Brexit, for once some facts.

[50Hertz]

Is there a government assessment somewhere that leavers are more likely to indulge in civil unrest than remainers?

If there is not, this appears to be perverse and fire stoking.

If there is, it rather shows that the government would rather pacify them than consider the current opinions.

May has started this with her stupidity yesterday in which she strongly hinted that civil unrest would follow if Brexit is not delivered.

It is precisely this kind of weak and idiotic leadership on the part of both Remain and Leave which has led us into the present chaotic situation. No one trusts anybody, or anything which is said. It’s hopeless and has been brought on by lies and scaremongering, which has been the theme throughout.

 

[Danidl]

Why shouldn't Scotland be independent?

Why shouldn't Ireland be united?

Since the precambrian era Ireland has been united, it is simply that 1.5 million people remain politically divided from 4.5 million ,and have done so since 1923.

 

[Danidl]

It depends how it’s handled. If May is in charge, I agree, unrest is a possibility. She must be disposed of ASAP.

A fresh leader with a fresh approach gives us the best chance of making progress. May is stuck permanently in plan A and will never shift, even if she was the only person left supporting it.

If she said these things,it is grossly irresponsible... It provides licence to thugs.

 

[oldgroaner]

The Campaign has it seems already started

What is strange is that this came from Steve Swinford, the Deputy Political editor of the Telegraph.

It is no longer possible to see clearly where the dividing lines appear in the Tory Party, or is it "parties"?
Even stranger, where do the media belong in this mess?

 

[Woosh]

If she said these things,it is grossly irresponsible... It provides licence to thugs.

thugs will be thugs, I don't think she adds any more that what the right wing press did not print.
at least, MPs can quote her whenever they want.

 

[Zlatan]

I

That is what I would like to do Zlatan, and as you know from our posting history I never bear a grudge.

But I do not want to move on from Tommie posting a permanent record to members that my behaviour was seriously at fault when that certainly wasn't the case. All I was doing eleven times in that sequence was patiently posting demonstrably honest replies to some frankly disgraceful repeated challenges.
.

I agree you dont bear grudges, neither do myself or OG fortunately but isnt this little spat between yourself and Tommie simply the nature of any prolonged disagreement, both parties think they are in the right and go to lengths to demonstrate the "fact". Always better to move on, there is always something new to argue over.

 

[Woosh]

zlatan, we can and do engage in robust discussions but Tommie's style has been 'sharp' if not provocative.
his style puts me off from reacting to his posts in discussion, just as much as OT's did.

 

[tommie]

Tommie's style has been 'sharp' if not provocative.
his style puts me off from reacting to his posts in discussion

Really?? How`s your memory these days??



We`re wandering off topic again, but if the powers that be on here had followed my advice a while back re impartial moderation then there would be none of these problems.
I`m a member on many forums and they all run a tight ship, sadly this isn`t one of them.

 

[flecc]

We`re wandering off topic again, but if the powers that be on here had followed my advice a while back re impartial moderation then there would be none of these problems.
I`m a member on many forums and they all run a tight ship, sadly this isn`t one of them.

Indeed, this is very true.
.

 

[jonathan.agnew]

zlatan, we can and do engage in robust discussions but Tommie's style has been 'sharp' if not provocative.
his style puts me off from reacting to his posts in discussion, just as much as OT's did.

I think there's a balance to be struck, I don't mind if someone disagrees vehemently with me (I sometimes enjoy it), I do mind when someone resorts to personal attack or trolling in an attempt to intimidate because they are unable to win the argument. To be fair, I even occasionally enjoy playing with the trolls here, but there are limits to what should be allowed

 

[Woosh]

Really?? How`s your memory these days??

View attachment 28668

We`re wandering off topic again, but if the powers that be on here had followed my advice a while back re impartial moderation then there would be none of these problems.
I`m a member on many forums and they all run a tight ship, sadly this isn`t one of them.

I have no clue where you want to go with that post of mine.
The EU allows Chinese companies selling to EU customers and evading VAT because there is no VAT check for shipments between member countries.
UK customs should have checked, the couriers should have checked but they don't do their job properly.
If I sell to a customer in the Channel Islands or the IOM, customs and couriers would have routinely checked.
I was not exaggerating or aggressive.
My comment re. your style is in the context of this thread.

 

[Fingers]

Why is everyone being so Salty to Tommie?

He had a discussion re car prices was proved right and yet the salt content has increased.

 

[Woosh]

Why is everyone being so Salty to Tommie?

the last time I reacted to his post in which he referred to his opponents as 'moaning' and 'losers', so I suppose I am one of the moaning losers.

FAO the moaning losers.......answers please!

 

[flecc]

Why is everyone being so Salty to Tommie?

He had a discussion re car prices was proved right and yet the salt content has increased.

No he was proved wrong since it wasn't about car prices. It was about the EU's anti price fixing measure that I quoted as a benefit I received in polite response to his query.

The EU doesn't fix car prices of course, it's anti price fixing measure was to prevent car makers blocking consumers from the cheapest markets. All of which I patiently explained.

Tommie appeared to misunderstand that and in his efforts to make it about actual prices accidentally supported that the EU had brought lower prices to the UK as I'd maintained in the first instance.

To further explain, car makers can quite rightly fix prices appropriate to their market costs in each country, since those costs vary widely. What they cannot do under EU law is prevent any EU customer accessing the lowest price in the EU, as they had been doing before that EU law.
.

 

[anotherkiwi]

I have no clue where you want to go with that post of mine.
The EU allows Chinese companies selling to EU customers and evading VAT because there is no VAT check for shipments between member countries.
UK customs should have checked, the couriers should have checked but they don't do their job properly.
If I sell to a customer in the Channel Islands or the IOM, customs and couriers would have routinely checked.
I was not exaggerating or aggressive.
My comment re. your style is in the context of this thread.

I have thought a lot about this and it has nothing to do with the EU and everything to do with bonded warehouses and the way they are treated by the customs of the country they are situated in. As soon as something leaves that warehouse it should be cleared by customs - that is my understanding of how bonded warehouses work. That is how they used to work when I imported stuff, DHL, UPS et al gave me a bill including VAT and any other due duties which I had to pay before receiving the merchandise.

 

[Woosh]

That is how they used to work when I imported stuff, DHL, UPS et al gave me a bill including VAT and any other due duties which I had to pay before receiving the merchandise.

that's where the common VAT area comes in.
If you ship to another country, you don't have to charge VAT.
If you ship from say your bonded warehouse in Marseille to St-Jean-de-Luz, you have to fill in a 'mise en consommation' form, on which you pay VAT and so does your customer.
But if you ship to me in the UK, it's up to the UK customs to charge VAT. You, the sender, does not have to charge VAT to me.
The problem happens when the vendor is outside the EU, it can't be VAT registered and can't charge VAT. UK customs should have insisted on customers (or freight forwarders) to fill in a C88 form, the couriers don't do this because between member countries, shipments don't need to be accompanied by commercial invoice and customs form.
If that Chinese company sells in the UK post brexit, I simply report to UK customs and excise who will get the forwarders to pay back every penny of VAT and they'll get it back from the Chinese vendors. They will stop this practice PDQ.

 

[anotherkiwi]

that's where the common VAT area comes in.
If you ship to another country, you don't have to charge VAT.
If you ship from say your bonded warehouse in Marseille to St-Jean-de-Luz, you have to fill in a 'mise en consommation' form, on which you pay VAT and so does your customer.
But if you ship to me in the UK, it's up to the UK customs to charge VAT. You, the sender, does not have to charge VAT to me.
The problem happens when the vendor is outside the EU, it can't be VAT registered and can't charge VAT. UK customs should have insisted on customers (or freight forwarders) to fill in a C88 form, the couriers don't do this because between member countries, shipments don't need to be accompanied by commercial invoice and customs form.
If that Chinese company sells in the UK post brexit, I simply report to UK customs and excise who will get the forwarders to pay back every penny of VAT and they'll get it back from the Chinese vendors. They will stop this practice PDQ.

I brushed up on VAT code and you can report to customs now - you are wrong these companies should be registered, this is clearly a case of VAT fraud.

 

[Woosh]

I brushed up on VAT code and you can report to customs now - you are wrong these companies should be registered, this is clearly a case of VAT fraud.

the EU will do something soon to force ebay and amazon to police their Chinese sellers.

https://sellercentral-europe.amazon.com/forums/t/china-sellers-and-others-still-listing-without-a-vat-number/160227

Quote:

https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/public-accounts/Correspondence/2017-19/HMRC-Tackling-online-VAT-fraud-error-270318.pdf

The Government agreed with this recommendation. We have updated our estimate of tax lost from VAT fraud and error using a revised methodology that takes into account newly available data. Our last estimate was that the tax loss from VAT fraud and error on online marketplaces was between £1 billion and £1.5 billion in 2016-17.
We now estimate that overseas sellers contributed to approximately 60% (or £600 million to £900 million) of the VAT loss, with the rest attributed to UK-based sellers. More detail about the background and methodology can be found at Annex A.
We have also considered the potential impacts on legitimate business and the wider economy. We explain that, whilst online VAT fraud and error may have some effect on the profitability of legitimate businesses, there are many other important factors that affect their ability to compete. Our analysis can be found at Annex B.

 

[oldgroaner]

Really?? How`s your memory these days??

View attachment 28668

We`re wandering off topic again, but if the powers that be on here had followed my advice a while back re impartial moderation then there would be none of these problems.
I`m a member on many forums and they all run a tight ship, sadly this isn`t one of them.

You don't exactly make a good advertisement for what you preach, do you?

 

[oldgroaner]

Another Government idiot wants us to turn to Piracy
"
@ AllieRenison

Desperate times call for desperate measures....but it's hard to understate the significance of a recently-departed trade minister call for the most fundamental breach of the WTO's foundational legal principle possible as a means of mitigating no-deal
@GregHands is asking PM about merits of just carrying on w/things as they are under no-deal, continuing to make preferences for EU imports, breaching MFN rules, and dealing w/WTO challenge later. Says it "might provoke MFN challenges...which wouldnt be heard for 18 months"

So Baldrick's Clever plan is this
"If we pretend we are still in the EU. they will pretend back."

Time we closed the House of Commons and sold it for Social Housing. and do without the lot of them.