View previous topic | View next topic

Brexit (the EU Referendum debate)

Page 569 of 581
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 568, 569, 570 ... 579, 580, 581  Next

Alexander Howard
1330082.  Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:02 am Reply with quote

It's a head-scratcher, but I would think it refers to excise duties, such as the taxes on booze and petrol.

VAT is a form of excise duty too, but that is standard across the EU (or rather the scheme is standard, not the tax rates).

One big Brexit issue is getting cross-border VAT to work the way it does now, which is to say that a supplier can reclaim VAT he has paid on his purchases, as the tax has been paid again by the consumer, and in the EU this is a cross-border system: buy supplies in Germany at price-plus-VAT, sell products in Britain at price-plus-VAT, and reclaim the German VAT. After Brexit, suppliers will want still to be part of that system. It's simple to agree, but bureaucracy has a way of making things hard to achieve.

 
dr.bob
1330106.  Thu Sep 19, 2019 8:34 am Reply with quote

Celebaelin wrote:
I’d explain the source of my error but that would be pointless weaselling and it’s better for everyone if I just suck it up and admit that I did indeed misunderstand the article.


Many thanks for clearing this up. It was obvious to me that one of us had misunderstood something and I was beginning to worry it was me :)

Thanks for being grown up enough to acknowledge a simple mistake. Let's move on.

Celebaelin wrote:
As regards there being no tariffs within the EU the Wiki article also states

Quote:

A charge is not a customs duty or charge having equivalent effect if:

• it relates to a general system of internal dues applied systematically and in accordance with the same criteria to domestic products and imported products alike


which leads us back to the “non-tariff barriers” section of the article I cited whereby rules applied internally in certain member states can lead to a de facto tariff (that is not called a tariff).


Yeah, this kind of thing definitely complicates the picture.

Celebaelin wrote:
Other “non-tariff barriers” that involve actual payment of a charge not considered to be a tariff occur

Quote:

• if it constitutes payment for a service in fact rendered to the economic operator of a sum in proportion to the service or
• subject to certain conditions, if it attaches to inspections carried out to fulfil obligations imposed by Union law.


I don't really understand what those two mean however.


Me either. I'm trying to imagine what "inspections carried out to fulfil obligations imposed by Union law" might mean, but I can't think of any examples. Unless, for some odd reason, a product might be manufactured in one EU country but the relevant compliance standards are checked in another EU country. I can't think why that would be a particularly useful situation, but maybe this is just a case of the regulations being particularly thorough so as to deal with any possible case, even if they don't actually exist yet.

Alexander Howard wrote:
It's a head-scratcher, but I would think it refers to excise duties, such as the taxes on booze and petrol.


I think that kind of thing falls under the first batch of things Cele pointed out. The ones he referred to as "non-tariff barriers”. They are, after all, "applied systematically and in accordance with the same criteria to domestic products and imported products alike."

 
Leith
1330123.  Thu Sep 19, 2019 2:17 pm Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
Celebaelin wrote:
Other “non-tariff barriers” that involve actual payment of a charge not considered to be a tariff occur

Quote:

• if it constitutes payment for a service in fact rendered to the economic operator of a sum in proportion to the service or
• subject to certain conditions, if it attaches to inspections carried out to fulfil obligations imposed by Union law.


I don't really understand what those two mean however.


Me either. I'm trying to imagine what "inspections carried out to fulfil obligations imposed by Union law" might mean, but I can't think of any examples. Unless, for some odd reason, a product might be manufactured in one EU country but the relevant compliance standards are checked in another EU country. I can't think why that would be a particularly useful situation, but maybe this is just a case of the regulations being particularly thorough so as to deal with any possible case, even if they don't actually exist yet.


I think this means that if a country is legally required to implement border checks on something like e.g. the health of imported livestock, then it is allowed to charge the costs of carrying out those checks without that charge being considered a tariff or equivalent.

 
suze
1330165.  Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:57 pm Reply with quote

A thought from my stepdaughter.

Just suppose that Mr Johnson and the good people of the EU do by some miracle come up with a withdrawal agreement with which they are all happy. Given that Mr Johnson's majority in Parliament is currently minus 45, would that agreement have a hope in the Old Hot Place of winning a vote?

 
PDR
1330169.  Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:17 pm Reply with quote

It would depend on what the deal was. If nothing else, I think we have learned that any vote on the brexit terms is effectively a free vote that won't divide on party lines.

PDR

 
suze
1330180.  Sat Sep 21, 2019 4:45 am Reply with quote

That's a fair point.

The odds would have to be against there being a new agreement at all, but let's be optimistic for a second. If Mr Johnson likes it then Conservative MPs will of course be whipped to support it. Whether the DUP will depends what's in it, and Mr Johnson may not be so much their cup of tea as was Mrs May.

The LibDems will be whipped to oppose since they remain Remainist. Will Labour oppose just because it is the opposition, regardless of what the new agreement is? And then we have the assortment of non-party MPs, which I think is the largest such assortment there has ever been. Each and every one of them answers only to him-or-herself.

I would say God knows, but right now I'm not sure that even He knows where this is going next.

 
Alexander Howard
1330191.  Sat Sep 21, 2019 8:29 am Reply with quote

That's a better analysis than I have heard in ages.

 
ali
1330192.  Sat Sep 21, 2019 8:48 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:
I would say God knows, but right now I'm not sure that even He knows where this is going next.


The destination may be doubtful, but I suspect that the mode of transport is a handcart.

 
Stefan Linnemann
1330198.  Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:03 pm Reply with quote

The Tweede Kamer has such confidence in Boris c.s. that they've an emergency law in progress, to allow Dutch citizens currently in the UK to have dual British-Dutch citizenship.

 
suze
1330347.  Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:04 pm Reply with quote

The Supreme Court will announce its ruling as to whether the Prime Minister acted unlawfully at 10.30 tomorrow morning.

What happens next should the ruling be that he did, no one really knows at the moment. I do not expect to have to find out.

 
tetsabb
1330349.  Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:18 pm Reply with quote

Perhaps he should be executed at Tyburn?

 
Alexander Howard
1330360.  Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:45 pm Reply with quote

Stefan Linnemann wrote:
The Tweede Kamer has such confidence in Boris c.s. that they've an emergency law in progress, to allow Dutch citizens currently in the UK to have dual British-Dutch citizenship.


I had an immediate picture of a chamber of men and women in rough twill woven country jackets.

 
suze
1330371.  Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:56 pm Reply with quote

tetsabb wrote:
Perhaps he should be executed at Tyburn?


I wouldn't go that far, but he probably ought to resign if it is ruled that he acted contrary to the law.

There is no real precedent, and so we cannot point at some past PM and say "He resigned when he did that". But it would ill behove the leader of a party which represents itself as standing for law and order to shrug his shoulders and say "I'll break the law if I want to".

That said, I don't think he actually will resign, at least not at once. While he won't say "I'll break the law if I want to" in quite so many words, he'll waffle about perverse rulings, say that the Supreme Court is clearly not fit for purpose and ought to be abolished, and so on. But then the Men In Suits will go to see him, and he'll be gone by the weekend.

But the last two paragraphs apply only in the event that the Supreme Court rules against him, and I do not expect it to.

 
Alexander Howard
1330378.  Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:15 pm Reply with quote

Have you any idea how many judicial reviews there are every day? If every minister, council leader, chief executive or whatever resigned when a ruling when against his or her authority, there would be a steady wind from the constant revolving doors.

The prorogation is a serious issue, but there is a major difference between a decision wrong on an arguable technicality and, say, acting with no pretence of authority. If Boris had marched into the Commons at the head of a column of soldiers with pikes and muskets, accused the members of prostitution and hurled them out bodily, as Cromwell did, that would be a resigning matter. Issuing a perfectly normal, usually annual, procedural instrument is not quite the same.

 
suze
1330380.  Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:15 pm Reply with quote

The Prime Minister is not just "every minister, council leader, chief executive or whatever", though.

He is supposed to set an example, and I dare say you have heard as I have heard that not all Conservative members think that a person with his complicated private life is suitable to be Prime Minister. If, quite apart from that, he should be found to have acted outside the law I think his position would become untenable.

 

Page 569 of 581
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 568, 569, 570 ... 579, 580, 581  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group