[HN Gopher] Brexit stops Brooks England sales of 'Made in Britai...
___________________________________________________________________
Brexit stops Brooks England sales of 'Made in Britain' saddles to
UK shoppers
Author : DanBC
Score : 85 points
Date : 2021-01-04 14:02 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (road.cc)
(TXT) w3m dump (road.cc)
| bserge wrote:
| Does anyone know, do I have to pay customs duty or VAT on orders
| from Amazon.co.uk shipped to EU?
|
| Last time I bought some SSDs (pre-Brexit) on Amazon.co.uk, they
| were shipped from France.
|
| How is Amazon handling it now? Extra tax on Amazon.co.uk and no
| tax on Amazon.de/fr/etc?
|
| Thanks!
| teh_klev wrote:
| This might help:
|
| https://tamebay.com/2020/07/amazon-fba-brexit-bombshell-efn-...
| Hamuko wrote:
| You should be paying VAT if you order from the UK to the EU.
|
| I just tried out checking out an item on Amazon.co.uk with
| Finland as the destination. On the checkout page I have four
| different charges: items, postage & packaging, import fees
| deposit, and exchange rate guarantee fee.
|
| So looks like Amazon is removing the VAT from the item (it was
| PS39.99 on the item page and it drops to PS33.32 on the
| checkout page) and then charging your local VAT as an up-front
| deposit. So if it's anything like my Amazon.co.jp orders, you
| just throw money at Amazon and you get the item in your hands
| without any customs hassle.
| phjesusthatguy3 wrote:
| If we're going to edit the title, can we at least change it to
| the more honest "EU company temporarily suspends exports to UK
| after Brexit"?
| [deleted]
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| For a place that already has sky high income tax, I wonder why
| place such an additional burden on businesses with complicated
| and punitive taxes like these?
| mkl wrote:
| You may be misinformed:
| https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLE_I6
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| I realize I was mistaken.
|
| Still, it feels Europe has, in general, huge tariffs, VAT and
| sales tax for any items, often doubling the price for
| seemingly no good reasons.
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| How I would suggest they do it. Costing wise VAT is already
| included so pricing provably wont change unless tax rates are
| same/similar. Then, set up a Britain operations which would mean
| as the article said, registered with local tax office.
|
| The next part would be, to "sell" goods to that British
| subsidiary tax account which would then sell to local customers.
|
| That or do how things work with aliepxress and assume you are
| aliexpress and your customers want to buy from you. You just add
| VAT as import duty at time of sale and that should do it.
| pmontra wrote:
| Not every business is large enough to sustain the overhead of a
| subsidiary in the UK or in any other country. Probably there is
| an opportunity window for middleman services that collect
| orders and sell to UK customers, an Alibaba from the EU to the
| UK.
| rsynnott wrote:
| > Probably there is an opportunity window for middleman
| services that collect orders and sell to UK customers
|
| There absolutely is, and such services are already showing
| up. "Let's fund our middlemen instead" wasn't a great slogan
| for a bus, of course, but this was always inevitable.
| nottorp wrote:
| I suppose someone up there thinks they're stimulating the
| British economy this way, with opportunities for local
| middle men to handle the UK VAT.
|
| However, those middle men will be paid by ... the average
| UK consumer.
|
| I don't see how that's a plus for the UK economy. Or maybe
| it inflates GDP while decreasing purchasing power...
| rsynnott wrote:
| Well, realistically, one of the biggest ones will
| probably be Amazon, so, Foreign Middlemen.
| toast0 wrote:
| For Brooks, they clearly have a UK subsidiary already,
| because they own and operate a manufacturing facility. It's
| probably just a bit of time to digest the trade agreement and
| figure out what the best thing is going forward, shich I
| would guess is probably finding a way to ship UK destined
| saddles within the UK to avoid customs.
|
| For some of the other bicycle companies mentioned, it seems
| they don't have UK operations, so they may not want to have
| formal relations with the UK government. They'll need time to
| figure it out too, but probably worst case is they'll end
| direct mail order sales to the UK, and you'd have to buy
| through a retailer. But, again after some time to understand
| the new rules.
| groundthrower wrote:
| Brooks has been my saddle on my bicycle trips across the world.
| It's now sort of a fingerprint of my butt.
| analog31 wrote:
| I believe that Brooks may be the oldest bike-related brand in
| continuous use.
| davidw wrote:
| As a former resident of Italy, I'm a bit stumped by "logistics
| center in Italy". Italy's a great place for many things - I could
| talk about it at length - but shipping and logistics is not one
| that comes immediately to mind.
| busterarm wrote:
| Italy has been mass-importing cheap manufacturing labor from
| China and it has most-affected textiles businesses.
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| Not Brooks saddles, though. They are still made in the UK.
| However, cheaper immigrant labor has been used, albeit not
| Chinese. Brooks' own newsletter reveals that at least some
| current workers in this British firm with a hundred-year-old
| tradition are recently-arrived Poles.
|
| One place where Brooks has really diminished its fine
| reputation is handlebar tape: Brooks leather handlebar tape
| is made in a Chinese factory with just the Brooks logo
| stamped on it, and it is nowhere near the quality of the
| famed saddles.
| busterarm wrote:
| That's not what I said.
|
| We're talking about why Brooks' logistics might be handled
| in Italy. Which they are.
|
| Why do you think it might be cheaper to have their full
| inventory sent to a company in Italy and then have
| logistics handled there?
| walshemj wrote:
| Italy is a center for leather working
| busterarm wrote:
| Except the "working" part of it was already done in the
| UK here. It's literally stated in the first part of the
| article.
|
| And again, Italy has mass-imported Chinese immigrants to
| perform its textiles (and other industries') labor. Just
| because Italy is the "center for X" doesn't mean Italians
| are the ones doing X.
| Hamuko wrote:
| I imagine it's cheaper if you do most of your sales in
| continental Europe and just sell some units in the UK.
| Would make more sense to just have one logistics center
| even if it results in some items being shipped back and
| forth.
| rjsw wrote:
| If you want something shipped anywhere you don't start
| from Italy.
| busterarm wrote:
| There's a lot of mental gymnastics people will do to not
| admit the only reason why anyone ever outsources
| anything: the labor is cheaper.
|
| Postage & Logistics are already robust industries in the
| UK.
| busterarm wrote:
| There's no why in what you said, just stating the same
| premise that I did.
|
| Selle Italia happens to be located in northern Italy,
| where most of this immigration is concentrated. Granted
| it's in Veneto and the highest concentration is in
| Lombardia/Lombardy...but that region has half as many and
| they're right next to each other.
| mikey_p wrote:
| Probably because their parent company is in Italy.
|
| > Owned since 2002 by Italian bicycle saddles firm Selle Royale
| abc03 wrote:
| I thought so as well until I got shipped a product I ordered
| from the Apple store from Italy. Then I remembered I got an
| English book I ordered from Amazon.de shipped from Italy.
| rob74 wrote:
| Well, if you are a huge Italian bicycle saddle maker, and you
| buy a small boutique British bicycle saddle maker, and you
| decide to centralise your logistics, where are you going to do
| it?
| petre wrote:
| Move EU production to Italy, keep a smaller boutique shop for
| the UK market.
| cultus wrote:
| I'll just drop in here to say that as a massive cycling
| enthusiast and former racer,
|
| BUY A BROOKS SADDLE!
|
| They are the best bike saddle I've ever ridden. I don't get sore
| or chafe even on 5+ hour rids Sure, they weigh 2 lbs instead of
| 10 ounces, but that just doesn't matter for 99.8% of cyclists.
| Since it is leather, the saddle breaks in to your particular
| nether regions just like a boot or baseball gloves.
| creaturemachine wrote:
| My Brooks was the first to ever give me saddle sores, and
| that's after having used some pretty serious ass hatchets in
| the past. It's definitely a quality product and it's better
| now, but break-in is a bitch.
| petre wrote:
| Get a Brooks Cambium then.
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| Were you wearing padded cycling shorts? Those are said to
| actually prevent the saddle from molding itself comfortably
| to your sit bones.
|
| Me, I spend half of every year cycle-touring the world,
| wearing ordinary cotton underwear and Fjallraven expedition
| trousers on the bike. My Brooks broke in after 500 km without
| sores and only a modicum of discomfort, and after that it has
| been like I'm sitting on air as I ride.
| rjsw wrote:
| Mine is 40 years old, it is just on an exercise bike right now
| but I wouldn't change it.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| They are great. I rode one for a decade. Comfortable, classy.
|
| But to tell the truth, the only seat that breaks in is the one
| that's attached to you.
| hirundo wrote:
| "The company said that it had taken the decision due to the UK
| government telling overseas firms that they must apply and
| collect British taxes when selling to customers here, with the
| point at which VAT is collected, for example, moved from the
| point of importation to the point of sale."
|
| It would be difficult for London policy makers to come up with
| trade rules that are as damaging and onerous as the ones from
| Brussels. But I have every confidence that they are up to the
| task.
| polar wrote:
| The EU intends to introduce a similar system later this year.
|
| https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/vat/modernisi...
| Shoue wrote:
| Also as I understand it, Norway already has as of April 2020
| (VOEC), so not just EU.
| threeseed wrote:
| Australia has had this system in place for over a year now.
|
| https://www.ato.gov.au/business/international-tax-for-
| busine...
| threeseed wrote:
| > come up with trade rules that are as damaging and onerous as
| the ones from Brussels
|
| Simply not true.
|
| EU has made trading free and effortless between the 27 member
| states for the first time in history. And for companies
| shipping to the EU it is only a one time regulatory hit and
| then you benefit from a single, coherent market.
|
| Also the world needs a trading bloc that actually believes in
| climate change, worker rights, consumer rights, privacy etc.
| mrslave wrote:
| Shame it didn't just stay a trading bloc. This expansion of
| power is really unpopular and enabled Brexit in the first
| place.
|
| It's also probably a proxy for immigration, mostly of the
| illegal variety, but also legal within the Schengen area.
| People don't take too kindly to having a supernational body
| tell them who is allowed to enter their country, stay for
| long periods of time, and their very loose definition of
| refugee. I know that some nations are politically very much
| in alignment with the EU's immigration push (Germany is
| obvious) but clearly the UK isn't. The EU should not have
| touched this issue.
|
| The single area interest rate also creates a lot of economic
| tension that perhaps the average joe can't articulate, but he
| certainly is affected by it.
| intricatedetail wrote:
| This is one big surveillance super state. Companies e.g. have
| to submit all their invoices, bank accounts to gov in real
| time. Some member states even require separate bank accounts
| to store VAT. Bureaucracy is just gargantuan. If you think it
| is easy then likely you are doing something wrong.
| noncoml wrote:
| Brexit is the best modern argument against Democracy. It's
| literally the beloved British saying of cutting off the nose to
| spite the face.
|
| Edit: I mean _if_ someone was arguing against Democracy, this
| would be one of their best arguments to support their position.
|
| _I_ am _not_ arguing against Democracy. I hope I don't get
| misunderstood.
| busterarm wrote:
| Brexit is equally an argument against giving up your national
| sovereignty to a coalition government.
|
| Regardless of opinions, this plays out like a bad marriage and
| divorce. Joining the EU requires good will to get in, but
| there's no amicable way to leave. Why would anyone join now
| seeing these circumstances?
|
| Once you're in, you're in for life. Ride or die. Might as well
| join a gang.
| threeseed wrote:
| > Why would anyone join now seeing these circumstances?
|
| Because the world is moving to being dominated by the big 3
| trading blocs: US, EU and China. All in an environment where
| the WTO is diminished and bilateral relationships become the
| norm.
|
| If you are outside one of these blocs increasingly you will
| become weaker and more irrelevant for trade and services. And
| far less able to defend your interests.
| busterarm wrote:
| If the trading bloc doesn't serve your interests either
| though...
|
| Again, when the trading interests of a country are pitted
| against its other national interests, conflict is most
| often what comes next.
| twblalock wrote:
| Except, the UK was allowed to leave, and the deal they got is
| probably not that different from the kind of trade deal they
| would have had with the EU if they had never joined.
|
| The UK didn't revert to WTO rules in their trade with the EU.
| Instead, they got a deal that gave them fewer trade barriers
| with the EU than most countries have to deal with.
| mnd999 wrote:
| It's a good deal, but only for the EU. They have a goods
| trade surplus with the UK and they retain their free trade
| agreement. The UK has a services trade surplus with the EU
| (particularly financial services) and that is not included
| in the deal. It's not all that surprising that the UK lost
| out in the negotiations - this is what tends to happen when
| a smaller economy negotiates with a larger one.
| busterarm wrote:
| Don't forget that trade imbalance is the root cause for
| nearly 100% of the world's military conflicts.
| busterarm wrote:
| I actually agree with you, but then Brexit isn't such a big
| deal then, isn't it.
|
| The complainers are trying to get all the upside with none
| of the down.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Well that would be called the ideal arrangement. Its
| business, not a moral issue. Everybody wants what works
| for them.
| st1x7 wrote:
| No, it's more complicated than that. It's an argument against
| putting your long-term foreign policy up to a simple majority
| vote on only one occasion and in a way that one of the outcomes
| hasn't been clearly defined which allows for anyone to claim
| anything they want about the potential benefits.
| roamerz wrote:
| Right or wrong how can one argue against Democracy (the will of
| the people)? It's a basic tenant to freedom.
| macintux wrote:
| It's rarely a good idea for everyone's freedom to blindly
| follow the will of the majority.
|
| Too often minorities are suppressed.
|
| Plus, voters are terrible at understanding the long-term
| implications of what they think they want.
| roamerz wrote:
| The last sentence sounds like many politicians in my state
| if Oregon. Voters are to dumb to be able to vote. Point in
| case the voters of Oregon have multiple times voted
| (overwhelmingly) to not issue driver's licenses to illegal
| aliens. The legislature this year voted to give illegal
| aliens driver's licenses. Is this not a prime example of
| tyranny?
| macintux wrote:
| It's a prime example of a republic instead of a true
| democracy.
|
| Tyranny would be if you couldn't vote them out of office.
| roamerz wrote:
| I do agree with that however if you truly represent the
| citizens why would you vote for something that is
| demonstrably contrary to their will? Granted they
| probably are counting on that by election time this
| particular vote may be forgotten or outweighed by other
| factors. Probably more disingenuous than tyrannical but
| still..
| macintux wrote:
| This question has been discussed for hundreds of years.
|
| "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but
| his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he
| sacrifices it to your opinion."--Edmund Burke
| [deleted]
| johnp314 wrote:
| History is replete with pure democracy leading to tyranny.
| Beyond just Brexit, it's not out of the realm of possibility
| that the 'majority' could vote to nullify constitutional
| checks to the power of a president, to term length, to
| guarantees on the protection of individual rights and
| freedoms, etc. Of course any such votes are deemed to be in
| the interest of the 'people'. The ancients and the US at its
| founding were wise enough to mix democracy, the at the moment
| will of the people, with various checks, balances and
| buffers. The US seems to be moving to more and more pure
| democracy. In my humble opinion this is dangerous, a slippery
| slope, a camel's nose under the tent, etc.
| roamerz wrote:
| The founders were indeed wise in requiring 2/3 to amend the
| constitution as well as establishing the electoral college
| in lieu of popular vote. What they failed at in my opinion
| is not having any criminal penalties for anyone including
| politicians and judges for violating the constitution.
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| I would think that would have just encouraged the
| "creative" interpretations of the constitution in use now
| to justify themselves
| ascagnel_ wrote:
| I disagree on the Electoral College -- it's a system
| designed so that votes aren't equal in value. If you live
| in California, your presidential vote is worth less than
| a vote in Wyoming[0]. Similarly, the cap on the size of
| the House of Representatives also means that larger
| states will generally see less representation per capita
| than smaller states. (Note: I'm leaving the Senate out,
| given that it's designed to assign two votes per state
| without regard to population).
|
| A referendum is great at giving legislators or executives
| a priority -- my home state of New Jersey has been
| working on marijuana legalization for years, but it's
| largely stalled in the statehouse. The 2020 election
| featured a ballot question on legalization, and the
| overwhelming "yes" (more than 2/3 of the electorate
| supports the move) helped kick off another round of
| legislation (that, in a sadly predictable pattern, seems
| to be stuck once again).
|
| [0] https://www.axios.com/electoral-college-by-vote-per-
| capita-4...
| jdmichal wrote:
| Here in Florida, we got so tired of the stalling that we
| wrote medical marijuana into a 2016 constitutional
| amendment initiative, since that's the only way to get
| something approaching a law without legislative
| cooperation.
| alasdair_ wrote:
| The original system for the Electoral College (where some
| electors from a state could vote differently than others)
| made sense. So did having the vice president be the
| runner up (before the 14th Amendment) - this is why the
| VP getting the ability to break ties in the senate made
| more sense too.
|
| The current EC implementation is terrible however. Small
| states already get massive overrepresentation in the
| Senate, they don't need a second system to weigh in their
| favor.
|
| I very much want to see one person, one vote, with
| approval voting (i.e. pick ALL the people you're happy to
| see being president, the winner gets the job) being used
| for presidential elections.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| I think it may be argued that holding referendums is not
| necessarily democratic. Referendums are not historically part
| of the UK electoral system. There have only ever been three
| UK wide referendums, two on Europe and one on the electoral
| system. We have none of the safeguards, of super-majorities
| for instance, that some countries have.
|
| It could be argued that having failed to get your own way in
| the established electoral system, inventing a new unstoppable
| electoral system is undemocratic.
| oblio wrote:
| Minor nitpick: tenet, not tenant.
|
| Otherwise, agreed :-)
| rsynnott wrote:
| It's not an argument against democracy, it's an argument for
| sensible government.
|
| It's a very, very bad idea to hold a referendum along the lines
| of "vote no for the status quo, vote yes for, erm, something,
| we'll let the Yes side make up some stuff about unicorns and
| cricket playing vicars for you". The vote should have been for
| a realistic deal, with article 50 notification contingent on
| having agreed said deal in principle. People had _no_ idea what
| they were voting for, and that's entirely Cameron's
| government's fault.
|
| That doesn't mean that referendums are necessarily bad in
| principle, though.
|
| In Ireland we have quite a few of these, but generally the
| government will say what it intends to do with a Yes result.
| When people voted yes on the abortion referendum, say, they
| weren't just voting for "more abortions, please" in the
| abstract, they were told ahead of time what would happen if
| they did vote yes.
| ipqk wrote:
| If people are generally upset about state of things for
| possibly various different reasons, and you only give them
| one lever to pull to "fix it", they're going to pull that
| lever.
|
| And that's how you get Brexit.
| petre wrote:
| It was Cameron bluffing and the lever was the nuclear
| option. If it went the other way, he'd probably have more
| leverage to negotiate. Well, surprise. Too bad. I already
| miss the poor buggers. If Scotland holds another
| referendum, they're pretty much screwed because Northern
| Ireland is going to be next. I hope Nigel is happy now.
| rsynnott wrote:
| Well, also, Cameron would never have expected to be in a
| position to hold the referendum. He made it as an
| election promise in an election where pretty much no-one
| expected a Tory majority; at best they were expected to
| be part of a coalition. Then things changed, and here we
| are...
| tomxor wrote:
| I have heard people explain (in person) this as the reason
| they personally voted yes!
|
| I think this is one of the three major factors that got it
| anywhere near a 50/50 outcome: 1. Voting on something as
| vauge as can be, 2. lies and manipulation, 3. single lever
| problem
| dageshi wrote:
| The EU doesn't allow negotiation on withdrawal until article
| 50 is invoked. There was no ability to negotiate any deal of
| any kind until the UK confirmed it was leaving.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| The UK could have asked for several different deals and got
| them. EEA would have taken zero negotiation, for instance.
| dageshi wrote:
| I don't believe there's any mechanism to go from full EU
| membership to the EEA when you're already a member? That
| is more or less the same thing as negotiating to leave
| before article 50 is invoked.
|
| I'm not entirely sure what you're referring too?
| samsonradu wrote:
| Why is it granted they would have gotten an EEA-like
| deal?
| [deleted]
| cultus wrote:
| To me it's an argument that there isn't enough democracy.
| Brexit would never had happened if the British political class
| (including Labour and libdems) were not totally hostile to the
| interests of the British working class over a period of several
| decades. When a government isn't responsive to the people, bad
| stuff happens.
| mhh__ wrote:
| The thing with Brexit is that the referendum itself was
| unbelievably stupid, not democracy as a concept.
|
| If you are going to have a referendum it should require a
| supermajority because the turnout is never going to be good
| enough for a real consensus.
| darth_avocado wrote:
| It's not an argument against Democracy. It's an argument
| against how much of the decision making for a country needs to
| be a popularity contest.
|
| If you left everything up to the public, there would be 0
| taxes, free education, healthcare, housing and monthly
| paychecks of a $1000 for everyone. But that's a terrible idea,
| and it doesn't get implemented anywhere, because you literally
| choose people to represent the population and to make sensible
| decisions.
| alasdair_ wrote:
| The Saudis and a few other resource-rich countries
| essentially have this for citizens.
|
| I still wouldn't want to live there.
| vagrantJin wrote:
| > But that's a terrible idea, and it doesn't get implemented
| anywhere, because you literally choose people to represent
| the population and to make sensible decisions.
|
| Haha. My beloved country has free healthcare, education and
| government social grants for women mostly and a lot of free
| actual legit housing for the poor. Don't get me wrong, the
| whole thing is crashing in slowmo for a few decades now
| because we really don't have anyone driving the vehicle but
| Jesus. I'll never abondon ship though.
|
| </RANT>
| darth_avocado wrote:
| None of that comes with 0 taxes and that was the whole
| premise.
| thesuitonym wrote:
| You missed the 0 taxes though.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| One man's "cutting off your nose to spite your face" is another
| man's "sticking to your ideological guns even when you make
| less money that way".
|
| If anything being able to occasionally execute on controversial
| things like this seems like an argument in favor of democracy.
| How often have we heard of X or Y is easier in a dictatorship
| because the approximate half of the population that disagree
| can just be steamrolled and progress can happen without them?
| To me things like Brexit are proof that democracy can be just
| as versatile when it wants to.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| Broadly, yes, but I don't see the ideology in play in Brexit.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| People wanted out (for a variety of reasons, some better
| than others). They got out (with some find print). They're
| gonna pay for it. But nothing is ever free. It might be
| stupid, but the people get what they want even if it's
| stupid. Welcome to democracy, the system that sucks less
| than all the alternatives.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| That rather confirms my point.
| [deleted]
| gorgoiler wrote:
| Ideology wasn't thin in the ground for either the leftist
| Brexiteers, "Nationalists", paternalistic One Nation
| stories or for the _Ever Closer Union_ lot.
|
| The main complaint about the whole process was that it was
| far too ideological instead of being benignly technocratic.
| twblalock wrote:
| It's an argument against referendums, especially when they only
| require a simple majority required to pass. The Brexit
| referendum passed with about 52% of votes in favor -- not
| exactly a landslide.
|
| Really big changes ought to have a higher bar than just a
| simple majority. A 2/3 majority is a much higher bar to
| overcome, and in the case of a referendum, it would mean the
| result represents the consensus view of the people, not just
| one side in a bitterly divided close fight.
| vidarh wrote:
| I've long argued referendums ought to require supermajorities
| based on how easy the change voted on is to _undo_ and an
| assessment of the extent of the change. It encourages the
| side that wants change to aim to find ways to minimise the
| change they ask for and maximise the viability of reversal to
| lower the bar for the vote.
|
| Achieving a reasonably objective assessment of what the
| required majority should be would be very hard, though.
| [deleted]
| Animats wrote:
| They had two years to get ready. Of course a UK company should
| not be shipping to Italy and back to the UK. The UK is now
| outside the European Union. There are trade barriers now. That's
| what Brexit was all about. Leaving the European Union.
| acdha wrote:
| This is technically true but remember that there was a long,
| protracted period where Brexit proponents were dissembling
| about what would happen. I'd expect this to happen for anyone
| who either believed them or thought that the obvious risks
| would cause people to stop playing politics and come up with a
| better plan. It's not reasonable to expect every business,
| large or small, to have developed a range of contingency plans.
| Finnucane wrote:
| But it's not really a UK company shipping to Italy, it's an
| Italian company that owns UK factory shipping to Italy. With a
| single market, it probably made sense to Selle to have
| distribution flow from Italy. It's not their fault the UK is
| being an arse.
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| Right, they have a large distribution center in Italy, where
| they process all orders across Europe and beyond. Putting a
| distribution center into UK wasn't useful pre-Brexist as
| orders might contain items from different lines and a larger
| center is more efficient. Post-Brexit the market could be too
| small.
| hibbelig wrote:
| Well it has been up to everyone to prepare for the new rules.
| I get that details have not been known until recently. But it
| was clear from the start that moving goods around like this
| will not work.
| toast0 wrote:
| There was lots of hopeful talk about UK contining to be in
| the single market. I think I heard that up through spring
| of 2020.
|
| Even assuming it was clear that what they were doing
| wouldn't work, I don't think it was necessarily clear what
| would work. And it may not have been cost effective to
| change until necessary.
| [deleted]
| polar wrote:
| Also, this is a barrier that the EU intends to introduce for
| themselves as well (postponed to July 2021).
| [deleted]
| rsynnott wrote:
| > They had two years to get ready
|
| For the deal agreed on the 24th of December?
|
| I mean, they had two years to get ready for something entirely
| nebulous. It could have been some sort of Norway+ deal, where
| they'd have had to do nothing, or it could have been no deal,
| in which case they'd probably have had to close the British
| factory, or anything in between. In both of those extremes, and
| many of the in-betweens, any preparation for the current
| situation would of course have been futile.
| tw04 wrote:
| >Of course a UK company should not be shipping to Italy and
| back to the UK.
|
| They aren't a UK company, they're an Italian company. Per the
| article it was sold in 2002.
|
| == Owned since 2002 by Italian bicycle saddles firm Selle
| Royale, Brooks England's suspension of orders from UK customers
| highlights one of the impacts of Brexit on trade between the UK
| and the EU. ===
|
| >The UK is now outside the European Union. There are trade
| barriers now.
|
| The agreement was signed on December 25th and is 1200 pages
| long. It's ridiculous to assume that a business could be ready
| in 6 days for a 1200 page agreement... this is just further
| incompetence on the part of the politicians running the show in
| the UK.
|
| == But the fact that the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement,
| which runs to 1,200 pages, was only signed on Christmas Eve has
| given businesses little time to assess the new rules and adapt
| their practices and systems to them. ==
| [deleted]
| jacobr1 wrote:
| > They aren't a UK company, they're an Italian company. Per
| the article it was sold in 2002.
|
| That isn't clear. I suspect they still are a UK company, with
| 100% ownership from the parent Italian company. The
| distinction is relevant (if true) in exactly cases just like
| this. The alternative would be a sale of assets of the former
| child company and filing a dissolution of the same company.
| They likely didn't do that, but might have. This means that
| probably can restructure their business so that UK orders
| stay within the UK subsidiary.
| ben_w wrote:
| The Trade and Cooperation Agreement was _first_ published on
| the 24th of December. That's 11 days, not two years, even if
| they worked through the Christmas break (and why would their EU
| counterparts care enough to help them with that? It's a problem
| for the Brits, the Italians can sell to the rest of the Single
| Market.)
|
| And don't try to say they should've seen it coming, the UK
| government has consistently claimed everything would be
| amazing.
|
| https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/agreements-reache...
| Animats wrote:
| (By the way, HN is taking about 20 seconds to process a posting
| today.)
| southeastern wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25635115
|
| Here's a HN thread about this
| lanevorockz wrote:
| temporarily temporarily temporarily temporarily
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-04 23:01 UTC)