ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
Of course he knows about import/export procedures, Cap'n. and he's clearly not a fool. This will tell you why.
One of the most vitriolic opponents of "EU regulations" is Lord (Anthony) Bamford, chairman of the construction equipment giant, JCB. He is known for complaining about "hidden barriers" such as EU red tape that "proves that this single market has not created a level playing field".
A prominent supporter of Vote Leave, and generous donor, he wants a "hard" Brexit, calling for a "deal that will allow us to become a truly global trading nation". And "if tariffs are the price we have to pay to leave the EU", he says, "well so be it". He adds: “British business people are very adaptable. They adjust very quickly to changes in the trading environment".
However, Lord Bamford may have his own personal reasons for welcoming the application of tariffs. Not least of those is that he has moved substantial parts of his manufacturing empire to Brazil, India and the United States. Now, in servicing his own domestic (UK) market, his company has to pay tariffs, competing against European manufactures which enjoy tariff-free access, courtesy of the Single Market.
Applying tariffs to equipment manufactured in EU Member States would, for Lord Bamford, level the playing field, and help restore the fortunes of his company, which has not being enjoying the best of times over the last decade.
When it comes to regulation, though, construction equipment is in an anomalous position. Although vehicles such as JCB's excavator loaders (one pictured) are equipped for road use, the road vehicle component does not have to comply with EU type approval requirements that apply to cars and most commercial vehicles.
As such, there is no single market in construction machinery. Road-equipped plant such as a JCB excavator loaders must comply with national construction and use requirements, in terms of lighting, braking and safety systems and other parameters which apply before a vehicle can be driven on a public road.
Perversely, that creates a difficult situation for manufacturers. To service the EU market, they are forced to adapt their vehicles to comply with different local regulations. Not even mutual recognition helps them out, as national administrations can apply safety over-rides permitted by EU law, which allow them to apply their own regulations.
Therefore, although Lord Bamford complains that the cost of EU regulations for companies means that "Britain is better off leaving the Single Market", we actually have a situation where the representatives of European equipment manufacturers are pleading for harmonisation of regulation at an EU level.
"Due to a void in the internal market", they say, "each Member State in Europe is entitled to define their own rules to ensure an appropriate level of safety for mobile machines circulating on public roads".
Member States have each specified and implemented these requirements at National level to address general safety concerns. And, in the industry view: "The variety of those National requirements represents a disproportionate and unjustified economic and administrative burden for the mobile machinery industry".
This is an exact reversal of the pitch put by Lord Bamford. In order to reduce "red tape", the manufacturers actually want a single approval "allowing authorisation for road circulation of a mobile machine in all Member States without further technical requirements".
As of May 2017, the industry was requesting a legislative act. They want mobile machine manufacturers to receive an EU-wide third party approval, permitting public road circulation of the mobile machines in any EU Member State without the need for additional tests and/or documentation.
Perversely, should this come into effect (which undoubtedly it will in due course), it would put Lord Bamford's business at a grave disadvantage, if the law follows the typical EU model. It would mean that his UK operations would not be able to apply for, or hold, a valid approval for any UK produced machines. These would have to be approved separately by the authority of an EU member state, with the application made by a representative of the company resident in that state.
However, while this is something for the future, JCB is by no means out of the woods with current EU legislation. In the latest batch of Notices to Stakeholders, we see a document on the "withdrawal of the UK and EU rules in the field of type-approval of certain vehicles and engines".
In respect of vehicles, this applies to Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 on the approval and market surveillance of agricultural and forestry vehicles and Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 on the approval and market surveillance of two- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles.
These themselves will affect UK manufacturers of the relevant equipment, as manufacturers established outside the Union must appoint a single representative established in the Union to represent them before the Member State type-approval authorities and for the purposes of market surveillance.
Manufacturers' representatives established in the United Kingdom will not, as from the withdrawal date, be considered as established in the Union for the purposes of these regulations and, therefore, the approvals will no longer be valid.
As to JCB's products, they are caught by Regulation (EU) No 2016/1628 on requirements relating to gaseous and particulate pollutant emission limits and type-approval for internal combustion engines for non-road mobile machinery.
Under this regulation, the plant itself does not require type approval, but the engines used have to be approved. And, in accordance with the standard EU regulatory model, that requires the approval to be held by a representative established in an EU Member State (or an Efta EEA state). Existing approvals obtained in the UK or held by a UK entity, will no longer be valid after Brexit (or the end of the transition period, if appropriate).
This will be problematic enough for JCB but there is an additional sting in the tail. The engines are also subject to "market surveillance" requirements which, within the EU, are carried out by the appropriate Member State authority. But, as a third country, the UK will not have a national authority recognised by the EU, unless there is a formal mutual recognition agreement (MRA).
Here, the rub is that if Lord Bamford gets his wish and there is a hard Brexit, there will be no MRA. He will be up the creek without a market. With no provision for market surveillance, his company will be unable to export to the EEA any machines made in the UK.
Nor does the grief stop there. Equipment such as excavators are subject, by virtue of Directive 2000/14/EC, to specific noise limits. These must be verified by independent Notified Bodies – which also must be established in EU Member States. Any certification held by JCB reliant on a UK-established notified body will no longer be valid – unless, of course, there is an MRA on conformity assessment, which we won't have in a hard Brexit scenario.
Then there are other little tweaks. If, as is so often the case, the backhoe or loading bucket is equipped with a lug or a hook which enables it to be used for lifting, then the Machinery Directive (2006/42/EC) applies. Here, the company can rely on self-certification, although safety equipment may require Notified Body assessment. There, without an MRA on conformity assessment, JCB is going nowhere.
No doubt within the JCB empire there are compliance officers or other officials who can tell Lord Bamford about these things, and what precisely he needs to do. But if he is to stay in business and maintain his 45 percent share of the combined backhoe loader market in Europe, he needs to tone down his rhetoric.
More to the point, unless Bamford feels he can ditch the European market altogether, he should recognise that the Single Market is a considerable asset to his business – and more so if in the future there is a single type approval covering road-equipped construction machinery.
In the interim, his immediate business requirements will be covered by the transition period. After that, he needs to hope that his current wishes are not granted.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,865
Gave up after first line lol
Jan Higgins likes this
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
I'm not remotely surprised, Keith. Er, lol.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Lord Bamford projects himself as patriotic and praises our people's adaptability yet shifts a lot of his manufacturing to Brazil, India and the USA!!
Captain Haddock
- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 7,987
howard mcsweeney1 wrote:Lord Bamford projects himself as patriotic and praises our people's adaptability yet shifts a lot of his manufacturing to Brazil, India and the USA!!
As does James Dyson. If they had an ounce of patriotism they could have provided thousands of unskilled jobs in this country (which is almost at full employment) N.B. even employing people at minimum wage nobody would be able to afford their products. No wonder big industry is keen on free movement of labour of Eastern European Coolies.
"We are living in very strange times, and they are likely to get a lot stranger before we bottom out"
Dr. Hunter S Thompson
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
yeah cant get the staff these days, no pleasing any one.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Courtesy of the Telegraph
Michael Gove is expected to become the first minister to recruit a military planner to address concerns that parts of the UK could run short on food in the event of a no deal Brexit. A Government source said the planner will also assess where food supplies can be stockpiled on Ministry of Defence land to ensure that there are not shortages in rural areas. The worst-case scenario in Operation Yellowhammer, seen by The Telegraph, assumes that Britons could be forced to eat a "restricted diet". There would have to be a "dramatic reduction in livestock production" so that crops are eaten by people rather than as animal feed. It states: "Should an extreme event (such as no access to trade) impact the UK's access to food, UK agriculture has enough nutritious food for the vulnerable, however it would be a restricted diet with less choice for consumers.
"Maximising calorie production would lead to a dramatic reduction in livestock production with all crop production used for human food where possible instead of animal feed." It continues: "UK agriculture is also reliant on imported energy, fertiliser, seeds and machinery. If the scope for trade was ever completely removed, domestic agriculture itself would be deprived of it of a no deal Brexit.
The planner, who will be in place by January, has been offered to Defra by the Ministry of Defence to help ensure that shops in rural communities have enough food in the event of a "worst case scenario".
They will draw up contingencies based on a blueprint known in Whitehall as Operation Yellowhammer, which assumes “in extremis” that trade between Calais and Dover become severely disrupted. The planner is also expected to assess alternative routes into Britain for food supplies and to carry out preparatory work to ensure that rural communities are supplied.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Interesting piece on the Telegraph website this evening, if only Jezza could be like Kinnock.
Today, Nick Boles, a former minister who has threatened to resign the whip in the event of a no-deal Brexit, steps up a row with Brexiteers by comparing Tories backing a no-deal outcome to the Militant "extremists" in Labour who were faced down by Neil Kinnock in 1985. Thirty three years ago a brave Labour leader confronted the extremists in his party and railed against the ‘grotesque chaos’ that a militant Labour council was inflicting on the great city of Liverpool," he writes in this newspaper. "It would be equally grotesque for a Conservative government to start rationing medicines and mobilising troops to cope with their failure to secure a negotiated settlement to Brexit." Yesterday, Jeremy Corbyn drew criticism from Remain supporters in his party for saying he would continue to pursue Brexit if his party won a snap general election in 2019.
Mrs Leadsom's comments come after MPs including Mr Boles, tabled an amendment to the Finance Bill intended to prevent the Government implementing no-deal plans without the explicit consent of Parliament. Asked about the amendment, Mrs Leadsom suggested that ministers would ultimately carry on even if it was implemented and the Commons voted to halt provisions for leaving without a deal. "The Government will have to, as a competent Government, continue to prepare for all eventualities," she said. "That is Government policy."
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
From the Observer
Ports and borders
Countries with ports handling large volumes of UK trade – including Rotterdam, Antwerp, Zeebrugge, Calais and Hamburg – have been preparing for the risk of a no deal since soon after the referendum.
France is hiring an extra 700 customs officers, expanding border control infrastructure such as checkpoints, roads and lorry parks, and building new warehousing in Calais, Cherbourg and at the entrance to the Channel tunnel.
The Netherlands is taking on more than 900 extra customs officials and 145 vets – for checks on food, plant and animal products – at Rotterdam.
Belgium is adding 140 customs officers, and Ireland is adding 1,000 extra staff for customs controls, sanitary and phytosanitary checks and export certification. The Irish government is also buying land near Dublin port for new border inspection bays, and parking for 270 trucks as they await checks, as well as offices for 144 staff. Similar preparations are underway at Rosslare port and Dublin airport.
Shipping routes are also being expanded, and entirely new ones created, which would allow goods to be shipped smoothly between Ireland and Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain without ever having to enter the UK.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
well done them at least they are doing something about it. just go's to show how incomptetent this government is.
howard mcsweeney1 likes this
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
The guns fell silent on Christmas day when pro remain ministers and their pro leave colleagues played a game of football in no man's land, sometimes known as Northern Ireland. Then on Boxing day they went back to kicking lumps out of each other.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
you mean to tell me they didn't participate in the boxing day dip by jumping off tower bridge.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Courtesy of the Telegraph
MPs have warned of the dangers of the Brexit transition period after it emerged that hundreds of
thousands of small businesses could be forced to pay VAT for the first time after Britain leaves the European Union. Brussels is preparing to reduce the threshold at which businesses start paying VAT from a turnover of £85,000 to £76,700 in a bid to "harmonise" tax systems.MPs on the EU scrutiny committee warned Britain will have to accept the move if it comes into force after Brexit in March 2019 because it will lose its right to veto the plans. Under the terms of the Prime Minister's deal, the UK will be required to implement the directive during the transition period, which could last until December 2022.
The "backstop" arrangements in Mrs May's deal could require Northern Ireland to remain aligned with EU VAT law "indefinitely", meaning the new threshold could stay in place long after the transition is over. In a report the MPs said: "If the Agreement is ratified and the Directive took effect during the transition, the Treasury would have to transpose it into UK law. This could have significant implications for small businesses. "It is particularly concerning in this regard that the UK will lose its veto over the proposal on 29 March next year, but it could nevertheless apply here in full."
The committee said the lower threshold would not apply if the UK leaves the EU without a deal as Britain would then be "free to amend or repeal elements of its VAT law". However, British exports destined for the EU would be subject to VAT controls. Marcus Fysh, a Eurosceptic Tory MP and member of the committee, said: "It is an example of how the transition in the Withdrawal Agreement could have dangerous implications for domestic business in the UK, with us still being forced to follow EU rules. "Should it be extended we could be exposed to all sorts of other anti-competitive regulation coming down the line that we could do nothing about."
Chris Leslie, a Labour MP who is campaigning for a second referendum, said: "This is another thing that none of us could possibly have known about back in 2016 and whatever way you voted then you weren't voting for more taxes and bureaucracy on small business and the self-employed. The Prime Minister's plan makes the UK a rule-taker and removes our say round the table." Mike Cherry, national chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses, said: "VAT is the hardest, most time-consuming tax for small businesses to administer, typically taking more than a working week a year.
"Dragging more small firms into this bureaucratic regime would take hard-working entrepreneurs away from running and growing their businesses."
Captain Haddock- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 7,987
howard mcsweeney1 wrote: "VAT is the hardest, most time-consuming tax for small businesses to administer, typically taking more than a working week a year.
"Dragging more small firms into this bureaucratic regime would take hard-working entrepreneurs away from running and growing their businesses."
Yet the 'best' way to tax people? Income tax, for example, is notoriously difficult to collect with people working for 'cash in hand'.
Businesses do not 'pay' tax anyway but collect it from consumers on behalf of HMG.
What is actually needed is more VAT collected BUT with a graduated level depending on turnover of business. The sudden imposition of tax on ALL sales at a certain level means many small business chose not to expand in order to avoid 'paying' VAT. It is this which stops people 'growing' their business.
"We are living in very strange times, and they are likely to get a lot stranger before we bottom out"
Dr. Hunter S Thompson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
I doubt "cash in hand" work is as prevalent as it used to be except for self employed tradesman. If someone takes a low wage job they get paid working tax credits and places like car washes, nail bars and fast food takeaways get raided by HMRC too often to make it worthwhile for businesses. Going slightly off topic our curry houses are soon to be an endangered specie due to people needing to earn £30,000 pa to come here and as the chefs come from Bangla Desh they are quite happy to work for a third of that.
Captain Haddock- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 7,987
I know as a fact that there are a number of pubs in Deal where half the staff wages are 'off the book'.
"We are living in very strange times, and they are likely to get a lot stranger before we bottom out"
Dr. Hunter S Thompson
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,821
howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
Going slightly off topic our curry houses are soon to be an endangered specie due to people needing to earn £30,000 pa to come here and as the chefs come from Bangla Desh they are quite happy to work for a third of that.
I have never understood that rather doubtful problem, do the ones already here not have the ability to train up their existing staff.
What the curry houses really mean is they need the cheap labour to replace those they have trained up that then go on to the new places that get opened.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Button
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 22 Jul 2016
- Posts: 3,033
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46704522
Whoopee, upto an extra 20 sailings per week into the likes of Portsmouth, Poole and Plymouth - where of course they have plenty of room and (particularly at the latter two) freight agent capacity to boot. That money could've been spent - invested actually - a whole lot better on computer systems at Dover.
Lord give me patience, but hurry.
ray hutstone likes this
(Not my real name.)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
As the costs for crossings and mileage will differ considerably hauliers will only be able to quote a price for a movement once a route has been established, the knock on effect being that the exporter wouldn't be able give a final price to the client.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
The immigration minister will be visiting Dover to pay lip service to the dinghy problem.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46706381
