Amazon updates its Brexit guidance, advises seller action

[Saracen999]

I predict 1.5 forum pages before this thread descends into bitter name-calling and abuse sufficient to lock it down.

As a long time eurosceptic, I've had 20+ years of being called names for it by many EU-piles, from little-Englander, to fascist, to racist, and so on.

There comes a point where sauce for the goose ....

It's pretty simple for mods really .... ban whoever starts it. Immediately.

[Corky34]

....by many EU-piles...

I should've listened to my teachers, they always told me sitting on the radiator would give me them.

[half_empty_soul]

sad man

[Corky34]

Well that didn't take long.

[cheesemp]

How was doing it more slowly going to help? Both sides have been talking at each other all year, and the known start positions haven't changed. Nor will they until the last minute (however it's defined).

Had the transition period been, what? Three years? All that would have done is added two more years of uncertainty and of each side simply repeating it's position, and only at the deferred last minute was anything going to change ... if it is ever going to change.

Or maybe 10 years? Then they could repeat themselves without change for an extra 9 years.

If more time was going to enable change, we'd have seen some willingness to compromise already. By both sides.

We've left. That horse has already bolted. More time for 'transition' just extends the damage of uncertainty, and reduces the motivation for both sides to get on with real negotiations ... if compromise is possible at all.

Either we exit transition with compromise, or we exit transition without compromise, but extending transition just delays the inevitable.

(I don't want to drag this into a brexit debate, but I really don't think it's settled any more than it was after 1975 vote. The country is split still and the more extreme a Brexit we get the more like it is to reverse it. I've many many more years of voting left in me and it will be my main point of focus going forward - In 1975 33% of the population where ignored - this time its closer to 50%).

And back to the my point - it's not about the negotiation - If you planned to leave and gave time for infrastructure and business to adapt then maybe it would have be ok but having lived in kent growing up I know how utterly rubbish the port infrastructure is. It will not cope with this - neither will the m20. I also think the shock to business while it is still trying to recover from Covid is going to be a disaster. If you had set a date 5 years in the future everything would have worked. As it is I will be preparing for the worse. I moved 70% of my pension fund out of the UK a month after the vote. I have little confidence in the future for the UK. So far that gamble has paid off well.

I think that was polite and fair response. Of course you are welcome to disagree .

[philehidiot]

thank you very much brexiteers

I predict 1.5 forum pages before this thread descends into bitter name-calling and abuse sufficient to lock it down.

sad man

I was trying to get people to prove me wrong and keep things civil. Would you kindly oblige and work to prove me the idiot I proclaim to be? Thank you so much.

[kompukare]

I moved 70% of my pension fund out of the UK a month after the vote.

You clever so-and-so!
The only thing I could have moved is the offset mortgage. Wish I had done so though.

[MonkeyL]

A decent breakdown here:

https://tamebay.com/2020/07/amazon-f...ds-for-uk.html

"From the 1st of January 2020 goods in Amazon’s UK fulfilment centres will no longer be used to fulfil orders in Europe. Effectively your sales opportunity from selling on Amazon UK dropped from 446 million EU consumers to 66 million brits.

Whilst Amazon say that the changes will apply from the 1st of January 2021, in reality you might find impacts of the Amazon FBA Brexit bombshell start to impact you earlier. For instance, if you already have stock in Pan-European FBA it is feasible that Amazon will repatriate your stock before the end of the year and certainly are likely to stop sending your stock to Europe at an earlier date. This means that certainly around Christmas, perhaps sooner, your European sales will start to decline."

UK sellers won't appear to EU customers at all (and vice versa), unless they handle all the overhead themselves...

...just in time to miss out on all those XMas sales.

[Oobie-]

Sooo, do we just buy those 1 off purchases now, like our electronics and never seek to replace them?

[Saracen999]

(I don't want to drag this into a brexit debate, but I really don't think it's settled any more than it was after 1975 vote. The country is split still and the more extreme a Brexit we get the more like it is to reverse it. I've many many more years of voting left in me and it will be my main point of focus going forward - In 1975 33% of the population where ignored - this time its closer to 50%).

And back to the my point - it's not about the negotiation - If you planned to leave and gave time for infrastructure and business to adapt then maybe it would have be ok but having lived in kent growing up I know how utterly rubbish the port infrastructure is. It will not cope with this - neither will the m20. I also think the shock to business while it is still trying to recover from Covid is going to be a disaster. If you had set a date 5 years in the future everything would have worked. As it is I will be preparing for the worse. I moved 70% of my pension fund out of the UK a month after the vote. I have little confidence in the future for the UK. So far that gamble has paid off well.

I think that was polite and fair response. Of course you are welcome to disagree .

That was absolutely a polite and fair response. Would that the past discussions, both on here and in the country, had been so. We might have had more light and less heat.

Some of those comments I agree with.

Points of difference :-

- infractructure is still, indirectly, about negotiation, because we don't know if there will be a deal, and if there is, what it will say. Which provides a catch 22. If we get a 'good' deal, additional infrastructure to cope with resulting customs will be wasted. But if we don't, then it'll be needed. We won't know which until we know if there will be a deal or not which, as per my prevjous post, won't come, if it comes at all, until very late on. We could spend five years building infrastructure it turns out we won't need and so, building or not building it becomes a gamble on whether a deal is likely, a bet between unpreparedness and wasted expenditure. It is also, of course, a tool of political pressure.

- Is it settled? Long term, we still don't have a crystal ball. For instance, rising anti-EU sentiment in many member states could yet either break it up, or more likely, force a change in direction to a less federalist vision. In the former case tbere'd be nothing to rejoin, and i the latter, it's a vdry cifferent proposition to what we left . Or not. No crystal ball, remember? Will you get a chance to vote on it again? Who knows. It took some 45 years last time.

- The last vote wasn't on the EU. It was on the EEC, the Common Market. Many things we were explicitly promised wouldn't happen subsequently did, and more are in the federalist objectives of Commission EU-philes. Also, we joined 6, not 27. And add to that, the terms were different. If another vote does come around, my guess is it will be on very different terms to when we left. For instance, it's highly dubious if we could get a Schengen opt-out or a Eurozone opt-out if we applied to rejoin. So the 75 vote, the Referendum and any subsequent vote are all on different propositions which makes any direct inferences from percentages of very dubious value.

- A lot depends on the next few years .... assuming we can filter out Covid impacts. If the economic impact is as Remainers claim, it strengthens the rejoin case. But if it turns out we do just fine outside, it dextroys the economic case for rejoining. And, I hate to labour the point but, crystal balls are hard to find.


Where I entirely agree is that the country is still split.

But, for several decades, governments refused a public vote because even having the argument was damaging. The irony is that if severzl PMs hadn't bottled it such a vote would probsbly hzve confirmed remaining, and the actual referendum likely would never have happened. And it requires primary legislation to get a referendum. Do you foresee any government any time soon trying that? Do you foresee any government taking us back in without one .... like Ted Heath did the first time? And probably equally telling, how keen do you think the EU would be to re-open that can of worms?

Sure, the EU would, in the past, have welcomed a UK chsnge of heart but I'm not convinced they would now, because, if nothing else, they can see the country here is still,split. They have enough problems of their own, and I can't see them welcoming another several years of Brexit-style rows, especially if another change of UK might ignite another art.50 five years later.

So sure, we might end up back in. I don't see it any time soon, though. But, still no crystal ball.

Oh, and of course, even that small chance of any near term re-entry requires EU states go unanimously agree, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the French gov't reprised De Gaulle with a simple "Non".

[Saracen999]

sad man

Well, that's constructive.

[Smudger]

Are we still labouring under the point this government is trying to get a deal?

No-deal was and always has been the goal. And it leaves us with no protections for the NHS, less scrutiny of trade deals than we had in the EU, and no food standards protection.
And I'm sure it'll be played as it's all the Eu's fault, cos they won't give us full benefits of being in the golf club without being in the golf club and having to follow the rules of the golf club.

[Domestic_Ginger]

Agree, without keeping the principles of the EU a deal was never happening. Based on the slogan that losing our sovereignty would never happen. Ironically we (Parliament*) have lost the say on future trade deals and deregulation has meant we have no security for those most vulnerable in our society.

*Unless like me are represented by an insignificant little hobbit where it makes little difference.

[Saracen999]

Agree, without keeping the principles of the EU a deal was never happening. Based on the slogan that losing our sovereignty would never happen. Ironically we (Parliament*) have lost the say on future trade deals and deregulation has meant we have no security for those most vulnerable in our society.

*Unless like me are represented by an insignificant little hobbit where it makes little difference.

You think that getting a deal with China, or the US, or Canada, or .... well, anybody except us, and the EU expect them to swallow what they are currently expecting us to swallow .... like the ECJ adjudicating disputes? There is zero chance any other major trading nation would swallow that.

But, by the same logic, we cannot expect, and from what I can see, aren't expecting, all the "benefits" of club membership. That stance went ages ago.

The "deal" is supposed to be a mutually beneficial trading relationship, not membership of internal markets.

At the moment, it's the EU expecting to have their cake and eat it, expecting us to follow all their rules, accept their courts adjudicating everything and yet have no say.

This is why I always supported what people portray as a "hard" Brexit. It isn't reasonable if we expect to have the same access we would have had as members when we aren't members, but it is reasonable to expect a deal can be reached the same as it has been with many of the vast bulk of the rest of the planet that also aren't members.

The half-in, half-out approach never was, in my view, viable, not least because it wouldn't give this country what it wanted from Brexit and more than it would allow the EU to preserve, and enforce, their "principles". Neither side would be happy with that.

What is viable, if both sides can get off their respective beaurocratic chuffs, is a mutually beneficial trade deal. But that will require us to accept that we're not getting all membership benefits, and the EU to accept that they can't dictate rules we have to abide by any more. Or after this year, anyway. But can both sides get off their chuffs? They could, but I'm doubtful they will.

[MonkeyL]

What is viable, if both sides can get off their respective beaurocratic chuffs, is a mutually beneficial trade deal. But that will require us to accept that we're not getting all membership benefits, and the EU to accept that they can't dictate rules we have to abide by any more. Or after this year, anyway. But can both sides get off their chuffs? They could, but I'm doubtful they will.

They did offer a CETA deal way back when, the UK rejected it.

The UK isn't looking for just a trade deal, never has been.

[Domestic_Ginger]

@Saracen

Agreed

But the forecast for no deal is a horror show. The voters were told we would get a deal whether Norway or Canada etc. None of which were possible without sacrifice on our part. Those that sold these ideas are free from rebuke.