Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

gfplux

Tromking wrote: »

Just humour me and tell me why you think in the event of a no deal some Brexiteers will claim that the EU threw us out.
The nearest scenario to that would be the view that the EU had an opportunity to grab a deal with U.K. but chose otherwise.
Is that what you mean?

I am clear in my mind that the spin will be that the EU did not do enough.
Wait and see what comes to pass. I will be happy to admit I am wrong if I am.

Tromking

gfplux wrote: »

I am clear in my mind that the spin will be that the EU did not do enough.
Wait and see what comes to pass. I will be happy to admit I am wrong if I am.

Eh?
You know you can simultaneously have a view that the EU did not do enough and still believe the EU did not throw the U.K. out?

Sailtheworld

adindas wrote: »

Do you actually speak to the topics you understand good? The ISO is the international standard. Any country in the world will converge to this ISO standard, not the EU standard. In the meanwhile standard many UK.EU standard already align with ISO the International standard. suggesting that standard will diverge is nonsense. It is the interest of ANY country, including EU Countries, UK to converge to ISO otherwise it is difficult to sell their item to international audience. That is the main purpose of having standard is not it.

It's EU policy to adopt ISO standards as is where possible. This harmonises trade across the single market and, as you say, facilitates external trade. EN standards carry different regulatory weight - if an ISO standard is adopted and gets an 'EN' designation then it because the standard across the EU at that point.

Standards aren't really the biggest difficulty when it comes to trade. A far bigger concern would be a divergence in regulation which is far more likely than a divergence in standards.

Take, for example, the slaughter of animals for meat in third countries for import into the EU. There's a requirement that the animal from which it was sourced was passed fit for slaughter at both pre and post mortem checks according to EU regulations.

I know some will immediately say that EU welfare standards are shocking so of course we'll be able to meet those standards. That's not the point. We can have whatever standards we like but a factory will have to prove it meets EU requirements if they wish to export. This would require sign-off from the competent authority in the UK. That competent authority would have been audited by the EU to ensure they can be trusted to carry out those audits and there would be ongoing monitoring by the EU to ensure factory standards and those of the UK regulatory bodies were maintained.

It's a non-issue at the moment. When we leave the EU there will be an additional regulatory cost and it's not hard to envisage a situation where a factory might have to have separate product streams for the EU & UK.

Yes, the future of World growth might well be outside of Europe (etc. etc. blah blah) but the fact is that even though globalisation has made the World smaller most international trade takes place between neighbours under local trade agreements.

I'm afraid people who are sanguine about not even being able to agree a withdrawal deal with the EU let alone a trade deal because of Asian growth or we'll save 39bn etc just haven't spent any time thinking about it. It's a high risk strategy (reckless IMO) - we're one of the wealthiest countries on the planet enjoying freedoms and lifestyles unimaginable just a few decades ago - why take the risk?

Maybe I'm scared or something and need to remember we won the war. As with most of the war analogies the 'we' is very much Royal.

Tromking

gfplux wrote: »

Well my option 1) looks firmly off the table after Johnson’s appearance for the Sun newspaper AND Talk Radio
This from Politico.eu email this morning.

QUOTE
SO IT’S NO DEAL? Batten down the hatches. Britain appears to be heading for a no-deal Brexit on October 31 after Boris Johnson laid down new red lines ahead of his expected arrival in Downing Street next week. The odds-on favorite to be Britain’s next prime minister told a Sun/TalkRADIO hustings last night that even if the EU does agree to renegotiate Theresa May’s Brexit deal — far from a given — he would not be satisfied with the sorts of concessions other Brexiteers have been demanding. “No, is the answer,” Johnson said, when asked if he would accept a time limit on the all-important Irish backstop. “No to time limits, or universal escape hatches, or all these kind of elaborate devices, glosses, codicils and so on that you could apply to the backstop. I think the problem is very fundamental.” Instead, Johnson wants the whole backstop idea abandoned. Reuters has the story. POLITICO’s take on the event here.
END QUOTE

It can not be a negotiating ploy as this is a public debate addressed to the domestic British voter.

Yep, Brussels ”dismayed and astonished” at the UK’s apparent new hardline approach.

SouthLondonUser

BikingBud wrote: »

No it's the constant assertion that living in EUtopia everything is hunky dory

Would it be too much to ask who said that? If there are Remainers who deny there are differences and rivalries among EU countries, they’re either blind or fools. AFAIK no one has said that. That’s not the point.

BikingBud wrote: »

and if we do leave the EU we will be cast adrift with problems that will accelerate us towards the end of humanity.

So the facts that VAT varies within the EU and that there are occasional spats between countries mean… what? That the Irish border is not an issue, that Brexit will not cause any problems, etc?
I am beyond flabbergasted. Do you know what ‘logical fallacy’ means?

For example, if we leave without a deal, what will you tell those farmers who export 40% of their meat to the EU, and who will be hit with tariffs? Don’t you worry your pretty little head, because… VAT varies within the EU?

BikingBud wrote: »

Personal imports and personal use, quite readily understood phrases. How will they claim VAT back if they do not get the purchase checked at the border? If they do get checked then the flip side is that they will have to pay for the import VAT.

Wrong. You have totally missed the point. You do not understand how things work, and neither do those who liked your post.
It’s not complicated. NI residents travel to the Republic and buy some goods, paying VAT. They then travel back to NI; upon leaving the Republic, they can get a VAT refund from the Republic. THIS HAPPENS IN THE ROI, NOT IN NI. When they then enter NI, i.e. the UK, they will not be charged VAT for personal imports (based on what the British government has announced). They have therefore bought an item without paying for VAT; had they bought the same item in NI, they would have paid VAT. Do you understand the difference now?

BikingBud wrote: »

Who's going to refund VAT without seeing where it will get charged?

The ROI, because NI residents are taking items purchased in the EU outside of the EU.
You might want to familiarise yourself with the EU rules on VAT refunds for non-EU tourists, which is what NI residents travelling to the ROI will be after Brexit:
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/vat/eu-vat-rules-topic/vat-refunds_en#section_3

It is beyond shocking that you have made this comment. It means you understand absolutely nothing about how borders and VAT refunds work.

BikingBud wrote: »

If people wish to try and exploit loopholes then they will try. Some already trying to bring back white vans full of booze and fags to punt out so Brexit will affect this how?

But we are not talking about a tiny loophole. This is huge. VAT in the UK is 20% on most goods. Being able to avoid that would mean a 16.6% saving (if you pay 100 instead of 120, that’s a 16.6% saving). Granted, the actual saving will swing around because you have to factor the exchange rate, pricing differences (not every item is priced the same in every country), the cost of travelling back and forth, but still, this has the potential to be huge. Would you not be terrified if you were a retailer in NI?

SouthLondonUser

Sailtheworld wrote: »

Standards aren't really the biggest difficulty when it comes to trade. A far bigger concern would be a divergence in regulation which is far more likely than a divergence in standards.

Take, for example, the slaughter of animals for meat in third countries for import into the EU.

EXACTLY THIS!
Not to mention it is quite shocking to hear Brexiters talk about convergence of standards. Wasn't one of the points of Brexit that we had to get rid of all the hated EU red tape? Yet now these Brexiters are saying standards won't diverge? I am confused to say the least...

Takedap

Sailtheworld wrote: »

I know the answer. If it comes to pass that a no-deal disorderly brexit causes damage to the economy & people's lives as predicted by most experts (experts..pah) then some brexiteers will claim it's because the EU threw us out.

Why? Because nothing, no matter what, could be the fault of the glorious brexit.

Others will be pretend they never voted for it - it bit like those UKIP voters who, despite being told exactly what UKIP were about, wore it loud and proud up until the employment of Tommy Robinson gave them little room for plausible deniability. Then they moved to the brexit party which, to most people, looks like UKIP but offers some temporary cover.

NO! It will be the fault of Remainers because they did not have enough faith.


Now let's join hands, close our eyes & take a big step forwards.......

SouthLondonUser

https://www.ft.com/content/89bff8c8-95dd-11e9-9573-ee5cbb98ed36
What the UK’s ‘left-behind’ areas want after Brexit

Jobs for school leavers and support for local businesses, people demand in focus groups

Interesting article on the Financial Times (unfortunately behind a paywall) on what people in the 'left-behind', Brexit-voting areas really want, based on a research carried out by a think-tank. The sample is very small and I had never heard of this think-tank, so the results must be taken with truckloads of salt, but they are nonetheless interesting.

The key grievances are a combination of domestic policy failures (e.g. London has better transport than we do) and issues which affect the planet as a whole (the loss of blue collar jobs). NOT EU failures at all. No one was saying: we want to leave because we feel that EU laws on X Y and Z have damaged us.

Tromking

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

The key grievances are a combination of domestic policy failures (e.g. London has better transport than we do) and issues which affect the planet as a whole (the loss of blue collar jobs). NOT EU failures at all. No one was saying: we want to leave because we feel that EU laws on X Y and Z have damaged us.

I get the feeling that you are genuinely surprised at the fact that aggrieved voters factored in all their grievances when they voted in 2016.
I personally voted to give the political establishment a right good kicking, why should people like you enjoy first world infrastructure yet the mainline railway line in my part of the world disappears into the sea at regular intervals.
I voted to shatter your cosy little world, understand that please.

adindas

Tromking wrote: »

Just humour me and tell me why you think in the event of a no deal some Brexiteers will claim that the EU threw us out.

That the arch remoaners try to divert the issue of referendum result with the claim that the EU threw the UK out.

They know once you mention about the referendum they will be losing the whole argument.