Cable Forum - UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

There's a real risk that, as the largest employer in the country, if the NHS went down this route it might make people question what the point of Brexit is at all if the little guy still gets his/her job undermined by imported labour.

It wasn't all so the rich could avoid an EU tax directive, was it?

That's an "if" and a "might" on a doubtful point anyway.
As for your last sentence, utterly ridiculous. Which EU tax directive and how would the "mights" be dodging it?

You need calling out.

nomadking

09-11-2019 16:52

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36016630)

That's an "if" and a "might" on a doubtful point anyway.
As for your last sentence, utterly ridiculous. Which EU tax directive and how would the "mights" be dodging it?

You need calling out.

I think they're referring to the one where the UK has similar rules already in place.

jfman

09-11-2019 16:54

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36016633)

I think they're referring to the one where the UK has similar rules already in place.

“Similar” is not a synonym of “identical”.

---------- Post added at 16:54 ---------- Previous post was at 16:53 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36016630)

That's an "if" and a "might" on a doubtful point anyway.
As for your last sentence, utterly ridiculous. Which EU tax directive and how would the "mights" be dodging it?

You need calling out.

It’s hardly a doubtful point - it’s a Government proposal!

nomadking

09-11-2019 17:05

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36016634)

“Similar” is not a synonym of “identical”.

---------- Post added at 16:54 ---------- Previous post was at 16:53 ----------

It’s hardly a doubtful point - it’s a Government proposal!

If it has the same impact and just involves different forms and other admin matters, to all intents and purposes it is identical.

jfman

09-11-2019 17:16

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36016636)

If it has the same impact and just involves different forms and other admin matters, to all intents and purposes it is identical.

Nowhere, anywhere, will you find it in print that it exclusively deals with administrative matters.

Mick	11-11-2019 11:55

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Wow, Green Party leader, Caroline Lucas seen taking side swipe at Lib Dems... with "colourful" language...

https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/s...41966678757376 (Caution: Contains F word from Lucas)

nomadking

11-11-2019 13:32

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36016637)

Nowhere, anywhere, will you find it in print that it exclusively deals with administrative matters.

So what are the major differences? You do the research this time. I've already done it.

jfman

11-11-2019 19:00

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36016822)

So what are the major differences? You do the research this time. I've already done it.

You haven't - you are simply peddling a myth based on one sentence published by the Government.

They aren't likely to publicise the loopholes they are leaving open for investment funds. It's your contention that they are identical, yet nowhere can you find authoritative evidence.

nomadking

11-11-2019 19:06

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36016861)

And of course you've got a huge amount of authoritative evidence, on this or anything else for that matter.

jfman

11-11-2019 19:15

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36016862)

And of course you've got a huge amount of authoritative evidence, on this or anything else for that matter.

It's not my role to justify your floundering arguments.

nomadking

11-11-2019 19:38

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36016863)

It's not my role to justify your floundering arguments.

Your contention/argument is that there are loopholes with an particular EU directive. Where have you justified that? And I don't mean mere wild unfounded speculation.

jfman

11-11-2019 19:42

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36016866)

Your contention/argument is that there are loopholes with an particular EU directive. Where have you justified that? And I don't mean mere wild unfounded speculation.

That's not my contention at all. My contention is that the UK implementation varies and these are not solely administrative variation. Your own link, posted previously, described the variation as largely administrative.

As you know, largely does not mean wholly or exclusively.

nomadking

11-11-2019 19:47

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36016867)

Any chance of examples of those differences and loopholes?
Link

Quote:

The level of revenue accrued to the public purse as a result of the implementation of Article 5 of the EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of the European Parliament) is expected to be negligible. The UK already has comprehensive exit taxation rules, and the changes necessary to implement the directive are relatively minor and primarily of an administrative nature.

Article 5 of the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive will be implemented as a budget measure in the upcoming Finance Bill. More information can be found in the Tax Information and Impact Note published on 6 July 2018:

jfman

11-11-2019 20:58

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

“Primarily”. Your own evidence points towards there being other changes involved. Thank you for proving my point.

nomadking

11-11-2019 21:17

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36016873)

“Primarily”. Your own evidence points towards there being other changes involved. Thank you for proving my point.

The quote is about what the UK already had in place BEFORE the EU directive.

Quote:

The UK already has comprehensive exit taxation rules, and the changes necessary to implement the directive are relatively minor and primarily of an administrative nature.

Still waiting for concrete examples of differences and loopholes that are there currently and will exist after the directive is implemented as of 1st Jan 2020.The bill as a whole is 7 pages long.

Eg

Quote:

2 In paragraph 1 (circumstances in which plan may be entered into: company
ceasing to be resident in UK)—
(a) in subparagraph (1)(b) for “another” substitute “a relevant”,
(b) in subparagraph (5) for “an” substitute “a relevant”,
(c) in subparagraph (6) for “other” substitute “relevant”, and
(d)

Massive detailed changes required.:rolleyes:

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:54.

Page 126 of 369

126