Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Hurrache

schmoo2k wrote: »

25% is - I am not 100% what the old rate was (this is tax on profits)

19% I think.

Kermit.de.frog

Seth Brundle wrote: »

is that definite or currently just speculation?

I wouldn't be popping corks.

US has said it is ready to act with the world on making companies pay CT where sales actually happen.

So our advantage could be about to be removed anyway.

fly_agaric

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

We had the moral high ground.

Kermit I think you are overstating importance of "high moral ground" here.

This UK govt. are fairly extreme. They are right wing nationalists who shamelessly tell huge lies all the time to get what they want.
They don't need any "high moral ground" to pick a fight with the EU over the NI protocol.

Brexit might be done but their war with the EU is not finished. It is what most of the politicians who've captured the Conservative party spent all their lives on and its been very, very good for both them & the party since 2016!

They were always unhappy with the agreement made over NI but swallowed that at the time because it was politically expedient/helped "get Brexit done".

NI is one of their "new" battlegrounds with the EU post Brexit.
There's really great milage to be had there - the sanctity of the union, dirty foreigners/EU bureaucrats imposing their petty rules on an inviolable part of the Great UK etc. If they break something in the process of their games, well its only NI after all.

ancapailldorcha

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I wouldn't be popping corks.

US has said it is ready to act with the world on making companies pay CT where sales actually happen.

So our advantage could be about to be removed anyway.

Except it isn't. American politicians have been on about this for years. Trump didn't do it despite the extreme nationalism and isolationism he espoused. Biden currently has plenty of more important matters to attend to.

If corporation tax regimes are to be tightened, it'll be because politicians respond to people being fed up of seeing billionaires making off like bandits and not whatever headline the doomsayers have latched onto that day.

schmoo2k

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I wouldn't be popping corks.

US has said it is ready to act with the world on making companies pay CT where sales actually happen.

So our advantage could be about to be removed anyway.

It simply gives a 2 year heads up to any companies based in the UK which could move some or all operations to cheaper neighbors?

Your point is somewhat independent.

Leroy42

Kermit, is your point that had the mess about Art 16 not happened earlier then the UK would be forced to, and would comply fully with the agreement they signed?

Because only 2 weeks prior to the issue, Johnson said in the HoC that he would trigger A16 is he needed to.

Kermit.de.frog

fly_agaric wrote: »

Kermit I think you are overstating importance of "high moral ground" here.

This UK govt. are fairly extreme. They are right wing nationalists who shamelessly tell huge lies all the time to get what they want.
They don't need any "high moral ground" to pick a fight with the EU over the NI protocol.

Brexit might be done but their war with the EU is not finished. It is what most of the politicians who've captured the Conservative party spent all their lives on and its been very, very good for both them & the party since 2016!

They were always unhappy with the agreement made over NI but swallowed that at the time because it was politically expedient/helped "get Brexit done".

NI is one of their "new" battlegrounds with the EU post Brexit.
There's really great milage to be had there - the sanctity of the union, dirty foreigners/EU bureaucrats imposing their petty rules on an inviolable part of the Great UK etc. If they break something in the process of their games, well its only NI after all.

We all know what the current UK govt is. They can't be trusted.

Again the point is that through incompetence they have been dealt a hand that they should not have.

That's not my opinion. The Irish govt were absolutely furious and knew full well the political damage was already done.

https://twitter.com/JP_Biz/status/1367087885527171076

The EU also broke the protocol because it did not consult in advance all parties on it's intentions before announcing them, a long process that is laid out in the text specifically to avoid what happened.

Anyway the result is that the full gravity of that has yet to be seen and we are exposed in my opinion.

Hurrache

Gotta laugh at the introduction of 8 freeports. Firstly, because they've been found to be not beneficial, secondly, because they essentially bring in different custom rules to the rest of the UK. Something they're whinging out of the other side of their mouth from when it comes to NI saying it's unworkable and breaks the union.

Sunak also claims they're now able to do so because they're out of the EU. They could have introduced them when still in the EU, which in fact they did.

Hurrache

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The EU also broke the protocol because it did not consult in advance all parties on it's intentions before announcing them, a long process that is laid out in the text specifically to avoid what happened.

Your arm will fall off with the extreme reaching you're doing.

Kermit.de.frog

Hurrache wrote: »

Your arm will fall off with the extreme reaching you're doing.

It's true. I don't see what your complaint is.

Gerry T

Kermit.de.frog wrote:

The EU also broke the protocol because it did not consult in advance all parties on it's intentions before announcing them, a long process that is laid out in the text specifically to avoid what happened.

The EU did not envoke Art16. It did speak about doing so, but it didn't.

Do you not accept that ?

Hard for me to prove they didn't but seen it's your point, can you prove the EU did envoke Art16 ?

Quin_Dub

Deleted User wrote: »

It does somewhat afaik.
Payment limits without authentication is defined by the European Banking Agency as €50.

Payments above that require stronger authentication.

It's kind of a nothing change though when if you are using a phone or smart watch etc. there is no limit (other than unlocking your phone)

I spent €400 on a new dishwasher earlier today (Don't get me started. Old one died HARD and flooded the kitchen!!) and used contactless.

I almost never use my actual card anymore , I use my phone pretty much exclusively (except in Tesco , but that's Tesco , not any EU rule).

The percentage of people using smart devices to pay is only going to continue to grow.

Kermit.de.frog

Gerry T wrote: »

The EU did not envoke Art16. It did speak about doing so, but it didn't.

Do you not accept that ?

Hard for me to prove they didn't but seen it's your point, can you prove the EU did envoke Art16 ?

You're completely missing the point.

They did not have to invoke it. The political damage was already done. They had provided the unionists and the tories with the pretext they now run with.

This notion that they didn't actually invoke so what's the problem misses the point of the complete undermining of their own position.

We were told that this was all about preserving peace, right? That was the mantra. The EU succeeded in getting Britain to a point where they had few credible arguments.

Then they threw all that away in a moment of madness over their incompetence over vaccines.

So for Brits it's not about peace at all. To them it proved NI was just a tool to bash Britain with.

I don't agree with that but that's the perception and perception matters.

All due to an amateur mistake, and I accept it was a mistake. But it's us that takes the consequences.

As we see now the Brits naturally have no problem running with it.

I just think it was a dreadful error and only now are we beginning to see the consequences.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

It does somewhat afaik.
Payment limits without authentication is defined by the European Banking Agency as €50.

Payments above that require stronger authentication.

UK was never in the Eurozone.

McGiver

Kermit.de.frog wrote:

It can't be defended. Even the most europhile know they screwed up big time.

What can't we defend exactly?

schmoo2k

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

You're completely missing the point.

They did not have to invoke it. The political damage was already done. They had provided the unionists and the tories with the pretext they now run with.

This notion that they didn't actually invoke so what's the problem misses the point of the complete undermining of their own position.

We were told that this was all about preserving peace, right? That was the mantra. The EU succeeded in getting Britain to a point where they had few credible arguments.

Then they threw all that away in a moment of madness over their incompetence over vaccines.

So for Brits it's not about peace at all. To them it proved NI was just a tool to bash Britain with.

I don't agree with that but that's the perception and perception matters.

All due to an amateur mistake, and I accept it was a mistake. But it's us that takes the consequences.

As we see now the Brits naturally have no problem running with it.

I just think it was a dreadful error and only now are we beginning to see the consequences.

What I find interesting is that yes you are correct, but only from within a UK media bubble perspective - which does tend to overflow into Ireland (EU) due to overlap with language and shared interests...

But from an EU "mainland" point of view, it doesn't really get any exposure...

Its like George Eustice expressing his "surprise" at the EU reneging on some verbal agreement re the shellfish (published in lots of the UK media) to the EU response, pointing out that he had previously highlighted this in a letter to the relevant parties back in December (not highlighted in the media).

Todays buget and more interestingly their "post covid" GDP projections I also found interesting - even with the 32% hike in corporate tax in April 2023, I don't see it being achievable without some other unmentioned factors coming in to play... (and that two year "heads up" is only going allow those affected to work around it).

Time will tell I guess?

Kermit.de.frog

McGiver wrote: »

What can't we defend exactly?

Mind numbing incompetence of the EU Commission.

I mean, you could try (and fail miserably)

I see on the news more countries fleeing in terror of the commission's vaccine procurement: Denmark, Austria and Poland the latest.

But in regards Brexit we also find ourselves on the wrong side following their gaff

McGiver

fly_agaric wrote:

Kermit I think you are overstating importance of "high moral ground" here.

Exactly.

There's no moral ground in higher league geopolitics where the Irish Republic, thanks to the EU membership, belongs. UK are a lesser team in that league now.

And as you said, the current UK regime (I'm happy that this term stuck as I started using it right at the beginning of BJ tenure), has zero moral ground, nothing. Zero trust and zero goodwill from the EU left.

The UK regime will be happy if they don't end up with economic sanctions or lawsuits invoked upon them if they continue speculating about unilateral actions and breaking international law.

There's a talk about a reset in the EU-UK relationship in April. Given that Frost is back in the game, I predict it won't help and the relationship gets worse. And after that I expect the EU to lose patience and use legal action to deal with the UK.

CelticRambler

schmoo2k wrote: »

The effects can be eased by implementing some of the outstanding allowances (within the current protocol)?

The effects could also be eased if the UK government implemented the procedure that they agreed as part of the NI Protocol and the TCA.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It will be announced later today. Mr Lewis said in the commons it's as a result of that action in January.

Some measures will be eased in agrifood, specifically goods going to supermakets, and the charging regime.

The problem for us is that it's weakening single market protection even if temporary.

So, again, you're lambasting the EU for something that hasn't actually happened, and isn't as you first said, an easing of the NI Protocol as a whole but (if leaks, rumours and virtuous signalling can be believed) the application of certain measures that reinforce the assertion that the UK government is unable to enforce the rules that it agreed to.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

You're completely missing the point.

They did not have to invoke it. The political damage was already done. They had provided the unionists and the tories with the pretext they now run with.

... and long after the non-event, you are still whinging about something that didn't happen. Surely you've been watching UK politics long enough to know that Unionists and Tories don't need any pretext to act the eejit? Your own europhobia is so intense that you attribute to Brussels that which can be very, very much more easily attributed to the inherent, xenophobic, bigoted incompetence of GB&NI's lunatic fringe.

schmoo2k

Deleted User wrote: »

It does somewhat afaik.
Payment limits without authentication is defined by the European Banking Agency as €50.

Payments above that require stronger authentication.

The limit in the Netherlands in 100 Euros I thought?

Hurrache

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Mind numbing incompetence of the EU Commission.

I mean, you could try (and fail miserably)

I see on the news more countries fleeing in terror of the commission's vaccine procurement: Denmark, Austria and Poland the latest.

But in regards Brexit we also find ourselves on the wrong side following their gaff

Kermit, you're getting worse with your phrases, you really are lapping up the Brexit media garbage.

You provide no facts, just ridiculous soundbites in your vehement defence of the UK.

schmoo2k

CelticRambler wrote: »

The effects could also be eased if the UK government implemented the procedure that they agreed as part of the NI Protocol and the TCA.

That is what I was trying to say!

Leroy42

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Mind numbing incompetence of the EU Commission.

I mean, you could try (and fail miserably)

I see on the news more countries fleeing in terror of the commission's vaccine procurement: Denmark, Austria and Poland the latest.

But in regards Brexit we also find ourselves on the wrong side following their gaff

Again, Kermit, is your point that had the mess about Art 16 not happened earlier then the UK would be forced to, and would comply fully with the agreement they signed?

Because only 2 weeks prior to the issue, Johnson said in the HoC that he would trigger A16 is he needed to.

You seem intent on blaming the EU here, when it is clear that nothing has actually changed since the agreement was signed, yet it is the UK that are unilaterally making changes to that agreement.

Your argument seems to be that they can get away with it because the EU did something foolish before? But the question to ask is why did they sign an agreement and are now looking to renege on the conditions of that agreement?

Surely, questions must be asked about the entire agreement if after only two months the UK are looking to get out of parts of it.

Hurrache

Here's Connelly's assessment of the UKs unilateral decision to extend the grace periods which they signed off on and held aloft in triumph less than 3 months ago.
I look forward to how those in blind defence of the UK will try justify this with expectations of hilarity.

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1367124159982141440

Kermit.de.frog

Hurrache wrote: »

Here's Connelly's assessment of the UKs unilateral decision to extend the grace periods which they signed off on and held aloft in triumph less than 3 months ago.
I look forward to how those in blind defence of the UK will try justify this with expectations of hilarity.

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1367124159982141440

So if it's unilateral that means there is now a hole in the single market.

Now the torch is passed to EU coastal states whether they decide to have checks between them and ROI or not.

This is why we are vulnerable.

It's the point I have been trying to get across.

Tony Connelly said in his blog post the other days this is a major risk for Ireland.

schmoo2k

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Mind numbing incompetence of the EU Commission.

I mean, you could try (and fail miserably)

I see on the news more countries fleeing in terror of the commission's vaccine procurement: Denmark, Austria and Poland the latest.

But in regards Brexit we also find ourselves on the wrong side following their gaff

The UK is ahead of the EU in vaccination roll out and that is to be commended - their death tally is not. The fact they have secured 5 or 6 times the amount of vaccine actually required from many suppliers is the primary reason.
Note: It does help them cover up their poor initial response.
Note II: It will probably get them up and running quicker as well (so money well spent?)

Now look at the EU as a whole, there are a lot of countries that had they all acted in isolation would be really worse off (imagine if Germany, France and Italy had purchased that many vaccines per head of population in isolation).

Now "fleeing in terror" is very emotive - its like the UK media are wishing the EU will break up (imagine the paperwork then!), but some of the media probably thinks its the only way the UK can be the "Big Economy" again - I really don't get it?

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Let's not rehash the Article 16 debate from months ago please. A few posts have been removed.

Strazdas

schmoo2k wrote: »

The UK is ahead of the EU in vaccination roll out and that is to be commended - their death tally is not. The fact they have secured 5 or 6 times the amount of vaccine actually required from many suppliers is the primary reason.
Note: It does help them cover up their poor initial response.
Note II: It will probably get them up and running quicker as well (so money well spent?)

Now look at the EU as a whole, there are a lot of countries that had they all acted in isolation would be really worse off (imagine if Germany, France and Italy had purchased that many vaccines per head of population in isolation).

Now "fleeing in terror" is very emotive - its like the UK media are wishing the EU will break up (imagine the paperwork then!), but some of the media probably thinks its the only way the UK can be the "Big Economy" again - I really don't get it?

We don't actually know that. They came from a very high starting point of cases / deaths. The fact that they are a few weeks ahead of the EU in terms of vaccine rollout mightn't actually prove that significant in a couple of months time.

Hurrache

Johnson is planning on hosting the G7 summit, with 3 members of the EU, while leading a government that has repeatedly attempted to break international treaties, the 3rd time to try circumvent the NI protocol alone. The others will be laughing at his paper diplomacy.

And the EU agreement hasn't even been ratified yet. Those who have to will be treating it like toilet paper such is the toxicity of anything coming from the UK.

Kermit.de.frog

Tony Connelly indicating the EU does not agree with UK actions.

As I feared there is now a hole in the single market if that's true.

So will checks now go up between ROI and rest of the EU? Up to France, Denmark, Spain etc individually whether they choose to put in checks.

If they do Ireland ceases from that point to be a full member of the single market.