The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

Oh Oh, Climbdown. UK will agree to be bound by ECJ rulings during transition period

...

Someone call the fire brigade, Greasy-Moggs ears are on fire, on no wait its just steam

 

[Chindie]

6 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Arlene says hard border in NI is a red line. Cue more Tory infighting. Confidence and supply on a knife edge.

Dover says there will be 15 mile queues

HMRC says computer systems for dealing with customs work increase years away

I can see it tearing the Tories apart when it becomes apparent it's impossible to leave the SM and CU with our current infrastructure and geography and they have to break the news but can't for fear of riots and tanking popularity etc. That bits already started.

Just how I see it going. I may be completely wrong or misinformed.

All of those are problems, yes.

But we've enacted Article 50. We will leave in March 2019. The only way that doesn't happen is of the EU agrees to let us rescind the notification. Which, if they did, would not be without penitence. Which is likely to contain changes to current deal we have that basically it's amongst the best the EU has on its books with all of our opt outs and rebates.

That, coupled to the political suicide it would be go against 'the will of the people' means we leave. 

The question remains simply how bad it'll be. No deal is the easy option for everyone even with the problems it brings (particularly for us) and the sheer disaster it'll be to our economy. The prep is in full swing.

[Chindie]

3 minutes ago, snowychap said:

 

I can't help but look at that and smile at the thought of the telltale red dot of a sniper slowly appearing above his glasses.

[ml1dch]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Not really, because 2 things. Because it's not in any part in force for the UK and because also, the import of goods into the UK was what the example magnkarl gave was addressing.

I present two statements, one true, one false:

The EU doesn't have a trade deal with South Korea.

The EU has a trade deal with South Korea.

We're not really disputing which is which are we?

[ml1dch]

3 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

I don’t think you can accuse someone of lying and then come up with a whopper lie like this ...

what next a bus with this slogan on it ? 

 

Well you tell me what I have wrong and have misunderstood from the below. Preferably with reference to a precedent or a law, rather than a wishy-washy "business won't stand for it".

(apologies, this might turn out to be quite long)

We fall outside the Single Market, and agree to trade on WTO rules, as some nutters think we should.

The EU is now legally obligated to treat us as a third country. We have no formal agreement, so they cannot treat our imports any differently to those coming in from anywhere else that they have no agreement with, or else they are in breach of the rules. 

Most Favoured Nation rules state that you cannot offer any special treatment (positive or negative) without applying the same to everyone else. That is our new trading relationship, and they have no choice but to adhere to those rules.

So, the first truck on the ferry to Calais rolls off and is now stopped for inspection. It has to be. It's treated the same as if it were coming in from Bangladesh or Guatemala with produce for the EU market. If it's treated any differently, every other member lodges a complaint with the WTO.

Currently, 100% of live animals and 20% of processed animal and plant shipments need to be tested to check that they are at the required standard before they can enter the EU according to the current EU regulations. That truck waits there until the goods have been cleared. As do several of the trucks behind it.

After the fifth ferry of the day, there is no more holding space for these lorries. You're well-travelled, you've seen Calais. The French will have little interest in breaking the law just to make English lorry drivers' lives easier, so they stop allowing lorries off the boat, and shortly after lorries are no longer loaded at Dover. A tailback out of the port grows longer and longer, and the roads outside are gridlocked within a day.

So, this part just screws our businesses. It's our stuff not getting to Europe. But those lorries aren't just dropping stuff and coming back empty. That would be a terrible way to run a haulage company. The lorries trapped at Dover are the same ones who aren't picking up all the stuff that we're used to getting from the continent. At last estimate, 30% of our food comes from the EU, the vast majority of that through Dover (not that the situation is likely to be different elsewhere, Dover is just the busiest and most bottle-necked)

You saw what happened with the fuel strike in 2007. As soon as there's a sniff of the above, panic buying will set in. The shelves will empty and in that scenario I'd expect riots to follow before too long.

There's a whole other essay to be written of legal stuff that complicates us actually importing food under WTO rules, but the above covers the physical and logistical reasons why a problem might arise.

As I said I might be wrong, but at which point in my scenario do you feel that I have taken a wrong turn?

 

(tl,dr - people who think that WTO is a viable option need to do some research on what the WTO rules actually are. The tariff on a German washing machine isn't the biggest problem likely to crop up)

Edited October 9, 2017 by ml1dch

[colhint]

Do you mean like the 70's when we had three day week, mainland bombings, sugar shortages, fish wars, power cuts , strikes left right and centre, high unemployment.

God knows how we survived, I mean this is when we started having foreign holidays, Colour TV's the average joe bought cars. 

Now because we are leaving a political union we'll all starve. Bloody hell I didn't think it was that serious.

Where you have gone wrong is just applying the law. Not the political will. When we had the BSE situation, and the French stopped buying British Beef for years after the ban was lifted by the EU,  they were not sanctioned by the EU. they just kept trading.  When air France got bailed out by the French Government against all EU rules they were not sanctioned by the EU. they carried on trading just the way they were. So when they are a net exporter of agriculture, do you think they'll play by the rules or just keep trading?

Also when the EU found Ireland were breaking tax rules with apple 37 years ago  and did nothing about it, have we all stopped buying apple products, or are they all still trading. Dead right I have never seen an Iphone in Europe for decades, I mean none of my friends have one, no one at my kids school have one or even heard of them. You Just can't get them in Europe anymore because it's against EU rules to trade unless you follow the rules. Seems like Ireland are doing the same with airbnb, 

[bickster]

2 hours ago, colhint said:

Do you mean like the 70's when we had three day week, mainland bombings, sugar shortages, fish wars, power cuts , strikes left right and centre, high unemployment.

God knows how we survived, I mean this is when we started having foreign holidays, Colour TV's the average joe bought cars. 

Now because we are leaving a political union we'll all starve. Bloody hell I didn't think it was that serious.

Where you have gone wrong is just applying the law. Not the political will. When we had the BSE situation, and the French stopped buying British Beef for years after the ban was lifted by the EU,  they were not sanctioned by the EU. they just kept trading.  When air France got bailed out by the French Government against all EU rules they were not sanctioned by the EU. they carried on trading just the way they were. So when they are a net exporter of agriculture, do you think they'll play by the rules or just keep trading?

Also when the EU found Ireland were breaking tax rules with apple 37 years ago  and did nothing about it, have we all stopped buying apple products, or are they all still trading. Dead right I have never seen an Iphone in Europe for decades, I mean none of my friends have one, no one at my kids school have one or even heard of them. You Just can't get them in Europe anymore because it's against EU rules to trade unless you follow the rules. Seems like Ireland are doing the same with airbnb, 

You know what got us out of the bad part of the 70’s don't you and it wasn’t the Witch... yep it was joining the, as it was then, the Common Market. Slowly but surely the economy stated picking up. We'd been desperate to join for years but de Gaul, the ungrateful scrote kept blocking our attempts to join.

If we leave and it is still an If, we'll be desperate to rejoin in a few years. And if we rejoin you can kiss the pound good-bye, you can say au revoir to all the opt outs we’ve currently got and we'’ll already have lost all the European Agencies based here. The London Stock Exchange will also be a shadow of its former self... It will be a long long road back.

[Xann]

7 hours ago, colhint said:

Also when the EU found Ireland were breaking tax rules with apple 37 years ago  and did nothing about it, have we all stopped buying apple products, or are they all still trading. Dead right I have never seen an Iphone in Europe for decades, I mean none of my friends have one, no one at my kids school have one or even heard of them. You Just can't get them in Europe anymore because it's against EU rules to trade unless you follow the rules. Seems like Ireland are doing the same with airbnb, 

Did the Bermuda based Daily Mail tell you that?
 

Quote

Brussels looks to challenge Ireland over Apple tax bill

European Commission considers legal action against Dublin to speed up €13bn repayment

 

Financial Times

[colhint]

32 minutes ago, Xann said:

Did the Bermuda based Daily Mail tell you that?
 

Financial Times

Bermuda based, I didn't know that. Mind you I haven't read it for over 20 years, so I wouldn't really. I'll take your word on it though, you seem to be an expert.

.

So they are going to fine them. Good I mean they have only known about it for nigh on 4 decades. John Terry wasn't even born when they first knew about it. 

What's next then Airbnb, perhaps we'll find out when Keenan Davis' grand kids make their Villa debuts.

Edited October 10, 2017 by colhint

[blandy]

12 hours ago, snowychap said:

 

I've seen the page you've linked to and the subsequent links to gov website pages but then there are pages like this:

 

 

I'm a little confused and, now, a lot bored.

The UK gov website link magnkarl posted, post dates that and says it’s not in force for the UK. But who cares anymore

[blandy]

11 hours ago, ml1dch said:

I present two statements, one true, one false:

The EU doesn't have a trade deal with South Korea.

The EU has a trade deal with South Korea.

We're not really disputing which is which are we?

The point with regard to washing machines, made by Karl, was that there will be no change in tariffs after Brexit for Samsung machines as there is no agreement in force with the UK. Whether there would be for anywhere else is irrelevant, as no one else is dumb enough to leave the EU.

[TrentVilla]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

The point with regard to washing machines, made by Karl, was that there will be no change in tariffs after Brexit for Samsung machines as there is no agreement in force with the UK. Whether there would be for anywhere else is irrelevant, as no one else is dumb enough to leave the EU.

Oh I don’t know, the Catalan’s might be about to...

[ml1dch]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

The point with regard to washing machines, made by Karl, was that there will be no change in tariffs after Brexit for Samsung machines as there is no agreement in force with the UK. Whether there would be for anywhere else is irrelevant, as no one else is dumb enough to leave the EU.

His lazy choice of words is his concern, not mine. I joined the thrilling "washing machine" conversation to point out that the EU have a trade deal with South Korea. Which he said they did not.

And they do.

[TrentVilla]

 

All this talk of washing machines and no reference to Keith Vaz, I’m not angry I’m just disappointed.

[ml1dch]

8 hours ago, colhint said:

Where you have gone wrong is just applying the law. Not the political will. 

I did ask that if there were faults in my scenario (and I'm sure they exist), then you (or rather Tony) would provide specifics rather than a generic "things will definitely be ok, because if they weren't ok then that would be bad".

But let's run with it. Political will on whose side? 

The French authorities? Having lived and worked in France, I find it unlikely that French bureaucracy is going to be falling over itself to break the law just to help out the British. I mean I hate to resort to crude stereotypes, but historical precedent does suggest a certain level of glee from the French when they are allowed to enforce EU regulations to the perceived detriment of the British.

Political will on behalf of the EU? We've just stormed out of a negotiation with them. They're going to suspend the concept of the Single Market and risk WTO censure just to help out the people who told them to go whistle?

Political will on behalf of the UK? Maybe. Maybe we'll fold and meekly agree to everything. Otherwise their position having stormed out of talks is somewhat akin to my three year old who should be allowed a lollipop for breakfast because she "really, really, really wants one".

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, colhint said:

 I'll take your word on it though, you seem to be an expert.

I assumed people  read it in a "know your enemy" type way ... but I dunno they are always quick to quote it so I actually think there's more to it than that , you know like the Corbyn supporter starting each sentence with "'I'm no Corbyn supporter  but ... "

[snowychap]

9 hours ago, blandy said:

The UK gov website link magnkarl posted, post dates that and says it’s not in force for the UK.

Does it? It post dates one page but not the other two.

23 hours ago, magnkarl said:

The Agreement is not yet in force.

Quote

From:

HM Treasury

Published:

18 July 2011

 

Quote

link

This publication is about the reciprocal preferential trade agreement between the EU and South Korea which entered into force on 1 July 2011.

Published: 12 July 2011

Quote

link

3.2 Free Trade Agreements

In July 2011, the EU-South Korea FTA came into force. This is the most comprehensive FTA ever agreed between 2 parties. It’s predicted to be worth at least £500 million per annum to the UK economy.

97% of tariff barriers between Korea and the EU will be eliminated within 3 years and EUR 1.6 billion of duties for EU exporters will be abolished annually.

Updated 23 November 2015

Quote

Trade tariff

Commodity information for 8451210000

This tariff is for 9 October 2017

Import measures and restrictions

Country                                                                                           Measure                       Value            Council Reg      Start Date

Korea, Republic of (South Korea) (KR)

Tariff preference

0.00 %

D0265/11

01/07/2011

This tariff is for 9 October 2017

 

Now it may well be that particular Samsung goods attract import duties because they are made in Russia and enter the UK from there but the real point of all of this is that there doesn't appear to be a clear and easy answer as to what particular goods attract what particular tariffs *and for what reason. This little episode appears to confirm to me, from the outside, the comments made by people who have spoken trade negotiations and agreements (who themselves have been involved in them previously) and have said that they're not the pieces of piss that people appear to think they ought to be.

Edited October 10, 2017 by snowychap
spelling

[tonyh29]

10 hours ago, ml1dch said:

Well you tell me what I have wrong and have misunderstood from the below. Preferably with reference to a precedent or a law, rather than a wishy-washy "business won't stand for it".

(apologies, this might turn out to be quite long)

We fall outside the Single Market, and agree to trade on WTO rules, as some nutters think we should.

The EU is now legally obligated to treat us as a third country. We have no formal agreement, so they cannot treat our imports any differently to those coming in from anywhere else that they have no agreement with, or else they are in breach of the rules. 

Most Favoured Nation rules state that you cannot offer any special treatment (positive or negative) without applying the same to everyone else. That is our new trading relationship, and they have no choice but to adhere to those rules.

So, the first truck on the ferry to Calais rolls off and is now stopped for inspection. It has to be. It's treated the same as if it were coming in from Bangladesh or Guatemala with produce for the EU market. If it's treated any differently, every other member lodges a complaint with the WTO.

Currently, 100% of live animals and 20% of processed animal and plant shipments need to be tested to check that they are at the required standard before they can enter the EU according to the current EU regulations. That truck waits there until the goods have been cleared. As do several of the trucks behind it.

After the fifth ferry of the day, there is no more holding space for these lorries. You're well-travelled, you've seen Calais. The French will have little interest in breaking the law just to make English lorry drivers' lives easier, so they stop allowing lorries off the boat, and shortly after lorries are no longer loaded at Dover. A tailback out of the port grows longer and longer, and the roads outside are gridlocked within a day.

So, this part just screws our businesses. It's our stuff not getting to Europe. But those lorries aren't just dropping stuff and coming back empty. That would be a terrible way to run a haulage company. The lorries trapped at Dover are the same ones who aren't picking up all the stuff that we're used to getting from the continent. At last estimate, 30% of our food comes from the EU, the vast majority of that through Dover (not that the situation is likely to be different elsewhere, Dover is just the busiest and most bottle-necked)

You saw what happened with the fuel strike in 2007. As soon as there's a sniff of the above, panic buying will set in. The shelves will empty and in that scenario I'd expect riots to follow before too long.

There's a whole other essay to be written of legal stuff that complicates us actually importing food under WTO rules, but the above covers the physical and logistical reasons why a problem might arise.

As I said I might be wrong, but at which point in my scenario do you feel that I have taken a wrong turn?

 

(tl,dr - people who think that WTO is a viable option need to do some research on what the WTO rules actually are. The tariff on a German washing machine isn't the biggest problem likely to crop up)

I wasn't aware that we could only get food form the EU  ?

I've linked to it before ,probably in this very thread , but the EU basically starves Africa into submission  , imposing high tariffs on their food goods whilst subsidising EU farmers  ... I might be wrong , but outside of the EU I guess we could purchase some of these food goods from Africa , heck who knows we might even be able to help coffee growing Africa become a bigger exporter of coffee than Non-coffee growing Germany !!

if we stopped paying British farmers £30 a tonne of wheat in subsidies , who knows , we might even get our loaf of bread that little bit cheaper ..though of course we might see UK farms struggle if they lose those subsidies , though the Torygraph suggest most of those subsidies are going to Billionaire farm owners ( kinda in a similar way to Chindies fish posts )  

 

 

[ml1dch]

4 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I wasn't aware that we could only get food form the EU  ?

We can, but at the moment (for the bulk of it) we don't. Do you have any idea how long it will take to set up the contracts, supply, shipping, storage et cetera to replace 13,000 daily lorries of goods?

Nobody is suggesting that no food will ever enter the country again. But it doesn't take long for people to empty the shelves of a supermarket while you're trying to work out how to get that lorry of tomatoes out of Morocco.

Can we assume that given your solution is "just buy it from somewhere else", that you have no quibbles with the rest of my post? There is nothing you think I've missed that means my scenario can't happen?

[tonyh29]

9 minutes ago, snowychap said:

this is that there doesn't appear to be a clear and easy answer as to what particular goods attract what particular tariffs

I think it's something like Preferential / Non preferential Rules of origin  and how the rule is interpreted  ... If two or more countries are involved in the production of goods, the concept of "last, substantial transformation" determines the origin of the goods.

 I don't profess to be an expert in this area but maybe that's how tariffs are being avoided ?