the post and the one it was referring to so ignore my history lesson

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

This is popping up this morning. Can the EU withdraw the deadline?

https://twitter.com/htscotpol/status/1167364663522332672?s=21

No, there must be unanimous agreement between the EU27 and the UK to do so as per Article 50.3:-

Article 50 wrote:

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

There is no provision for the EU27 to withdraw the deadline.

VinLieger wrote: »

I dont see how, there has to be a day when everything stops, that's what october 31st is, in reality the deadline is really a week or two before because any changes made need to be ratified by the council


However this may be another part of the EU the UK does not understand and they all seem to think along the lines of Davis that things can be changed up until the last second.

They are right to an extent about last minute changes and many a summit has gone down to the wire but once it's been agreed and nothing better shows up that's it.