BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

thecycleclinic wrote:

... I have 900 rims due this weekend in port. A shipping company handles the HMRC and customs clearance...

As I pointed out a couple of weeks ago it takes over 4 week to process paperwork if you are a company planning on importing or exporting. The 31st is 4 weeks away today. Best get on it if you are planning any future orders.
Tick tock.

Got a source for that 4 week claim? It isn't in line with the experience of our logistics & distribution operation.

As pointed out, the .gov site. I ran a trial and they give expected times for processing depending on company status.

Simply not in line with the reality pointed out by cyleclinic and myself. i suspect they are trying to spur smaller businesses into action. That said, I'm surprised you set so much store by a government website given your views on government competence overall.

Just the messenger, and yes I have great faith in governmental incompetence.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Have we done the conspiracy theory that says we need to be out by January 2020 to avoid enacting tax avoidance legislation? I can't remember if this means we need to be out without a deal.

What tax avoidance legislation? I am not aware of anything that is reliant on the above scenario.

There's a faint whiff of leftiebollox here...

Imagine it's referring to the eu tax avoidance directive 2020

See here:

https://fullfact.org/online/brexit-not-concealing-offshore-accounts/

Relevant quote from the link:
"The directive has five key legal aspects relating to:

- limiting interest (capping the amount of tax deductible interest a company can have),
- the rules around exit taxation (the taxes on companies when they leave a country),
- the rules around controlled foreign companies (to stop the diverting of profits to low-tax countries),
- general anti-abuse rules (to counter ‘aggressive tax planning’ that doesn’t necessarily break any specific rules), and;
- rules on hybrid mismatches (when companies exploit the differences between countries’ tax systems).
Broadly, the new directive is intended to prevent corporate tax avoidance practices, and has been planned since 2015. It “aims to address situations where corporate groups take advantage of disparities between national tax systems” to reduce the amount of tax they have to pay.

In practice, this aims to tackle large companies shifting profits from the EU country in which they were made to a country with a lower tax rate or “preferential” rules. This could be another EU country, or a non-EU country.

So these policies are about tightening up “systemic issues” to do with tax law in EU countries, to make it harder for companies to practice what the EU calls “aggressive tax planning”.

Most of these policies are already in place
Three of the five provisions of the new tax avoidance directive are already in place, with EU countries (including the UK) having to adopt them by 31 December 2018.

HMRC told us that the new EU rules on interest restriction and the general anti-abuse rule led to no changes in the UK, because the UK’s existing rules already met or exceeded the minimum standards set.

There were some minor changes made to controlled foreign companies rules, but none were expected to have any significant impact on individuals or the economy.

The two EU provisions not yet in place are on exit tax and hybrid mismatches. The UK must meet the EU’s new standards on these by the start of 2020.

HMRC told us the exit tax rules would lead to two “minor” changes."

There is no evidence I have seen that suggests the UK wants to avoid putting the remaining 2 in place or that it might be any sort of driver for a Brexit asap. The last sentence above strongly suggests that the remainder will go through although the relevant domestic rules already cover pretty much all of it.

I still find it amusing that there is this impression amongst the inadequately informed that the UK has inadequate anti-avoidance rules and/or is trying hard to not implement anti-avoidance when it is actually at the forefront.

rick_chasey

Yeah mate I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theory proposed in that article.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

I still find it amusing that there is this impression amongst the inadequately informed that the UK has inadequate anti-avoidance rules and/or is trying hard to not implement anti-avoidance when it is actually at the forefront.

British territories and dependencies role in offshore tax havens is an enormous problem and is widely considered to be one of the biggest enablers of that kind of behaviour.

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Have we done the conspiracy theory that says we need to be out by January 2020 to avoid enacting tax avoidance legislation? I can't remember if this means we need to be out without a deal.

What tax avoidance legislation? I am not aware of anything that is reliant on the above scenario.

There's a faint whiff of leftiebollox here...

Imagine it's referring to the eu tax avoidance directive 2020

See here:

https://fullfact.org/online/brexit-not-concealing-offshore-accounts/

Relevant quote from the link:
"The directive has five key legal aspects relating to:

- limiting interest (capping the amount of tax deductible interest a company can have),
- the rules around exit taxation (the taxes on companies when they leave a country),
- the rules around controlled foreign companies (to stop the diverting of profits to low-tax countries),
- general anti-abuse rules (to counter ‘aggressive tax planning’ that doesn’t necessarily break any specific rules), and;
- rules on hybrid mismatches (when companies exploit the differences between countries’ tax systems).
Broadly, the new directive is intended to prevent corporate tax avoidance practices, and has been planned since 2015. It “aims to address situations where corporate groups take advantage of disparities between national tax systems” to reduce the amount of tax they have to pay.

In practice, this aims to tackle large companies shifting profits from the EU country in which they were made to a country with a lower tax rate or “preferential” rules. This could be another EU country, or a non-EU country.

So these policies are about tightening up “systemic issues” to do with tax law in EU countries, to make it harder for companies to practice what the EU calls “aggressive tax planning”.

Most of these policies are already in place
Three of the five provisions of the new tax avoidance directive are already in place, with EU countries (including the UK) having to adopt them by 31 December 2018.

HMRC told us that the new EU rules on interest restriction and the general anti-abuse rule led to no changes in the UK, because the UK’s existing rules already met or exceeded the minimum standards set.

There were some minor changes made to controlled foreign companies rules, but none were expected to have any significant impact on individuals or the economy.

The two EU provisions not yet in place are on exit tax and hybrid mismatches. The UK must meet the EU’s new standards on these by the start of 2020.

HMRC told us the exit tax rules would lead to two “minor” changes."

There is no evidence I have seen that suggests the UK wants to avoid putting the remaining 2 in place or that it might be any sort of driver for a Brexit asap. The last sentence above strongly suggests that the remainder will go through although the relevant domestic rules already cover pretty much all of it.

I still find it amusing that there is this impression amongst the inadequately informed that the UK has inadequate anti-avoidance rules and/or is trying hard to not implement anti-avoidance when it is actually at the forefront.

Thanks, I assumed it was straw clutching bollox, good to have it confirmed.

surrey_commuter

An explanation from Simon Nixon in The Times, very much not a leftie. He is a making the point that there is no grounds to the conspiracy that hedgies have short term bets on the UK economy tanking.

Nor is it surprising that prominent hedge fund tycoons have turned out to be enthusiastic Brexiteers. The hedge fund industry likes to operate in the shadows. It manages private pools of capital and believes that this entitles it to be exempt from the more onerous rules that govern the rest of financial services. What turned much of the industry so virulently against the EU was the introduction of the Alternative Investment Managers Directive in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, which imposed modest reporting requirements on the sector. Although the impact of these rules was close to nil, this shot across the bows was deeply resented. Whereas the EU’s status as a regulatory superpower has bought benefits to most sectors, creating opportunities to reap economies of scale across a single market, for the hedge fund industry it poses a threat.

for those with access https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/busi ... -7r8xn79wz

TheBigBean

Surrey Commuter wrote:

An explanation from Simon Nixon in The Times, very much not a leftie. He is a making the point that there is no grounds to the conspiracy that hedgies have short term bets on the UK economy tanking.

Philip Hammond's comments on the matter were instantly discredited, so much so that the Guardian had to start running pieces along the lines of "Why Hammond was right to question hedge funds supporting Boris".

slowbike

I wouldn't worry - EU have reportedly said "we've seen all this before - please go away, do your homework, then come back with something new and reasonable" ...

slowbike

I don't know what they (both sides) want - UK want's to leave EU (well - some do) and everything that entails - to get ourselves out of the CU, we need some sort of customs process don't we?
So that's going to have to be some sort of customs checks in Ireland somewhere ... what's the alternative? No Customs checks and no customs union - which opens up a path to move goods in/out of the EU/UK via whichever has a favorable tariff .. so all the UK has to do is drop the tariff's to lower than the EU and we're sorted. Oh - and we don't need to do loads of trade deals as we'll be able to ship everything via the EU .... win win!

rick_chasey

The hedgies conspiracy stuff is total b*llocks, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what professional investors actually do.

kingstongraham

Slowbike wrote:

I don't know what they (both sides) want - UK want's to leave EU (well - some do) and everything that entails - to get ourselves out of the CU, we need some sort of customs process don't we?
So that's going to have to be some sort of customs checks in Ireland somewhere ... what's the alternative? No Customs checks and no customs union - which opens up a path to move goods in/out of the EU/UK via whichever has a favorable tariff .. so all the UK has to do is drop the tariff's to lower than the EU and we're sorted. Oh - and we don't need to do loads of trade deals as we'll be able to ship everything via the EU .... win win!

They're still looking for that way in which NI is aligned with the EU, the rest of the UK is out of line with the EU, and there is no difference between NI and the rest of the UK.

Longshot

Slowbike wrote:

I don't know what they (both sides) want - UK want's to leave EU (well - some do) and everything that entails - to get ourselves out of the CU, we need some sort of customs process don't we?
So that's going to have to be some sort of customs checks in Ireland somewhere ... what's the alternative? No Customs checks and no customs union - which opens up a path to move goods in/out of the EU/UK via whichever has a favorable tariff .. so all the UK has to do is drop the tariff's to lower than the EU and we're sorted. Oh - and we don't need to do loads of trade deals as we'll be able to ship everything via the EU .... win win!

The EU are taking the position of "Look, you want out? OK. This is the list of things required before you can leave. Oh, you seemed to have missed a tick box? Then no. La la la la la la la la la la."

kingstongraham

Longshot wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

I don't know what they (both sides) want - UK want's to leave EU (well - some do) and everything that entails - to get ourselves out of the CU, we need some sort of customs process don't we?
So that's going to have to be some sort of customs checks in Ireland somewhere ... what's the alternative? No Customs checks and no customs union - which opens up a path to move goods in/out of the EU/UK via whichever has a favorable tariff .. so all the UK has to do is drop the tariff's to lower than the EU and we're sorted. Oh - and we don't need to do loads of trade deals as we'll be able to ship everything via the EU .... win win!

The EU are taking the position of "Look, you want out? OK. This is the list of things required before you can leave. Oh, you seemed to have missed a tick box? Then no. La la la la la la la la la la."

We can leave any time we want to. Boris just has to persuade parliament it's the best option.

Longshot

KingstonGraham wrote:

Longshot wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

I don't know what they (both sides) want - UK want's to leave EU (well - some do) and everything that entails - to get ourselves out of the CU, we need some sort of customs process don't we?
So that's going to have to be some sort of customs checks in Ireland somewhere ... what's the alternative? No Customs checks and no customs union - which opens up a path to move goods in/out of the EU/UK via whichever has a favorable tariff .. so all the UK has to do is drop the tariff's to lower than the EU and we're sorted. Oh - and we don't need to do loads of trade deals as we'll be able to ship everything via the EU .... win win!

The EU are taking the position of "Look, you want out? OK. This is the list of things required before you can leave. Oh, you seemed to have missed a tick box? Then no. La la la la la la la la la la."

We can leave any time we want to. Boris just has to persuade parliament it's the best option.

I get that. I couldn't be bothered to think through the precisely accurate scenario. My point was more that they are being a bit pig headed and sulky.

Don't get me wrong, I don't blame them frankly.

fenix

Longshot wrote:

The EU are taking the position of "Look, you want out? OK. This is the list of things required before you can leave. Oh, you seemed to have missed a tick box? Then no. La la la la la la la la la la."

Are you reducing the problem of the Irish Border to a tick box ?

We aren't ready to exit. All our infra projects cost more and go on for longer. Brexit is like the biggest of those but across everything. Probably building the bridge to Ireland is an easier option.

Longshot

Fenix wrote:

Longshot wrote:

Are you reducing the problem of the Irish Border to a tick box ?

52% of me isn't.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I still find it amusing that there is this impression amongst the inadequately informed that the UK has inadequate anti-avoidance rules and/or is trying hard to not implement anti-avoidance when it is actually at the forefront.

British territories and dependencies role in offshore tax havens is an enormous problem and is widely considered to be one of the biggest enablers of that kind of behaviour.

We've had this debate before and I presented you with very good evidence to show this was to a large extent a misconception. ÌIRC it was in the Panama Papers thread so I won't repeat it here.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

The hedgies conspiracy stuff is total b*llocks, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what professional investors actually do.

Which does rather make you wonder why Phillip Hammond attached his name to the idea.

Jez mon

Rick Chasey wrote:

The hedgies conspiracy stuff is total b*llocks, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what professional investors actually do.

Is it not broadly the case that a disruptive event like brexit gives the more nimble hedge fund an opportunity to make a great deal of profit by effectively betting on much of the British economy suffering.

TheBigBean

Jez mon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The hedgies conspiracy stuff is total b*llocks, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what professional investors actually do.

Is it not broadly the case that a disruptive event like brexit gives the more nimble hedge fund an opportunity to make a great deal of profit by effectively betting on much of the British economy suffering.

A lot of hedge funds lost money during the referendum vote because they were expecting a remain vote.

A friend's hedge fund's bots forecast Brexit despite what the humans running it thought. I would like to know what they think now, but I'll never be told before the event.

tailwindhome

So on reflection Boris's offer is this

We go into the transition period on 31st October

At the end of the transition period on 31st December 2020 we'll have a custom border in Ireland and ask the DUP if they want an Irish Sea border for regulations.

If they say no then the land border will be both regulatory and customs.

.... And we're giving the DUP a bribe to agree this.

bobmcstuff

TheBigBean wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

This is a deal which, in NI, only has the support of the DUP.

Aside from the DUP veto, what objections do you (or other NI people) have?

From the centre and nationalists/remain they're getting all the objections you'd expect

From their right and other unionists they're getting objections for having conceded anything.

From the business community they're getting all the 'remain' objections + objections to the 4 yearly cycle of an in/out vote and the chaos that'll bring.

They're having defend against nationalism and remain by pointing out what they've given while defending on the right that they given nothing and can pull out anytime

It is terrible for the business community, but will anyone else actually notice?

Surely if it really is terrible for the "business community" it will therefore be at least a bit bad for jobs.

Love how everyone talks about the business community as some esoteric group when actually everyone with a job outside the public sector works for a business........

TheBigBean

TailWindHome wrote:

So on reflection Boris's offer is this

We go into the transition period on 31st October

At the end of the transition period on 31st December 2020 we'll have a custom border in Ireland and ask the DUP if they want an Irish Sea border for regulations.

If they say no then the land border will be both regulatory and customs.

.... And we're giving the DUP a bribe to agree this.

It does appear to be the case. I think this sort of criticism is entirely fair, but the EU26 and ROI seem to be focusing on the customs bit.

Edit - I suppose the bribe could be to get the DUP to agree i.e. the New Deal only kicks in when Stormont approves it.

I wonder if it would be more workable to have a referendum to begin with, and then the Stomont approval after 4 years.

robert88

Jez mon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The hedgies conspiracy stuff is total b*llocks, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what professional investors actually do.

Is it not broadly the case that a disruptive event like brexit gives the more nimble hedge fund an opportunity to make a great deal of profit by effectively betting on much of the British economy suffering.

Even I can profit from a bit of volatility. It enables me to fatten my fund by selling high and buying low. Every time I win someone else has to lose.

Hedge funds have to offer a counterbalance to the damage that might be done by Brexit, it is their function, as is spot trading on commodities and currencies.

The villain is the POTUS who can put the frighteners on the markets just with his twitter finger.

rjsterry

Is Arlene trolling?

Simon Coveney’s remarks are deeply unhelpful, obstructionist and intransigent.

rick_chasey

Jez mon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The hedgies conspiracy stuff is total b*llocks, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what professional investors actually do.

Is it not broadly the case that a disruptive event like brexit gives the more nimble hedge fund an opportunity to make a great deal of profit by effectively betting on much of the British economy suffering.

If Brexit falls within the purview of the hedge fund and is in line with the agreed strategy of the fund then yes it has the *opportunity* but it still needs to make the right investments etc.

Then again, that describes pretty much any asset manager.

The conspiracy stuff goes that Odey, who is a Brexit backer, both vocally and financially, has been telling BoJo to do a no deal because he is short sterling.

But I think the FT covers it better than most:

The problem is, it doesn’t make any sense. Here are a few of the problems with the article:

Hedge funds contain multitudes. Take Marshall Wace, which boasts £40bn of assets under management. It’s run by pro-Brexit Paul Marshall (cited in the article), and pro-Remain Ian Wace (not cited in the article).

UK stocks often have little exposure to the UK economy. Take Cineworld, which according to the data Byline Times cited, has seen the biggest increase in short interest in the past month. But 75 per cent of its revenue was from the US in the first half of 2019, according to the company’s latest interim results.

Equity outcomes are explicitly uncertain — what is a short position on a “no deal Brexit”? A short position on any company? A short position could also be a play on remain. For instance, a company might benefit from a stronger dollar, or less EU regulation.

Hedge fund strategies are not simply running grand macro strategies on the fate of a nation. To mention Marshall Wace again, it runs a quantitative strategy called TOPS, which aggregates and makes decisions based on external investment research.

The most-shorted companies have short theses which have nothing to do with Brexit, like Thomas Cook (over-leveraged) or Kier Group (over-leveraged).

A fund might be short because of arbitrage opportunities, or to hedge a long position (which might contradict the notion it is betting on no deal).

The biggest single donor to either campaign was Lord Sainsbury, who donated £4.2m to the Remain campaign (source: Transparency International). Of the £16.4m contributed by the top ten donors to either campaign, 58 per cent went to Leave and 42 per cent to Remain.

As Louis Goddard from Global Witness pointed out on Twitter, there also fundamental problems with how the data has been presented.

More to the point, it’s not clear what exactly the authors are alleging. Is the accusation that all donations are motivated by profits, rather than ideology? Or could it now be the case that, with a no deal looking probable, they might be positioning their portfolios accordingly? That’s assuming, of course, they have a mandate from their investors to position their portfolios accordingly

Also, for the record, Odey's performance has been absolutely appalling recently.

Jez mon

TheBigBean wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The hedgies conspiracy stuff is total b*llocks, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what professional investors actually do.

Is it not broadly the case that a disruptive event like brexit gives the more nimble hedge fund an opportunity to make a great deal of profit by effectively betting on much of the British economy suffering.

A lot of hedge funds lost money during the referendum vote because they were expecting a remain vote.

A friend's hedge fund's bots forecast Brexit despite what the humans running it thought. I would like to know what they think now, but I'll never be told before the event.

Its when it is funds related to Rees Mogg that are making money that it can stick a bit.

surrey_commuter

Longshot wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Longshot wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

I don't know what they (both sides) want - UK want's to leave EU (well - some do) and everything that entails - to get ourselves out of the CU, we need some sort of customs process don't we?
So that's going to have to be some sort of customs checks in Ireland somewhere ... what's the alternative? No Customs checks and no customs union - which opens up a path to move goods in/out of the EU/UK via whichever has a favorable tariff .. so all the UK has to do is drop the tariff's to lower than the EU and we're sorted. Oh - and we don't need to do loads of trade deals as we'll be able to ship everything via the EU .... win win!

The EU are taking the position of "Look, you want out? OK. This is the list of things required before you can leave. Oh, you seemed to have missed a tick box? Then no. La la la la la la la la la la."

We can leave any time we want to. Boris just has to persuade parliament it's the best option.

I get that. I couldn't be bothered to think through the precisely accurate scenario. My point was more that they are being a bit pig headed and sulky.

Don't get me wrong, I don't blame them frankly.

But they are not, they have a position fixed by their rules. We had a choice of agreeing to abide by their rules (Norway) or cut ourselves off and go our own way (Canada). We chose a third way of asking for the bits we want without abiding by their rules, they said no and the rest is history.

Boris now seems to have accepted Canada and is attempting a transition period in which NI abides by the rules until we invent tech to solve the border issues.

rick_chasey

Jez mon wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The hedgies conspiracy stuff is total b*llocks, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what professional investors actually do.

Is it not broadly the case that a disruptive event like brexit gives the more nimble hedge fund an opportunity to make a great deal of profit by effectively betting on much of the British economy suffering.

A lot of hedge funds lost money during the referendum vote because they were expecting a remain vote.

A friend's hedge fund's bots forecast Brexit despite what the humans running it thought. I would like to know what they think now, but I'll never be told before the event.

Its when it is funds related to Rees Mogg that are making money that it can stick a bit.

His business is emerging market equities.

So not really relevant.

briantrumpet

Rather surprised to read a scathing report in the Telegraph about the NI view of Johnson's proposals:

In fact, with the exception of the DUP, the proposal for Northern Ireland to be subjected to two borders - regulatory checks in the Irish sea, and a customs border with the Republic - is being ridiculed by business leaders and politicians across the spectrum. Even unionists in Northern Ireland, who are generally aligned with the outlook of Tory Brexiteers, have grave reservations, while there are doubts that the proposed Stormont lock is fit for purpose. Sources in Belfast say there are several fundamental flaws in Mr Johnson’s proposals which make them a non-starter - and, they claim, suggest a lack of understanding about the complexity of trade and politics in Northern Ireland.

If the business reaction to the two borders plan could be generously described as tepid, the political reaction has been positively scornful. All of the key political parties in Northern Ireland, bar the DUP, have lined up to attack this proposal. The nationalist Sinn Fein party says it is a “reckless, dangerous, disingenuous” idea. The moderate nationalist SDLP says that “anyone with a brain” can see that the proposal is not serious and doomed to be rejected by the EU. The centrist Alliance party says it is a “recipe for chaos”. The Ulster Unionist Party says the plan will doom Northern Ireland to perpetual Brexit uncertainty. And the Traditional Unionist Voice party says the plan ignores a key red line - preserving the integrity of the UK’s internal market. Meanwhile, former Northern Ireland secretary Lord Hain has said: "It's riddled with contradictions and I can't help but draw the conclusion that this is a cynical ploy.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... proposals/