News0 min ago
Yet Another Brexit Disaster
Apparently thousand of postal packages per day are being returned from Ireland (to GB) for not having the required digital codes added to the package, allowing their tax status to be identified.
The EU rules (known as Customs 2020) are required on postal items arriving from outside the EU; these rules were first implemented by Ireland, but are due to come into force across the whole of the EU next month.
Although this will affect many private citizens sending items to family & friends - small businesses will be hit hardest with non-delivery of orders, ultimately with those in Europe seeking alternate suppliers (not from within GB).
Remember the Brexiteers telling us red-tape would be reduced following Brexit?
The EU rules (known as Customs 2020) are required on postal items arriving from outside the EU; these rules were first implemented by Ireland, but are due to come into force across the whole of the EU next month.
Although this will affect many private citizens sending items to family & friends - small businesses will be hit hardest with non-delivery of orders, ultimately with those in Europe seeking alternate suppliers (not from within GB).
Remember the Brexiteers telling us red-tape would be reduced following Brexit?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hymie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Naomi24 – No, at 12:14 you posted //We accepted polling data that told us the overwhelming result of a referendum would to 'Remain'// – it was not.
From the beginning of 2014 onwards (until the vote) the remain percentage was never more than 5% above leave. In fact for most of 2015 and up until the vote, the leave percentage was greater than the remain.
From the beginning of 2014 onwards (until the vote) the remain percentage was never more than 5% above leave. In fact for most of 2015 and up until the vote, the leave percentage was greater than the remain.
Always level-headed Portillo says the beauty of Europe is (was?) its wonderfully diverse cultures, something that terrifies the Left who want everything homogenised so their simple minds can comprehend it better.
https:/
https:/
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
//No countries have opt-outs?//
The “opt-outs” of some of the EU’s principal membership that some countries enjoy are mainly historical and all, as far as I am aware, predate the Treaty of Lisbon. I’m talking about the way the EU imposes its rules when dealing with non-members, Corby. The seed potato fiasco is a perfect example that demonstrates the EU will cut off its nose to spite its face. There is no Earthly reason why an agreement – outside the EU’s normal rules – can be cobbled together to deal with that issue. Any normal country which prohibits their import generally but would like to see a specific exception would see to it that an agreement was reached. The EU will have none of that – especially with the UK. And that’s purely a political stance which trumps any pragmatism.
The “opt-outs” of some of the EU’s principal membership that some countries enjoy are mainly historical and all, as far as I am aware, predate the Treaty of Lisbon. I’m talking about the way the EU imposes its rules when dealing with non-members, Corby. The seed potato fiasco is a perfect example that demonstrates the EU will cut off its nose to spite its face. There is no Earthly reason why an agreement – outside the EU’s normal rules – can be cobbled together to deal with that issue. Any normal country which prohibits their import generally but would like to see a specific exception would see to it that an agreement was reached. The EU will have none of that – especially with the UK. And that’s purely a political stance which trumps any pragmatism.
//…would you care to identify factually incorrect information I’ve posted on this site?//
Certainly. You keep saying that Brexit costs the UK economy £80bn pa. As you know I’ve asked time and again for substantiation of that figure. The nearest you have come is to cite a study by Mr Springford, whose result was half that amount. And that is only an opinion. The only fact known is that nobody knows how much Brexit has cost the economy. That might not be the case if there had not been a war in Ukraine and a global pandemic, but there was. Any figures quoted are simply guestimates.
//On the 24 May 2016 (one month before the referendum), the polling data was 40% for both leave and remain, 14% don’t know, and 6% would not vote. Given the actual vote numbers, the polling data was pretty close.//
Were they? Let’s have a proper look to see how “pretty close” they really were:
Your poll said 40% Leave – the actual figure was 37.44%
Your poll said 40% Remain – the actual figure was 34.71%
Your poll said 6% would not vote – the actual figure was 27.85%
The don’t knows? Well, we don’t know. We don’t know whether they abstained (and so would be included in the 27.85%) or whether they voted (and so would be included in one or other of the choices). Of course the poll’s inaccuracy (and it was wildly inaccurate - anyone reading it had no chance of forecasting the result with any degree of certainty) was heavily influenced by the “Don’t Knows” and the “would not votes”. Your 2016 poll was so wildly adrift with that latter category (6% from the poll, 27% actual) as to make it virtually worthless. Remember the winning margin was only 2.73% of the electorate (or 3.78% of the votes cast). A poll finding 14% “don’t knows” and 6% of people not intending to vote (when that figure was wildly wrong) is meaningless when the result was always likely to be so close. Your “latest thoughts” poll is similarly deficient (leaving aside that its latest figures are two years old). It shows a combined percentage of don’t knows and would not votes as varying between 13% and 20% in the years 2017-2020. So the voting intentions up to 20% of the electorate, according to that poll, are effectively unknown. It is a meaningless poll (and I’d say that if it showed a majority who would prefer to stay).
Certainly. You keep saying that Brexit costs the UK economy £80bn pa. As you know I’ve asked time and again for substantiation of that figure. The nearest you have come is to cite a study by Mr Springford, whose result was half that amount. And that is only an opinion. The only fact known is that nobody knows how much Brexit has cost the economy. That might not be the case if there had not been a war in Ukraine and a global pandemic, but there was. Any figures quoted are simply guestimates.
//On the 24 May 2016 (one month before the referendum), the polling data was 40% for both leave and remain, 14% don’t know, and 6% would not vote. Given the actual vote numbers, the polling data was pretty close.//
Were they? Let’s have a proper look to see how “pretty close” they really were:
Your poll said 40% Leave – the actual figure was 37.44%
Your poll said 40% Remain – the actual figure was 34.71%
Your poll said 6% would not vote – the actual figure was 27.85%
The don’t knows? Well, we don’t know. We don’t know whether they abstained (and so would be included in the 27.85%) or whether they voted (and so would be included in one or other of the choices). Of course the poll’s inaccuracy (and it was wildly inaccurate - anyone reading it had no chance of forecasting the result with any degree of certainty) was heavily influenced by the “Don’t Knows” and the “would not votes”. Your 2016 poll was so wildly adrift with that latter category (6% from the poll, 27% actual) as to make it virtually worthless. Remember the winning margin was only 2.73% of the electorate (or 3.78% of the votes cast). A poll finding 14% “don’t knows” and 6% of people not intending to vote (when that figure was wildly wrong) is meaningless when the result was always likely to be so close. Your “latest thoughts” poll is similarly deficient (leaving aside that its latest figures are two years old). It shows a combined percentage of don’t knows and would not votes as varying between 13% and 20% in the years 2017-2020. So the voting intentions up to 20% of the electorate, according to that poll, are effectively unknown. It is a meaningless poll (and I’d say that if it showed a majority who would prefer to stay).
I think the time has come, Hymie, to draw our regular sparring to a close. You will never convince me Brexit was wrong and I will never convince you it was right. Mine is a philosophical position - I simply believe that the EU is a malignant influence on the Continent of Europe and see little or nothing good about it at all. And it takes more than economics to demolish my philosophy. That said, I’ve continually dismembered most of the “facts” you have presented, but still you return with more. I think you could do well to dwell on two thoughts:
If the EU is such a marvellous concept, how is it that no other group of nations in the world has tried to emulate it? There are many free trading blocs around the world (they are a very good idea – governments should facilitate trade, not hinder it). But none have gone for the political agenda that the EU promotes. I wonder why that is? Almost all independent studies show that over the period of our membership, the UK did not do particularly well as an EU member. The EU is not in the business of promoting its individual members. It is a protectionist organisation which makes conditions for those wishing to trade outside the bloc very inconvenient. Fine for the inward looking nations; not so fine for those who like the idea of trading in the wider world (where potential customers outnumber those in the EU by fifteen to one).
You continually see Brexit solely in terms of +£££s or -£££s. Life’s not like that. Instead think of it like this: It may be a very good idea if you agreed to allow your wife to sleep with a stranger if he paid her £1m. It would certainly help your finances but….
So it is with the EU. There may be a few percentage points GDP to be gained (or possibly not) but…..
//Maybe we should correct that mistake by re-joining?//
There is not a cat in Hell’s chance of that happening. No party which is capable of forming a government has any intention of doing that. If you thought Brexit brought political and economic upheaval, rejoining the EU would make that seem a walk in the park. It simply isn’t going to happen. I am not a gambling man but if forced to choose I would wager that the EU is would up before the UK thinks it a good idea to rejoin.
If the EU is such a marvellous concept, how is it that no other group of nations in the world has tried to emulate it? There are many free trading blocs around the world (they are a very good idea – governments should facilitate trade, not hinder it). But none have gone for the political agenda that the EU promotes. I wonder why that is? Almost all independent studies show that over the period of our membership, the UK did not do particularly well as an EU member. The EU is not in the business of promoting its individual members. It is a protectionist organisation which makes conditions for those wishing to trade outside the bloc very inconvenient. Fine for the inward looking nations; not so fine for those who like the idea of trading in the wider world (where potential customers outnumber those in the EU by fifteen to one).
You continually see Brexit solely in terms of +£££s or -£££s. Life’s not like that. Instead think of it like this: It may be a very good idea if you agreed to allow your wife to sleep with a stranger if he paid her £1m. It would certainly help your finances but….
So it is with the EU. There may be a few percentage points GDP to be gained (or possibly not) but…..
//Maybe we should correct that mistake by re-joining?//
There is not a cat in Hell’s chance of that happening. No party which is capable of forming a government has any intention of doing that. If you thought Brexit brought political and economic upheaval, rejoining the EU would make that seem a walk in the park. It simply isn’t going to happen. I am not a gambling man but if forced to choose I would wager that the EU is would up before the UK thinks it a good idea to rejoin.
NJ – the guy in this youtube video explains the reality of Brexit for UK businesses.
In my work I deal with companies that only market within the UK and many that have expanded (whilst not being a world-wide business) that were successfully selling throughout Europe.
Besides the increased distances involved (and language issues) prior to Brexit they may as well have been selling all their good & services within the UK.
As a result of Brexit, all their business that was conducted without trade barriers within the EU were overnight subject to trade restrictions which causes all sorts of problems – that are going to get worse.
So rather than things improving with time (for the economy) things are going to get worse because our politicians don’t understand the problems and are making no effort to fix them.
So as time goes by, the multi-billion pound annual losses as a result of Brexit reported by the ONS and OBR (and others) are going to increase in value.
In my work I deal with companies that only market within the UK and many that have expanded (whilst not being a world-wide business) that were successfully selling throughout Europe.
Besides the increased distances involved (and language issues) prior to Brexit they may as well have been selling all their good & services within the UK.
As a result of Brexit, all their business that was conducted without trade barriers within the EU were overnight subject to trade restrictions which causes all sorts of problems – that are going to get worse.
So rather than things improving with time (for the economy) things are going to get worse because our politicians don’t understand the problems and are making no effort to fix them.
So as time goes by, the multi-billion pound annual losses as a result of Brexit reported by the ONS and OBR (and others) are going to increase in value.
As I said, Hymie, I think I've gone as far as I am prepared to with this discussion. You can continue producing evidence of some bloke on U-Tube saying how much difficulty he is having. The fact is, whatever those difficulties are, he's got to get on with them.
The UK spent more than four years negotiating our terms of Brexit. Many of those terms (which cover 600 pages and I've read most of them) were supposed to ensure that friction-free trade would follow when we left. I was highly suspicious and believed that those terms would mean nothing of the sort. The EU was determined that our departure would be as painful and inconvenient as possible. Anybody believing otherwise was foolish and they should have prepared for that eventuality immediately the referendum result was known. I always canvassed for a "No Deal" departure and from what you say that is near enough what we have.
It isn't going to change and if I ran a company that traded with EU countries and it was made so difficult to do so, I would look for markets elsewhere. It always intrigues me when the UK is accused of "cutting itself off from the world" by leaving the EU. It is the EU that is isolationist. It wants its members to trade with each other (much easier for the Commission to control) and discourages its members from trading elsewhere. In short, it is protectionist.
I sympathise with companies that are having difficulties trading with the EU but for me it sums up the EU's attitude - you're welcome only if you belong. There is no other trading bloc in the world that operates on such principles and it is one of the main reasons why I believe the EU will eventually be seen as a blot on Europe's history. The companies having difficulties really should have begun to diverge from their EU markets in June 2016 rather than wait until we left to do so (or moan about the result). But they are where they are and they must get on with it because it ain't going to change.
The UK spent more than four years negotiating our terms of Brexit. Many of those terms (which cover 600 pages and I've read most of them) were supposed to ensure that friction-free trade would follow when we left. I was highly suspicious and believed that those terms would mean nothing of the sort. The EU was determined that our departure would be as painful and inconvenient as possible. Anybody believing otherwise was foolish and they should have prepared for that eventuality immediately the referendum result was known. I always canvassed for a "No Deal" departure and from what you say that is near enough what we have.
It isn't going to change and if I ran a company that traded with EU countries and it was made so difficult to do so, I would look for markets elsewhere. It always intrigues me when the UK is accused of "cutting itself off from the world" by leaving the EU. It is the EU that is isolationist. It wants its members to trade with each other (much easier for the Commission to control) and discourages its members from trading elsewhere. In short, it is protectionist.
I sympathise with companies that are having difficulties trading with the EU but for me it sums up the EU's attitude - you're welcome only if you belong. There is no other trading bloc in the world that operates on such principles and it is one of the main reasons why I believe the EU will eventually be seen as a blot on Europe's history. The companies having difficulties really should have begun to diverge from their EU markets in June 2016 rather than wait until we left to do so (or moan about the result). But they are where they are and they must get on with it because it ain't going to change.
NJ – your post above is proof that those voting for Brexit did not know what they were voting for, and got lasting economic damage as a result.
Even those who thought they knew what they were voting for were wrong.
As a Wetherspoons regular, I read the pros & cons extolled within their house magazine. To be fair to their Chairman (Tim Martin) who is a Brexiteer, he gave equal voice to each side of the debate, although in his editorial he pushed the leave case.
Sometime after Brexit, Mr Martin must have realised that Brexit was causing severe difficulties for the UK economy, and in his editorial suggested the solution of a free-trade agreement between the UK and the EU (which would benefit both sides).
After picking my jaw up from the floor, I realised that Mr. Martin had no clue what leaving the EU would mean for the UK (or for any other member State that chose to leave the bloc).
Now many Brexiteers are arguing that not getting the Brexit they wanted is the fault of the UK government; although there may be some truth to this – we are no longer a member of the EU and have no say in their policies.
To deliberately place trading barriers with your closest (and largest) trading bloc is the height of economic stupidity – but that was always what Brexit was going to do.
Even those who thought they knew what they were voting for were wrong.
As a Wetherspoons regular, I read the pros & cons extolled within their house magazine. To be fair to their Chairman (Tim Martin) who is a Brexiteer, he gave equal voice to each side of the debate, although in his editorial he pushed the leave case.
Sometime after Brexit, Mr Martin must have realised that Brexit was causing severe difficulties for the UK economy, and in his editorial suggested the solution of a free-trade agreement between the UK and the EU (which would benefit both sides).
After picking my jaw up from the floor, I realised that Mr. Martin had no clue what leaving the EU would mean for the UK (or for any other member State that chose to leave the bloc).
Now many Brexiteers are arguing that not getting the Brexit they wanted is the fault of the UK government; although there may be some truth to this – we are no longer a member of the EU and have no say in their policies.
To deliberately place trading barriers with your closest (and largest) trading bloc is the height of economic stupidity – but that was always what Brexit was going to do.
//NJ – your post above is proof that those voting for Brexit did not know what they were voting for, and got lasting economic damage as a result.//
Last time Hymie, then I really am out. I knew precisely what I was voting for – for the UK to no longer be a member of the EU. Nothing else much mattered – least of all the odd percentage point off our GDP (if indeed that turns out to be true). I made up my mind in 1992 and nothing anybody said since then swayed my opinion.
//To deliberately place trading barriers with your closest (and largest) trading bloc is the height of economic stupidity//
It is the EU that is placing barriers in the way of trade. The Scottish seed potato fiasco adequately illustrates this. The EU member nations want it, the UK wants it, many MEPs want it (though, of course, it wasn’t put to them to vote on). Only the EU Commission doesn’t want it.
//Even those who thought they knew what they were voting for were wrong.//
Throughout this debate you have only considered one aspect of Brexit – the economy. As I have tried to demonstrate, there were a multitude of reasons why people voted to leave and some – me included – paid no heed to the minimal effect it may have on the economy. There are far more important reasons for wanting to leave (see my example of allowing your wife to sleep with a stranger). You obviously cannot understand anything other than the economic effect you believe that Brexit has had on the economy. Even if you are right (and that’s far from so certain as you believe) that does not make Brexit necessarily wrong. Your remark above, I’m afraid, demonstrates arrogance and lack of debating skills.
Last time Hymie, then I really am out. I knew precisely what I was voting for – for the UK to no longer be a member of the EU. Nothing else much mattered – least of all the odd percentage point off our GDP (if indeed that turns out to be true). I made up my mind in 1992 and nothing anybody said since then swayed my opinion.
//To deliberately place trading barriers with your closest (and largest) trading bloc is the height of economic stupidity//
It is the EU that is placing barriers in the way of trade. The Scottish seed potato fiasco adequately illustrates this. The EU member nations want it, the UK wants it, many MEPs want it (though, of course, it wasn’t put to them to vote on). Only the EU Commission doesn’t want it.
//Even those who thought they knew what they were voting for were wrong.//
Throughout this debate you have only considered one aspect of Brexit – the economy. As I have tried to demonstrate, there were a multitude of reasons why people voted to leave and some – me included – paid no heed to the minimal effect it may have on the economy. There are far more important reasons for wanting to leave (see my example of allowing your wife to sleep with a stranger). You obviously cannot understand anything other than the economic effect you believe that Brexit has had on the economy. Even if you are right (and that’s far from so certain as you believe) that does not make Brexit necessarily wrong. Your remark above, I’m afraid, demonstrates arrogance and lack of debating skills.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Are The West In The Grip Of The Woke...
News5 mins ago
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Crosswords9 mins ago
Crosswords22 mins ago