Our larger customers are stockpiling in anticipation of a no deal scenario with WTO terms. This will give them 2 years cover, at a price that will be significantly less and will give them time to source elsewhere/make inhouse. We will also be impacted by wto tariffs as most of our suppliers are based in the eu.
All due respect but those forty years must have an effect on your reading ability. It says that over half the raw materials are sourced in the UK and that the companies they supply are all multinationals.
Over half, even though there are 27 other countries in the EU.
I would be pretty certain that those multinationals have arms in the EU that need the UK raw materials as much as we need the EU raw materials.
And yet apparently the EU need not compromise as they will be unaffected by no deal.
As I said previously, if there is a no deal situation, I hope that there is a separate pharma agreement with no change in tarrifs. That should save my job...selfish, I know, but fuck it. It's everyman for himself now...we are also looking to halve our lead times!!
I think that one has already been answered in that with all the other trade agreements to be negotiated other countries might want some of the same. Sometimes tariffs are imposed to protect the local market; it's not as straightforward as you make out.
I don't think Tarian has any awareness of the real world. I'm not even sure he really has his own views as most of his posts are cut and paste jobs. To be prepared and point out potential problems associated with our exit from the EU is common sense not scaremongering.
He can't even grasp why firms will stockpile; somehow he thinks there's some conspiracy why goods will not flow freely. Nothing of the sort, companies are just ensuring against hiccups that could occur around the time of the UK's exit.
No, unlike Mehmet, it is you who "can't even grasp why firms will might stockpile".
You still seem to think it "obvious" and "certain" that goods will not "flow freely" into the UK. (Your helpful link about chemicals explained nothing of the sort)
Read Mehmet's post - with the more plausible reason for stockpiling of protecting against possible higher costs.
Following receipt of the Chequers deal, the EU is proposing that the UK will agree to stick to EU rules on goods but fully quit the trading bloc for services - by far the country's biggest sector. Nice one Theresa.
I don't know if it has been covered as I ha have not read every post in which case apologies.
my question is .
Does a hard Brexit also mean the almost certain end to the UK as a national union?
Scotland and Northern Ireland have already voted to stay in the EU .That with a hard Brexit will lead to future divisions .Post brexit there is almost certainly going to be a border question in Ireland that can only be settled with a UK split .History and culture will almost certainly bring the return of some sort of problems whatever the result .The Scots of course have there own Parliament and agenda and it is a irony that the Tories (or their voter's )are probably the party that stopped the split at the last referendum on independence .Now they could make massive step towards bringing the Union to a end .
That was before the single market and the greater amount of devolved government we have today .What happened about 40 years ago will have no effect on people today .A hard Brexit can bring about a end to the Union .Then we really will be little England while I am sure many will welcome this I certainly do not.
Not sure considering Scotland has the equivalent of 10% of England's population (and only about 65% of London's). If they want to break the union and start independently funding their free dental check ups, free prescriptions and free universities from Holyrood that is for them to decide.
Perhaps they would then apply to join the EU independently and start making the same net contributions that the UK previously made.
No reason for England to allow the tail to wag the dog.
Have to say, Tarian's done a rather fine job of staying at the crease. You've tried pace, you've tried spin, a bit of bodyline, a couple of under arms, and constant pressure on the umpires, but he's still there.
Is the EU a pragmatic set of technical byelaws about which there needs to be no concern? Is it a grand project to move us beyond what some people regard as bad political communities to what they regard as a better political community?
It always seems to me that all good bits of the EU could be achieved without the architecture and big ideas. But we are told they are inseparable. If so, then the benign view of the EU as just a practical set of arrangements takes a big knock.
The U.K. is in an odd place. It's lost a nearly half century battle to shape the EU in accordance with its own preferences. It's big enough to pay in without being big enough to feel the privileges of ownership like the Germans. It's political class has completely fucked up the process of leaving by being lazy, by triangulating like crazy, and by being pretty poor quality. I see no prospect of rescue from this anywhere at the moment.
I do think a big mistake is to see the EU as a benign, untroubled, settled affair. It is animated by a spirit of moving forward/closer/upward -whether from design or just the tendency of bureaucracies to grow. It may succeed in this regard or shrinks/implode. Either way, I don't like it.
Straight question for Remainers. If the EU in its present form, and not as British policy sought to shape it, did not exist, would you be for creating it as such? Straight question -no ambush. I'm just trying to tease out true believers from TINA's.
Jogills is right about the real political challenge. How to live together. Many of you will see the Tory civil war and its exploitation by some nasty elements as the source of our present problems. I see the EU itself as a source of pressure and disorientation which has loosened the bonds of political community without putting something in their place. We can disagree on the source of the problem, but the problem remains.
I've given up arguing with Tarian. He chooses not to listen to experts with year's of experience of trade etc including those who are acknowledged world experts. Instead he does a bit of googling and then says the experts have got it all wrong. It's like someone getting cancer, ignoring their oncologist, and self diagnosing on the Internet.
The thing is not to argue. Do you see it as a rational process where at some point they (or you even) say, gosh, didn't think of that, a performance in front of people to be won over or entertained, or an opportunity to engage in a good kicking?
Nothing on this thread would help the intelligent, but poorly informed, reader get a sense of why there's an argument -just why one or the other side must be stupid and, possibly malevolently do. To paraphrase George Orwell on writing, it's just when you are most sure of yourself that you maybe most at risk, and certainly least effective in persuading others.