Current Politics in the United Kingdom

[DB83]

I can well remember those halcion days back in 1973 (yikes) when VAT was introduced (and, yes, as a consequence of the UK being a member of the E.E.C)

One of my tasks was to visit various traders to establish what Purchase Tax they had already paid on their goods to obtain the refund of that prior to them charging the then IIRC 10% VAT

VAT added a level of beurocity for nearly all small businesses and quite a low turnover threshold of only £5000. Not that my boss complained with the additional income the quarterly returns provided

I must confess that VAT brought out the devil in me. Always challenging, and often winning, against the VAT Inspectors who thought the trader had under-declared. Public Houses were one of the softer targets.

Jeez. I really must stop drinkin'

[jacques22]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

The EU is a totally undemocratic institution which makes important and far reaching decisions about how all member countries are governed and run. But we don't get to remove the people making these decisions no matter how much we dislike them. Slightly more than 90% of these people (called MEPs) are chosen by people from 27 other EU countries; but they make laws here in the UK. This is antithetical to freedom.

It's funny that you don't even see the contradiction in your statement.
You want a more democratic EU (an EU president elected by EU citizens, for instance), then you have to give away more sovereignty and accept a more integrated Europe.
But wait, the Brexiters want to take back control of their sovereignty. See, you can't have cake and eat it.
Today's EU is simply the best compromise between sovereignty and integration.

Originally Posted by scoundrel

What if I would like to have a rational system of immigration controls?

Then don't become the Singapore of Europe, because you might be very disappointed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Singapore
If you want to have full control of your borders and immigration, then become North Korea. And don't start mentioning the economy, because the Brexiters don't care about the economy.

Originally Posted by scoundrel

The EU determines our system of sales tax - called VAT. This is a matter which affects everyone everywhere in the EU; but the framework is not decided by national governments.

That's inaccurate:
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/tradehelp/...-member-states

The VAT in Luxembourg is 17% while it's 27% in Hungary. Every EU member has room to decide what its VAT rate should be. There are also exceptions allowed with reduced VAT rates and also super reduced VAT rates.

But it's true that there's a recommended range. That makes sense with the Single Market and the Customs Union. In theory, you want a level-playing field. In practice, the EU has struggled to fight against tax havens. And the UK has many of those safe havens (Anguilla, Jersey, Guernsey, British Virgin Islands, Isle of Man, Turks and Caicos Islands, Bermuda, Cayman Islands).

Right now, the UK has a VAT rate of 20%, the same as France, and slightly above Germany's 19%. When the UK leaves the EU, British politicians might decide to lower that rate, but it will also mean less money for public services like the NHS, housing, pensions, and social benefits. And don't think that tax cuts will pay for themselves like Trump seems to believe in the US, there is always a social cost.

Originally Posted by scoundrel

My point is that it is for the British people to govern Britain. No one else should do this. That is not a particularly strange principle.

The Brits are already in charge of their own country. Stop blaming the EU for your own failings.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by jacques22

Today's EU is simply the best compromise between sovereignty and integration.

I agree about a lot of your points, but not on this one.
The best compromise was (and still is) the "bilateral agreements" like between Switzerland and EU ones.

Now... the EU administration wants to impose too many laws and orders that dismantle national sovereignty.
Just look at what is happening in Italy or in France.
In Italy the population voted the Cinque Strelle that is in opened conflicts with Bruxels and in France Yellow Vests are unhappy because their quality of life slowly became too degraded because of a globalization that is unfair with a lot of French workers.

EU... ok. But not this one.

[jacques22]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

I agree about a lot of your points, but not on this one.
The best compromise was (and still is) the "bilateral agreements" like between Switzerland and EU ones.

That would mean going back to the EEC and ending the Single Market.
Personally, I think most EU countries are better off with the Single Market because it gives them a competitive advantage compared to trading blocks like NAFTA or Mercosur which are much more limited.
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.

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Now... the EU administration wants to impose too many laws and orders that dismantle national sovereignty.
Just look at what is happening in Italy or in France.
In Italy the population voted the Cinque Strelle that is in opened conflicts with Bruxels and in France Yellow Vests are unhappy because their quality of life slowly became too degraded because of a globalization that is unfair with a lot of French workers.

EU... ok. But not this one.

That's scapegoating.
The Five Star movement in Italy and the Yellow Vests in France have become popular because of the failure of the mainstream domestic parties, not because of the EU.
When you look at the demands of the Yellow Vests, most of them have to do with domestic policies that can be changed by any French government: increasing the minimum wage, having free parking spaces in cities, no increase in the diesel tax, no pension below 1,200 euros, ending austerity policies, having a referendum if there are 700,000 signatures, lowering the retirement age to 60, etc...).
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.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Is there anything you would like to retract about my comment being BS, Comrade Palo?

No. I admit I didn't know this:

"EU law only requires that the standard VAT rate must be at least 15% and the reduced rate at least 5%"

But, since your rate has always been above the standard rate, I do think your claim that the EU is setting UK taxes is BS

However, I agree with you that VAT is a regressive and socially negative tax

[bjcb0]

Originally Posted by palo5

But, since your rate has always been above the standard rate, I do think your claim that the EU is setting UK taxes is BS

However, I agree with you that VAT is a regressive and socially negative tax

The EU does allow a lower VAT rate of 5% for certain items (e.g. child seats in cars). The UK also negotiated 0% for a range of essentials (including non-luxury foods and books) when we joined in 1973 -- at least, I think it's one of our special provisions. Other EU countries do this too; e.g. in France, there is 2% VAT on some medications.

[jacques22]

Originally Posted by judy84

John Redwood: Lots of confusion & deliberate misinformation about trading under WTO.

Here are some facts:

http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2019/01/10/trading-under-wto-rules/ …

Peter Lilley also published an excellent pamphlet with more detail “30 Truths about Leaving on WTO terms”

See: https://globalbritain.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/GBLL-paper-30-Truths-Final-05.01.19.pdf …

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

[DB83]

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

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

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. Very much like EU citizens taking our own jobs. Now have no real problem with that since many EU citizens are more hard-working than our own and this company could well have sought out a UK source who, inevitably, would probably have obtained their work-force from elsewhere.

So their costs increase. They would any way. And inevitably they are passed on to the consumer who picks up the tab. Sorry for the pun but this company is simply crying in their coffee.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by bjcb0

The EU does allow a lower VAT rate of 5% for certain items

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

[bjcb0]

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

No, you're entirely correct, and books are also zero-rated (but not e-books). These zero-rated items were negotiated as part of the UK's accession back in 1973 and cannot easily be extended. 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!

It's quite interesting to see what concessions were agreed back in 1973. Denmark obtained the unusual condition that only residents of 5 years standing (if I recall correctly) would be allowed to buy property in Denmark, mainly because of Danish fears of Germans buying holiday homes and distorting the Danish property market.