UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

HMG seem to think differently...

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ance-directive

The financial impact is NEGLIGIBLE. IE NEGLIGIBLE extra tax revenue.

One-off costs included familiarisation with these changes.

How is that related to tax revenues?


Still not remotely connected to the spurious allegations, especially when the UK is introducing the changes anyway.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The financial impact is NEGLIGIBLE. IE NEGLIGIBLE extra tax revenue.

How is that related to tax revenues?


Still not remotely connected to the spurious allegations, especially when the UK is introducing the changes anyway.

Negligible to the entire Government could still be hundreds of millions to individuals/funds. Also, they aren’t going to advertise that it’s huge amounts to their friends.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The Supreme Court won't venture into Parliamentary territory as Parliament is a sovereign body.

However, the Executive is as open to scrutiny from the Courts as it is from Parliament. That's why we can't call the judgement.

I don't think the judgement will make any difference to the way Brexit will go because there's a lot of Parliamentary time available after the Queen's Speech unless that debate can eat into the time substantially.

It strikes me that the SC might be asking the question as to what law had been broken by Boris. Surely there would have to be a law tobreak for anything to have been unlawful?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Negligible to the entire Government could still be hundreds of millions to individuals/funds. Also, they aren’t going to advertise that it’s huge amounts to their friends.

Yeah well i’ve Filed this under “ under who gives a flying Fu....”

It’s a side issue that has already taken up more pages than it deserves.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

And the reason for these changes...

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top...f-eu-1-5669763

I asked my friend* (who is a Tax Partner with one of the "Big 4" about these changes, and he thinks they are a good idea, and will discourage the behaviours listed above.

*we are also god-parents to each others children, and go on holiday together (next year is a Florida road trip...

Still nothing to do with the spurious allegations.


Amazon DOESN'T avoid tax. The only thing it sells, is the service of marketing, selling, and delivering for OTHERS. It pays tax on those profits. It just so happens as with ANY other UK based company, the large startup costs affect the taxable profits. Those OTHERS are the ones liable for tax on the actual product sales. Just as if Tescos, instead of buying Heinz baked beans from Heinz, simply put them on the shelves on behalf of Heinz, charging them a fee for doing so.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It strikes me that the SC might be asking the question as to what law had been broken by Boris. Surely there would have to be a law tobreak for anything to have been unlawful?

That is a key aspect of the government’s case. Parliament has legislated on certain aspects of prorogation, but it has never legislated on this issue. Therefore there is, deliberately, no law here - only political judgement. This is non-justiciable.

I suspect their lordships are going to choose not to intervene here, except perhaps to point out that parliament could, and probably should, legislate in this area. That is the ruling already reached by two of the three courts that have heard the case.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Still not remotely connected to the spurious allegations, especially when the UK is introducing the changes anyway.

What allegations?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Yeah well i’ve Filed this under “ under who gives a flying Fu....”

It’s a side issue that has already taken up more pages than it deserves.

Suspected you would, although I agree he should have dropped it when he realised he was wrong.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

That is a key aspect of the government’s case. Parliament has legislated on certain aspects of prorogation, but it has never legislated on this issue. Therefore there is, deliberately, no law here - only political judgement. This is non-justiciable.

I suspect their lordships are going to choose not to intervene here, except perhaps to point out that parliament could, and probably should, legislate in this area. That is the ruling already reached by two of the three courts that have heard the case.

Thank you,

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jfman

Suspected you would, although I agree he should have dropped it when he realised he was wrong.

Agreed.

---------- Post added at 20:48 ---------- Previous post was at 20:47 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

That is a key aspect of the government’s case. Parliament has legislated on certain aspects of prorogation, but it has never legislated on this issue. Therefore there is, deliberately, no law here - only political judgement. This is non-justiciable.

I suspect their lordships are going to choose not to intervene here, except perhaps to point out that parliament could, and probably should, legislate in this area. That is the ruling already reached by two of the three courts that have heard the case.

Good summary.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

My comments are valid and obviously about the people I list and not anyone else. It shows why these six people are potentially pro-Brexit and why they may want us to exit before that deadline.

But so what? We all have reasons for voting one way or another. People often vote Conservative because they want low taxes, which will benefit them and their family.

The point being made by you and the originator of this comment is designed to imply that these people were campaigning for Brexit for inappropriate reasons, when in actual fact, with or without that tax, they would have voted Brexit anyway.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

But so what? We all have reasons for voting one way or another. People often vote Conservative because they want low taxes, which will benefit them and their family.

The point being made by you and the originator of this comment is designed to imply that these people were campaigning for Brexit for inappropriate reasons, when in actual fact, with or without that tax, they would have voted Brexit anyway.

And others are concerned that low taxes might mean health or social care isn't there when they need it for their family. Always seemed to me to be a short sighted, 'money now' view, unless you're incredibly rich.

Sometimes I think people just vote for change regardless of the actual issue. Particularly if they are unhappy with their life and they need someone to blame/punish. Also to kick it in the teeth to whoever is in power and they don't like. Such people can easily be manipulated by populist politicians or the media.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Mr K

And others are concerned that low taxes might mean health or social care isn't there when they need it for their family. Always seemed to me to be a short sighted, 'money now' view, unless you're incredibly rich.

Sometimes I think people just vote for change regardless of the actual issue. Particularly if they are unhappy with their life and they need someone to blame/punish. Also to kick it in the teeth to whoever is in power and they don't like. Such people can easily be manipulated by populist politicians or the media.

Yes you certainly have been.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Mr K

And others are concerned that low taxes might mean health or social care isn't there when they need it for their family. Always seemed to me to be a short sighted, 'money now' view, unless you're incredibly rich.

Sometimes I think people just vote for change regardless of the actual issue. Particularly if they are unhappy with their life and they need someone to blame/punish. Also to kick it in the teeth to whoever is in power and they don't like. Such people can easily be manipulated by populist politicians or the media.

Low taxes also encourage investment, Mr K. The Conservatives are well renowned for being safe guardians of the economy, which benefits the poor.

The recent austerity programme has skewed opinions somewhat due to Labour's failure to allocate appropriate balances, but now we are out of that, we will start to see public services being restored to more appropriate levels. Things will look very different, and for the better, over the next five years, provided Boris can remain in power and get his legislation through.

---------- Post added at 09:23 ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 ----------

Good to see that Jean-Claude Juncker is at last conceding that a deal can be done by the end of next month and he is 'not emotionally attached' to the backstop.

Looks like Boris's tactics are paying off!

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Low taxes also encourage investment, Mr K. The Conservatives are well renowned for being safe guardians of the economy, which benefits the poor.

The recent austerity programme has skewed opinions somewhat due to Labour's failure to allocate appropriate balances, but now we are out of that, we will start to see public services being restored to more appropriate levels. Things will look very different, and for the better, over the next five years, provided Boris can remain in power and get his legislation through.

10 years of austery in which time the national debt has increased from £1.2bn to £1.8bn !

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Good to see that Jean-Claude Juncker is at last conceding that a deal can be done by the end of next month and he is 'not emotionally attached' to the backstop.

Looks like Boris's tactics are paying off!

Not really , he's said nothing new. Just you can get rid of the backstop if you have a workable alternative, which we don't. Don't fall for the Torygraph spin OB !