[Closed] EU Referendum - are you in or out?

teamhurtmore - Member
People complained about bureaucracy and then couldn't explain how is affected them in practice, but we know how the fear of Johnny affected them much better. They even made up lies about how it affected jobs, wages, public services etc.

And that's wot won it....

UK is already a bureaucratic nation as it is but trying to add more EU bureaucracy is simply lunacy to a mega proportion.

The BritLand working class people are already struggling as they are and EU bureaucrats want them to feed more people?

Edukator - that's because he's made up on this thread. Get Chewkw on a non-political thread and he's roughly human.
That said it was Skunk Anansie that suggested "of course its **** ing political, everything's political"

So a foreign bureaucrat is coming over here and telling us to leave the eu because of foreign bureaucrats?
Am I missing something?

I think his argument would be he's one of our foreign bureaucrats as opposed to one of theirs.

We did provide funding for Greece before but this was 100% collateralised and paid back in full. However, after that the situation was clarified in writing and it was explicitly noted that non EZ members would have no financial liability to EZ funding issues.

That tells only half the story though

The EFSM was created at an extraordinary meeting of the EU economic and financial affairs council in May 2010, by means of a qualified majority vote, as such they created an entirely new EU structure from which we, in the UK, were legally liable for 12% of, but were unable to veto or opt out of.

Fortunately, this EFSM fund was entirely precluded from being used for bailouts... Until of course they decided, again by QMV so that nobody had a veto, to ignore that rule and use it to bail out Greece with a bridging loan anyway, for which we would have been liable for.

At this point, on the verge of an upcoming EU referendum in the UK, Cameron kicked and screamed a bit, and warned them that if we ended up being liable for bailing Greece out, it would lose him the referendum, so they changed the rules to say that the EFSM would not make the UK liable for Eurozone bailouts.

So, yes, they changed the rules - but the system that was originally created was done in a way that we had no control over, but we're still liable for, and their remains nothing preventing this happening all over again with the creation of a new system with new liabilities, even if the current system has protection built in.

CFH - apparently that makes you a pedantic git. I'm very jealous. On the other hand, I got a rise, so I can live with it. 😉

so they changed the rules to say that the EFSM would not make the UK liable for Eurozone bailouts.

True. What you guys argued before was untrue. period.

So, yes, they changed the rules - but the system that was originally created was done in a way that we had no control over, but we're still liable for, and their remains nothing preventing this happening all over again with the creation of a new system with new liabilities, even if the current system has protection built in.

Untrue. And I think you know it.

Edukator - Reformed Troll
What do you take before posting on this thread, chewkw? The referendum was a few months ago, not before the Great War. Your bygone era is right now and prospering.

The whole EU system must be dismantled.

The day the EU system is totally dismantled I shall celebrate with a large gin and tonic with fish and chips.

Your on-line persona is a mass of contradictions on this thread. If you really are what you claim to be then why are you in favour of the UK closing its doors to people like you?

You will find no contradiction in me as I treat everyone equally.

Chewkw - there is a definite contradiction in character between your political and non-political posts (go read them back) which makes me think you are playing a role. And there were also contradictions between your posts of a couple of years ago and now - not slight changes of opinion, but fundamental contradictions. You may remember that when I pointed it out you used the Reagan defence (claimed to have no recollection).
I was only trying to understand you better to help you put your Brexit fantasies behind you of course, but you're beyond my skill to cure. 😉

Untrue. And I think you know it.

EFSM was created within the powers of Article 122 Lisbon Treaty,

Article 122 remains unaltered, and since its preamble states that it's operation is without prejudice to the operation of the other articles (such as article 136 which allows a Euro area stability mechanism) there is nothing preventing a repeat to the process whereby a new EU structure is created by QMV, creating a further liability for the UK, as long as we remain a member.

I know you would like to say that wouldn't be in the 'spirit' of the agreeents we have made... but as already pointed out, the EFSM was never supposed to be able to drag us into the mess, nor to be used to bail out Greece in the first place.

And I think you know it

So assuming Fillion beats Lepenn (wtf knows xenophobia is en vogue this season)

Does his tough stance on passporting and apparent Thatcher emulation mean he wants to woo finance industry from London to Paris?

Is against a transitional deal and wants a swift Brexit

He's pro EU project but 'pragmatic' on Putin and Assad .

Not sure but sounds like that puts him on a collision course with May.

I suppose whatever happens in German elections will be the other factor

Edukator/cchris thanks. Fair to say in-laws are generally happy, interesting conversation with one BIL who says Le Pen is economically far too left for him (which I can understand). I think that will be a key battle in 2017, very much left leaning FN economic policies vs Fillon's right wing "Thatcherite" programme.

mrmo Fillon seems to have been on a bit of a journey having voted against Maastricht. I personally think the Brexit remarks there where just to help differentiate himself from Sarkozy in the Primary. If he is going to cut 500,000 state jobs and put VAT up 2% for example I don't see how he and France could cope with a hard Brexit without major pain.

French election will be interesting as there are massive domestic challenges and A50 discussions will kick off immediately for the new President.

Press reports that Carney will urge caution to EU in their stance as financially they are at a weak and vulnerable point (now where have I heard that before 😉 ). Also seperately (BoE #2 I believe) it was pointed out that many of the financial products and markets in London quite simply could not be replicated easily or quickly in Europe, not only do the people and capital not exist there is no regulatory expertise to over see them.

@kimbers yes of course Fillon wants Finance jobs back in Paris, you can just imagine how embarrasing it is for the French Government to have banks like Soc Gen, BNP, Credit Agricole, Natexis to have so many senior and high paid staff (inc many French) in London. Every French President has wanted the same thing. However the expertise is in London, tax rates (employee and employer) are sky high and you can't fire people easily. None of that is conducive to jobs coming to Paris. If they did move it is far more likely they went to Ireland (language positive but banking reguation capacity far too small) or Switzerland. However imo use of intermediaries is far more likely.

DrJ if I may say so you should avoid the "we woz robbed" line, ie it was the lies that won it.

If the lies didn't win it, why did they bother with the bus?

Fillon's 2% VAT rise is an election loser. To the "sans dents" as François Hollande describes his electorate it's taxing the poor. To the educated it's increasing a non-progressive tax and to Marine's followers it's a European tax (and they aren't wrong). He's going to have to moderate his programme a little between the primaries and the presidential elections if he wants to win.

On the positive side he wants to level the European playing field and put a stop to some of the worst fiscal dumping and abuse of the system by countries to gain selfish advantage. If both France and Germany do this and the opposition that would have come from GB is absent (thanks to Brexit) we may well see the rise of Frankfurt as a financial centre and the end of Ireland/Luxembourgs's special conditions for multinationals

"If the lies didn't win it, why did they bother with the bus?"

If the sole motive for leavers was racism, why would lying about an economic factor make any difference?

"Dillon's 2% VAT rise is an election loser. To the "sans dents" as François Hollande describes his electorate it's taxing the poor. To the educated it's increasing a non-progressive tax"

VAT isn't progressive or non progressive. You can argue it either way with equal validity.

Explain where my university economics lecturers had it wrong, outofbreath. A progressive tax is related to ability to pay and rise with that ability. VAT isn't/doesn't.

VAT isn't progressive or non progressive. You can argue it either way with equal validity.

The Brexshit version of events

There is nothing preventing a repeat to the process...

The truth

Conclusions: Emergency and crisis measures designed to safeguard the financial stability of the euro area will not entail budgetary responsibility for Member States whose currency is not the euro

So that is what you guys claim is either vague or non-existent. 😯

 

Any economics lecturer worth his/her salt, would have reminded his/her students that, since VAT is a tax on consumption not income, it is neither (by defintion) progressive nor regressive/non-progressive.

Standards!!! 😉

My understanding was it was nearly universally regarded as not progressive. The poorer you are the more of your earnings go on vat.

OTOH the richer you are the more of your spendings go on vat.

But less in proportion to your wealth and revenue.

More threat of legal challenge this morning as unclear if article 50 exits single market or not?

But less in proportion to your wealth and revenue.

No way to tell. A rich person might live like a poor person and spend most of his cash on zero rated stuff thus avoiding tax in just the same way as a rich person might legally not take a salary out of company he owns to avoid tax.

However the idea that most wealthy people would live a poor existence to save tax is a bit far fetched so I think it's a reasonable assumption that most people with high incomes spend *far* more on non-zero rated stuff like yachts and Aston Martins and helicopters.

VAT is neither regressive, nor progressive.

2% increase in vat won't go down well but who is going to challenge him on the left?

Imo Macron should have waited for the next election, Hollande has left the socialist in a terrible situation.
Filon probably appears like a safe pair of hands.

Yup, twas on the radio this morning:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38126899

All EU member states are in the European Economic Area and it had been assumed that when Britain leaves the EU it would automatically leave the EEA as well.

But some lawyers argue that leaving the EEA would not be automatic and would happen only if Britain formally withdraws by triggering Article 127 of the EEA agreement.

The legal question is focused on whether the UK is a member of the EEA in its own right or because it is a member of the EU.

In fact rich people spend a greater proportion of their income on things with no VAT such as existing property, stocks, shares, bonds and collectables.

No matter how poor you are you pay VAT on adult clothes once your child is over a standard size 14. No matter how rich you are you don't pay VAT on an Eton uniform irrespective of size.

Its all going really well, this withdrawing from the EU lark, isn't it?

[img] [/img]

But there's no problem at all with EEA membership, as it gives us the power to do a Lichtenstein and invoke article 112 (the'emergency brake') on immigration.

I can't think of many brexiteers at all who would b unhappy about this solution, and it's one that has been discussed for some time as being a potential answer to the Brexit issue.

TM said yesterday that she was guided by God, so nothing to worry about.......

[i]In fact rich people spend a greater proportion of their income on things with no VAT such as existing property, stocks, shares, bonds and collectables. [/I]

'Collectables' will have VAT, holidays have VAT, new cars have VAT.

[I]No matter how poor you are you pay VAT on adult clothes once your child is over a standard size 14. [/i]

Agree, but a £10 pair of trousers from Asda has £1.67 of VAT on it, whereas a pair a £100 trousers has £16.70 VAT.

Classic cars are highly collectable, even when [url= http://www.gdlaw.co.uk/site/library/VAT_ruling.html ]imported you only pay 5% VAT.[/url]

Same goes for works of art, only 5% VAT even when imported.

Imported works of art, antiques and collectors’ items

Certain works of art, antiques and collectors’ items are entitled to a reduced valuation at importation. This is reached by calculating a value for duty using the appropriate duty method, adding any additional costs (see paragraph 3.1) and multiplying the total by 25%. Applying the 20% rate to this value gives an effective VAT rate of 5%.

Go through the whole VAT code and you'll soon work out that the system means the rich often pay a lower rate or are exempted on the luxury things they buy but the poor will be charged full rate VAT on absolute essentials

"Its all going really well, this withdrawing from the EU lark, isn't it?"

I don't see the problem with having a separate process to leave the EEA.

I wonder who's going to be labelled 'Enemies of the People' this week?

[img] [/img]

I can't think of many brexiteers at all who would b unhappy about this solution

Apart from the ones banging on about saving 350M and spending it on the NHS. Or the ones saying we can have our cake and eat it. Or the ones saying we need to reduce bureaucracy. Or the ones saying that we should be setting our own trade rules with the rest of the world. Or the ones saying we should have control over immigration (an emergency brake is not 'control').

Remind me again, if all this is no problem, why the **** are we leaving?

"Classic cars are highly collectable, even when
imported you only pay 5% VAT.
Same goes for works of art, only 5% VAT even when imported."

Maintaining a classic car involves a vast amount of stuff that attracts VAT. Even art works must require the occasional professional cleanup.

If you want to enjoy your cash you pay VAT.

"Remind me again, if all this is no problem, why the **** are we leaving?"

We're not leaving.

We're not leaving.

Have I missed something? 😕

"Have I missed something?"

You may have missed a ton of back tracking from day one, a wooly process that seems to be leading nowhere and the establishments of UK and EU who don't want the UK to leave. You may also have missed a large number of referendums that went the wrong way for the EU which changed nothing.

Classic cars are highly collectable, even when imported you only pay 5% VAT.

Same goes for works of art, only 5% VAT even when imported.

But, not only did they get full vat paid on them first time they were sold, but you have to pay CGT on any profit you make reselling them, or if you die owning them then there's IHT to pay.

And that's on top of the tax you paid when you earned the money, and the tax you pay on your interest.

Short of keeping it stuffed under your mattress, you always end up paying tax on any money you don't spend on food.

Edit:

If you want to enjoy your cash you pay VAT.

This is priceless.

I say something is debatable. Someone says it's not. And now we're having a debate about it. 🙂

Apart from the ones banging on about saving 350M and spending it on the NHS. Or the ones saying we can have our cake and eat it. Or the ones saying we need to reduce bureaucracy. Or the ones saying that we should be setting our own trade rules with the rest of the world. Or the ones saying we should have control over immigration (an emergency brake is not 'control').

Confused, because you seem to be indicating that the brexiteers planned lots of things, but then spend the rest of your time jumping up and down saying that the brexiteers don't have a plan

You may have missed a ton of back tracking from day one, a wooly process that seems to be leading nowhere and the establishments of UK and EU who don't want the UK to leave. You may also have missed a large number of referendums that went the wrong way for the EU which changed nothing.

Well lets hope so. I haven't however missed the govts apparent intention to carry on with this shambles irregardless, supported by a gutless opposition who between them can't find the necessary responsibility and leadership to explain to the people that the thing that was sold to them was a con which is fundamentally unworkable.

If we really are to leave the EU, then the govt should have the balls to explain that it's not possible under the current article 50 process, and that it will take a generation of careful reform and management between the EU and UK to ensure that both parties come out of it strengthened rather than weakened. That to me would seem to be a responsible approach which could be achieved on a cross-party, consensual basis. Or we could just let the mob loose with their pitchforks. 🙄

Confused, because you seem to be indicating that the brexiteers planned lots of things

WIshing for something and assuming it will happen by magic despite all the evidence to the contrary is not 'planning'.

Even art works must require the occasional professional cleanup.

Those straws you're clutching are getting crushed.

VAT hits the poor hardest, the system allows the rich to pay less VAT than the poor. I've provided enough examples to show it's not a progressive tax, it's not even a proportional tax as it's lower or nonexistent on the most expensive things you can buy.

As for the yachts the rick cruise the Med in you'd be a fool to think VAT had been paid even when they are owned by Brits because they might sometimes rent them out. [url= http://www.smith.williamson.co.uk/news/5459-what-s-the-vat-matter-with-yachts ]http://www.smith.williamson.co.uk/news/5459-what-s-the-vat-matter-with-yachts[/url]

But, not only did they get full vat paid on them first time they were sold,

VAT didn't exist the first time many were sold and as they are imports VAT wouldn't have been paid anyhow.

And most of the yatch are registered in tiny countries with little tax controls.