• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Brexit: Now What? The Perfect 10.

Status
Not open for further replies.
lomiller said:
Which makes ZERO sense. No deal hurts the UK far more than the EU so the threat of no deal would have bolstered the EU position should they choose to push the issue.
.
Click to expand...
Despite that it remains a view amongst a large proportion of Brexiteers, at least the vocal ones on social media that we should have gone for a no deal brexit. Indeed one brexiteer here advocated that.

Many want nothing to do with the EU.
They see this deal as tying us to EU rules and regulations (they are right)

They think we can thrive if we cut off totally from the EU (they are wrong).
 
abaddon said:
I still have not seen what exactly brexiteers think they have "won".
Click to expand...

You'll likely get "sovereignty" as the reply, but push a bit and you'll not find exactly what "sovereignty" we have gained.
You might get "we stay out of the European Army" nonsense, without them being able to explain why the proposals are different to NATO.

In short, catchphrases, but little substance.
 
Tolls said:
You'll likely get "sovereignty" as the reply, but push a bit and you'll not find exactly what "sovereignty" we have gained.
You might get "we stay out of the European Army" nonsense, without them being able to explain why the proposals are different to NATO.

In short, catchphrases, but little substance.
Click to expand...

Sovereignty. F*#£.

People who spout sovereignty would rather be subject to a bad law made solely by Brits than a good law where we were only one of the contributers.

Xenophobes is a better term for them.
 
Lothian said:
Sovereignty. F*#£.

People who spout sovereignty would rather be subject to a bad law made solely by Brits than a good law where we were only one of the contributers.

Xenophobes is a better term for them.
Click to expand...

Bloody foreigners the lot of them! They can all bugger off back to Xenoland!
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Saw someone buying garlic in the local shop. I will report them of course.

Plus, this bottle of Champagne I still have. Do I throw it out or drink it and hand myself in?
Click to expand...

i think the required procedure is-: Bottle of Champagne, revolver, one bullet, lock the study door & do the decent thing old chap. No note required, the bottle will explain everything.
 
David Allen Green's latest blog entry laying out the history of European supranationalization. Puncturing some of the bollocks talked. Another entry discussing "sovereignty" should be required reading.



https://davidallengreen.com/2021/01...ranationalism-state-and-why-it-still-matters/


[FONT=&quot]Others will point to the 1960s caselaw of the European Court of Justice, such as the Costa v ENEL judgment of 1964 that made it as plain as a pikestaff (the lawyers’ equivalent of ‘absolutely clear’) that the domestic law of a member state was subordinate to the provisions of both the Treaty of Rome and the legal instruments made thereunder.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The United Kingdom thereby knew exactly what it was joining in 1973, and only a fool or knave could (and did) pretend otherwise.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Yet the supranational essence of what the United Kingdom joined in 1973 was older than the Costa case of 1964, and was even older than the Treaty of Rome of 1957.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot].....[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]So when the United Kingdom joined the communities in 1973, the fact that it was joining a practical supranational enterprise had been – well – as plain as a pikestaff for over twenty years.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Lothian said:
Sovereignty. F*#£.

People who spout sovereignty would rather be subject to a bad law made solely by Brits than a good law where we were only one of the contributers.

Xenophobes is a better term for them.
Click to expand...

Bad laws made by British governments can be easily scrapped by successor governments.

When bad laws are made by the EU tend they to stay in place as it's much harder to repeal.

Attempts to reform the CAP have successively failed due to the French government's veto.

There's nothing xenophobic about wanting public democratic accountability over the laws and policies we're governed by.
 
Airfix said:
Bad laws made by British governments can be easily scrapped by successor governments.

When bad laws are made by the EU tend they to stay in place as it's much harder to repeal.

Attempts to reform the CAP have successively failed due to the French government's veto.

There's nothing xenophobic about wanting public democratic accountability over the laws and policies we're governed by.
Click to expand...

The process for changing UK law is no easier than changing EU law.

The EU is far more democratic than the UK. Everyone in the EU is there as a result of a public election, or nominated by a county's Prime minister in the same way as our cabinet members are hand picked by the same person. The UK has a wholly unelected second house.


You miss the point however that by demanding sovereignty you are putting the Who before the What.
This is not about public democratic accountability. It is all about who can make the laws that affect us.

For some strange reason Boris has focused Sovereignty on GB.
He could have gone for the UK but the Northern Irish are denied "sovereignty" and they remain under EU rules with no say in setting them.
If sovereignty is as important as you make out why should the citizens of the member countries of GB be denied sovereignty?

Why should the citizens of Kent be subject to rules voted on by Cumbrians?

Where should the power to influence decisions that affect you stop? At what point does it become undemocratic?
 
More on the kind of snags that Captain Swoop is talking about:

Some specialist online retailers in various EU countries have said they will no longer deliver to UK addresses because of tax changes due to Brexit.

Bicycle part firm Dutch Bike Bits said from now on, it would ship to every country in the world except the UK.

"We are forced by British policy to stop dealing with British customers," it said on its website.
Click to expand...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55530721

This essentially means that overseas retailers sending goods to the UK are expected to register for UK VAT and account for it to HMRC if the sale value is less than €150 (£135).

"For providing this service, [HMRC] intend to charge a fee to every company in the world in every country in the world which exports to the UK," said Dutch Bike Bits on its website.
Click to expand...
 
The Don said:
More on the kind of snags that Captain Swoop is talking about:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55530721
Click to expand...

Doesn't sound right.

Why do they have to register if they sell items under £135 but not over? Do HMRC charge fees?

This is the first day back for most businesses. They will be trying to come to terms with the new rules. Likewise I guess HMRC found out about the deal the same time we did. They will take time to explain the new rules.

I would have thought that the net effect of all this is a slower process with a small increase in costs to cover the extra admin. The FTA should not significantly affect prices. The extra admin costs mainly on customs declarations will be hidden in postal/ delivery charges to UK addresses.
 
Lothian said:
Doesn't sound right.

Why do they have to register if they sell items under £135 but not over? Do HMRC charge fees?

This is the first day back for most businesses. They will be trying to come to terms with the new rules. Likewise I guess HMRC found out about the deal the same time we did. They will take time to explain the new rules.

I would have thought that the net effect of all this is a slower process with a small increase in costs to cover the extra admin. The FTA should not significantly affect prices. The extra admin costs mainly on customs declarations will be hidden in postal/ delivery charges to UK addresses.
Click to expand...

Looks right.... https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vat-and-overseas-goods-sold-directly-to-customers-in-the-uk

The £135 mark seems to be the point where you are hit with import duties and VAT while under £135 you are supposed to charge UK supply VAT to the buyer.

'I would have thought' really depends on what was negotiated....
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Looks right.... https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vat-and-overseas-goods-sold-directly-to-customers-in-the-uk

The £135 mark seems to be the point where you are hit with import duties and VAT while under £135 you are supposed to charge UK supply VAT to the buyer.

'I would have thought' really depends on what was negotiated....
Click to expand...
I guess that (<£135) assumes the seller needs to register.

If they only make occasional sales <£135 to the UK then the correct VAT they need to charge at the point of sale is £0
 
Lothian said:
I guess that (<£135) assumes the seller needs to register.

If they only make occasional sales <£135 to the UK then the correct VAT they need to charge at the point of sale is £0
Click to expand...

How did you work that out?

There is no longer a VAT threshold for overseas sellers as far as I can see so VAT is due on every sale.

That being the case it seems unlikely that it would be worthwhile for a company that makes occasional sales to the UK to bother with having to submit quarterly UK VAT returns.
 
Lothian said:
Sovereignty. F*#£.

People who spout sovereignty would rather be subject to a bad law made solely by Brits than a good law where we were only one of the contributers.

Xenophobes is a better term for them.
Click to expand...

It's the term Dad's been using since 2016.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom