Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Suddenly the money’s going on 2018 being the year of the next

2»

Comments

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    edited February 2018
    rcs1000 said:

    Rees-Mogg has again proven that his intellect isn’t all that by associating himself with a seriously dodgy Sun article.
    https://twitter.com/jacob_rees_mogg/status/968534387057942529

    Ummm: the wholesale (import) price of those products is WAAAAAAY below the retail.
    Take those Nike Trainers.

    £20 of that £120 is VAT.

    £50 ish would be wholesale price so import duty would be about £8., assuming the shoes are not made in a country with an existing deal with the EU, and the UK decides not to levy duty.

    I thought JRM was supposed to be clever with sums.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281
    Only £6 out of more than £20,000 has been matched on a 2018 GE at odds above 7 (ie 6-1).

    So excluding those miniscule trades, the price has never gone above 7.

    It's now Back 5.3 / Lay 5.9.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Rees-Mogg has again proven that his intellect isn’t all that by associating himself with a seriously dodgy Sun article.
    https://twitter.com/jacob_rees_mogg/status/968534387057942529

    Ummm: the wholesale (import) price of those products is WAAAAAAY below the retail.
    Take those Nike Trainers.

    £20 of that £120 is VAT.

    £50 ish would be wholesale price so import duty would be about £8., assuming the shoes are not made in a country with an existing deal with the EU, and the UK decides not to levy duty.

    I thought JRM was supposed to be clever with sums.
    I suspect the import price would be more like £25-30 for the trainers (and could be even less).
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Foxy said:

    @henrymance: Amazing scenes on Channel 4 News as Max Mosley denies that a leaflet he put out in 1961 was racist, then admits it was, and then pauses to check a call on his mobile phone.

    He’s now denying it was racist again.

    “Why should I not support Tom Watson?” Will you give him more money? “Yes, absolutely.”

    https://twitter.com/RobbieWhelan7/status/968571101612720128

    Over to you Tom Watson
    I liked his reply:

    "Last night Tom Watson said: 'My views on Press regulation are well known and have not changed. The views expressed by Max as a young man are not the views he holds now, just as the Rothermere family no longer uses its newspapers to support fascism.' "

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5441827/Did-F1-tycoon-Max-Mosley-lie-orgy-trial.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
    If the instigator of the remarks was say a tory or tory supporter would he take exactly the same view?

    Labour taking hypocrisy to a whole new level.

  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    Did say on Saturday that he was in diffs. Theres a lot of news about young Jared today. Maybe people with a vested interest in distancing themselves are sinking the guy before the cops turn up.
  • Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Rees-Mogg has again proven that his intellect isn’t all that by associating himself with a seriously dodgy Sun article.
    https://twitter.com/jacob_rees_mogg/status/968534387057942529

    Ummm: the wholesale (import) price of those products is WAAAAAAY below the retail.
    Take those Nike Trainers.

    £20 of that £120 is VAT.

    £50 ish would be wholesale price so import duty would be about £8., assuming the shoes are not made in a country with an existing deal with the EU, and the UK decides not to levy duty.

    I thought JRM was supposed to be clever with sums.
    I think Rees-Mogg got carried away there. He should stick to the lofty abstractions of sovereignty and national determination and not sully his hands with the crudities of retail practice.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    Christ on a bike, Max Mosley

    Any context for that ejaculation TSE?
    Probably? PROBABLY?

    https://twitter.com/GraemeDemianyk/status/968574349342134274
    Ah yes - what a complete and utter scumbag he is.
    He doesn't support the tories, so actually I think you mean he is a reformed character



  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Rees-Mogg has again proven that his intellect isn’t all that by associating himself with a seriously dodgy Sun article.
    https://twitter.com/jacob_rees_mogg/status/968534387057942529

    Ummm: the wholesale (import) price of those products is WAAAAAAY below the retail.
    Take those Nike Trainers.

    £20 of that £120 is VAT.

    £50 ish would be wholesale price so import duty would be about £8., assuming the shoes are not made in a country with an existing deal with the EU, and the UK decides not to levy duty.

    I thought JRM was supposed to be clever with sums.
    I suspect the import price would be more like £25-30 for the trainers (and could be even less).
    They haven’t even worked out the percentages correctly...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    Y0kel said:

    Did say on Saturday that he was in diffs. Theres a lot of news about young Jared today. Maybe people with a vested interest in distancing themselves are sinking the guy before the cops turn up.
    This seems quite serious... Kushner could well be toast:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/kushners-overseas-contacts-raise-concerns-as-foreign-officials-seek-leverage/2018/02/27/16bbc052-18c3-11e8-942d-16a950029788_story.html
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    Hitler was a Zionist is not what he said.

    You defending Livingstone? good luck
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Rees-Mogg has again proven that his intellect isn’t all that by associating himself with a seriously dodgy Sun article.
    https://twitter.com/jacob_rees_mogg/status/968534387057942529

    Ummm: the wholesale (import) price of those products is WAAAAAAY below the retail.
    Take those Nike Trainers.

    £20 of that £120 is VAT.

    £50 ish would be wholesale price so import duty would be about £8., assuming the shoes are not made in a country with an existing deal with the EU, and the UK decides not to levy duty.

    I thought JRM was supposed to be clever with sums.
    I suspect the import price would be more like £25-30 for the trainers (and could be even less).
    Quite possibly so, and the Trainers might well be made in the Nike shoe factories in Italy or Korea, and tariff free.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    edited February 2018
    This does appear to be further confirmation that the entire Trump clan are a bunch of grifters.

    And not entirely successful ones.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Rees-Mogg has again proven that his intellect isn’t all that by associating himself with a seriously dodgy Sun article.
    https://twitter.com/jacob_rees_mogg/status/968534387057942529

    Ummm: the wholesale (import) price of those products is WAAAAAAY below the retail.
    Take those Nike Trainers.

    £20 of that £120 is VAT.

    £50 ish would be wholesale price so import duty would be about £8., assuming the shoes are not made in a country with an existing deal with the EU, and the UK decides not to levy duty.

    I thought JRM was supposed to be clever with sums.
    I think Rees-Mogg got carried away there. He should stick to the lofty abstractions of sovereignty and national determination and not sully his hands with the crudities of retail practice.
    Wasn't someone telling us recently of his superior financial acumen ?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    Floater said:

    Foxy said:

    @henrymance: Amazing scenes on Channel 4 News as Max Mosley denies that a leaflet he put out in 1961 was racist, then admits it was, and then pauses to check a call on his mobile phone.

    He’s now denying it was racist again.

    “Why should I not support Tom Watson?” Will you give him more money? “Yes, absolutely.”

    https://twitter.com/RobbieWhelan7/status/968571101612720128

    Over to you Tom Watson
    I liked his reply:

    "Last night Tom Watson said: 'My views on Press regulation are well known and have not changed. The views expressed by Max as a young man are not the views he holds now, just as the Rothermere family no longer uses its newspapers to support fascism.' "

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5441827/Did-F1-tycoon-Max-Mosley-lie-orgy-trial.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
    If the instigator of the remarks was say a tory or tory supporter would he take exactly the same view?

    Labour taking hypocrisy to a whole new level.

    A lot has changed since the 61 byelection, possibly even Mosleys politics.

    Though I would like to see such large donations banned for corrupting politics.

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233

    Rees-Mogg has again proven that his intellect isn’t all that by associating himself with a seriously dodgy Sun article.
    https://twitter.com/jacob_rees_mogg/status/968534387057942529

    Is Rees-Mogg now advocating hyper-deflation?
    No. Lower prices for hard pressed families. What's not to like?
    Nothing. One of my concerns for Brexit is that it would lead to higher food prices, so if it leads to food tariffs being dropped and cheaper food, then that is an unalloyed good.

    However, some points have to be made.

    1) if you're dropping food tariffs, then cheaper food will enter the UK and some UK farmers will collapse because they will not be able to compete. Will the Government a) subsidise farmers (thus increasing taxes), b) let them collapse (thus decreasing Tory votes) or c) reimpose the tariffs?

    2) I'm still assuming the next GE is 2022. Brexit is 2019. By 2022 the Conservatives will have been in power post-Brexit for three years. If the Sun's predicted price falls do not eventuate by 2022, will JRM take responsibility for the error or simply blame somebody else?
  • rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Rees-Mogg has again proven that his intellect isn’t all that by associating himself with a seriously dodgy Sun article.
    https://twitter.com/jacob_rees_mogg/status/968534387057942529

    Ummm: the wholesale (import) price of those products is WAAAAAAY below the retail.
    Take those Nike Trainers.

    £20 of that £120 is VAT.

    £50 ish would be wholesale price so import duty would be about £8., assuming the shoes are not made in a country with an existing deal with the EU, and the UK decides not to levy duty.

    I thought JRM was supposed to be clever with sums.
    I suspect the import price would be more like £25-30 for the trainers (and could be even less).
    They haven’t even worked out the percentages correctly...
    Still haven’t learned the lesson of arguing with a bus it seems.....

    “Their sums are wrong!”

    “What sums?”

    “Those sums!”

    “Oh, thanks, hadn’t noticed that!”
  • rawzerrawzer Posts: 189
    viewcode said:

    Charles said:

    The “divine right” of the CiP comes from the sovereign will of the people. Essentially the CiP cannot permanently alienate powers because it only has delegated authority not absolute authority.

    No it doesn't. The divine right[1] of the Crown comes from God in theory, in practice thru having the hardest bastards on your side. We even created a Church to hammer that point home. That "Government comes from the sovereign will of the dear pee-pul" gobshite is pure sentimental bollocks. You've been spending too long in the States, young Charles. This is Britain. We do things differently here.

    [1] no scare quotes

    viewcode said:

    Charles said:

    The “divine right” of the CiP comes from the sovereign will of the people. Essentially the CiP cannot permanently alienate powers because it only has delegated authority not absolute authority.

    No it doesn't. The divine right[1] of the Crown comes from God in theory, in practice thru having the hardest bastards on your side. We even created a Church to hammer that point home. That "Government comes from the sovereign will of the dear pee-pul" gobshite is pure sentimental bollocks. You've been spending too long in the States, young Charles. This is Britain. We do things differently here.

    [1] no scare quotes

    It took a Civil War, Thomas Hobbes and a Glorious Revolution to get from your definition to his
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    It's going to be minus 3 in Naples tonight. How often does that happen?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/3172394
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233

    Mortimer said:

    Negotiation 101. You don't get your guy in the room until papers are ready to sign.
    Politics 101. Appearances matter more than reality.
    Binary 101. Five.
  • Floater said:

    Foxy said:

    @henrymance: Amazing scenes on Channel 4 News as Max Mosley denies that a leaflet he put out in 1961 was racist, then admits it was, and then pauses to check a call on his mobile phone.

    He’s now denying it was racist again.

    “Why should I not support Tom Watson?” Will you give him more money? “Yes, absolutely.”

    https://twitter.com/RobbieWhelan7/status/968571101612720128

    Over to you Tom Watson
    I liked his reply:

    "Last night Tom Watson said: 'My views on Press regulation are well known and have not changed. The views expressed by Max as a young man are not the views he holds now, just as the Rothermere family no longer uses its newspapers to support fascism.' "

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5441827/Did-F1-tycoon-Max-Mosley-lie-orgy-trial.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
    If the instigator of the remarks was say a tory or tory supporter would he take exactly the same view?

    Labour taking hypocrisy to a whole new level.

    Did I miss Watson’s apology for the “Number 10 Tory paedo scandal”?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    viewcode said:

    Mortimer said:

    Negotiation 101. You don't get your guy in the room until papers are ready to sign.
    Politics 101. Appearances matter more than reality.
    Binary 101. Five.
    :)
  • rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Rees-Mogg has again proven that his intellect isn’t all that by associating himself with a seriously dodgy Sun article.
    https://twitter.com/jacob_rees_mogg/status/968534387057942529

    Ummm: the wholesale (import) price of those products is WAAAAAAY below the retail.
    Take those Nike Trainers.

    £20 of that £120 is VAT.

    £50 ish would be wholesale price so import duty would be about £8., assuming the shoes are not made in a country with an existing deal with the EU, and the UK decides not to levy duty.

    I thought JRM was supposed to be clever with sums.
    I suspect the import price would be more like £25-30 for the trainers (and could be even less).
    They haven’t even worked out the percentages correctly...
    Still haven’t learned the lesson of arguing with a bus it seems.....

    “Their sums are wrong!”

    “What sums?”

    “Those sums!”

    “Oh, thanks, hadn’t noticed that!”
    I was just thinking exactly the same thing. Its the £350 million a week all over again just on a more human scale

    Sceptics: "We pay £350 million a week to the EU"

    Philes: "No we don't, we only pay £288 million a week"

    Public: "How much??!!!"

    ---

    Sceptics: "EU Tariffs cost you £20 on every pair of Nike trainers you buy"

    Philes: "No they don't, the tariffs only cost you £8 on every pair"

    Public: "How much??!!!"
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233
    edited February 2018
    rawzer said:

    viewcode said:

    Charles said:

    The “divine right” of the CiP comes from the sovereign will of the people. Essentially the CiP cannot permanently alienate powers because it only has delegated authority not absolute authority.

    No it doesn't. The divine right[1] of the Crown comes from God in theory, in practice thru having the hardest bastards on your side. We even created a Church to hammer that point home. That "Government comes from the sovereign will of the dear pee-pul" gobshite is pure sentimental bollocks. You've been spending too long in the States, young Charles. This is Britain. We do things differently here.

    [1] no scare quotes

    It took a Civil War, Thomas Hobbes and a Glorious Revolution to get from your definition to his
    Although it is frequently held up, the Glorious Revolution (my arse) just confirms my view that power is taken at the point of a gun/halberd/pike by the powerful, with the people as an afterthought.

    [plus James was the rightful King, so there... :) ]
  • rawzerrawzer Posts: 189
    viewcode said:

    rawzer said:

    viewcode said:

    Charles said:

    The “divine right” of the CiP comes from the sovereign will of the people. Essentially the CiP cannot permanently alienate powers because it only has delegated authority not absolute authority.

    No it doesn't. The divine right[1] of the Crown comes from God in theory, in practice thru having the hardest bastards on your side. We even created a Church to hammer that point home. That "Government comes from the sovereign will of the dear pee-pul" gobshite is pure sentimental bollocks. You've been spending too long in the States, young Charles. This is Britain. We do things differently here.

    [1] no scare quotes

    It took a Civil War, Thomas Hobbes and a Glorious Revolution to get from your definition to his
    Although it is frequently held up, the Glorious Revolution (my arse) just confirms my view that power is taken at the point of a gun/halberd/pike by the powerful, with the people as an afterthought.

    [plus James was the rightful King, so there... :) ]
    Good to give it a fancy name though, dress it up a bit, makes us all feel better. I’m sticking with the Plantagenets, everyone after H7 is a fake.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Rees-Mogg has again proven that his intellect isn’t all that by associating himself with a seriously dodgy Sun article.
    https://twitter.com/jacob_rees_mogg/status/968534387057942529

    Ummm: the wholesale (import) price of those products is WAAAAAAY below the retail.
    Take those Nike Trainers.

    £20 of that £120 is VAT.

    £50 ish would be wholesale price so import duty would be about £8., assuming the shoes are not made in a country with an existing deal with the EU, and the UK decides not to levy duty.

    I thought JRM was supposed to be clever with sums.
    I suspect the import price would be more like £25-30 for the trainers (and could be even less).
    They haven’t even worked out the percentages correctly...
    Still haven’t learned the lesson of arguing with a bus it seems.....

    “Their sums are wrong!”

    “What sums?”

    “Those sums!”

    “Oh, thanks, hadn’t noticed that!”
    I was just thinking exactly the same thing. Its the £350 million a week all over again just on a more human scale

    Sceptics: "We pay £350 million a week to the EU"

    Philes: "No we don't, we only pay £288 million a week"

    Public: "How much??!!!"

    ---

    Sceptics: "EU Tariffs cost you £20 on every pair of Nike trainers you buy"

    Philes: "No they don't, the tariffs only cost you £8 on every pair"

    Public: "How much??!!!"
    Certainly there is an element of that, but the real problem comes when these Brexit promises prove to be false. Credibility of politicians will fall even further.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,723
    Floater said:

    Hitler was a Zionist is not what he said.

    You defending Livingstone? good luck
    No just saying thats not what he said
  • Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Rees-Mogg has again proven that his intellect isn’t all that by associating himself with a seriously dodgy Sun article.
    https://twitter.com/jacob_rees_mogg/status/968534387057942529

    Ummm: the wholesale (import) price of those products is WAAAAAAY below the retail.
    Take those Nike Trainers.

    £20 of that £120 is VAT.

    £50 ish would be wholesale price so import duty would be about £8., assuming the shoes are not made in a country with an existing deal with the EU, and the UK decides not to levy duty.

    I thought JRM was supposed to be clever with sums.
    I suspect the import price would be more like £25-30 for the trainers (and could be even less).
    They haven’t even worked out the percentages correctly...
    Still haven’t learned the lesson of arguing with a bus it seems.....

    “Their sums are wrong!”

    “What sums?”

    “Those sums!”

    “Oh, thanks, hadn’t noticed that!”
    I was just thinking exactly the same thing. Its the £350 million a week all over again just on a more human scale

    Sceptics: "We pay £350 million a week to the EU"

    Philes: "No we don't, we only pay £288 million a week"

    Public: "How much??!!!"

    ---

    Sceptics: "EU Tariffs cost you £20 on every pair of Nike trainers you buy"

    Philes: "No they don't, the tariffs only cost you £8 on every pair"

    Public: "How much??!!!"
    Certainly there is an element of that, but the real problem comes when these Brexit promises prove to be false. Credibility of politicians will fall even further.
    Difficult for me to process because I don't personally believe that politicians have any credibility at all.

    Its a bit like worrying about the rain when you are swimming in the sea.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233
    rawzer said:

    viewcode said:

    rawzer said:

    viewcode said:

    Charles said:

    The “divine right” of the CiP comes from the sovereign will of the people. Essentially the CiP cannot permanently alienate powers because it only has delegated authority not absolute authority.

    No it doesn't. The divine right[1] of the Crown comes from God in theory, in practice thru having the hardest bastards on your side. We even created a Church to hammer that point home. That "Government comes from the sovereign will of the dear pee-pul" gobshite is pure sentimental bollocks. You've been spending too long in the States, young Charles. This is Britain. We do things differently here.

    [1] no scare quotes

    It took a Civil War, Thomas Hobbes and a Glorious Revolution to get from your definition to his
    Although it is frequently held up, the Glorious Revolution (my arse) just confirms my view that power is taken at the point of a gun/halberd/pike by the powerful, with the people as an afterthought.

    [plus James was the rightful King, so there... :) ]
    Good to give it a fancy name though, dress it up a bit, makes us all feel better. I’m sticking with the Plantagenets, everyone after H7 is a fake.
    :)
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Rees-Mogg has again proven that his intellect isn’t all that by associating himself with a seriously dodgy Sun article.
    https://twitter.com/jacob_rees_mogg/status/968534387057942529

    Ummm: the wholesale (import) price of those products is WAAAAAAY below the retail.
    Take those Nike Trainers.

    £20 of that £120 is VAT.

    £50 ish would be wholesale price so import duty would be about £8., assuming the shoes are not made in a country with an existing deal with the EU, and the UK decides not to levy duty.

    I thought JRM was supposed to be clever with sums.
    I suspect the import price would be more like £25-30 for the trainers (and could be even less).
    They haven’t even worked out the percentages correctly...
    Still haven’t learned the lesson of arguing with a bus it seems.....

    “Their sums are wrong!”

    “What sums?”

    “Those sums!”

    “Oh, thanks, hadn’t noticed that!”
    So are you going to cut the NHS and schools budget to cover the lost revenue raised from import tariffs or just raise other taxes to cover it? Either way this is different than the bus lie.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    Christ on a bike, Max Mosley

    Are the alleged views in the leaflet any more or less racist than average for 1961? Seems a bit harsh to judge him for something that allegedly happened 57 years ago if they weren't particularly out of line with the way most people in the UK thought at the time.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    AndyJS said:

    Christ on a bike, Max Mosley

    Are the alleged views in the leaflet any more or less racist than average for 1961? Seems a bit harsh to judge him for something that allegedly happened 57 years ago if they weren't particularly out of line with the way most people in the UK thought at the time.
    I think it was his interview performance that TSE was referring to?
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469
    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Rees-Mogg has again proven that his intellect isn’t all that by associating himself with a seriously dodgy Sun article.
    https://twitter.com/jacob_rees_mogg/status/968534387057942529

    Ummm: the wholesale (import) price of those products is WAAAAAAY below the retail.
    Take those Nike Trainers.

    £20 of that £120 is VAT.

    £50 ish would be wholesale price so import duty would be about £8., assuming the shoes are not made in a country with an existing deal with the EU, and the UK decides not to levy duty.

    I thought JRM was supposed to be clever with sums.
    Er! Some years ago, and I cannot imagine things have changed that much, I was chatting to an executive manager from a major shoe retailer. A pair of shoes is designed, manufactured in a range of sizes in a limited number. The retail price for that pattern was calculated from the total manufacturing cost, with the wholesale price as a standard percentage. If the product was successful, mass manufacture would then start - the lasts and patterns were already made, with the only real costs being the materials, bought in discounted bulk, and the (wo)man power in a cheap labour country. Funny thing was that it was always the original wholesale and retail prices used, while the actual manufacturing cost was about 50p per pair. Nice profit if your company owned the entire supply chain and could sell 100,000's pairs of trainers for £100 plus.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    edited February 2018
    JonathanD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Rees-Mogg has again proven that his intellect isn’t all that by associating himself with a seriously dodgy Sun article.
    https://twitter.com/jacob_rees_mogg/status/968534387057942529

    Ummm: the wholesale (import) price of those products is WAAAAAAY below the retail.
    Take those Nike Trainers.

    £20 of that £120 is VAT.

    £50 ish would be wholesale price so import duty would be about £8., assuming the shoes are not made in a country with an existing deal with the EU, and the UK decides not to levy duty.

    I thought JRM was supposed to be clever with sums.
    I suspect the import price would be more like £25-30 for the trainers (and could be even less).
    They haven’t even worked out the percentages correctly...
    Still haven’t learned the lesson of arguing with a bus it seems.....

    “Their sums are wrong!”

    “What sums?”

    “Those sums!”

    “Oh, thanks, hadn’t noticed that!”
    So are you going to cut the NHS and schools budget to cover the lost revenue raised from import tariffs or just raise other taxes to cover it? Either way this is different than the bus lie.
    We don't lose anything. The tariffs levied as part of the Customs Union are not kept by the member states but are claimed directly by the EU as part of their "Traditional Own Resources". Minus a percentage which we keep to cover the costs of collecting them. So there is no lost revenue for the UK. Indeed if we were to start levying our own tariffs (and actually I don't think we should) then that would be extra money for the exchequer.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    JonathanD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Rees-Mogg has again proven that his intellect isn’t all that by associating himself with a seriously dodgy Sun article.
    https://twitter.com/jacob_rees_mogg/status/968534387057942529

    Ummm: the wholesale (import) price of those products is WAAAAAAY below the retail.
    Take those Nike Trainers.

    £20 of that £120 is VAT.

    £50 ish would be wholesale price so import duty would be about £8., assuming the shoes are not made in a country with an existing deal with the EU, and the UK decides not to levy duty.

    I thought JRM was supposed to be clever with sums.
    I suspect the import price would be more like £25-30 for the trainers (and could be even less).
    They haven’t even worked out the percentages correctly...
    Still haven’t learned the lesson of arguing with a bus it seems.....

    “Their sums are wrong!”

    “What sums?”

    “Those sums!”

    “Oh, thanks, hadn’t noticed that!”
    So are you going to cut the NHS and schools budget to cover the lost revenue raised from import tariffs or just raise other taxes to cover it? Either way this is different than the bus lie.
    Urm, 75% of all import duties are currently remitted to the EU....
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    edited February 2018

    Christ on a bike, Max Mosley

    Looks like Max is done... But will Tom Watson hand all the money back? ;)
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069

    JonathanD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Rees-Mogg has again proven that his intellect isn’t all that by associating himself with a seriously dodgy Sun article.
    https://twitter.com/jacob_rees_mogg/status/968534387057942529

    Ummm: the wholesale (import) price of those products is WAAAAAAY below the retail.
    Take those Nike Trainers.

    £20 of that £120 is VAT.

    £50 ish would be wholesale price so import duty would be about £8., assuming the shoes are not made in a country with an existing deal with the EU, and the UK decides not to levy duty.

    I thought JRM was supposed to be clever with sums.
    I suspect the import price would be more like £25-30 for the trainers (and could be even less).
    They haven’t even worked out the percentages correctly...
    Still haven’t learned the lesson of arguing with a bus it seems.....

    “Their sums are wrong!”

    “What sums?”

    “Those sums!”

    “Oh, thanks, hadn’t noticed that!”
    So are you going to cut the NHS and schools budget to cover the lost revenue raised from import tariffs or just raise other taxes to cover it? Either way this is different than the bus lie.
    We don't lose anything. The tariffs levied as part of the Customs Union are not kept by the member states but are claimed directly by the EU as part of their "Traditional Own Resources". Minus a percentage which we keep to cover the costs of collecting them. So there is no lost revenue for the UK. Indeed if we were to start levying our own tariffs (and actually I don't think we should) then that would be extra money for the exchequer.
    Total customs duty revenue for 2017-18 is forecast totbe £3.4 billion, so npt such a largelsum as to cause problems, it is a rounding error in the national budget.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575

    JonathanD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Rees-Mogg has again proven that his intellect isn’t all that by associating himself with a seriously dodgy Sun article.
    https://twitter.com/jacob_rees_mogg/status/968534387057942529

    Ummm: the wholesale (import) price of those products is WAAAAAAY below the retail.
    Take those Nike Trainers.

    £20 of that £120 is VAT.

    £50 ish would be wholesale price so import duty would be about £8., assuming the shoes are not made in a country with an existing deal with the EU, and the UK decides not to levy duty.

    I thought JRM was supposed to be clever with sums.
    I suspect the import price would be more like £25-30 for the trainers (and could be even less).
    They haven’t even worked out the percentages correctly...
    Still haven’t learned the lesson of arguing with a bus it seems.....

    “Their sums are wrong!”

    “What sums?”

    “Those sums!”

    “Oh, thanks, hadn’t noticed that!”
    So are you going to cut the NHS and schools budget to cover the lost revenue raised from import tariffs or just raise other taxes to cover it? Either way this is different than the bus lie.
    We don't lose anything. The tariffs levied as part of the Customs Union are not kept by the member states but are claimed directly by the EU as part of their "Traditional Own Resources". Minus a percentage which we keep to cover the costs of collecting them. So there is no lost revenue for the UK. Indeed if we were to start levying our own tariffs (and actually I don't think we should) then that would be extra money for the exchequer.
    Who gets them if we’re in a customs union, post Brexit ?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    edited February 2018
    Foxy said:

    JonathanD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Rees-Mogg has again proven that his intellect isn’t all that by associating himself with a seriously dodgy Sun article.
    https://twitter.com/jacob_rees_mogg/status/968534387057942529

    Ummm: the wholesale (import) price of those products is WAAAAAAY below the retail.
    Take those Nike Trainers.

    £20 of that £120 is VAT.

    £50 ish would be wholesale price so import duty would be about £8., assuming the shoes are not made in a country with an existing deal with the EU, and the UK decides not to levy duty.

    I thought JRM was supposed to be clever with sums.
    I suspect the import price would be more like £25-30 for the trainers (and could be even less).
    They haven’t even worked out the percentages correctly...
    Still haven’t learned the lesson of arguing with a bus it seems.....

    “Their sums are wrong!”

    “What sums?”

    “Those sums!”

    “Oh, thanks, hadn’t noticed that!”
    So are you going to cut the NHS and schools budget to cover the lost revenue raised from import tariffs or just raise other taxes to cover it? Either way this is different than the bus lie.
    We don't lose anything. The tariffs levied as part of the Customs Union are not kept by the member states but are claimed directly by the EU as part of their "Traditional Own Resources". Minus a percentage which we keep to cover the costs of collecting them. So there is no lost revenue for the UK. Indeed if we were to start levying our own tariffs (and actually I don't think we should) then that would be extra money for the exchequer.
    Total customs duty revenue for 2017-18 is forecast totbe £3.4 billion, so npt such a largelsum as to cause problems, it is a rounding error in the national budget.

    That's £3.4bn before any is sent to the EU? Or is that the residual?
  • Nigelb said:

    JonathanD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Rees-Mogg has again proven that his intellect isn’t all that by associating himself with a seriously dodgy Sun article.
    https://twitter.com/jacob_rees_mogg/status/968534387057942529

    Ummm: the wholesale (import) price of those products is WAAAAAAY below the retail.
    Take those Nike Trainers.

    £20 of that £120 is VAT.

    £50 ish would be wholesale price so import duty would be about £8., assuming the shoes are not made in a country with an existing deal with the EU, and the UK decides not to levy duty.

    I thought JRM was supposed to be clever with sums.
    I suspect the import price would be more like £25-30 for the trainers (and could be even less).
    They haven’t even worked out the percentages correctly...
    Still haven’t learned the lesson of arguing with a bus it seems.....

    “Their sums are wrong!”

    “What sums?”

    “Those sums!”

    “Oh, thanks, hadn’t noticed that!”
    So are you going to cut the NHS and schools budget to cover the lost revenue raised from import tariffs or just raise other taxes to cover it? Either way this is different than the bus lie.
    We don't lose anything. The tariffs levied as part of the Customs Union are not kept by the member states but are claimed directly by the EU as part of their "Traditional Own Resources". Minus a percentage which we keep to cover the costs of collecting them. So there is no lost revenue for the UK. Indeed if we were to start levying our own tariffs (and actually I don't think we should) then that would be extra money for the exchequer.
    Who gets them if we’re in a customs union, post Brexit ?
    Not sure. If we are still in 'THE' Customs Union then it will still go to the EU. But if we are in 'A' Customs Union like Turkey then I don't know what their arrangements are for that.
  • Foxy said:

    JonathanD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Rees-Mogg has again proven that his intellect isn’t all that by associating himself with a seriously dodgy Sun article.
    https://twitter.com/jacob_rees_mogg/status/968534387057942529

    Ummm: the wholesale (import) price of those products is WAAAAAAY below the retail.
    Take those Nike Trainers.

    £20 of that £120 is VAT.

    £50 ish would be wholesale price so import duty would be about £8., assuming the shoes are not made in a country with an existing deal with the EU, and the UK decides not to levy duty.

    I thought JRM was supposed to be clever with sums.
    I suspect the import price would be more like £25-30 for the trainers (and could be even less).
    They haven’t even worked out the percentages correctly...
    Still haven’t learned the lesson of arguing with a bus it seems.....

    “Their sums are wrong!”

    “What sums?”

    “Those sums!”

    “Oh, thanks, hadn’t noticed that!”
    So are you going to cut the NHS and schools budget to cover the lost revenue raised from import tariffs or just raise other taxes to cover it? Either way this is different than the bus lie.
    We don't lose anything. The tariffs levied as part of the Customs Union are not kept by the member states but are claimed directly by the EU as part of their "Traditional Own Resources". Minus a percentage which we keep to cover the costs of collecting them. So there is no lost revenue for the UK. Indeed if we were to start levying our own tariffs (and actually I don't think we should) then that would be extra money for the exchequer.
    Total customs duty revenue for 2017-18 is forecast totbe £3.4 billion, so npt such a largelsum as to cause problems, it is a rounding error in the national budget.

    Personally I don't think we should be levying tariffs as they are just another tax on our own population. But it certainly isn't the case that, as Jonathan thought, we are losing money by not levying them whilst inside the Customs Union.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575

    Nigelb said:

    JonathanD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Rees-Mogg has again proven that his intellect isn’t all that by associating himself with a seriously dodgy Sun article.
    https://twitter.com/jacob_rees_mogg/status/968534387057942529

    Ummm: the wholesale (import) price of those products is WAAAAAAY below the retail.
    Take those Nike Trainers.

    £20 of that £120 is VAT.

    £50 ish would be wholesale price so import duty would be about £8., assuming the shoes are not made in a country with an existing deal with the EU, and the UK decides not to levy duty.

    I thought JRM was supposed to be clever with sums.
    I suspect the import price would be more like £25-30 for the trainers (and could be even less).
    They haven’t even worked out the percentages correctly...
    Still haven’t learned the lesson of arguing with a bus it seems.....

    “Their sums are wrong!”

    “What sums?”

    “Those sums!”

    “Oh, thanks, hadn’t noticed that!”
    So are you going to cut the NHS and schools budget to cover the lost revenue raised from import tariffs or just raise other taxes to cover it? Either way this is different than the bus lie.
    We don't lose anything. The tariffs levied as part of the Customs Union are not kept by the member states but are claimed directly by the EU as part of their "Traditional Own Resources". Minus a percentage which we keep to cover the costs of collecting them. So there is no lost revenue for the UK. Indeed if we were to start levying our own tariffs (and actually I don't think we should) then that would be extra moyney for the exchequer.
    Who gets them if we’re in a customs union, post Brexit ?
    Not sure. If we are still in 'THE' Customs Union then it will still go to the EU. But if we are in 'A' Customs Union like Turkey then I don't know what their arrangements are for that.
    Fairly germane to the recent political debate over this, surely ?
    How come no politicians have mentioned it ?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Lewis Gilbert, who directed Alfie, You Only Live Twice, The Spy Who Loved Me, and Moonraker, has died.
  • Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    JonathanD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Rees-Mogg has again proven that his intellect isn’t all that by associating himself with a seriously dodgy Sun article.
    https://twitter.com/jacob_rees_mogg/status/968534387057942529

    Ummm: the wholesale (import) price of those products is WAAAAAAY below the retail.
    Take those Nike Trainers.

    £20 of that £120 is VAT.

    £50 ish would be wholesale price so import duty would be about £8., assuming the shoes are not made in a country with an existing deal with the EU, and the UK decides not to levy duty.

    I thought JRM was supposed to be clever with sums.
    I suspect the import price would be more like £25-30 for the trainers (and could be even less).
    They haven’t even worked out the percentages correctly...
    Still haven’t learned the lesson of arguing with a bus it seems.....

    “Their sums are wrong!”

    “What sums?”

    “Those sums!”

    “Oh, thanks, hadn’t noticed that!”
    So are you going to cut the NHS and schools budget to cover the lost revenue raised from import tariffs or just raise other taxes to cover it? Either way this is different than the bus lie.
    We don't lose anything. The tariffs levied as part of the Customs Union are not kept by the member states but are claimed directly by the EU as part of their "Traditional Own Resources". Minus a percentage which we keep to cover the costs of collecting them. So there is no lost revenue for the UK. Indeed if we were to start levying our own tariffs (and actually I don't think we should) then that would be extra moyney for the exchequer.
    Who gets them if we’re in a customs union, post Brexit ?
    Not sure. If we are still in 'THE' Customs Union then it will still go to the EU. But if we are in 'A' Customs Union like Turkey then I don't know what their arrangements are for that.
    Fairly germane to the recent political debate over this, surely ?
    How come no politicians have mentioned it ?
    I suppose as Foxy mentioned below it is relatively small amounts of money so is not thought to be a big deal. I don't necessarily agree with that but it is certainly the sort of argument that would get lost in the noise.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    edited February 2018
    Paragraph 50 of December's Joint Report states that there will be no barriers against trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.

    However, both the European Commission and the Irish Government regard this as an "internal" UK commitment, and not a requirement of the EU.

    For that reason, Paragraph 50 will not be reflected in the draft text.


    https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/0227/944002-eu-customs-border/

    So I presume we are entitled to view other paragraphs as 'internal' EU commitments and not a UK responsibility?
  • Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Rees-Mogg has again proven that his intellect isn’t all that by associating himself with a seriously dodgy Sun article.
    https://twitter.com/jacob_rees_mogg/status/968534387057942529

    Ummm: the wholesale (import) price of those products is WAAAAAAY below the retail.
    Take those Nike Trainers.

    £20 of that £120 is VAT.

    £50 ish would be wholesale price so import duty would be about £8., assuming the shoes are not made in a country with an existing deal with the EU, and the UK decides not to levy duty.

    I thought JRM was supposed to be clever with sums.
    Doesn't matter too much actually though.

    The wholesale price is typically only a percentage of the retail price that is true, but the other costs tend to scale with the wholesale price. If markup is a percentage on top of wholesale then that's scaled. VAT is a percentage of pre-VAT price so definitely scales at least somewhat with the wholesale cost. If the wholesale cost comes down by £8 then without even scaling markup or anything else the retail cost should all else being equal come down by £8+VAT.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited February 2018
    IE while today £20 of the £120 is VAT, even if the pre-VAT retail cost of the trainers came down 'only' from £100 to £90 then the VAT would not remain at £20. The VAT would come down to £18.

    VAT is not a fixed cost, it is a percentage. So a 10% saving in cost leads to a 10% saving in VAT. A 17% as claimed saving in cost if achieved would lead automatically to a 17% saving in VAT too . . . VAT would never remain at £20 if the pre-VAT price had fallen to £83 instead of £100.
  • stjohnstjohn Posts: 1,777
    I know it’s extremely unlikely but with so much turmoil and unpredictability in the current political climate, I can see a scenario where Theresa May gets ousted as leader of the Conservative Party and Kenneth Clarke gets elected as her successor on a mandate of securing a soft Brexit. At average odds of 750/1 I’ve had nearly £10 that this might happen .
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    stjohn said:

    I know it’s extremely unlikely but with so much turmoil and unpredictability in the current political climate, I can see a scenario where Theresa May gets ousted as leader of the Conservative Party and Kenneth Clarke gets elected as her successor on a mandate of securing a soft Brexit. At average odds of 750/1 I’ve had nearly £10 that this might happen .

    You would indeed secure boasting rights if that happens!
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Aren't there more important things to talk about than a leaflet from 1961?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    IE while today £20 of the £120 is VAT, even if the pre-VAT retail cost of the trainers came down 'only' from £100 to £90 then the VAT would not remain at £20. The VAT would come down to £18.

    VAT is not a fixed cost, it is a percentage. So a 10% saving in cost leads to a 10% saving in VAT. A 17% as claimed saving in cost if achieved would lead automatically to a 17% saving in VAT too . . . VAT would never remain at £20 if the pre-VAT price had fallen to £83 instead of £100.

    You are absolutely right.

    However, it's a bit more complicated than that :smile:

    Nike manufactures all over the world. Some imports are from countries with which the EU has FTAs, such as Hondurus, Colombia, Egypt and Turkey. Its biggest manufacturing base is now Vietnam, which the EU has agreed an FTA with, but which has not yet been signed.

    So, a fair proportion of those trainers will be coming in duty free already.

    Now.

    Will the UK unilaterally abolish all tariffs? While I would support that, I don't buy it. If we don't - and if we leave the EU's existing trading agreements, as seems likely - then it's more likely we will be applying tariffs to those trainers from Colombia, Vietnam and Egypt, rather than reducing them. That will change when the UK signs agreements. But that is going to be a multi-year process and the initial impact is more likely to be higher trainer prices, rather than lower ones.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315

    Nigelb said:

    JonathanD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Rees-Mogg has again proven that his intellect isn’t all that by associating himself with a seriously dodgy Sun article.
    https://twitter.com/jacob_rees_mogg/status/968534387057942529

    Ummm: the wholesale (import) price of those products is WAAAAAAY below the retail.
    Take those Nike Trainers.

    £20 of that £120 is VAT.

    £50 ish would be wholesale price so import duty would be about £8., assuming the shoes are not made in a country with an existing deal with the EU, and the UK decides not to levy duty.

    I thought JRM was supposed to be clever with sums.
    I suspect the import price would be more like £25-30 for the trainers (and could be even less).
    They haven’t even worked out the percentages correctly...
    Still haven’t learned the lesson of arguing with a bus it seems.....

    “Their sums are wrong!”

    “What sums?”

    “Those sums!”

    “Oh, thanks, hadn’t noticed that!”
    So are you going to cut the NHS and schools budget to cover the lost revenue raised from import tariffs or just raise other taxes to cover it? Either way this is different than the bus lie.
    We don't lose anything. The tariffs levied as part of the Customs Union are not kept by the member states but are claimed directly by the EU as part of their "Traditional Own Resources". Minus a percentage which we keep to cover the costs of collecting them. So there is no lost revenue for the UK. Indeed if we were to start levying our own tariffs (and actually I don't think we should) then that would be extra money for the exchequer.
    Who gets them if we’re in a customs union, post Brexit ?
    Not sure. If we are still in 'THE' Customs Union then it will still go to the EU. But if we are in 'A' Customs Union like Turkey then I don't know what their arrangements are for that.
    Monaco, Jersey, the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Akrotiri are members of the EU customs union but not members of the EU. By contrast Gibraltar is in the EU but is not a member of the EU customs union.

    Maybe we are focusing on the wrong border - what about Gibraltar? Will they have to join our special 'a' customs union when they leave the single market alongside the UK.

    Confused - we will be!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    brendan16 said:

    Nigelb said:

    JonathanD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Rees-Mogg has again proven that his intellect isn’t all that by associating himself with a seriously dodgy Sun article.
    https://twitter.com/jacob_rees_mogg/status/968534387057942529

    Ummm: the wholesale (import) price of those products is WAAAAAAY below the retail.
    Take those Nike Trainers.

    £20 of that £120 is VAT.

    £50 ish would be wholesale price so import duty would be about £8., assuming the shoes are not made in a country with an existing deal with the EU, and the UK decides not to levy duty.

    I thought JRM was supposed to be clever with sums.
    I suspect the import price would be more like £25-30 for the trainers (and could be even less).
    They haven’t even worked out the percentages correctly...
    Still haven’t learned the lesson of arguing with a bus it seems.....

    “Their sums are wrong!”

    “What sums?”

    “Those sums!”

    “Oh, thanks, hadn’t noticed that!”
    So are you going to cut the NHS and schools budget to cover the lost revenue raised from import tariffs or just raise other taxes to cover it? Either way this is different than the bus lie.
    We don't lose anything. The tariffs levied as part of the Customs Union are not kept by the member states but are claimed directly by the EU as part of their "Traditional Own Resources". Minus a percentage which we keep to cover the costs of collecting them. So there is no lost revenue for the UK. Indeed if we were to start levying our own tariffs (and actually I don't think we should) then that would be extra money for the exchequer.
    Who gets them if we’re in a customs union, post Brexit ?
    Not sure. If we are still in 'THE' Customs Union then it will still go to the EU. But if we are in 'A' Customs Union like Turkey then I don't know what their arrangements are for that.
    Monaco, Jersey, the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Akrotiri are members of the EU customs union but not members of the EU. By contrast Gibraltar is in the EU but is not a member of the EU customs union.

    Maybe we are focusing on the wrong border - what about Gibraltar? Will they have to join our special 'a' customs union when they leave the single market alongside the UK.

    Confused - we will be!
    Isn't their membership of the customs union part of our membership of the EU. Once that lapses, they will no longer be in any customs union, unless something else is agreed?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Rees-Mogg has again proven that his intellect isn’t all that by associating himself with a seriously dodgy Sun article.
    https://twitter.com/jacob_rees_mogg/status/968534387057942529

    Mozzarella from outside the EU?
    I don't think JRM does the shopping very often - even in Waitrose you can get genuine Italian Mozzarella for 70p for 125g. Oh wait, there's no tariff on that today of course!
    If you think that muck, even if it is available in Waitrose, is genuine mozzarella, I have some chocolate for sprinkling on your cappuccino to sell you!
  • AndyJS said:

    Aren't there more important things to talk about than a leaflet from 1961?
    Like possible perjury in a libel trial?

    By the man who funds (and then some) the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party?
  • RobD said:

    brendan16 said:

    Nigelb said:

    JonathanD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Rees-Mogg has again proven that his intellect isn’t all that by associating himself with a seriously dodgy Sun article.
    https://twitter.com/jacob_rees_mogg/status/968534387057942529

    Ummm: the wholesale (import) price of those products is WAAAAAAY below the retail.
    Take those Nike Trainers.

    £20 of that £120 is VAT.

    £50 ish would be wholesale price so import duty would be about £8., assuming the shoes are not made in a country with an existing deal with the EU, and the UK decides not to levy duty.

    I thought JRM was supposed to be clever with sums.
    I suspect the import price would be more like £25-30 for the trainers (and could be even less).
    They haven’t even worked out the percentages correctly...
    Still haven’t learned the lesson of arguing with a bus it seems.....

    “Their sums are wrong!”

    “What sums?”

    “Those sums!”

    “Oh, thanks, hadn’t noticed that!”
    So are you going to cut the NHS and schools budget to cover the lost revenue raised from import tariffs or just raise other taxes to cover it? Either way this is different than the bus lie.
    n't think we should) then that would be extra money for the exchequer.
    Who gets them if we’re in a customs union, post Brexit ?
    Not sure. If we are still in 'THE' Customs Union then it will still go to the EU. But if we are in 'A' Customs Union like Turkey then I don't know what their arrangements are for that.
    Monaco, Jersey, the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Akrotiri are members of the EU customs union but not members of the EU. By contrast Gibraltar is in the EU but is not a member of the EU customs union.

    Maybe we are focusing on the wrong border - what about Gibraltar? Will they have to join our special 'a' customs union when they leave the single market alongside the UK.

    Confused - we will be!
    Isn't their membership of the customs union part of our membership of the EU. Once that lapses, they will no longer be in any customs union, unless something else is agreed?
    Yes. For example, citizens of Guernsey & Jersey have no Freedom of Movement rights in the EU and their passports are endorsed accordingly. Meanwhile EU citizens have freedom of movement to them - but have to comply with local housing laws (effectively 'work permits' - which apply to everyone not local)
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233

    Paragraph 50 of December's Joint Report states that there will be no barriers against trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.

    However, both the European Commission and the Irish Government regard this as an "internal" UK commitment, and not a requirement of the EU.

    For that reason, Paragraph 50 will not be reflected in the draft text.


    https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/0227/944002-eu-customs-border/

    So I presume we are entitled to view other paragraphs as 'internal' EU commitments and not a UK responsibility?

    I presume that the other paragraphs relate to the relationship between the UK and EU post-Brexit, so the answer would be "no"

    Incidentally, why the scare quotes around "internal"? NI is part of the UK. GB is part of the UK. GB/NI trade is an internal UK matter.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    viewcode said:

    Paragraph 50 of December's Joint Report states that there will be no barriers against trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.

    However, both the European Commission and the Irish Government regard this as an "internal" UK commitment, and not a requirement of the EU.

    For that reason, Paragraph 50 will not be reflected in the draft text.


    https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/0227/944002-eu-customs-border/

    So I presume we are entitled to view other paragraphs as 'internal' EU commitments and not a UK responsibility?

    I presume that the other paragraphs relate to the relationship between the UK and EU post-Brexit, so the answer would be "no"

    Incidentally, why the scare quotes around "internal"? NI is part of the UK. GB is part of the UK. GB/NI trade is an internal UK matter.
    A shame the EU don’t see it that way.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233
    RobD said:

    viewcode said:

    Paragraph 50 of December's Joint Report states that there will be no barriers against trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.

    However, both the European Commission and the Irish Government regard this as an "internal" UK commitment, and not a requirement of the EU.

    For that reason, Paragraph 50 will not be reflected in the draft text.


    https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/0227/944002-eu-customs-border/

    So I presume we are entitled to view other paragraphs as 'internal' EU commitments and not a UK responsibility?

    I presume that the other paragraphs relate to the relationship between the UK and EU post-Brexit, so the answer would be "no"

    Incidentally, why the scare quotes around "internal"? NI is part of the UK. GB is part of the UK. GB/NI trade is an internal UK matter.
    A shame the EU don’t see it that way.
    I think the kerfuffle with the EU about NI refers to IRE/NI trade and movement, not GB/NI trade and movement.

    GB/NI is an internal UK matter, because GB and NI are both parts of the UK
    IRE/NI is a EU/UK matter, because Ireland is part of the EU and NI is part of the UK.
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,612
    I think that people are so fixated on the CU issues that they are missing the import of what the EU are trying to do on NI. I would say the odds of a no deal Brexit have jumped to over 50%, with talks breakdown in the next 2 months likely.

    There is simply no way that what the EU are demanding can be accommodated. The only solution to the NI border is what the UK have already suggested. A CU will not solve the NI border at all, since the issue is EU regulation and, if we are following EU regulations, this will require ECJ oversight. The DUP will never agree to any of this even if May was stupid enough to try it.

    Given the only way out is to submit to EU demands for the UK to be a vassal state, I am wondering how this could ever get through Parliament. May could cast aside the DUP and make common cause with Labour and tell her own leavers to get stuffed, but of course they will topple her as soon as this happens. They have the numbers to finish off May before she can use the numbers in Parliament to sell out on Brexit.

    Hope that DD was telling the truth when he said we were prepared for no deal, cos we are about to find out. May's speech on Friday is already being overtaken by events. The EU are simply not interested in what she has to say.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    viewcode said:

    RobD said:

    viewcode said:

    Paragraph 50 of December's Joint Report states that there will be no barriers against trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.

    However, both the European Commission and the Irish Government regard this as an "internal" UK commitment, and not a requirement of the EU.

    For that reason, Paragraph 50 will not be reflected in the draft text.


    https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/0227/944002-eu-customs-border/

    So I presume we are entitled to view other paragraphs as 'internal' EU commitments and not a UK responsibility?

    I presume that the other paragraphs relate to the relationship between the UK and EU post-Brexit, so the answer would be "no"

    Incidentally, why the scare quotes around "internal"? NI is part of the UK. GB is part of the UK. GB/NI trade is an internal UK matter.
    A shame the EU don’t see it that way.
    I think the kerfuffle with the EU about NI refers to IRE/NI trade and movement, not GB/NI trade and movement.

    GB/NI is an internal UK matter, because GB and NI are both parts of the UK
    IRE/NI is a EU/UK matter, because Ireland is part of the EU and NI is part of the UK.
    Aren't they proposing having a customs border in the Irish Sea? So much for an internal matter...
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    AndyJS said:

    Aren't there more important things to talk about than a leaflet from 1961?
    This is the man who funds the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

    This is the man who funds Impress, the organisation which the Labour party want to force every newspapers and magazine to be regulated by.

    This the man who wants to use data protection laws to prevent people knowing that he funds Impress, saying anything about it and even keeping a record of the fact.

    So, yes, it does matter that we know what a scumbag he is. And that we know that Labour, a party endlessly complaining about billionaires running the press, are happy to collaborate with such a man and see no problem with a wealthy man using his wealth to try and regulate the press to his satisfaction.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    I think that people are so fixated on the CU issues that they are missing the import of what the EU are trying to do on NI. I would say the odds of a no deal Brexit have jumped to over 50%, with talks breakdown in the next 2 months likely.

    There is simply no way that what the EU are demanding can be accommodated. The only solution to the NI border is what the UK have already suggested. A CU will not solve the NI border at all, since the issue is EU regulation and, if we are following EU regulations, this will require ECJ oversight. The DUP will never agree to any of this even if May was stupid enough to try it.

    Given the only way out is to submit to EU demands for the UK to be a vassal state, I am wondering how this could ever get through Parliament. May could cast aside the DUP and make common cause with Labour and tell her own leavers to get stuffed, but of course they will topple her as soon as this happens. They have the numbers to finish off May before she can use the numbers in Parliament to sell out on Brexit.

    Hope that DD was telling the truth when he said we were prepared for no deal, cos we are about to find out. May's speech on Friday is already being overtaken by events. The EU are simply not interested in what she has to say.

    The issue is, and has always been, what constitutes a hard border.

    There is a view, common on this site, that a hard border means passport checks, and customs posts, and general difficulty in crossing.

    The reality is that Switzerland is not in the EU, and not in the Single Market, and not in the Customs Union.

    Yet if you want to cross the border between France and Switzerland you will not be showing your passport, or even allowing your car to slowdown, as you fly down the motorway.

    In the sense of the words is in common usage, there is no "hard border" between Switzerland and the EU. There are, however, on major arteries, customs posts that can (and occasionally do) stop lorries. And if you are in a lorry, and you have not submitted an electronic cargo manifest ahead of time, then you are going to get stopped - either by the Swiss or the French, depending on which direction you are going.

    This is what will happen in Northern Ireland. There will be no passport checks; the Common Travel Area will continue. People who do business across the border will need to submit electronic manifests. There will be some smuggling (as there is now). It will, no doubt, put a small, but meaningful, dent in inter-Ireland trade.

    But to the people who matter most - i.e. the people that live in Northern Ireland or in the parts of the Ireland nearest the six counties- there will be no hard border. These people will discover they are still able to cross the border unmolested for dinner or to go out to drinks with friends.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    rcs1000 said:

    In the sense of the words is in common usage, there is no "hard border" between Switzerland and the EU. There are, however, on major arteries, customs posts that can (and occasionally do) stop lorries. And if you are in a lorry, and you have not submitted an electronic cargo manifest ahead of time, then you are going to get stopped - either by the Swiss or the French, depending on which direction you are going.

    This is what will happen in Northern Ireland.

    You are in deep denial about Brexit. This will not happen under any circumstances.
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,612
    rcs1000 said:


    The issue is, and has always been, what constitutes a hard border.

    There is a view, common on this site, that a hard border means passport checks, and customs posts, and general difficulty in crossing.

    The reality is that Switzerland is not in the EU, and not in the Single Market, and not in the Customs Union.

    Yet if you want to cross the border between France and Switzerland you will not be showing your passport, or even allowing your car to slowdown, as you fly down the motorway.

    In the sense of the words is in common usage, there is no "hard border" between Switzerland and the EU. There are, however, on major arteries, customs posts that can (and occasionally do) stop lorries. And if you are in a lorry, and you have not submitted an electronic cargo manifest ahead of time, then you are going to get stopped - either by the Swiss or the French, depending on which direction you are going.

    This is what will happen in Northern Ireland. There will be no passport checks; the Common Travel Area will continue. People who do business across the border will need to submit electronic manifests. There will be some smuggling (as there is now). It will, no doubt, put a small, but meaningful, dent in inter-Ireland trade.

    But to the people who matter most - i.e. the people that live in Northern Ireland or in the parts of the Ireland nearest the six counties- there will be no hard border. These people will discover they are still able to cross the border unmolested for dinner or to go out to drinks with friends.

    I completely agree that this is the correct outcome. But the issue is that the EU are refusing to move forward on this basis and instead are trying to use NI to force the UK to stay in regulatory alignment with the EU (with no say on those regulations).

    The contents of their draft tomorrow, if the leaks are correct, are nothing other than a statement of utmost bad faith - that they never intended nor intend to try and come up with any other solution and that the 'backstop' that May foolishly agreed in December is now what they will insist upon.

    Boris is correct - Brexit was bound to involve an increase in the friction in the NI border and there will have to be customs procedures of some sort, but as you say these can be done in a way which will not cause checks for individuals and a lightweight regime on goods. It is the EU who apparently won't discuss this and keep ridiculing every suggestion made by the UK side.

    This is not going to end well.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    rcs1000 said:

    In the sense of the words is in common usage, there is no "hard border" between Switzerland and the EU. There are, however, on major arteries, customs posts that can (and occasionally do) stop lorries. And if you are in a lorry, and you have not submitted an electronic cargo manifest ahead of time, then you are going to get stopped - either by the Swiss or the French, depending on which direction you are going.

    This is what will happen in Northern Ireland.

    You are in deep denial about Brexit. This will not happen under any circumstances.
    Any circumstances? Hmm...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    rcs1000 said:


    The issue is, and has always been, what constitutes a hard border.

    There is a view, common on this site, that a hard border means passport checks, and customs posts, and general difficulty in crossing.

    The reality is that Switzerland is not in the EU, and not in the Single Market, and not in the Customs Union.

    Yet if you want to cross the border between France and Switzerland you will not be showing your passport, or even allowing your car to slowdown, as you fly down the motorway.

    In the sense of the words is in common usage, there is no "hard border" between Switzerland and the EU. There are, however, on major arteries, customs posts that can (and occasionally do) stop lorries. And if you are in a lorry, and you have not submitted an electronic cargo manifest ahead of time, then you are going to get stopped - either by the Swiss or the French, depending on which direction you are going.

    This is what will happen in Northern Ireland. There will be no passport checks; the Common Travel Area will continue. People who do business across the border will need to submit electronic manifests. There will be some smuggling (as there is now). It will, no doubt, put a small, but meaningful, dent in inter-Ireland trade.

    But to the people who matter most - i.e. the people that live in Northern Ireland or in the parts of the Ireland nearest the six counties- there will be no hard border. These people will discover they are still able to cross the border unmolested for dinner or to go out to drinks with friends.

    I completely agree that this is the correct outcome. But the issue is that the EU are refusing to move forward on this basis and instead are trying to use NI to force the UK to stay in regulatory alignment with the EU (with no say on those regulations).

    The contents of their draft tomorrow, if the leaks are correct, are nothing other than a statement of utmost bad faith - that they never intended nor intend to try and come up with any other solution and that the 'backstop' that May foolishly agreed in December is now what they will insist upon.

    Boris is correct - Brexit was bound to involve an increase in the friction in the NI border and there will have to be customs procedures of some sort, but as you say these can be done in a way which will not cause checks for individuals and a lightweight regime on goods. It is the EU who apparently won't discuss this and keep ridiculing every suggestion made by the UK side.

    This is not going to end well.
    It'll be fine.

    Do you remember the divorce bill? They wanted £100bn, plus payments in the transition periods.

    What did they get?

    £20bn for the transition period, plus £25bn over 40-plus years. If you discount it, it's probably not even £20bn. If you exclude the transition period, which we asked for, then the bill - in 2017 pounds - is probably sub £20bn.
  • rcs1000 said:

    In the sense of the words is in common usage, there is no "hard border" between Switzerland and the EU. There are, however, on major arteries, customs posts that can (and occasionally do) stop lorries. And if you are in a lorry, and you have not submitted an electronic cargo manifest ahead of time, then you are going to get stopped - either by the Swiss or the French, depending on which direction you are going.

    This is what will happen in Northern Ireland.

    You are in deep denial about Brexit. This will not happen under any circumstances.
    Of course not! We’re stayingin the EU, and will shortly be joining the Euro and Schengen......

    Sorry, someone mention “deep denial”?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    rcs1000 said:

    In the sense of the words is in common usage, there is no "hard border" between Switzerland and the EU. There are, however, on major arteries, customs posts that can (and occasionally do) stop lorries. And if you are in a lorry, and you have not submitted an electronic cargo manifest ahead of time, then you are going to get stopped - either by the Swiss or the French, depending on which direction you are going.

    This is what will happen in Northern Ireland.

    You are in deep denial about Brexit. This will not happen under any circumstances.
    Of course not! We’re stayingin the EU, and will shortly be joining the Euro and Schengen......

    Sorry, someone mention “deep denial”?
    I told you last year that Charles Grant had a blindspot about Northern Ireland, and now he himself has admitted it. The UK simply doesn't have the power, hard or soft, to reimpose customs controls in Ireland.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    rcs1000 said:

    In the sense of the words is in common usage, there is no "hard border" between Switzerland and the EU. There are, however, on major arteries, customs posts that can (and occasionally do) stop lorries. And if you are in a lorry, and you have not submitted an electronic cargo manifest ahead of time, then you are going to get stopped - either by the Swiss or the French, depending on which direction you are going.

    This is what will happen in Northern Ireland.

    You are in deep denial about Brexit. This will not happen under any circumstances.
    Of course not! We’re stayingin the EU, and will shortly be joining the Euro and Schengen......

    Sorry, someone mention “deep denial”?
    I told you last year that Charles Grant had a blindspot about Northern Ireland, and now he himself has admitted it. The UK simply doesn't have the power, hard or soft, to reimpose customs controls in Ireland.
    It doesn't need any power to do that... it will happen by default if there's no deal.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    RobD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    In the sense of the words is in common usage, there is no "hard border" between Switzerland and the EU. There are, however, on major arteries, customs posts that can (and occasionally do) stop lorries. And if you are in a lorry, and you have not submitted an electronic cargo manifest ahead of time, then you are going to get stopped - either by the Swiss or the French, depending on which direction you are going.

    This is what will happen in Northern Ireland.

    You are in deep denial about Brexit. This will not happen under any circumstances.
    Of course not! We’re stayingin the EU, and will shortly be joining the Euro and Schengen......

    Sorry, someone mention “deep denial”?
    I told you last year that Charles Grant had a blindspot about Northern Ireland, and now he himself has admitted it. The UK simply doesn't have the power, hard or soft, to reimpose customs controls in Ireland.
    It doesn't need any power to do that... it will happen by default if there's no deal.
    No, if there's no deal there will just be a legal limbo. Customs posts won't build themselves.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    RobD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    In the sense of the words is in common usage, there is no "hard border" between Switzerland and the EU. There are, however, on major arteries, customs posts that can (and occasionally do) stop lorries. And if you are in a lorry, and you have not submitted an electronic cargo manifest ahead of time, then you are going to get stopped - either by the Swiss or the French, depending on which direction you are going.

    This is what will happen in Northern Ireland.

    You are in deep denial about Brexit. This will not happen under any circumstances.
    Of course not! We’re stayingin the EU, and will shortly be joining the Euro and Schengen......

    Sorry, someone mention “deep denial”?
    I told you last year that Charles Grant had a blindspot about Northern Ireland, and now he himself has admitted it. The UK simply doesn't have the power, hard or soft, to reimpose customs controls in Ireland.
    It doesn't need any power to do that... it will happen by default if there's no deal.
    No, if there's no deal there will just be a legal limbo. Customs posts won't build themselves.
    Legal limbo? I thought the effects of no deal were obvious - back to WTO most favoured nation rules.
  • rcs1000 said:

    In the sense of the words is in common usage, there is no "hard border" between Switzerland and the EU. There are, however, on major arteries, customs posts that can (and occasionally do) stop lorries. And if you are in a lorry, and you have not submitted an electronic cargo manifest ahead of time, then you are going to get stopped - either by the Swiss or the French, depending on which direction you are going.

    This is what will happen in Northern Ireland.

    You are in deep denial about Brexit. This will not happen under any circumstances.
    Of course not! We’re stayingin the EU, and will shortly be joining the Euro and Schengen......

    Sorry, someone mention “deep denial”?
    I told you last year that Charles Grant had a blindspot about Northern Ireland, and now he himself has admitted it. The UK simply doesn't have the power, hard or soft, to reimpose customs controls in Ireland.
    https://twitter.com/CER_Grant/status/968633872958349312
    https://twitter.com/CER_Grant/status/968634587143385089
  • DUP MEP Diane Dodds said the "best vehicle for finding border solutions is via the future UK-EU relationship, through a comprehensive free trade agreement and a fresh customs partnership with Brussels".
    "Everyone has committed to avoiding a hard border and the UK has said it will not impose physical infrastructure at the border," she said.
    "It seems it is only the EU that is brandishing the threat of customs controls."


    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43001845
  • For those who bet on the Oscars some interesting insight into the minds of some Academy Voters:

    https://twitter.com/VanityFair/status/968672126936010752
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    DUP MEP Diane Dodds said the "best vehicle for finding border solutions is via the future UK-EU relationship, through a comprehensive free trade agreement and a fresh customs partnership with Brussels".
    "Everyone has committed to avoiding a hard border and the UK has said it will not impose physical infrastructure at the border," she said.
    "It seems it is only the EU that is brandishing the threat of customs controls."


    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43001845

    I think there are two separate issues:

    1. What legal structure are we putting in place for firms that deal with the Republic? I don't think anyone is suggesting that if - for example - Apple Retail (UK) Ltd were to buy iPhones from Apple International (Ireland), then we would simply pretend that this was not an import of products from outside the UK.

    2. Are we planning on erecting customs posts on the border.

    Personally, I have always thought we should erect the customs posts. We may never use them, but I suspect spending the money on pouring the concrete would make us look much more serious about being willing to leave with No Deal. The alternative, talking tough while doing nothing to prepare, seems like the worst of all possible worlds: it's hard to be credible when your actions give lie to your intent.

    In other words, erecting customs posts diminshes the likelihood they will be necessary.

    (Of course, the Irish government hasn't started on the customs posts either.)
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    rcs1000 said:

    In other words, erecting customs posts diminshes the likelihood they will be necessary.

    Which form of deal would render them unnecessary?
  • GideonWiseGideonWise Posts: 1,123
    How can you read that chart and with a straight face conclude that the money is going on a 2018 election?
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    edited February 2018
    Not that I fully understand betting but my guess is the recent change indicates that money is currently going on 2018 whereas betting on other years remains static (or much smaller)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    The CPS are still in denial about the serious problem of failing to disclosure evidence to,the defense:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43174235
    Listening to Alison Saunders on R4 yesterday, it's obvious she remains utterly complacent about the overwhelming likelihood of a significant number of wrongful convictions.

    She should not still be in post.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    @Gardenwalker FPT

    Yes CIP leads on treaties (historically parliament had no say, but I think ratification is a useful innovation).

    That doesn’t mean they habecthe untrammelled right to do what they like. The “divine right” of the CiP comes from the sovereign will of the people. Essentially the CiP cannot permanently alienate powers because it only has delegated authority not absolute authority.

    I’d generally restrict the requirement to consult the people to constitutional change

    Do you think granting independence to various places was unconstitutional?
    No - the relevant demos in those cases was the local population not the UK population.
    Ireland was an integral part of the UK. If you accept the principle that sovereignty can be ‘alienated’ permanently, quibbling about EU membership seems a self-indulgent eccentricity.
    I don’t follow your logic

    It *can* be alienated permanently. That doesn’t mean it *should* be. And certainly not without asking for authority to do so
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    viewcode said:

    Charles said:

    The “divine right” of the CiP comes from the sovereign will of the people. Essentially the CiP cannot permanently alienate powers because it only has delegated authority not absolute authority.

    No it doesn't. The divine right[1] of the Crown comes from God in theory, in practice thru having the hardest bastards on your side. We even created a Church to hammer that point home. That "Government comes from the sovereign will of the dear pee-pul" gobshite is pure sentimental bollocks. You've been spending too long in the States, young Charles. This is Britain. We do things differently here.

    [1] no scare quotes

    That’s why it put it in quotes. Of course the “divine right of kings” proceedeth from God. But it seemed like the shortest way to explain the concept.

    These days Sovereignty comes from the People
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    Charles said:

    viewcode said:

    Charles said:

    The “divine right” of the CiP comes from the sovereign will of the people. Essentially the CiP cannot permanently alienate powers because it only has delegated authority not absolute authority.

    No it doesn't. The divine right[1] of the Crown comes from God in theory, in practice thru having the hardest bastards on your side. We even created a Church to hammer that point home. That "Government comes from the sovereign will of the dear pee-pul" gobshite is pure sentimental bollocks. You've been spending too long in the States, young Charles. This is Britain. We do things differently here.

    [1] no scare quotes

    That’s why it put it in quotes. Of course the “divine right of kings” proceedeth from God. But it seemed like the shortest way to explain the concept.

    These days Sovereignty comes from the People
    While I tend to agree with you, this seems an utterly pointless argument ?

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    viewcode said:

    Charles said:

    The “divine right” of the CiP comes from the sovereign will of the people. Essentially the CiP cannot permanently alienate powers because it only has delegated authority not absolute authority.

    No it doesn't. The divine right[1] of the Crown comes from God in theory, in practice thru having the hardest bastards on your side. We even created a Church to hammer that point home. That "Government comes from the sovereign will of the dear pee-pul" gobshite is pure sentimental bollocks. You've been spending too long in the States, young Charles. This is Britain. We do things differently here.

    [1] no scare quotes

    That’s why it put it in quotes. Of course the “divine right of kings” proceedeth from God. But it seemed like the shortest way to explain the concept.

    These days Sovereignty comes from the People
    While I tend to agree with you, this seems an utterly pointless argument ?

    Abstruse, not pointless!

    It was to do with whether the government should have had a referendum on Lisbon...
  • ITV Wales just announced that Toyota are to secure thousands of jobs in the UK with most of the engines for their next generation of cars to be built on Deeside

    Despite Brexit
This discussion has been closed.