If you're thinking of emigrating to Europe and you're not so young think again perhaps

[Jake]

Give it up, Jacob. We never had "control" - we couldn't even get permission to take the VAT off sanitary towels.

We had lobbied since 2016 (only) to be able to introduce a new zero rate item for sanitary items and had persuaded the Commission to put forward a proposed change which would allow that. As that sort of change needs unanimous consent from member states, it did take a while. But we then left before that was introduced into EU law (that's now Directive 2022/542). So leaving got us there a year earlier.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

We had lobbied since 2016 (only) to be able to introduce a new zero rate item for sanitary items and had persuaded the Commission to put forward a proposed change which would allow that. As that sort of change needs unanimous consent from member states, it did take a while. But we then left before that was introduced into EU law (that's now Directive 2022/542). So leaving got us there a year earlier.

So it took six years to make a minor change for which there was general UK consensus, involving trivial sums of money, and for which there was a case based upon decency.

I thought Brexit foolish - this saga evidences a need for substantial change within the EU to make it fit for purpose, not proof it works effectively. It would been better to challenge processes from within

 

[Jake]

So it took six years to make a minor change for which there was general UK consensus, involving trivial sums of money, and for which there was a case based upon decency.

I thought Brexit foolish - this saga evidences a need for substantial change within the EU to make it fit for purpose, not proof it works effectively. It would been better to challenge processes from within

I don't think that's particularly bad for a process involving changes to very sensitive tax base matters involving so many different countries. Nothing is going to be simplistic, the (much more significant) advantages come along with inevitable complexity.

I do think the everything should be 'simples' attitude is a very real problem, driving stupid populism.

 

[ey_tony]

Populism. = "a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups."

I always find myself treating with contempt anyone who uses the word 'populism' to denigrate anyone's opinion which is based on common sense.

 

[Jake]

I always find myself treating with contempt anyone who uses the word 'populism' to denigrate anyone's opinion which is based on common sense.

Common sense is a short cut for saying "what I think without having thought through the reasons", so I guess that's not surprising - your contempt is a pure emotional reaction to being wrong but unable to understand why.

 

[ey_tony]

Common sense is a short cut for saying "what I think without having thought through the reasons", so I guess that's not surprising - your contempt is a pure emotional reaction to being wrong but unable to understand why.

Common sense is applying basic logic to discussions which one finds lacking in those who liberally use the word populism to dismiss what the average person is already aware of but seems to elude those who dismiss anyone else's opinions because it doesn't fit with their own. Their opinion is inevitably politically or ideologically biased.
Farage is a politician who gives those who are marginalised by people who use the the word populism a voice to express their genuine concerns and right now this Labour government's populism is behind that of Farage's lot which must tell one something.

Starmer can't ignore forever the online petition for him and his government to step down in favour of someone who can actually do the job. Sooner or later he will have to respond to the 'populist' view that he's useless.

 

[RobinBHM]

Criticism associated with how big business and wealthy individuals exploit tax differences and legal structures to minimise taxes is a little sterile.

In an interconnected world national borders are becoming meaningless. "Take back control" may have resonated with voters in a referendum, but 3 years on seems to have made no difference to behaviours. Bluntly the UK is part of an international community and does not have control.

It is also no surprise that businesses and the wealthy put money before "morality" - they will reduce their costs where they can and tax is just another cost.

As individuals we (mostly) apply the same behaviours - favouring cheap imported over UK produced, and whose price may reflect exploitative labour practices, lack of environmental standards, etc.

The coherent future needs to embrace a common set of standards to which all nations need to subscribe - or the pursuit by all of us to optimise personal circumstances will be perpetuated.

The reality is that the worlds largest companies ( apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook etc) have more power than the govts of medium sized economies such as U.K. Added to that they are American

Any attempt by U.K. to impose a digital tax would result in retaliatory action. And if the U.K. put in laws to prevent these companies offshoring their tax liability to Dublin or wherever, would lead to these huge companies threatening to withdrawn services or in the case of physical goods like Amazon, warehousing might get taken out of U.K.

The solution is not to turn U.K. into a tax haven like Ireland, these big businesses need to pay fair tax, because A) otherwise they kill off smaller businesses and B) the country needs to have good public services and infrastructure.


I agree with you: global collaboration is the way forward.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

I don't think that's particularly bad for a process involving changes to very sensitive tax base matters involving so many different countries. Nothing is going to be simplistic, the (much more significant) advantages come along with inevitable complexity.

I do think the everything should be 'simples' attitude is a very real problem, driving stupid populism.

Rubbish. I think you ae defending the indefensible.

• It is not remotely sensitive or material given the freedoms which EU members have over personal tax, business tax, council tax, fuel duties etc etc etc
• The tax lost by removing VAT on tampons was estimated at £10m pa - a truly trivial amount
• There is absolutely no sound reason why such a decision need involve any legislative body outside the UK
• Making everything complex promotes procrastination and compromised solutions.
• Doing that which is simple and straightforward quickly allows time for the genuinely complex to be properly debated

 

[sploo]

Populism. = "a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups."

I always find myself treating with contempt anyone who uses the word 'populism' to denigrate anyone's opinion which is based on common sense.

Agreed that it's a broad description, but at least in recent years the context has usually been used to mean demagogy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue)

 

[Jake]

Rubbish. I think you ae defending the indefensible.

• It is not remotely sensitive or material given the freedoms which EU members have over personal tax, business tax, council tax, fuel duties etc etc etc

Rubbish yourself. Of course it is sensitive, it affects competition.

• The tax lost by removing VAT on tampons was estimated at £10m pa - a truly trivial amount

Agree

• There is absolutely no sound reason why such a decision need involve any legislative body outside the UK

It's a cost of integrating economies to achieve scale.

• Making everything complex promotes procrastination and compromised solutions.

Blah.

• Doing that which is simple and straightforward quickly allows time for the genuinely complex to be properly debated

Blah

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

I am a duel National UK French citizen that emigrated 11 years ago with an S1 The S1 covers the basic health care costs and provides the French with a way of recharging the UK for that part of your health care. Your Carte Vital has a special number that allows this. Over and above this you really need health care insurance ( mutuelle) ours is €300 per month for two of us covers a certain amount of dentistry, glasses, consultant visits scans private room in hospital, ambulance etc. If you don't have a mutuelle you won't die in a corridor or on the steps of a hospital but it makes things easier. If you don't have an S1 then there is a very basic state funded access to the health service. The S1 from memory is only available to retirees and is or was complicated to get. Wading through French bureaucracy to get your Carte Vital is not for the faint hearted either and you need to be competent in the language, there are no translators. Most people have a mutuelle usually through their work or union with some form of subsidy.

The French health care model is an interesting one.
The most important point that I think ought to be highlighted is that French healthcare insurance providers are not permitted to make profit.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Ergo, they must make a loss.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Give it up, Jacob. We never had "control" - we couldn't even get permission to take the VAT off sanitary towels.

Is this actually true, or another one of those massive Brexshiitty lies, like the "straight banana" lies so often thrown around? Citation would be nice.


On the main point, we actually did have a lot more control than most UK individuals have ever been exposed to. In fact most of the stuff the UK public have been told about control are barefaced lies. Stuff like "we need to leave to take back control of our borders" was a lie of epic proportions and one of the direct reasons over the increase in UK immigration post-Brexit.

Recently uncovered, but not being spread willingly by media, is the unintended consequence of rendering people trafficking into the UK as not a crime in the EU. I laugh heartily at how this has unfolded and a true reflection that Brexit was sold as a lie. Also not being willingly or widely publicised by media is that the UK Govt have recently signed a deal with Germany to make people trafficking into the UK a crime under German Law. A major success in my view. However, if the media were to publish this great news, it would also be forced to describe and concede that Brexit was responsible for de-criminalising people trafficking in the EU if the destination happened to be the UK. Which of course none of the Brexit supporting media would like you to know - because, well, you know, because they openly supported Brexit and helped to campaign for Brexit.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Ergo, they must make a loss.

<sigh> nope, they categorically do not make a "loss", That would be an idiotic thing to propose, would it not?

In reality (and getting away from the stupidity of the upwardsdown universe in which some people inhabit) they balance income to expenditure and can't pay our dividends. Any annual surplus goes toward making insurance less expensive for everyone at the next renewal. If running at a deficit (note the word use - deficit, rather than loss), then costs go up across the board. It is a "mutual" concern and is run primarily for the benefit of the clients.