Brexit - merged threads

[Rewulf]

17 minutes ago, SpringDon said:

You seem impressively sanguine about a few 10s of billions. I suppose what I don’t really understand about the trade argument is that the eu only accounts for 46% of our trade but the overhead of membership is <insert your chosen figure here>. This overhead is on top of trade that is already running a deficit. How can that be a good thing?

This is an important point.

Being part of the single market, entitles us to 'free trade' yes ?
Except , its not free, it costs £10 bn a year..of taxpayers money.

Its all very well businesses having 'free trade' but Ive yet to see figures about how it benefits the people who pay for membership.
Ive yet to see how much it COSTS UK businesses in extra EU red tape, I know how much it costs me, and its something that annoys me every year, when such and such licence needs to be renewed, no one checks whether you adhere to it, just another BS tax.

[Rewulf]

Heres another interesting point.

We hear of plans for the remainers to stop a no deal Brexit (In reality plans to stop Brexit altogether) by using a vote of no confidence in BJs government.
Whether this would be successful or not is debatable, they certainly havent tried it YET...but, is it too late to stop us leaving on 1/11 anyway ?

Parliament is in recess till the 3/9.
IF on its immediate return , a vote of no confidence is tabled, and successfully voted on, Boris has 14 days to prove via another vote that his government is capable of governing.

If he cant, and no other group can be considered capable either  (via vote) Parliament is dissolved, and a GE will be announced, which cannot happen for at least 25 days.

This sets an earliest possible polling day of FRIDAY 25 /10 IF BJ ignores the traditional Thursday polling day for the UK .
If he doesnt, and why should he ? The next polling day would be 31/10 , with results not in until we have LEFT the EU with no deal.

Apologies for any distress this may cause to certain PW members 

 

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, Rewulf said:

This sets an earliest possible polling day of FRIDAY 25 /10 IF BJ ignores the traditional Thursday polling day for the UK .
If he doesnt, and why should he ? The next polling day would be 31/10 , with results not in until we have LEFT the EU with no deal

I think Comrade Corbyn was contemplating a 'no confidence' motion just before recess (he said at one stage he would do so on the new leaders first day in office).

• He couldn't make up his mind
• The new LibDem leader tried and got it wrong as they can't (because the are not the 'official' opposition apparently) set business (not quite sure of my facts here, but it is something like that)
• Abacus Abbott worked out the last date he could table it - so he thought he had plenty of time
• He'd be unlikely based on polls to win anyway - probably actually loosing seats

[Vince Green]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

This is an important point.

Being part of the single market, entitles us to 'free trade' yes ?
Except , its not free, it costs £10 bn a year..of taxpayers money.

Its all very well businesses having 'free trade' but Ive yet to see figures about how it benefits the people who pay for membership.
Ive yet to see how much it COSTS UK businesses in extra EU red tape, I know how much it costs me, and its something that annoys me every year, when such and such licence needs to be renewed, no one checks whether you adhere to it, just another BS tax.

Free trade only benefits the country doing the selling, it disadvantages the country doing the buying because they lose out on the import duty they would otherwise be charging.

We are a net importer, our trade with EU is 70-100 billion adverse. No advantage to UK in a free trade agreement

Edited August 6, 2019 by Vince Green

[Rewulf]

9 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

• He couldn't make up his mind = Likely 🤡
• The new LibDem leader tried and got it wrong as they can't (because the are not the 'official' opposition apparently) set business (not quite sure of my facts here, but it is something like that) = They have what 12 MPs and had no Labour support anyway (The attempt was called childish by Labour)
• Abacus Abbott worked out the last date he could table it - so he thought he had plenty of time = Likely 
• He'd be unlikely based on polls to win anyway - probably actually loosing seats = The main reason 

 

[SpringDon]

4 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

You may be right ......... but it shouldn't be so much different to what happens now.  We have always had (needed anyway) hard borders to protect from illegal activity (EU and non EU) and we should not need much change to legal trade etc, though a bit more preparation will be needed by exporters (as they do now for exports to non EU destinations).

IF people on both sides actually WANT it to work - it can work.

Does the EU want it to work?  Well I think the car and goods makers, food producers, financial traders ALL do.  I doubt the EU Commission does, and suspect some member governments don't.  The UK (well most of us) obviously do.  Car makers, food producers must pressurise the EU commission to dam well MAKE it work.

That is the nub. It’s all very well saying leaving will be a disaster, but who actually wants it to be a disaster? Not a car worker or a cheese maker or olive oil producer.

In short, no working person should actually want it to fail, they just want to be left alone to get on with their lives. Politics and ideological point scoring are of no interest to the majority.

 

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, SpringDon said:

In short, no working person should actually want it to fail, they just want to be left alone to get on with their lives. Politics and ideological point scoring are of no interest to the majority.

Spot on 

[Dave-G]

10 minutes ago, SpringDon said:

That is the nub. It’s all very well saying leaving will be a disaster, but who actually wants it to be a disaster? Not a car worker or a cheese maker or olive oil producer.

In short, no working person should actually want it to fail, they just want to be left alone to get on with their lives. Politics and ideological point scoring are of no interest to the majority.

 

Exactly, remove the legal control, political control and immigration control and wind back to the common market spec we originally voted for - but were shamefully lied to!

[Rewulf]

3 minutes ago, Dave-G said:

Exactly, remove the legal control, political control and immigration control and wind back to the common market spec we originally voted for - but were shamefully lied to!

Never going to happen, because that was never really the desired point of the bloc.

The endgame was always about political, fiscal and legal unification, with cultural and sovereign identity forcibly integrated, but 50 years ago, European peoples would never have voted for it.

So the answer ?
Never give them a vote, just dress it up at as a 'trade agreement'  whos going to argue with that ?
Until its too late, and you are economically tied into the 'dream'  ?

Just not your dream.

[Retsdon]

2 hours ago, SpringDon said:

that the eu only accounts for 46% of our trade

So near enough 50%.? There's another thing. Trade with the EU is currently done on an almost domestic basis - no tariffs, no sanitary or phytosanitary checks, shared subsidies, regulatory conformity all the way down the production line, etc ,etc. But without some sort of a contingency deal, the moment that the UK steps outside this shared regulatory environment  all these advantages of doing trade on a  common basis go out of the window. So why would an importer in Germany, for example, take on legal responsibility for a product made in the UK  (which under EU law he would have to ) if he could instead source the same product somewhere else within the Single Market and the responsibility for the safety, efficacy, whatever , of the product would remain with the primary producer of it? That's even without all the extra paperwork that importing from a 3rd party country entails. Unless the product that the importer was sourcing from the UK were unique or of exceptional quality why wouldn't he just find an alternative supplier within the Single Market and save himself a lot of headaches?

The point I'm trying to make is that come a No-Deal Brexit the potential ramifications and knock-on consequences are totally unknown, and the figures that we bandy about today will almost certainly undergo massive adjustments, and logically not for the better either. Of course some people will say that it doesn't matter, that it's all Project Fear, etc, etc, but at the end of the day even a half-responsible domestic householder will have a working economic hypothesis, and a roughly modeled future financial scenario before moving his family out of its current accommodation and into the road. But not this government......

Edited August 6, 2019 by Retsdon

[SpringDon]

12 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

So near enough 50%.? There's another thing. Trade with the EU is currently done on an almost domestic basis - no tariffs, no sanitary or phytosanitary checks, shared subsidies, regulatory conformity all the way down the production line, etc ,etc. But without some sort of a contingency deal, the moment that the UK steps outside this shared regulatory environment  all these advantages of doing trade on a  common basis go out of the window. So why would an importer in Germany, for example, take on legal responsibility for a product made in the UK  (which under EU law he would have to ) if he could instead source the same product somewhere else within the Single Market and the responsibility for the safety, efficacy, whatever , of the product would remain with the primary producer of it? That's even without all the extra paperwork that importing from a 3rd party country entails. Unless the product that the importer was sourcing from the UK were unique or of exceptional quality why wouldn't he just find an alternative supplier within the Single Market and save himself a lot of headaches?

The point I'm trying to make is that come a No-Deal Brexit the potential ramifications and knock-on consequences are totally unknown, and the figures that we bandy about today will almost certainly undergo massive adjustments, and logically not for the better either. Of course some people will say that it doesn't matter, that it's all Project Fear, etc, etc, but at the end of the day even a half-responsible domestic householder will have a working economic hypothesis, and a roughly modeled future financial scenario before moving his family out of its current accommodation and into the road. But not this government......

I still can’t quite get it. Surely the German importer just has to ensure the items are ce  marked which the manufacturer’s declaration of conformity. As far as I know, nothing would stop us doing that. I buy Chinese tools that are ce marked all the time.

I’ll relate to the second paragraph though. It is a step into the unknown and there will have to be adjustments (possibly shortterm). But countries can exist outside the eu and there is potential. Remaining (which I believe is what will happen) shackles us to stagnation since there seems to be no appetite for joining the eurozone so we will remain in the European second division.

 

[Rewulf]

20 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

Trade with the EU is currently done on an almost domestic basis - no tariffs, no sanitary or phytosanitary checks, shared subsidies, regulatory conformity all the way down the production line, etc ,etc. But without some sort of a contingency deal, the moment that the UK steps outside this shared regulatory environment  all these advantages of doing trade on a  common basis go out of the window. So why would an importer in Germany, for example, take on legal responsibility for a product made in the UK  (which under EU law he would have to ) if he could instead source the same product somewhere else within the Single Market and the responsibility for the safety, efficacy, whatever , of the product would remain with the primary producer of it? That's even without all the extra paperwork that importing from a 3rd party country entails.

Think about what youre saying.
An EU business buying a UK product  that meets EU standards, but after we leave the EU (specifically with no deal) it no longer meets those EU standards ?
But if we accept the WA and leave, then its all good ?
What kind of BS is that ?

So by extension , the importer sources the same product from another part of the EU , to satisfy Brussels, for presumably the same price ?
Why isnt he already doing this now then?
What is the incentive?
Why do other countries buy British products at all if they can be bought elsewhere easily ?

One answer is because they cant, the other is quality.
But because we dont exit in the way (or not at all) the way the EU says we must, then doubt is cast on the quality of the product ?
That kind of rubbish might work on some people some of the time...

7 minutes ago, SpringDon said:

I still can’t quite get it. Surely the German importer just has to ensure the items are ce  marked which the manufacturer’s declaration of conformity. As far as I know, nothing would stop us doing that. I buy Chinese tools that are ce marked all the time.

Spot on .

[Raja Clavata]

Part of the problem with no deal is that it sets us on a path of potentially disruptive ongoing negotiations with the EU that will run and run and run, negotiations that would most likely be resolved far more efficiently if we are able to secure a controlled exit. It amazes me that people are talking about the 31st October as if it's some sort of end date, the reality is it's the beginning of an undefined path with no reliable insight into what the true overall cost will be but it could make the ~£10Bn per year contribution to the EU look like a drop in the ocean.

[SpringDon]

6 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

<snip>

people are talking about the 31st October as if it's some sort of end date, 

<snip>

Not so, it’s just the end of the beginning.

[Rewulf]

5 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Part of the problem with no deal is that it sets us on a path of potentially disruptive ongoing negotiations with the EU that will run and run and run,

You mean.. a bit like the last 3 years of pointless negotiations with them ?
You dont keep doing the same experiment hoping for different results indefinitely, thats like something, something..madness ?

 

7 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

negotiations that would most likely be resolved far more efficiently if we are able to secure a controlled exit.

The controlled exit you talk of , puts all the cards in Brussels hands, thats not a negotiation, they have flatly refused to change the WA , therefore the WA is DEAD.

 

8 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

It amazes me that people are talking about the 31st October as if it's some sort of end date, the reality is it's the beginning of an undefined path

No one has said that, its not the end obviously, but it is the end of the beginning.

 

9 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

an undefined path with no reliable insight into what the true overall cost will be but it could make the ~£10Bn per year contribution to the EU look like a drop in the ocean.

Could, like you say..Exciting isnt it ?😄

1 minute ago, SpringDon said:

Not so, it’s just the end of the beginning.

Great minds eh !

 

[Retsdon]

36 minutes ago, SpringDon said:

 

Quote

I still can’t quite get it. Surely the German importer just has to ensure the items are ce  marked which the manufacturer’s declaration of conformity. As far as I know, nothing would stop us doing that. I buy Chinese tools that are ce marked all the time.

If the goods  originate outside the Eu or Single Market then it becomes the importer's declaration of conformity. It's only the manufacturer's if the goods are manufactured within the Single Market.

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, Retsdon said:

If the goods  originate outside the Eu or Single Market then it becomes the importer's declaration of conformity. It's only the manufacturer's if the goods are manufactured within the Single Market.

How would the importer know, do they check every single item ?

[SpringDon]

2 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

<snip>

Great minds eh !

 

Yeah, but I was faster.

[Rewulf]

Just now, SpringDon said:

Yeah, but I was faster.

Lol , you go me by about 10 seconds 

[SpringDon]

8 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

If the goods  originate outside the Eu or Single Market then it becomes the importer's declaration of conformity. It's only the manufacturer's if the goods are manufactured within the Single Market.

Not saying that’s totally incorrect, but a quick poll of my tool manuals indicates (as you say) the certificate is signed by the importer in the case of Clarke and sealey. But rexxon and Axminster are signed by Keith (not his real name) from Taiwan and some place in China.

So not entirely straight forward then?

[Retsdon]

37 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

But if we accept the WA and leave, then its all good ?
What kind of BS is that ?

Because the WA is a temporary arrangement.  The meat of the thing would still have to be thrashed out. 

 

39 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

the importer sources the same product from another part of the EU , to satisfy Brussels, for presumably the same price ?
Why isnt he already doing this now then?
What is the incentive?

He's won't be responsible for the product or have to handle the paperwork that validates EU conformity. I though I made that plain enough...

 

41 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

That kind of rubbish might work on some people some of the time...

Well, it works for ASEAN.  https://asean.org/asean-economic-community/sectoral-bodies-under-the-purview-of-aem/standards-and-conformance/

And it works for NAFTA . https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/1274/~/nafta---certificate-of-origin

Not sure about the other big trade blocs but can't imagine why they should be any different. Common sense suggests that intra-market conformity would be pretty much essential for a single market to exist. But hey, what do these guys know about 'that kind of rubbish'....-

 

[JohnfromUK]

CE marking is a nightmare for those who follow the rules.

Before I retired, I used to work for an American company, with UK subsidiaries who manufactured (our products) in the UK.  They were electrical/electronic/communications products.  We sold worldwide including the EU and most '1st world' nations.  We had to CE mark products.

Firstly CE marking has to be done (usually involving the equipment being tested for various electrical and safety compliances) by an approved test house who issue the CE mark for that equipment at that EXACT build standard.  The manufacturer then has a product that he can attach a CE mark sticker to - and sell in the EU.

However - ANY small change potentially renders the CE mark invalid ........ because it may compromise the performance of safety of the product.  Therefore there is the possibility that if you have to make a small change - perhaps because a component part becomes obsolete or you make a software change to improve the product by adding additional functions ........ you may have to re test to get a new CE mark against the new 'build standard'.  Testing is time consuming and expensive.

Where technically 'minor or insignificant' changes are made - the manufacturer is allowed to use 'read across to 'self certify', but if the change is not minor, then retest is required.

As you might expect - some overseas manufacturers and some less scrupulous importers follow the rules less rigorously than others.  To be whiter than white and fully compliant can be very expensive when importing goods from outside the EU because it is not always obvious to the importer when changes have been made internally (to circuitry or components) - or whether these are deemed minor.

I suspect that much imported equipment that IS CE marked is on VERY shaky ground as early examples may have been tested - but later production examples have significant differences.

UK manufacturers in our field were generally 'well behaved' but not all overseas suppliers were.

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

Because the WA is a temporary arrangement.  The meat of the thing would still have to be thrashed out. 

I think you missed the entire point of my argument, the goods either meet EU standards , or dont.
They dont magically turn into sub standard goods as soon as we leave with no WA.

 

5 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

He's won't be responsible for the product or have to handle the paperwork that validates EU conformity. I though I made that plain enough...

Because the product that he used to buy from the UK factory , the exact same product, that meets all those EU standards, is no longer fit for EU consumption or use, because that country is no longer in the EU , and hasnt accepted the EUs WA ?
Like I said B.S.

 

10 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

Not sure about the other big trade blocs but can't imagine why they should be any different. Common sense suggests that intra-market conformity would be pretty much essential for a single market to exist. But hey, what do these guys know about 'that kind of rubbish'....-

Its a good job that conformity is checked on ALL items arriving from these trade blocs then isnt it ? 😐
Seriously ? 
Again, its got nothing to do with standards, its about tariffs/wonga !

[Retsdon]

3 minutes ago, SpringDon said:

But rexxon and Axminster are signed by Keith (not his real name) from Taiwan and some place in China.

So not entirely straight forward then?

Probably not, I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs because I'm not an importer. Perhaps there is someone following this thread who might be able to  help us out? Perhaps there is a 'favored trader' status that can be obtained which allows self-certification. I'm just going on the official guides and information.

4 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

CE marking is a nightmare for those who follow the rules.

Thanks for your input and a very informative post. You're pretty much confirming what I'd heard on other sites.

[Retsdon]

10 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

hey dont magically turn into sub standard goods as soon as we leave with no WA.

They do if they're not already in the market place. That's been confirmed. Think of it like your MOT certificate. When it runs out at midnight your car doesn't suddenly become unsafe - but it does become non-conforming and you need to get it re-certified by a registered and approved tester before you can legally drive it on the road. Conformity is the same legal principle at work.

I'm not arguing with you that, on the basis of common sense, you aren't correct. But as they say, the law is an ***. 

Edited August 6, 2019 by Retsdon