Current Politics in the United Kingdom

[DB83]

^^ There certainly is a 0% rate - well atleast there was when I was directly involved.

It covers non-luxury foods as one example. So, for example, non-chocky bikkies are zero-rate whereas chocky bikkies are standard-rate.

Another example was when George Osborn attempted to introduce a 'pasty' tax. Cold food from a bakery or take-away is zero-rate whereas hot food is standard-rate. Osborn proposed to charge vat on all food from a bakery that was warm ie not re-heated. He lost the argument.

[jacques22]

Originally Posted by DB83

May-day approaches and 'Project Fear Mk2' is in full swing.

In fact the above article IMO is just an example of that.

It's not Project Fear, it's just the basic rules of trade and business that many Leavers seem to ignore.
Here's another article from the BBC what companies will face in the event of a no-deal:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46851664

The best bits:
This would mean the UK would not have to obey EU rules. Instead, it would need to follow World Trade Organization terms on trade. Many businesses would see new taxes on imports, exports and services, which are likely to increase their operating costs. That means the prices of some goods in UK shops could go up.

The UK would also lose the trade agreements it had with other countries as a member of the EU, all of which would need to be renegotiated alongside the new agreement with the EU itself.

Manufacturers in the UK expect to face delays in components coming across the border.

Originally Posted by DB83

I have little sympathy for that company. They started up during the negotiation phase so they should have realised certain risks. More so that they out-sourced production to Europe because it saved them money thus denying their own country-folk job opportunities.

You don't seem to understand the reality of a small business. You have to invest a lot of money in the first years and you make losses before becoming profitable eventually.
That business owner said he had no choice. The only factory that was affordable was in Europe. His company would have never existed and jobs would have never been created if he had only looked in the UK.

Also, you are wrong about that company denying job opportunities for the Brits. On the contrary, this company was planning to expand from three employees to a staff of about 20 within a couple of years.

And last, but not least, you don't understand globalisation. Yes, it can be a problem, but it can be an opportunity too. And that's what that British company realised. They chose a factory in Europe because they want to become a global brand and give people an alternative to Nespresso pods.

I mean, aren't you proud that a British company is successful and could conquer markets all over the world? Wasn't that the aim of some Brexiteers with the idea of a Global Britain?

If we follow your rationale, then all the British companies having factories abroad are traitors. That doesn't make any sense. Then you, as a pro-Brexit consumer, should boycott British companies not manufacturing their goods entirely in the UK. There's very little that you could buy in that case.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by bjcb0

This actually became news when there was general political pressure from women's groups to reduce the 5% tax on tampons to 0%: google the Tampon Tax!

I thought "the tampon tax" was the price the inside of my cheek pays once a month when I've gotta make that thin smile and let a bit of snark slide on by

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by palo5

I thought there was a 0% rate on some items, but maybe I was wrong. For some reason, newspapers and children's clothing are in my mind, but I can't remember whose media I was reading

One of the problems with VAT is that it is fiendishly complicated. Reading the EU link you might think it was a simplification, but not so. Some goods and services attract 0% VAT because they are exempt - for example property rent - unless the building is VAT registered. Some goods and services attract 0% VAT because they are VATable, but "zero rated". An example of this would be newspapers and books. Being zero rated is good because you can reclaim purchase "input" tax but you don't have to charge sales "output" tax - therefore you get a payment from HMRC every quarter when you submit a VAT return. Being exempt is not as good, but can mean you don't have to register and don't have to waste time and effort on preparing VAT returns.

Then you need to start thinking about the VAT threshold and whether you are obliged to register. Exempt supplies don't count, but VATable supplies (inc zero rated supplies) count. When your VATable supplies rise above £85Kover the 12 months just gone (on a rolling basis) you have 30 days to register and, as soon as they give you a VAT number, you start charging and paying 20% VAT. On Planet Government, they say you just jack up your prices by 20%. In the real world, your sales turnover has just fallen by 1/6th because you are being skimmed by HMRC on your sales. I have seen small businesses die an instant death when they are forced to register. VAT is the devil's tax.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by jacques22

More unicorns!
Here's the co-founder of a small business telling what will be the real impact of trading under WTO rules:

“Falling back on the World Trade Organization will close many UK SMEs [small and medium enterprises] – it’s real, not ‘project fear’,” he said.

“The bomb dropped [when] our fulfilment company in the UK sent us the tariffs we would need to pay if we were to fall back on World Trade Organization rules and the paperwork which would need to be provided. Our margins are gone, directly because of import fees (VAT + duty) and indirectly because of staff spending more time doing admin.”

They were told that under WTO tariffs they would have to pay 7.5% extra to import coffee for their capsules, which are manufactured on mainland Europe and could also attract a tariff – enough to decimate their profits.

The full article here:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...le-firm-bosses

As regards the coffee capsules, the first point which occurs to me is that Britain, when importing goods, will set tariffs herself. I can't see any political reason why we would impose a tariff where no tariff existed before, unless and until the EU slaps a tariff on the same thing when we are exporting it. Who is imposing this 7.5% tariff? Is it us, or is it them? Likewise, the EU does not produce coffee - not the right climate. Therefore the coffee walks in from the same places and under the same trade rules it always followed before. Coffee will be neither cheaper nor more expensive. In fact, when Britain has left, she will not be obliged to impose the EU tariff on coffee unless she decides that she should.

Second point - there are consultants and specialists in import and export administration who do lots and lots of this paperwork. If the time and admin cost is going to be so bad, shop around for someone else to do it. After all, most of us do not mend our own cars or fix our own roof. It is an expense, but almost bound to be both easier and cheaper if you outsource it.

Third point - if the EU and Britain can't agree a free trade arrangement, then it will become harder for them to export as well, not just for us. The answer will probably be to either buy the pods from a UK supplier or import them from a friendlier country which won't impose a tariff when the finished product is exported, and so won't generate an automatic import tariff. Buying from a UK supplier might well be easier.

What to do about exporting the finished product will be more difficult because that is the bit the EU controls. If they are imposing a tariff, the trade might well become uneconomic. In this case, your best bet would be to look for other markets. Alternatively, do your manufacturing for the EU in an EU country and do your manufacturing for the rest of the world in the UK. If they are not imposing a tariff, adapt to the indirect admin costs and keep your business selling.

Life is full of challenges. This one is vexing because a more competent British government could have made a deal which would involve free trade - the EU did make clear that a Canada style deal was possible. Mrs May was not that competent British leader who might have struck a deal for us along these lines. My own opinion is that after she is gone, her successor and the EU will both need to regularise the terms of trade and a Canada style deal will be the easiest way to do that. It will not be "frictionless" but it will be possible to prevent time consuming and queue creating checks in the actual port areas and do all the friction-inducing work in bonded warehouses and on the web. Quite simply, since Mrs May has screwed this up, the little people will be required to unscrew it and work the processes out. This might be the best way in any case, because the little people are the ones who know how all this shit works.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by jacques22

And again, I think France and other European countries are stronger in a team like the EU to cope with globalisation than on their own.

When I was younger, I voted to enter to UE, but a majority of my fellow citizen refused.
Today I only observe that UE is a dictatorial machine imposing relocations, free market and all the problems that come with it..
Becoming older and watching how liberalism has shamed the environment and the social life, I think that local autonomy and self-responsability are safer for the future of humanity. That doesn't mean nationalism or racism... not at all. I never will support these stupid or disgusting ideologies.
But we still don't get the technology enough sophisticated to start a sustainable globalization. Not with 7.6 billion inhabitants.

Originally Posted by jacques22

With the Single Market, you can travel to any EU country without having to worry about the currency. Also, you have EU agencies which help lower costs by working like cooperatives and are more efficient than national agencies. And you have EU programs like Erasmus which provide great opportunities to the young generation.

Why do we need UE to have that?
I slowly became an "anti-money" believer. I know, that seems very extreme, but observing what money caused, I understood that money was too dangerous. Greed is extremely harmful.

All what you mention here are metastasis of Capitalism.
IMO first sovereignty is individual, then maybe communal.
Larger (like a nation) is already too complicated to be managed by few human brains, even if they are well trained brains.

Just look at the facts.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by charliels531

I am happy to live in a country where all the decisions you listed are made by groups of people 5,000 kilometers away from me, in a federal union of fifty states that grudgingly gave up what you seem to consider to be sovereignty. I have less to say about that than you do about the governance of the EU.

Just for the record, you do understand that the United States of America is a country, presumably? Likewise, Great Britain is a country - and the European Union is not a country? You understand also that countries are governed by their own government and not by people who are not citizens and do not even live there.

Just for confirmation purposes.

[DB83]

May-day. May-day.

I still expect our directly elected representatives to vote down the deal on the table.

Yet so many of those who will vote it down will do so not in the interests of the country but their own political ambitions.

If they honestly think they can go back to Brussels to re-negotiate then I want to know what they are smoking.

Even so the EU need, in the event of a rejection, to look in the mirror and think if they have been too instransient. They would never give everything yet they also stand to lose in the event of the UK crashing out with a no-deal.

And, if she loses, Theresa do us all a favour. This is your deal. Many a knight fell by their sword due to their beliefs. To remain in charge brings even less credit to the high office.

[Brecht]

I love how the EU is demonised as a non-democratic, bureaucratic behemoth but it's totally ok when a foreign power like the US dictates to other NATO members how much of their GDP is to be spent on the military. Isn't that a harsh violation of a country's sovereignty? How much a country decides to spend on its military is a matter of its government and parliament and definitely not the US government's or the NATO's business, especially knowing that the NATO is basically an agency of the Pentagon.

[seany65]

Hmmm. Who said it was ok for the US to tell other countries how much to spend on the military, other than the Yank Govt? I don't think anyone here has said that.