Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[martin_p]

Martin,
I made a statement you don't agree with and that is your prerogative, everything you have said are facts and no one has denied that except I would say the current PM is not or was note when he voted against the May deal a remain MP so that is not a fact. Yet I believe I understand what you are trying to say here.

I said that BJ and the Gov. or individuals in power to make these decisions did not, have not, say they will not however you wish to phrase it extend beyond the current deadline in to 2021. At the same time I have said IMO there will be an extension eventually, however I can't tell you it's a fact yet, just an opinion based on actual years of experience in leading negotiations over many years for numerous very large sums, all of them being in Billions. All of them took years of negotiating, all of them had extensions, the majority involved some form of intimidation from the opposite side.

However in these negotiations there was one well known (indeed they all were) company that threatened and because I told them that a particular clause was not and never would be acceptable they decided to cancel negotiations and went a different route, yet approx two years later approached me and requested to start talking again due to multiple reasons having gone wrong.

I mention the above only to try and put some context around why I believe what I do, as I feel I might actually know a little more than you do in this regard, negotiations that is.

What I did state, and what you took exception to, had absolutely nothing to do with the facts you state in your post, they are historical facts that I don't believe anyone is denying.

What I said is that the route cause of the stance that no extension will be given is due to all the delays by the HoC, I never mentioned which party I don't think because it was a collection of them including as you point out BJ at one point and many other Tory remainers. Said remainers are notably absent. The delays eventually caused further delays, as we needed a GE to try and sort out the HoC once and for all, consequently allowing the UK/EU to move to the second phase after completing Brexit. The years of MP's who agreed Article 50 at the beginning was the route cause of the delay, this in turn has compound the amount of time in between the Referendum and the start of Phase two and is a major factor in the present stance of no extension, walking away in June is negotiation tactic 101 and on the first page of the negotiation manual. You are in denial over this,that's fine, I get it, quote as many facts as you want around this, they are irrelevant, as is your belief as to why and what, I think what are facts we both agree on is where we are today.

So when you wrote your have not stated any facts what so ever’ what you meant to write was ‘of course that’s all historical fact, I just don’t agree with the conclusions you’ve drawn from those facts’. Maybe you need to learn to be clearer.

Here’s another fact, it’s only because it was legislated against that the negotiating tactic of walking away didn’t leave us on WTO terms with no transition period at the end of October 2019. If you think Johnson will give way an extend the transition period you haven’t been watching!

[KateR]

Cryssys,
I don't and have never believed a trade deal with the US would lead the country in to Utopia, yet being able to be flexible in trade deals with other countries and I will count the EU as a country for ease here, can be beneficial but not to any great extent.

I believe it is what the UK as a whole does with the new "freedom" that will make a change but again not everyone will benefit unless the country as a whole embraces the change and we see some changes that result in more revenue to the Gov which can then filter down. What is more of a worry for me is the constant negativity and rush to criticize every little thing that is happening, which may or may not result in a future problem. We have Andrew continually posting about how the press influenced people and yet you and numerous other on here always seem to quote the Guardian in links, just seems a little/tad biased to me.

I am just waiting to see how it all washes out in the end, which wont be for a few years yet.

Do you only see doom and gloom on the horizon for everyone in the UK as a whole, which will be down to the present Gov?

[aggi]

No reason why this should be anything to do with a trade deal. Why don't we just join the EWRS, and many other European and EU institutions (eg. Interpol), on their own merits? It's not trade related.

It's not trade related but I guess with the current levels of anti-EU fervour it would be a tough sell for us to be paying into a body where we had no say on leadership, direction, appointments, etc

A lot of them also have the ECJ as an arbiter which appears to be a no-no for the UK.

[KateR]

So when you wrote your have not stated any facts what so ever’ what you meant to write was ‘of course that’s all historical fact, I just don’t agree with the conclusions you’ve drawn from those facts’. Maybe you need to learn to be clearer.

Here’s another fact, it’s only because it was legislated against that the negotiating tactic of walking away didn’t leave us on WTO terms with no transition period at the end of October 2019. If you think Johnson will give way an extend the transition period you haven’t been watching!

No Martin, you have not been listening, well to what I say at least and anyone else who is not in step with your agenda, don't worry about you been clear though, you could write in Swahili and I will know the gist of it because you can only ever quote from what you read and only on one side of any discussion. However I am so pleased with your last sentence though, it seems you are stating that I think,why don't you give it a try someday, but I know you are comfortable in your "fact" because they are historical and you can never be wrong, ohhh wait a minute, what am I thinking, you and your experts have been wrong so many times on so many levels over so many years when predicting and that's why you like to stay in the past.

Regarding your first sentence, were you somehow trying to be clever, witty perhaps, because unfortunately you are making yourself look childish, a sure sign when someone can't answer for themselves is to start attacking spelling and grammar.

You don't really need to reply, I know the gist of all your replies.

[dsr]

Seems that the benefits of a trade deal with the US will be minimal and far outweigh the losses resulting from leaving the EU single market:

"The British economy would be at most 0.16% larger by the middle of the next decade under a comprehensive trade deal with the US, the government has admitted"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... with-trump

Interesting., So with the country that we do 15% of our trade with, and have a strong balance of payments surplus, moving to a free trade deal from WTO will make very little difference. Whereas with the group of countries we do 49% of our trade with, and have a strong balance of payments deficit, moving from free trade to WTO will make a cataclysmic difference.

Why?

[aggi]

Obviously as a lot of people know (but a lot try to obfuscate) the big issue with trading with the EU on WTO isn't the tariffs, it's the non-monetary obstacles. The delays of adding in customs checks, diverging regulations, issues around whether UK qualifications and licences will be valid, impacts on seasonal labour, etc

A large part of our economy is set up to take advantage of the above benefits, moving to WTO loses a lot of those benefits.

We're not going to get the same benefits with somewhere like the US, it's too geographically remote and that integration took decades.

I know you like to pretend that the whole of the deal is just about tariffs but that is only a small element of it.

[claret2018]

If you all keep arguing, someone’s bound to change their mind at some point

[Mala591]

Interestingly 88% of the UK economy occurs WITHIN the UK and doesn't involve any importing or exporting of any goods or services from around the world. I'm not playing down the importance of tariff free international trade and international product standards but it maybe puts our current situation into a little more perspective.

[evensteadiereddie]

If you all keep arguing, someone’s bound to change their mind at some point

Christ, you'd hope so otherwise it would come across as a pointless, self-indulgent willy waving contest.............

[Cryssys]

Cryssys,
I don't and have never believed a trade deal with the US would lead the country in to Utopia, yet being able to be flexible in trade deals with other countries and I will count the EU as a country for ease here, can be beneficial but not to any great extent.

Achieving a trade deal with the US has been given high profile in the UK media and its importance was talked up during the Brexit campaign and by the government ever since. They, and the media, have encouraged us to believe that it will result in significant benefits to the UK economy. This report says otherwise and goes on to say that any gains will be far outweighed by the losses resulting from leaving the EU.

What is more of a worry for me is the constant negativity and rush to criticize every little thing that is happening, which may or may not result in a future problem. We have Andrew continually posting about how the press influenced people and yet you and numerous other on here always seem to quote the Guardian in links, just seems a little/tad biased to me.

I’m not quoting the Guardian, I’m quoting an official government report. The reason I used the Guardian as a source is because the likes of the Telegraph, Mail etc. do not report stories that run counter to their Brexit narrative. Remember, this is an official report, not an opinion piece. The bias lies with the Tory press for not reporting on this.

I am just waiting to see how it all washes out in the end, which wont be for a few years yet.
So, in the interim we are expected to suffer more uncertainty, low growth and confusion in the faint hope of jam tomorrow. You know what they say about tomorrow.

Do you only see doom and gloom on the horizon for everyone in the UK as a whole, which will be down to the present Gov?

The Tories have given us 10 years of doom and gloom, austerity and economic stagnation. I see no reason to believe the next 5 years will be any better. As the government of course it is down to them. Who else could it be down to?

[Cryssys]

Interesting., So with the country that we do 15% of our trade with, and have a strong balance of payments surplus, moving to a free trade deal from WTO will make very little difference. Whereas with the group of countries we do 49% of our trade with, and have a strong balance of payments deficit, moving from free trade to WTO will make a cataclysmic difference.

Why?

Don't ask me, ask the government. They wrote the report.

[AndrewJB]

Interestingly 88% of the UK economy occurs WITHIN the UK and doesn't involve any importing or exporting of any goods or services from around the world. I'm not playing down the importance of tariff free international trade and international product standards but it maybe puts our current situation into a little more perspective.

I don't think that's true, unless you're describing the purchase of goods within the UK by UK consumers from UK sellers as "within the UK" - despite the fact those goods might have been produced elsewhere and sold to the UK retailer in a previous transaction.

[nil_desperandum]

Interestingly 88% of the UK economy occurs WITHIN the UK .....

Not really sure what you're referring to there (or the source of the data), but surely - by definition -100% of the UK economy occurs within the UK?

[dsr]

Don't ask me, ask the government. They wrote the report.

I know that the government wrote the report that says the potential gain of moving to free trade with the USA is 0.16%; but the cataclysmic forecast of economic doom was the prediction of anti-Brexiteers, so far as I know, not of the government in that report. Sorry for any confusion.

My question was really to ask why the net effect of free trade vs WTO will make so little difference with the USA when it (allegedly) will make so big a difference with the EU, Aggi has already answered that, in part at least - it's because the average 10% increase in costs of import and export, even offset by the (all else being equal) £6bn net UK receipts from tariffs, is absolutely dwarfed by the cost of paperwork, the extra few days' potential delay in Customs, and the potential change in regulations and domestic standards of exporting to countries outside the EU.

I'm not personally convinced. I have only worked at one company that exported to 100+ countries around the world, and there is no doubt that their paperwork was no harder for non-EU that it was for EU. It was just routine paperwork and they knew to a T how to do it. (Also, many of the countries they dealt with had different domestic regulations from the EU.) If that company had been offered a 10% cut in duty or a change of paperwork, they would have taken the cash saving and laughed at the paperwork question. But then again, perhaps they were an exception.

[claretandy]

Not really sure what you're referring to there (or the source of the data), but surely - by definition -100% of the UK economy occurs within the UK?

I think he means only 12% of companys do trade with the EU.

[Jakubclaret]

I think he means only 12% of companys do trade with the EU.

You would have thought that'd be the obvious conclusion with a simple subtraction to account for 12%

[aggi]

You would have thought that'd be the obvious conclusion with a simple subtraction to account for 12%

Only if you're saying that the EU is our only export/import market which I'm pretty sure isn't the case.

88% probably isn't that far off, although seems a bit high, given that the vast majority of our economy is services based.

I'd imagine a low level of our manufacturing sector is in that 88% though given the low level of raw materials that are generated in the UK.

[Jakubclaret]

Only if you're saying that the EU is our only export/import market which I'm pretty sure isn't the case.

88% probably isn't that far off, although seems a bit high, given that the vast majority of our economy is services based.

I'd imagine a low level of our manufacturing sector is in that 88% though given the low level of raw materials that are generated in the UK.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I've never stated it was 100% initially nor querying the 88%, I'm capable of deducting 12 from 100 & assuming where the 12 is mostly going, as you say it won't be the only "export/import" market which I agree, I guess we all deploy different cognitive speeds on the uptake!

[Cryssys]

Do you only see doom and gloom on the horizon for everyone in the UK as a whole, which will be down to the present Gov?

Let me put it another way, what reasons do you have to be optimistic about the future? We have just 9 months to agree complex trade deals with the both EU and the US. We have a PM who cannot be trusted leading a party of who, given the size of their majority, can do what they want. I can’t see the Tories putting the needs of the ordinary person at the heart of their agenda. They have not done so in the past and I see no reason why they will do so in the future. The Tories are the party of wealth and privilege and in the first instance they will look after their own. Once they have done that, they may distribute a few crumbs to the less fortunate.

The whole of Brexit is based on the premise that once we are free of the EU Britain will become great again and everything will get better. Brexit is a leap in the dark, it is an act of faith based on the belief that things will improve I can find no evidence to support this belief and almost everything that I have read says that the economy will suffer as a result of Brexit.

Please don’t tell me that we will have our sovereignty back, that we will be free to strike trade deals with whoever we like etc. What I want is evidence/support for the idea that the UK economy will better off as a result of Brexit and that the ordinary people of the UK will benefit as a consequence.

[dsr]

Let me put it another way what reasons do you have to be optimistic about the future? We have just 9 months to agree complex trade deals with the both EU and the US.

Why do we only have 9 months to make a deal with the US? If there's no deal, things carry on as they are now, which is very successfully.

[Cryssys]

Why do we only have 9 months to make a deal with the US? If there's no deal, things carry on as they are now, which is very successfully

Because the government and the press have lead us to believe that a trade deal with the US will be in place by the time we exit the EU at the end of the year.

I agree that it is not going to happen and that we have been mislead.

[aggi]

Correct me if I'm wrong, I've never stated it was 100% initially nor querying the 88%, I'm capable of deducting 12 from 100 & assuming where the 12 is mostly going, as you say it won't be the only "export/import" market which I agree, I guess we all deploy different cognitive speeds on the uptake!

Well the first quote was:

Interestingly 88% of the UK economy occurs WITHIN the UK and doesn't involve any importing or exporting of any goods or services from around the world

the second:

I think he means only 12% of companys do trade with the EU.

Which is entirely different but you suggested was somehow the obvious conclusion.

[Jakubclaret]

Well the first quote was:

Interestingly 88% of the UK economy occurs WITHIN the UK and doesn't involve any importing or exporting of any goods or services from around the world

the second:

I think he means only 12% of companys do trade with the EU.

Which is entirely different but you suggested was somehow the obvious conclusion.

Think you are forgetting I never mentioned any figures initially, just surprised nil desperandum couldn't figure out that 100% wasn't a complete whole figure & another poster mentioned the 88% & then another poster explained about the 12%, between them 2 & me & you, that's 4 posters helping him along
I realised within a split nano second exactly what was being said & by who.

[nil_desperandum]

Just to be clear, I don't think anyone is 100% certain what Mala meant and without him linking a source.
It would be helpful if he could clarify this.

[Jakubclaret]

He/she couldn't be any clearer, 88% occurs WITHIN the UK leaving 12% as claretandy explained, it's not a mensa puzzle proposition, 2 part breakdown with the 88% & the 12%.

[martin_p]

He/she couldn't be any clearer, 88% occurs WITHIN the UK leaving 12% as claretandy explained, it's not a mensa puzzle proposition, 2 part breakdown with the 88% & the 12%.

So let me get this straight, we only trade internally and with the EU?

[Jakubclaret]

So let me get this straight, we only trade internally and with the EU?

Please refer to the exchange I countered with Aggi.

[martin_p]

Please refer to the exchange I countered with Aggi.

I did, hence the confusion!

[aggi]

So let me get this straight, we only trade internally and with the EU?

No, because 100% wasn't a complete whole figure.

(I'm not sure whether Jakubclaret thinks that the economy is like a footballer and can give 110%.)

[martin_p]

No, because 100% wasn't a complete whole figure.

(I'm not sure whether Jakubclaret thinks that the economy is like a footballer and can give 110%.)

Now we’re a sovereign nation we can define our own standards on percentages and don’t have to blindly follow what Johnny Foreigner tells us! ‘Full and complete’ will now be defined as 110% with half full now being defined as 62%, because we’re British and we do what we like!!

(Please stand for the national anthem)

[nil_desperandum]

He/she couldn't be any clearer, 88% occurs WITHIN the UK leaving 12% as claretandy explained, it's not a mensa puzzle proposition, 2 part breakdown with the 88% & the 12%.

But firstly he wasn't clear or specific what the 88% referred to, (and no one on here - other than you - seems completely clear); And claretandy - who would generally be on your side of this type of argument - didn't explain. He said what he

"thought"

Mala was referring to. So it wasn't clear and obvious to him either.
As I've already pointed out the wording was unclear, (i.e. he referred to the UK economy WITHIN the UK, not specifically trade or manufacturing or whatever), and no source was given. Generally if no source is given then the information / data is open to misinterpretation.
I was hoping that he would have followed up with a link - that's all.

[Jakubclaret]

But firstly he wasn't clear or specific what the 88% referred to, (and no one on here - other than you - seems completely clear); And claretandy - who would generally be on your side of this type of argument - didn't explain. He said what he Mala was referring to. So it wasn't clear and obvious to him either.
As I've already pointed out the wording was unclear, (i.e. he referred to the UK economy WITHIN the UK, not specifically trade or manufacturing or whatever), and no source was given. Generally if no source is given then the information / data is open to misinterpretation.
I was hoping that he would have followed up with a link - that's all.

A blind man entrenched in a deep dark cave could see where he/she was coming from, perhaps people haven't explained as they feel it's obvious (well it should be), I'm done now with trying to explain simple things over & over, hint the UK economy generally encompasses, yes you've guessed it the UK economy & nothing else, not the African or Afghanistan economies, just the UK economy, I feel weary now so logging out & I won't be replying.

[nil_desperandum]

A blind man entrenched in a deep dark cave could see where he/she was coming from, perhaps people haven't explained as they feel it's obvious (well it should be), I'm done now with trying to explain simple things over & over, hint the UK economy generally encompasses, yes you've guessed it the UK economy & nothing else, not the African or Afghanistan economies, just the UK economy, I feel weary now so logging out & I won't be replying.

I'm sure it will be of great relief to all that you won't be replying further, so just to conclude this:
Mala made an interesting point that was worth considering / investigating.
I wasn't sure exactly what he was referring to or the source.
Claretandy thought he knew what it was about - but obviously (from the wording of his post) wasn't completely sure.
You were absolutely sure - but posted a different interpretation to "Andy". (No criticism of "Andy" implied)
3 other posters - additional to myself were unclear and raised valid questions.
So the only person who believes it is clear and thinks it's simple is you. The rest of us are so clearly inadequate.
Very good.
p.s. a link / source from Mala or yourself would still be welcome.

[Jakubclaret]

I'm sure it will be of great relief to all that you won't be replying further, so just to conclude this:
Mala made an interesting point that was worth considering / investigating.
I wasn't sure exactly what he was referring to or the source.
Claretandy thought he knew what it was about - but obviously (from the wording of his post) wasn't completely sure.
You were absolutely sure - but posted a different interpretation to "Andy". (No criticism of "Andy" implied)
3 other posters - additional to myself were unclear and raised valid questions.
So the only person who believes it is clear and thinks it's simple is you. The rest of us are so clearly inadequate.
Very good.
p.s. a link / source from Mala or yourself would still be welcome.

Just a misunderstanding all round, I'm not saying you are inadequate at all far from it, in some ways you come across as a bright bloke, it's fair to say we was on a different wavelength without going into the detail of how that came about, you obviously required some sort of link to fully understand, regarding the other posters I can't comment you'd have to ask them about the failure to understand & not me, I can only answer for myself & not other people, mala & claretandy came across perfectly fine to me with the points stated regarding the numbers on that basis.

[claretandy]

But firstly he wasn't clear or specific what the 88% referred to, (and no one on here - other than you - seems completely clear); And claretandy - who would generally be on your side of this type of argument - didn't explain. He said what he Mala was referring to. So it wasn't clear and obvious to him either.
As I've already pointed out the wording was unclear, (i.e. he referred to the UK economy WITHIN the UK, not specifically trade or manufacturing or whatever), and no source was given. Generally if no source is given then the information / data is open to misinterpretation.
I was hoping that he would have followed up with a link - that's all.

Just to be clear, the 12% figure i used, is that only 12% of British businesses do any kind of trade with the EU, that's where i though Mala got his 88% figure from. I.E., "88% of British Businesses do not trade with the EU".

[Jakubclaret]

Just to be clear, the 12% figure i used, is that only 12% of British businesses do any kind of trade with the EU, that's where i though Mala got his 88% figure from. I.E., "88% of British Businesses do not trade with the EU".

With a 2 part breakdown 88% going 1 way & another 12% going another another way, it seems perfectly logical without picking the bones from the numbers with faith assisted face value.

[AndrewJB]

Just to be clear, the 12% figure i used, is that only 12% of British businesses do any kind of trade with the EU, that's where i though Mala got his 88% figure from. I.E., "88% of British Businesses do not trade with the EU".

Only a small percentage of our economy is directly involved with importing things, however once those imports arrive, they are sold on and resold, so that if we’re honest, it’s probably a much smaller percentage of the U.K. economy that produces British goods or services with British equipment, and sells them on to British customers

[nil_desperandum]

Just to be clear, the 12% figure i used, is that only 12% of British businesses do any kind of trade with the EU, that's where i though Mala got his 88% figure from. I.E., "88% of British Businesses do not trade with the EU".

Thanks for reposting. If this is what Mala was referring to then thanks for clearing that up. His initial post - as you appeared to acknowledge - did not specify whether he was referring to 88% of business, trade, trade + services, or (as you say) - "BUSINESSES".
I didn't post initially to set up an argument with Jakub, but to seek clarification from Mala, (who dropped that stat on us with no source or link) and then promptly disappeared from the thread.

[aggi]

Weirdly when I googled it I got exactly the opposite:

The EU is the world’s largest integrated trading bloc and the most popular destination for UK exports, with 88% of BCC members exporting to the EU

Although I have no idea how representative the British Chamber of Commerce is of businesses overall.

[dsr]

Weirdly when I googled it I got exactly the opposite:

The EU is the world’s largest integrated trading bloc and the most popular destination for UK exports, with 88% of BCC members exporting to the EU

Although I have no idea how representative the British Chamber of Commerce is of businesses overall.

Google searches suggest there are 5.9m businesses in the UK, and the BCC has 75,000 members. I'm sure there is a bias towards larger companies being members - ask your milkman or window cleaner if they are members, for example - and therefore they will have a much higher proportion of exporters.

https://fullfact.org/europe/how-many-bu ... export-eu/

Fullfact reckons about 5-8% of UK business export to the EU. Many of them will be in tiny amounts via ebay and Amazon.

[martin_p]

Google searches suggest there are 5.9m businesses in the UK, and the BCC has 75,000 members. I'm sure there is a bias towards larger companies being members - ask your milkman or window cleaner if they are members, for example - and therefore they will have a much higher proportion of exporters.

https://fullfact.org/europe/how-many-bu ... export-eu/

Fullfact reckons about 5-8% of UK business export to the EU. Many of them will be in tiny amounts via ebay and Amazon.

The last figure I saw was about 6% of U.K. businesses trade directly with the EU although clearly the impact of more expensive/difficult trading conditions ripple outwards from that 6%.

[dsr]

The last figure I saw was about 6% of U.K. businesses trade directly with the EU although clearly the impact of more expensive/difficult trading conditions ripple outwards from that 6%.

Scarcely enough to notice. Has anyone been able to measure the equivalent gain after the Brexit vote, when the fall in the pound made it cheaper and no more difficult to trade with the EU? Or for that matter is there a measure that shows from historic records what the gain or loss has been in the past from movements in exchange rate?

[martin_p]

Scarcely enough to notice. Has anyone been able to measure the equivalent gain after the Brexit vote, when the fall in the pound made it cheaper and no more difficult to trade with the EU? Or for that matter is there a measure that shows from historic records what the gain or loss has been in the past from movements in exchange rate?

Yes but exchange rate fluctuations don’t need 50,000 permanent extra customs officials.

https://www.ft.com/content/6cf7bba6-59 ... 03987b7b20

[dsr]

Yes but exchange rate fluctuations don’t need 50,000 permanent extra customs officials.

https://www.ft.com/content/6cf7bba6-59 ... 03987b7b20

HMRC has 56,000 staff at present. They deal with Corporation Tax, Income Tax, Inheritance Tax, VAT, Stamp Duty, and every other tax under the sun; they deal with overseas trust regulations and all the fancy work that goes with that; and they deal with imports and exports to the EU and imports and exports to the rest of the world.

If you believe that they will need to double their workforce just because some of the imports are coming from a different sort of entity, then you are letting your hatred of the EU blind you to all common sense. It's not going to happen.

Maybe if you quote the article (behind a paywall for me) I could get a better handle on what it means.

[aggi]

Google searches suggest there are 5.9m businesses in the UK, and the BCC has 75,000 members. I'm sure there is a bias towards larger companies being members - ask your milkman or window cleaner if they are members, for example - and therefore they will have a much higher proportion of exporters.

https://fullfact.org/europe/how-many-bu ... export-eu/

Fullfact reckons about 5-8% of UK business export to the EU. Many of them will be in tiny amounts via ebay and Amazon.

Yes, it's wildly different. Just seemed a strange coincidence that the 88% figure came up.

As you say, a lot of UK businesses are very small so an absolute measure in terms of number of businesses isn't necessarily that indicative. I'm also not sure how much of internal transfers would be captured, I guess it would depend on the corporate structures. I suspect quite a few of the tiny amounts via ebay probably won't be included as they won't be VAT registered.

One thing I haven't seen solid figures on is the number of UK businesses that import from the EU. I'm not sure whether that's at the 6% level or much higher or lower but it would be interesting to see. There's also weird stuff about how far back you go, e.g. a car manufacturer brings in parts from the EU, builds a car, sells it to a UK dealer and the dealer sells it to a UK customer. Should the sale to the customer have an EU element to it as elements of the manufacture originated there (or maybe the steel originally came from China to Europe so what about that too)?

Obviously, like most of the Brexit discussion, this entirely ignores the service sector which is by far the largest part of the UK economy.

[aggi]

HMRC has 56,000 staff at present. They deal with Corporation Tax, Income Tax, Inheritance Tax, VAT, Stamp Duty, and every other tax under the sun; they deal with overseas trust regulations and all the fancy work that goes with that; and they deal with imports and exports to the EU and imports and exports to the rest of the world.

If you believe that they will need to double their workforce just because some of the imports are coming from a different sort of entity, then you are letting your hatred of the EU blind you to all common sense. It's not going to happen.

Maybe if you quote the article (behind a paywall for me) I could get a better handle on what it means.

The 50,000 figure isn't customs officials as incorrectly stated above, it is staff to deal with completing the forms:

The Road Haulage Association has warned that the number of declaration forms for tariffs alone will rocket from the current 50m a year to 200-250m a year.

In addition, the exit and entry forms introduced after the 9/11 terror attack in New York to ensure safety on ferries and planes will involve another 100-125m forms being processed every year.

Rod McKenzie, the managing director of policy and public affairs at the RHA, said: “We have been told by a large freight company expert in the field that they get a productivity of around 4,000 clearances a year per staff member (that is about 20 clearances a day). That makes sense given the complexity of many transactions. Worth noting, that is with skilled, trained, experienced labour.

“So if we are dealing with 200m extra declarations, at a productivity rate of 4,000 per year that equals 50,000 staff needed on day one, and probably more.”

I guess it's good to see Brexit creating new jobs.

[martin_p]

HMRC has 56,000 staff at present. They deal with Corporation Tax, Income Tax, Inheritance Tax, VAT, Stamp Duty, and every other tax under the sun; they deal with overseas trust regulations and all the fancy work that goes with that; and they deal with imports and exports to the EU and imports and exports to the rest of the world.

If you believe that they will need to double their workforce just because some of the imports are coming from a different sort of entity, then you are letting your hatred of the EU blind you to all common sense. It's not going to happen.

Maybe if you quote the article (behind a paywall for me) I could get a better handle on what it means.

I should have said customs ‘agents’ rather than officials, but the point stands, in fact more so as these are likely to be recruited and paid for by private companies rather than government. The extra cost is estimated at an extra £1.5bn per year and no doubt that will work it’s way down the chain to the customer. Taken from the article:

“Michael Gove has endorsed claims that up to 50,000 people will have to be recruited to carry out customs paperwork under the government’s preferred Canada-style trade deal with the EU — the equivalent of the population of a medium-sized town.

The Cabinet Office minister was on Thursday pressed by businesses that send goods across borders to provide more cash to help them recruit and train the army of form-fillers needed to process the red tape spawned when Britain exits the transition period on January 1 2021.

Mr Gove was challenged by Labour MP Justin Madders to confirm that 50,000 people would be required to handle the customs declarations needed for trade with the EU and whether it was feasible to recruit them in such a short space of time.

“Yes it is and the government stand behind that,” Mr Gove said. The minister’s allies said that although the 50,000 figure was an industry estimate, it was “not far off” the workforce likely to be needed to fill in customs forms.”

[timshorts]

He/she couldn't be any clearer, 88% occurs WITHIN the UK leaving 12% as claretandy explained, it's not a mensa puzzle proposition, 2 part breakdown with the 88% & the 12%.

It's completely unclear. We don't know this represents a figure based on volume, cost or per head transaction.
It doesn't break down what is counted at all.
If a sicilian lemon grower sells lemons to a UK wholesaler, then he sells to a greengrocer in Hythe and the greengrocer sells to 20 different customers, how is this counted? It could be 21 UK sales and one in sicily, or 22 if the goods went through a distributor in the UK. Or 3 x the number of lemons in the box.
Either way., without the lemons comi g from the EU in the first place the other transactions couldn't have happened.

This 88% probably includes people having their haircut and nails done. It's the figures for net imports/, exports we should be interested in, the cost of moving the stuff around and the greta thunberg impact.

[Jakubclaret]

It's completely unclear. We don't know this represents a figure based on volume, cost or per head transaction.
It doesn't break down what is counted at all.
If a sicilian lemon grower sells lemons to a UK wholesaler, then he sells to a greengrocer in Hythe and the greengrocer sells to 20 different customers, how is this counted? It could be 21 UK sales and one in sicily, or 22 if the goods went through a distributor in the UK. Or 3 x the number of lemons in the box.
Either way., without the lemons comi g from the EU in the first place the other transactions couldn't have happened.

This 88% probably includes people having their haircut and nails done. It's the figures for net imports/, exports we should be interested in, the cost of moving the stuff around and the greta thunberg impact.

Maybe I'm gifted with the knack of grasping things, without research & compiling a statistical analysis breaking down the 2 parts individually, what was simply stated was sufficient for me to clearly understand at that point.

[AndrewJB]

Maybe I'm gifted with the knack of grasping things, without research & compiling a statistical analysis breaking down the 2 parts individually, what was simply stated was sufficient for me to clearly understand at that point.
[/quote

I think the figures are made up.