To Brexit

[Zelandakh]

Not a law as such but a trade treaty makes me pay more for my orange juice than I need to. There's a 15%? tariff on North African orange juice to protect Spanish farmers.

Funny you should mention that CY. Prior to Trump coming to power there was great interest shown from all sides for a tariff reduction on OJ according to the Swiss Formula. That would have brought the EU OJ tariff down to below 10%. Sadly such a move is unthinkable in the current climate but I would not put the major blame for that at the hands of the EU.

[fromageGB]

Can you name one EU law that has ever inconvenienced you?

Meanwhile, do you ever travel to EU countries outside the UK?

Yes of course, apart from import tariffs, there is the working time directive, VAT, GDPR, and no doubt many others. Very inconveniencing. It is difficult to know who to blame in many cases, as the laws are brought in by the UK government and called "data protection act" for example, and you may not be aware that it is a cuckoo. These could have been imposed by a sovereign power and the citizens may grumble, but it's their government. It gets more annoying when these are imposed from the outside. I also object to people being able to refer to a European court if they disagree with the decisions of the highest court in this country.

 

On a national level, I believe the restrictions on level of financial support given to key industries is damaging to us as a nation. Maybe the trouble is partly that the UK is too compliant, and other countries such as currently Poland and Hungary - on different issues - just ignore the ECJ.

 

Naturally there are also cases where I am grateful for the imposition. Years ago I went swimming and canoeing in the north sea but was repelled by the faeces one encountered then, and that situation has improved, but even now I read the UK is being fined in this regard. No doubt we could make such improvements ourselves, but the EU has given us a push.

 

I can't see where you are leading with the second question, but most years I holiday in inland rural France, not so often other mainland countries, Eire just recently, and have no trouble following laws. Though the Czech Republic did get me for speeding. No doubt I shall continue to do so after Brexit, and I don't mind paying a little for the additional insurance that I would need. I hardly think they will ban holidaying UK citizens.

 

On your final point I have no problem with anyone coming here to live, in accordance with our laws, even if they are essentially EU laws at the moment. I am sure the UK will always welcome skilled immigrants on a restricted basis. Welcome! In the local clubs I have partnered a couple of Poles, and a Bulgarian is one of our better players. Playing bridge should definitely be gaining good immigration points when we adopt such a scheme.

[Winstonm]

Yes of course, apart from import tariffs, there is the working time directive, VAT, GDPR, and no doubt many others. Very inconveniencing. It is difficult to know who to blame in many cases, as the laws are brought in by the UK government and called "data protection act" for example, and you may not be aware that it is a cuckoo. These could have been imposed by a sovereign power and the citizens may grumble, but it's their government. It gets more annoying when these are imposed from the outside. I also object to people being able to refer to a European court if they disagree with the decisions of the highest court in this country.

 

On a national level, I believe the restrictions on level of financial support given to key industries is damaging to us as a nation. Maybe the trouble is partly that the UK is too compliant, and other countries such as currently Poland and Hungary - on different issues - just ignore the ECJ.

 

Naturally there are also cases where I am grateful for the imposition. Years ago I went swimming and canoeing in the north sea but was repelled by the faeces one encountered then, and that situation has improved, but even now I read the UK is being fined in this regard. No doubt we could make such improvements ourselves, but the EU has given us a push.

 

I can't see where you are leading with the second question, but most years I holiday in inland rural France, not so often other mainland countries, Eire just recently, and have no trouble following laws. Though the Czech Republic did get me for speeding. No doubt I shall continue to do so after Brexit, and I don't mind paying a little for the additional insurance that I would need. I hardly think they will ban holidaying UK citizens.

 

On your final point I have no problem with anyone coming here to live, in accordance with our laws, even if they are essentially EU laws at the moment. I am sure the UK will always welcome skilled immigrants on a restricted basis. Welcome! In the local clubs I have partnered a couple of Poles, and a Bulgarian is one of our better players. Playing bridge should definitely be gaining good immigration points when we adopt such a scheme.

 

I am sure the UK will always welcome skilled immigrants on a restricted basis.

 

I have two questions: 1) What are the skills needed to be welcomed and who makes that determination? 2) Why are other immigrants unwelcome?

[Cyberyeti]

Funny you should mention that CY. Prior to Trump coming to power there was great interest shown from all sides for a tariff reduction on OJ according to the Swiss Formula. That would have brought the EU OJ tariff down to below 10%. Sadly such a move is unthinkable in the current climate but I would not put the major blame for that at the hands of the EU.

 

They only put it up in the last 3years https://brexitcentral.com/dan-lewis-new-16-import-tariffs-oranges-show-must-leave-customs-union/

[cherdano]

I am sure the UK will always welcome skilled immigrants on a restricted basis. Welcome!

Thank you! That makes me feel so welcome!! Especially the restricted basis! And only for "skilled" immigrants! I guess I should feel honoured because you are implying I might pass the skill test?

 

But still you didn't answer my first question: which EU law has ever inconvenienced *you personally*? No, VAT doesn't count, because if the EU encouraged the UK to switch part of their taxbase from one method of taxation to a more economically efficient method of taxation that doesn't inconvenience anyone. I guess you have been taken to European court? You wanted to work more than 48 hours a week but you didn't realise you could opt of the working time directive? You wanted to make someone work 7 hours straight without a break? You personally wanted to arrange financial support for a key industry?

 

In concrete points, Brexiters in this thread have complained about having to pay more for orange juice, and scoffed at the idea of having health insurance while abroad in the EU. (No, a cheap travel insurance doesn't give you the same cover as proper health insurance.) And I assume cheaper orange juice is also more important than being able to use your phone while travelling (without having to buy a local SIM card or getting charged obscene amounts from your home carrier).

 

I guess what I am saying is that I strongly disagree with, but have some sympathy for wanting to leave the EU. (My sympathy would increase somewhat if that desire came with a consensus plan for what to do about Northern Ireland - at least here fromageGB is open about being happy for them to leave the union.) But wanting to go through a no deal, with its concrete yet unpredictable potential damage, strikes me as the pose of a teenager who goes on a drunk drive to defy his parents.

[Cyberyeti]

 

In concrete points, Brexiters in this thread have complained about having to pay more for orange juice, and scoffed at the idea of having health insurance while abroad in the EU. (No, a cheap travel insurance doesn't give you the same cover as proper health insurance.) And I assume cheaper orange juice is also more important than being able to use your phone while travelling (without having to buy a local SIM card or getting charged obscene amounts from your home carrier).

 

 

Of course it is, I have no mobile phone :) and I have decent travel insurance

[Zelandakh]

They only put it up in the last 3years https://brexitcentral.com/dan-lewis-new-16-import-tariffs-oranges-show-must-leave-customs-union/

Sorry, I did not realise you were referring to South African imports. Those were governed by the TDCA from until recently being replaced by the SADC-EU EPA. Under the new treaty South African sweet oranges, lemons and frozen orange juice enjoy improved market access.

 

In particular, sweet oranges are duty free between 1st June and 15th October and the tariff between 16th October and 30th November is being gradually reduced to zero in 2027. In the rest of the year the tariffs remain unchanged.

 

For frozen orange juice, the volume that can enter the EU under the tariff-rate quota was increased from 1036 tonnes to 3602 tonnes in the first year of the EPA and subsequently by 21 tonnes per year thereafter without any change to the tariff rate itself.

 

In other words, it looks rather like the Brexit website you linked to lied. Shock! Yes, there is a new tariff in the database but only to replace the old one. That sounds like standard Brexit accounting practice. Always check with neutral sites before taking something from such a source at face value!

 

What is true is that there has been some discussion lately (Apr 2019) about activating a safeguard clause built into the treaty that would allow the EU to raise tariffs. Spain are pushing for this but the EU response was that they seek to solve European problems, not national ones.

 

Instead of oranges, perhaps you should be more worried about cherries as the EU has very recently halted the import of several Canadian fruits due to health concerns, with cherries being the type with the highest potential impact. But that is only relevant if the UK is in the EU of course. Should there be a No Deal Brexit, who knows if there will be any fruit at all for a while and what additional costs might apply to those that do get through?

 

Tesco and other retailers are certainly predicting shortages and price rises. If at some point in the future the UK is able to negotiate a trade treaty but OJ prices in the shops are higher, is that really a win?

[Cyberyeti]

 

In other words, it looks rather like the Brexit website you linked to lied. Shock! Yes, there is a new tariff in the database but only to replace the old one. That sounds like standard Brexit accounting practice. Always check with neutral sites before taking something from such a source at face value!

 

 

In that case so did all the mainstream press (which is where I originally read it, from a pro remain newspaper in fact), that was just the site I picked it up from on a web search.

[Zelandakh]

In that case so did all the mainstream press (which is where I originally read it, from a pro remain newspaper in fact), that was just the site I picked it up from on a web search.

Do you have a link to the article perhaps? Presumably that means that a pro-Brexit reporter pulled the wool over his editor's eyes and reporting that back to the paper might result in them doing more fact-checking the next time or even in letting the reporter go, which is, quite frankly, what should happen when reporters wilfully publish false stories (as Boris famously did back in the day before he entered mainstream politics).

[Cyberyeti]

Do you have a link to the article perhaps? Presumably that means that a pro-Brexit reporter pulled the wool over his editor's eyes and reporting that back to the paper might result in them doing more fact-checking the next time or even in letting the reporter go, which is, quite frankly, what should happen when reporters wilfully publish false stories (as Boris famously did back in the day before he entered mainstream politics).

 

No, I'm an occasional Times reader (people don't expect a Murdoch paper to be pro remain, but it was) and I suspect it would have been there, but it will be behind a paywall now.

 

Boris wasn't a reporter anytime recently, he was a columnist, different job, more of a shock jock, not paid to find facts, paid to provoke comment and raise the profile of the paper.

[cherdano]

what should happen when reporters wilfully publish false stories (as Boris famously did back in the day before he entered mainstream politics).

 

 

Boris wasn't a reporter anytime recently, he was a columnist, different job, more of a shock jock, not paid to find facts, paid to provoke comment and raise the profile of the paper.

 

As always, I recommend reading posts before replying to them.

[Cyberyeti]

As always, I recommend reading posts before replying to them.

 

Oh I read it, I thought he was a columnist BEFORE entering parliament, and indeed while that wasn't correct, he'd moved on to editing long before standing for mayor so was not investigating/making up stories himself

[hrothgar]

Boris wasn't a reporter anytime recently, he was a columnist, different job, more of a shock jock, not paid to find facts, paid to provoke comment and raise the profile of the paper.

 

This is non responsive to the original post.

 

Regardless of whether or not Boris was a shock jock, he was fired from from his job at the Times of London for inventing quotes and misrepresenting facts.

[Cyberyeti]

This is non responsive to the original post.

 

Regardless of whether or not Boris was a shock jock, he was fired from from his job at the Times of London for inventing quotes and misrepresenting facts.

 

As a graduate trainee, lots of whom do stupid things in their first jobs.

 

Btw I'm not here to defend Boris, I very much think he's unsuited to lead a dog let alone the country but due to things he's done as a proper adult.

[fromageGB]

I have two questions: 1) What are the skills needed to be welcomed and who makes that determination? 2) Why are other immigrants unwelcome?

 

Thank you! That makes me feel so welcome!! Especially the restricted basis! And only for "skilled" immigrants! I guess I should feel honoured because you are implying I might pass the skill test?

The first is a question for the new government, of which I will not be a part, so bridge-playing might not count. I fully expect there to be points-based system of immigration qualification (together with "compassionate" entries) as there is in say Australia.

 

The second is simply because once the quota has been reached, the impact on resources and existing residents would cause too much strain.

 

Not knowing you personally, cherdano, I am guessing you might qualify !

[Winstonm]

The first is a question for the new government, of which I will not be a part, so bridge-playing might not count. I fully expect there to be points-based system of immigration qualification (together with "compassionate" entries) as there is in say Australia.

 

The second is simply because once the quota has been reached, the impact on resources and existing residents would cause too much strain.

 

Not knowing you personally, cherdano, I am guessing you might qualify !

 

Quotas by their nature ore tautological. Whatever impacts or strains caused or relieved by immigrants is unrelated to the quota. To argue that a quota is a part of a solution advances an unspoken argument that too many immigrants are a net negative on an economy and its country, which I do not think is accurate. To argue that way is to assume that the pie can only be so big, and any additional bodies mean taking a smaller slice. In my understanding, immigrants tend to increase the size of the pie so they are at least a neutral but more likely a positive. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/immigration-migration-advisory-committee-productivity-skill-gdp-brexit-a8542841.html

[Cyberyeti]

Quotas by their nature ore tautological. Whatever impacts or strains caused or relieved by immigrants is unrelated to the quota. To argue that a quota is a part of a solution advances an unspoken argument that too many immigrants are a net negative on an economy and its country, which I do not think is accurate. To argue that way is to assume that the pie can only be so big, and any additional bodies mean taking a smaller slice. In my understanding, immigrants tend to increase the size of the pie so they are at least a neutral but more likely a positive.

 

Some immigrants are hugely positive and in the net figures they outweigh the ones that aren't.

[Lovera]

Have you read this one ?:https://brexitcentral.com/theresa-may-fell-into-the-traps-set-by-the-eu-and-caved-into-their-demands/

Does not seems that EU image looks good. Is it so ? What kind of agreement was delivered ?

[cherdano]

Have you read this one ?:https://brexitcentral.com/theresa-may-fell-into-the-traps-set-by-the-eu-and-caved-into-their-demands/

Does not seems that EU image looks good. Is it so ? What kind of agreement was delivered ?

This article cannot even quote article 50 correctly. Either brexitcentral has horribly incompetent editorial processes, or it takes its readers for fools.

[cherdano]

The second is simply because once the quota has been reached, the impact on resources and existing residents would cause too much strain.

 

Not knowing you personally, cherdano, I am guessing you might qualify !

I am terribly sorry for the impact I've had on you, and the strain I have caused!

I am also thankful for clarifying that your opposition to the EU has nothing at all to do with xenophobia. Just some cold hard facts about resources and impacts and strain. Your life must be so difficult.

[cherdano]

I've got to say, the most exciting thing I've learned in this thread is that we have an Orange Juice Tariff specialist among us on BBF!

[fromageGB]

... To argue that a quota is a part of a solution advances an unspoken argument that too many immigrants are a net negative on an economy and its country, which I do not think is accurate. To argue that way is to assume that the pie can only be so big, and any additional bodies mean taking a smaller slice.

Let me speak it then. Too many immigrants are a net negative on the country. Which pie you mean is critical here. The land pie is definitely only so big, and we are already a densely populated country. I moved to the north from the south to avoid being surrounded by so many people, so many big buildings, and so much traffic. I choose not to live in NewYork, Hong Kong, or similar. While we live on the edge of a town/city for the convenient facilities, open fields and woods are alongside the house, and it does not take long to walk out of sight of practically all habitation. I can drive on comparatively empty roads a short distance to be in open country. This is being destroyed by new housing that appears all the time, and each year immigration is equivalent to building a whole city.

 

Other pies, such as supply of water, sewage, health services and other necessities may be growable, but are limited and not capable of rapid expansion. Hence there has to be a quota. To my mind, a reasonable quota would be to keep the total population down to a steady level.

 

I see no purpose in increasing GDP, or even GDP per head, if it means more heads. If this is your definition of improving the economy, I do not want it improved.

A reducing GDP and reducing headcount would be my choice.

[cherdano]

A reducing GDP and reducing headcount would be my choice.

Do you tell your Polish bridge partners that if it were up to you, they'd have to draw lots and the loser would have to leave the country?

But as always, I want to credit your for your honesty. hrothgar was accusing the no-deal-Brexiters of trying to shoot themselves in the foot. You proudly announce that you intend to do so!

(I assume you do know that lower GDP will also mean less money for NHS, schools, streets, ...)

[fromageGB]

... No, VAT doesn't count, because if the EU encouraged the UK to switch part of their taxbase from one method of taxation to a more economically efficient method of taxation that doesn't inconvenience anyone.

This statement is astounding. It can only have been said by someone who has not had to administer it. My company was VAT registered, and I have never known so much administration and reporting to no purpose. "We'll tax the work you do, but if you spend a good portion of your life recording in minute detail every breath you draw in, individually, and send us the documentation of that breathing, you can claim some of the tax back again." Such a bureaucratic nightmare can only have been invented by the EU.

 

Efficiency?

 

* * *

 

Yes, Cherdano, obviously a lower GDP means less money for schools etc. The concomitant reduction in people would mean this has no adverse impact. But that is by the by. I think we should just agree that we disagree, and leave it at that.

[cherdano]

"Efficiency" for taxation is a technical term in economics. Google if you want to discuss it.

 

And you were talking about lower GDP per head, so not, the lower money wouldn't be fully offset by fewer people. Just proudly stand in the shoot yourself in the foot corner, nothing wrong with that!