EU's Juncker tells Britain: no-deal Brexit will hurt you the most

[Chelseafan]

5 hours ago, brucec64 said:

How many hard borders in the world between entities not in a common market are regulated by technology only and do not have any border infrastructure?

I thought so.

Sent from my SM-N950F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Well thank-you for your defeatist post.

If I can track a reefer container at any point at (pratically) any time from it's origin in Thailand to the UK, I',m sure someone can come up with a system to achieve a solution. Mankind has a knack of finding solutions, except politicans of course.

 

[Chelseafan]

12 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

How is that any relevant when 50% of the UK’s exports go to the EU vs. only 7% of the EU’s export to the UK? Sometimes I’m amazed how those who voted for this desaster don’t even get the basics right. 

And in cash terms, UK exported £289billion to the EU in 2018, UK Imported £345billion from the EU.

Small businesses don't bank %ages, they bank cash.

 

 

[BoonToong]

He just doesn't get it. Of course it's going to hurt, but only for a while. 

 

That relatively brief period of hurt is nothing compared to the continued crap we have been experiencing from him and his cronies for the past few decades.

[welovesundaysatspace]

3 hours ago, Jip99 said:

 

Look at the value that is at stake.... and tell Spain, Ireland and Germany it is irrelevant.

Go ahead; look at Germany or Spain. It’ll show you again that much more is at stake for the UK than for the EU or any of its member states, and why the member states stand united:

 

(1) The importance of the UK:

Germany exports only 6.x% to the UK; Ireland some 5.x%; Spain even less than 2%. The UK exports c. 50% to the EU. So while half of all U.K. exports would be affected (c. 50%), almost all EU exports would not be affected (c. 93%). The numbers pretty clearly show that there’s much more at stake for the UK than the EU. 

 

(2) The importance of the single market:

Then look at the intra-EU exports and you will see that pretty much all EU countries export more than 50% to other EU countries. So the single market obviously is much more important (up to 85%) for EU member states than the UK market (1-7%). The numbers pretty clearly show that you won’t find any member state supporting a deal that puts the single market at risk for saving that tiny 1-7% UK exports. You rather protect your 50-85% exports to the single market than saving the 1-7% exports to the UK, even more so when you know that the UK, with half of its exports at stake, will be eager to get a deal, despite all the noise of the fanatics and fools. 

 

 

 

[welovesundaysatspace]

11 minutes ago, Chelseafan said:

And in cash terms, UK exported £289billion to the EU in 2018, UK Imported £345billion from the EU.

Small businesses don't bank %ages, they bank cash.

 

 

And how much “in cash terms” did the EU export to other countries than the UK, especially Intra-EU? And how much “in cash terms” did the UK export to other countries than the EU? 

 

Even my ten years old nephew knows that absolute numbers don’t tell you anything unless you put them into relation. 

[welovesundaysatspace]

21 minutes ago, Chelseafan said:

Well thank-you for your defeatist post.

If I can track a reefer container at any point at (pratically) any time from it's origin in Thailand to the UK, I',m sure someone can come up with a system to achieve a solution. Mankind has a knack of finding solutions, except politicans of course.

 

No one except a Brexiteer cares about what fantasy solutions you believe in. To protect the GFA is the UK’s responsibility, whereas the EU’s responsibility is to protect the Single Market. 

[Chelseafan]

2 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

And how much “in cash terms” did the EU export to other countries than the UK, especially Intra-EU? And how much “in cash terms” did the UK export to other countries than the EU? 

 

Even my ten years old nephew knows that absolute numbers don’t tell you anything unless you put them into relation. 

Absolutely but your post did nothing of the such. Businesses on both sides are going to be hurt.

[Chelseafan]

Just now, welovesundaysatspace said:

No one except a Brexiteer cares about what fantasy solutions you believe in. To protect the GFA is the UK’s responsibility, whereas the EU’s responsibility is to protect the Single Market. 

I'm a remainer but I get peeved about this defeatist mentality. There's always solutions if people can cooperate. Sadly politicians from both sides are inclined not to do so.

[tomacht8]

5 minutes ago, Chelseafan said:

Absolutely but your post did nothing of the such. Businesses on both sides are going to be hurt.

That is true and clear from day one.

It is at all a lose- lose situation.

One loses more, the other less.

 

It is now important to think in terms of damage limitation dimensions.

[evadgib]

A truly global future awaits us after Brexit: Dominic Raab

[tebee]

34 minutes ago, evadgib said:

A truly global future awaits us after Brexit: Dominic Raab

Which of course is ignoring the inconvenient fact that the amount of trade one country does with another is roughly proportional to the inverse square of the distance between them. 

[UKresonant]

2 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

even more so when you know that the UK, with half of its exports at stake, will be eager to get a deal, despite all the noise of the fanatics and fools. 

Of course there should be a deal if possible, but the problem is getting the MP's to pass any deal in parliament, they do not appear to be sufficiently motivated...if I receive a defective product, I don't care if the manufacturer blames another party in their factory, I just want the product that the entity were saying they were selling, and essentially works, even if they have had to reduce it's power rating (though I would still not expect it to work indefinitely, that would be unrealistic). 

[sandyf]

18 hours ago, tebee said:

4.1.2.1 External Union transit procedure

T1 The external Union transit procedure (T1), applies mainly to the
movement of non-Union goods. It suspends import duties, other
charges and commercial policy measures until the goods reach their
destination in the Union.

 

From https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/transit_manual_en.pdf#page=41

 

Another of those 1,000,001 things you probably didn't need to know. 

What you have posted is a working document from 2016 which may or may not have become law. This article would support what @Chelseafan has said, there wouldn't have been a problem if all charges had been suspended at port of entry. Possibly something to do with why your document.

 

The European anti-fraud office (known as Olaf from its French name, Office de Lutte Anti-Fraude) has recommended the UK pay €1.98bn into the EU budget to compensate for lost customs duties, as a result of a failure by British customs officials to crack down on criminal gangs using fake invoices and making false claims about the value of clothes and shoes imported from China.

Olaf said the fraud was ongoing and pointed out the cost to national exchequers was even greater. France, Germany, Spain and Italy are estimated to have lost a combined €3.2bn from 2013 to 2016 in VAT revenues, as a result of British failures in handling imports at its ports.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/uk-faces-2bn-fine-over-chinese-imports-scam-say-eu-anti-fraud-investigators

[sandyf]

16 hours ago, Chelseafan said:

I bring in pineapple and Mango from Guatemala in full reefer containers into Southampton. I pay the applicable duties.

If the duty changes, for example WTO then this will be applicable to my competition too. My business has stores in Dundee, we would continue to ship product via our centralized depots as we do today. I'm not sure what your point is.

 

There is no disputing what you say, until someone can grow pineapple and mango in the UK there will no domestic competition, unlike say apples or tomatoes.

The problem is however that if prices are forced up through additional transport cost some may consider the pineapple no longer the affordable fruit it once was.

[Forethat]

18 minutes ago, sandyf said:

What you have posted is a working document from 2016 which may or may not have become law. This article would support what @Chelseafan has said, there wouldn't have been a problem if all charges had been suspended at port of entry. Possibly something to do with why your document.

 

The European anti-fraud office (known as Olaf from its French name, Office de Lutte Anti-Fraude) has recommended the UK pay €1.98bn into the EU budget to compensate for lost customs duties, as a result of a failure by British customs officials to crack down on criminal gangs using fake invoices and making false claims about the value of clothes and shoes imported from China.

Olaf said the fraud was ongoing and pointed out the cost to national exchequers was even greater. France, Germany, Spain and Italy are estimated to have lost a combined €3.2bn from 2013 to 2016 in VAT revenues, as a result of British failures in handling imports at its ports.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/uk-faces-2bn-fine-over-chinese-imports-scam-say-eu-anti-fraud-investigators

An MP stated that "The UK border force is asleep at the wheel and it’s going to cost the taxpayer billions"? 

That's probably the most oxymoron-ish I've read in my entire life. 

 

And a French investigator claims that "UK authorities are not interested at all in co-operating in this field, probably because the phenomenon does not directly affect them.”

He was probably never involved in having the British to set up AND FUND an entire operation on French grounds to stop illegal immigrants from threatening drivers and entering trucks in Calais - a situation caused by French authorities not giving a flying toss.

 

Can I recommend the French to pay €39bn into the UK budget to compensate for French ignorance and stupidity?

[sandyf]

26 minutes ago, Forethat said:

An MP stated that "The UK border force is asleep at the wheel and it’s going to cost the taxpayer billions"? 

That's probably the most oxymoron-ish I've read in my entire life. 

 

And a French investigator claims that "UK authorities are not interested at all in co-operating in this field, probably because the phenomenon does not directly affect them.”

He was probably never involved in having the British to set up AND FUND an entire operation on French grounds to stop illegal immigrants from threatening drivers and entering trucks in Calais - a situation caused by French authorities not giving a flying toss.

 

Can I recommend the French to pay €39bn into the UK budget to compensate for French ignorance and stupidity?

Good distraction but it may come as a surprise that one problem does not offset another unless of course you subscribe to the theory that 2 wrongs make a right.

Quite the conundrum, is brexit a simple problem or a problem for the simple.

[sandyf]

20 hours ago, hugocnx said:

If you read my post again you will find that I was not specifically commenting on the contents of the link.

I know exactly what you meant, you do not want to see facts that you do not agree with.

[Forethat]

2 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Good distraction but it may come as a surprise that one problem does not offset another unless of course you subscribe to the theory that 2 wrongs make a right.

Quite the conundrum, is brexit a simple problem or a problem for the simple.

Whether you like it or not, the focus area during the period in question (2013-2016) wasn't VAT fraud, but illegal immigration. As much as I hate to admit it, money can only be spent once.. (how's that for a simple problem?)

[sandyf]

3 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Whether you like it or not, the focus area during the period in question (2013-2016) wasn't VAT fraud, but illegal immigration. As much as I hate to admit it, money can only be spent once.. (how's that for a simple problem?)

And simply put, illegal immigration has no relevance regarding the comment I made, a deliberate change of context.

[nauseus]

15 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Good distraction but it may come as a surprise that one problem does not offset another unless of course you subscribe to the theory that 2 wrongs make a right.

Quite the conundrum, is brexit a simple problem or a problem for the simple.

The simple answer is found in all these Brexit forums. Brexit is a only problem for remainers. 

[Forethat]

4 minutes ago, sandyf said:

And simply put, illegal immigration has no relevance regarding the comment I made, a deliberate change of context.

It certainly does. We deal with lots of issues ranging from tax evasion, illegal immigration and VAT fraud. We have an annual budget and can only do so much. If we spend in one area, other areas are likely to get less. Year one math, this...

 

Had the French not ignored the immigration issue I'm sure we would have dealt with the VAT fraud in question. Is this really difficult to grasp? No, I didn't think so. 

[bristolboy]

57 minutes ago, Forethat said:

An MP stated that "The UK border force is asleep at the wheel and it’s going to cost the taxpayer billions"? 

That's probably the most oxymoron-ish I've read in my entire life. 

 

And a French investigator claims that "UK authorities are not interested at all in co-operating in this field, probably because the phenomenon does not directly affect them.”

He was probably never involved in having the British to set up AND FUND an entire operation on French grounds to stop illegal immigrants from threatening drivers and entering trucks in Calais - a situation caused by French authorities not giving a flying toss.

 

Can I recommend the French to pay €39bn into the UK budget to compensate for French ignorance and stupidity?

Not only is what you are stating irrelevant. it's false as well. This is a Shengen zone issue. The UK being out of it and France within it. The French were being overwhelmed by refugees in Calais seeking to illegally cross into the UK. The French said that if the British don't contribute more to policing these refugees, the French would cancel the Le Touquest agreement and let the UK sort it out on their side of the border. The UK agreed to pay more rather than have to deal with the problem in the UK. This is a schengen zone issue. In fact, it's going to get a lot more costly for the UK to deal with this problem if Brexit occurs. 

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, Forethat said:

It certainly does. We deal with lots of issues ranging from tax evasion, illegal immigration and VAT fraud. We have an annual budget and can only do so much. If we spend in one area, other areas are likely to get less. Year one math, this...

 

Had the French not ignored the immigration issue I'm sure we would have dealt with the VAT fraud in question. Is this really difficult to grasp? No, I didn't think so. 

More tripe about the French ignoring the immigration issue. Got some facts to back this up?

[hugocnx]

16 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

The earth was never flat. 

 

You know what I meant. 

[hugocnx]

26 minutes ago, sandyf said:

I know exactly what you meant, you do not want to see facts that you do not agree with.

Have it your way.

[3NUMBAS]

theyre fighting a rear guard action as they know the EU could collapse with UK gone so you cant trust this sozzled drunken bum junkman

[Forethat]

40 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Not only is what you are stating irrelevant. it's false as well. This is a Shengen zone issue. The UK being out of it and France within it. The French were being overwhelmed by refugees in Calais seeking to illegally cross into the UK. The French said that if the British don't contribute more to policing these refugees, the French would cancel the Le Touquest agreement and let the UK sort it out on their side of the border. The UK agreed to pay more rather than have to deal with the problem in the UK. This is a schengen zone issue. In fact, it's going to get a lot more costly for the UK to deal with this problem if Brexit occurs. 

Vast amounts of illegal immigrants in France is a French issue. Schengen memberships really doesn't matter. The volume is irrelevant. If the French needs financial support to deal with the volume it would appear that EU HQ in Brussels is the best place to bring their begging cup, not UK.

 

And yes, this will be a far bigger issue post Brexit. Especially since France are unlikely to give a dam*. If anything, I'd expect them to help the "asylum seekers" to gain access to the lorries. We're dealing with this as we speak.

[Forethat]

58 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

More tripe about the French ignoring the immigration issue. Got some facts to back this up?

Facts? You mean as in "the French allowed illegal immigrants to build up a small village, terrorise truck drivers, breaking and entering sealed cargo, arson trucks, beating drivers unconscious etc. etc. etc. etc. without doing a God damned thing other than asking UK to pay for it"

 

No, not much.

[nauseus]

3 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Vast amounts of illegal immigrants in France is a French issue. Schengen memberships really doesn't matter. The volume is irrelevant. If the French needs financial support to deal with the volume it would appear that EU HQ in Brussels is the best place to bring their begging cup, not UK.

 

And yes, this will be a far bigger issue post Brexit. Especially since France are unlikely to give a dam*. If anything, I'd expect them to help the "asylum seekers" to gain access to the lorries. We're dealing with this as we speak.

In that case all these extra customs checks could be a good thing.

[CG1 Blue]

11 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

When did the Taoiseach say the border issue cannot be solved?

 

A solution is already in place in the current deal. 

The current WA could potentially keep NI permanently in the Customs Union. That means NI would effectively be annexed from the rest of the UK. That's fine for the Republicans, but absolutely not fine for the Unionists. How is that a solution?