Brexit Wars 3



Germany’s finance minister Olaf Scholz was cracking jokes at the UK’s expense on Friday during his first public appearance in Britain, where he outlined how his country was welcoming Brexit-ing businesses with open arms.
“Regardless of the outcome of Brexit, Germany and the United Kingdom will always be friends and partners … We were always very impressed by British pragmatism. We were,” he said with a smile, leading to a round of laughs among business attendees at the event in London.


A few EU states will be happy to accept their share of the £5bn pa for their Governments coffers that the HMRC now won’t get thanks to Brexit and the impact on corp tax as companies push their non-UK business flows through EU states entities.
The full impact on those service companies that are decreasing their UK presence won’t be known until a few years post-Brexit.


Already answered @fynne… see earlier post… little to do with ‘volume’ in Ireland…
Yep… but it isn’t the volume… it’s the fact that there will be buildings/designated areas/offices where people are based performing border control checks. The concern in the Border Counties is that they will become targets… the fact it will slow down movement is lower down on their list of concerns.


With currency, post-Brexit… am not aware of any changes.
For VAT… in the worst case, No Deal scenario… If NI (UK) imported goods from Ireland then the UK Border Control agencies would need to charge import duties and collect VAT.
NI (UK) would not have access to the coordinated VAT collection facilities operating for intra-EU states so VAT would need to be paid at the UK border, and the NI (UK) importer would no longer have the convenience of combining this with their domestic VAT payments.

However, you look at it, Brexit makes things worse… more cumbersome, more expensive… not better.


and so what? That’s why people cross borders to buy goods on the other side if the VAT is less there and because it’s a customs union that is totally legal and nothing has to be declared when they return from shopping. There is no VAT exemption for a person who buys something as there is when the person were from outside the customs union.

When goods are ordered online for instance in another EU member state, there are basically two cases:

  1. the customer is a natural person. The invoice contains the full amount with VAT included. No technology needed.

  2. the customer is a company. The seller has to provide an invoice with his VAT id and the buyer’s VAT id. The amount on the invoice is without VAT. The buyer has to declare the purchase in his home country and pay the VAT there. For that purpose the countries exchange data, so the tax departments of each country can find out what is going on if they see such an invoice in the books of a company.

Now the UK leaves the EU and you go to Ireland to buy something. You can ask the authorities there to refund the VAT when you leave the country. You are obliged to pay the VAT after returning to the UK. Will you do that when nobody checks your purchases at the border? Many will not.

The same if a company buys goods. It can buy without VAT, but the UK would want to collect the VAT when the goods enter the country. It would require either customs checks or information exchange. I don’t know how states are doing that now. When I export VAT free to the USA I have to prove that my goods arrived there. Probably I would ask some customs officer to put a stamp on my papers.

Many goods probably pass just based on correct papers, but there must always be the option to actually look inside trucks or containers or the system will degenerate.

What do you mean? Currencies are no problem. You can apply exchange rates.

What do you think happens to a “minimal volume of trade” across a customs border that is not checked? It becomes a maximum volume of trade.


The problem is that the amount doubles and checks are required at borders where there are currently no checks.


That is Trump bullshit. All EU countries do their NATO contributions. Germany and France together pay more for NATO than the USA!

It’s really annoying when people listen to that liar without doing their fact checking. I think being a person that is easily believing bullshit is one explanation for being a Brexiteer.


That is such an incredible nonsense. Why would an EU army be insulting the USA? I remember I explained right here on this board that there are already troops under a unified command. Am I talking against a wall? Is it so difficult to absorb information?


Monty Python. I am sure the EU will not be laughing about this…

Government cancels Brexit ferry contract with no-ship firm
Seaborne Freight had won £13.8m contract despite never having run Channel service

AND the BBC are so Paranoid now this…

BBC bans EU flag at Eurovision event - and provides Union Flags instead


“The EU treaties do allow for “the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence”…
But this “common defence” will only come about “when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides”. Unlike in other areas of EU decision-making, the European Commission can’t propose laws about security and defence, and any decisions in these areas must be made unanimously…That means that the UK effectively has a veto
UK law also states that no such common EU defence powers can be handed from the UK to the EU without the approval of parliament and a referendum on the decision. So the government would need the support of both the public and MPs before they could make such a decision…”

So with Brexit we lose our veto, which ‘probably’ means that an EU ‘army’ (common defence) is far more likely…but at least we avoid a referendum on the subject :face_with_raised_eyebrow:


Let’s hope Fynne has got his private health insurance paid up because the UK Govt. says the ECH1 scheme will end on the 29th March if their is no deal.

In which case hordes of Costa pensioners will be back to swamp the NHS.




Brexiteer of the week:

or this one:

Can anyone think of a Brexiteer politician who is a decent human being?

Meanwhile, Tusk was wrong to say that Brexiteer campaigners should be sent to Hell. He was not suggesting that all Leave voters should also be, which was an error of omission.




bloomberg 09‎ ‎February‎ ‎2019‎ ‎04‎:‎00‎ ‎GMT

Brexit is driving companies out of the U.K., and the Netherlands is raking in the corporate refugees.

About 250 companies are in talks with the Netherlands Foreign Investment Agency to potentially relocate activities to the country, according to the organization’s annual report published on Saturday. The candidates would join 42 companies that made the move last year, and the 18 early birds in 2017.


best line. Japan is confident it can do a better deal with the UK THAN the much larger EU.


Usual left Wing nonsense it’s NATO that has kept the peace who has attacked us well you obviously have never been in the forces. There has I think only been one year since WWII that British servicemen and women have given their lives in active service.
The US of course have forces and bases across Europe to protect against Russian aggression
You also forget the Falklands war where the UK was attacked by an aggressive military dictatorship
You also forget that the war in the Ukraine came about when that country made moves towards joining the EU and look how that has ended


And all those new technology companies investing in the UK with massive job growth you seem to have forgotten these


And those Labour MPs lying and getting prison time for re speeding fine lies
Or those drug dealing councillors by the way I think some of these bills being stopped is disgusting whatever the party


The UK paid out £674 million in health costs to European countries, but received only £49 million in return. Addressing this could “transform the financial situation of the NHS”. From full facts


RRW - Yes… British servicemen and women have given their lives in active service… because they have been involved in foreign expeditions like Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. All adventures that have been done to support the US… and all totally unnecessary.

The UK has not been threatened by any armed forces since WWII. The Falklands was well on the way to being abandoned by the UK Government. The UK government had shown little interest in the islands, it had no long term future and was reluctant to invest in making the Falklands prosperous and secure… but it couldn’t persuade the islanders to join Argentina, even under a lease-back arrangement that would leave them under Argentine sovereignty but British administration.
So let’s not pretend that it was somewhere the UK Government actually cared about.
So since WWII the only time the UK has had to defend anything was a tiny colony several thousand miles away… and now it languishes there again as a costly military base for another couple of generations before it is eventually negotiated away.

And by the way, as this was about NATO… NATO couldn’t and didn’t help Britain during the Falklands as well outside their remit. Another reason why pinning your hopes and planning your resources according to US / NATO demands isn’t a good idea.

Re: “You also forget that the war in the Ukraine came about when that country made moves towards joining the EU and look how that has ended”

Thankyou… you made my own point for me. NATO didn’t do anything about the Ukraine conflict, nor Crimea… and nor did US… why? Because they aren’t there to protect individual European countries. The US sees Europe as the place that any superpower conflict would be played out and hopefully end there… it’s all about projecting their influence and power… not defending any individual state.