On 09/09/2019 17:34, Steve Walker wrote:
On 09/09/2019 12:14, dennis@home wrote:
On 08/09/2019 22:39, Steve Walker wrote:
On 08/09/2019 10:29, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Steve Walker
writes
On 08/09/2019 07:10, Stephen Cole wrote:




Whats the point of all of this, Brian? What do you people genuinely
believe were going to gain from all this upheaval and madness?

Freedom to make our own choices, set our own laws, hold our own
government to account for allowing large numbers of immigrants
overloading already limited resources and infrastructure, reduce
the downward pressure on low-end wages.

We don't seem to have any difficulties setting our own laws. Hasn't
Parliament has just set one (subject to Royal assent on Monday)?

Can we decide on whether we want tracking in our new vehicles?
Expensive safety systems that make only a little difference to
safety, but render vehicles uneconomic to repair after only slight
damage?

Probably not as it will be uneconomicto produce many variants and get
them through the approvals with fundementally differen designs. Its
one thing swapping an engine or a few body panels, its something else
to build a new car from the ground up.

To reduce or raise import tariffs on certain goods?

Probably, but it depends. Others can raise disputes if they think we
are abussing the WTO system.

At what level VAT should be set?

The UK government has set the VAT rates on everything.
The EU just has a rule that says you can't put VAT on something and
then take it off willynilly.


Whether any VAT is due on particular goods?

The UK government negotiated what we were putting VAT on.
It was the UK government that put VAT on electricity and gas not the EU.

"Under EU rules, countries must apply a minimum standard VAT rate of
15%. They have an option of applying one or two reduced rates, no lower
than 5%, to certain specified goods on a pre-approved list.
Further reduction of the VAT rate, including to 0%, is also allowed but
only for the goods which were taxed at that rate before 1991 and since
then.
Changes to the VAT rules require unanimous agreement of all 28 EU
countries."

So we cannot decide what we want to do.

We can ask, but it takes time and needs unanimous approval - how long
has it been since the fuss about sanitary products ... and although we
have managed to reduce it to 5%, we still cannot zero rate it.

We didn't have to put VAT on in the first place.


To control immigration?

We might be able to, we can now for immigrants but don't and they are
about 60% of the net migration into the UK.

If we tighten non-EU immigration, EU immigration goes up to compensate.
Once we can control immigration from the EU, we can have a proper system
- including tax incentives to train UK citizens rather than importing
workers. We can also then peoperly hold governments to account, as ALL
immigration will be under their control.

You seriously think training the UK citizens to wash cars and stuff will
make a difference?


And the list goes on.

And like all brexiteers you have chosen a set that are not implimented
by the EU but by the UK government, its almost as though brexiteers
don't have a clue.

Yes VAT was put on goods by UK governments, but it is the EU rules that
form a ratchet mechanism where once anything has VAT added, you can
never remove it. With VAT under our control, we could decide to zero
rate certain items - without outside interference.

We could, but we didn't have to put VAT on in the first place.


Yes we can make our own laws - but only if they don't contradict EU
laws or no EU country feels that that law affects their companies
more than others. Look at the ridiculous case of Scotland and now
Wales wanting to introduce a minimum per unit price for alcohol and
it being held up as a number of countries contest it as a restriction
of trade.


Yes just look at it.. Scotland do have a minimum price for alcohol so
thats another brexiteer talking cock.

And it took years of going through the courts first, both in the UK and
the ECJ - but in both, it was EU law that was being used to try and stop
it.

SteveW

The ECJ didn't take years they referred it back to the UK courts, it was
the UK courts and the whiskey producers that delayed it.