EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

Worth a read:
http://ukandeu.ac.uk/a-large-tory-majority-weakens-the-uks-hand-in-brexit-talks/

Why can't Kier Starmer be in charge? Then Labour would have a punchers chance.

Well it can be finessed but the basic principle, which is what people are complaining about, remains the same and the tax can't be abolished.

There is a 5% band but there are restrictions on where it can be applied, for instance the attempt to have energy saving building materials at a 5% rate was over-ruled by the EU http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-06/cp150065en.pdf

get him to stand in a leadership election. now's probably not the time.

You do realise that VAT merely replaced a previous UK-determined Purchase tax.

As VAT is third largest source of revenue for the Exchequer,
and as the Tories diminish the take from Corporation Tax, Capital Gains tax and Inheritance duties, who/which party is lobbying for the 'abolition of VAT'?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/25/pro-eu-tories-quit-open-britain-over-plans-to-oust-brexit-backing-mps

pro-EU Tories show true colours: Tory party more important than UK's relationship with EU.

I do.

None that I know of, and I can't picture it happening (or at least without just being replaced by another sales tax). The people complaining about it were posters on this thread who were also complaining about leaving the EU. I was just pointing out that it's an area where we would have to "take back control" before doing anything about it.

"take back control" means little without the wider context.

Suppose the UK wants to set a rate lower than 15%. That's not possible.

Then in order to do so it means leaving the EU and the EEC. Does the cost/benefit picture balance?

As the discussion here was the tampon tax (a weird thing that for a change is linked to the EU but it can no doubt be changed within it by forming an alliance with other countries) and progressive taxation which is a can of worms that involves VAT and many other areas.

I was just reading David Allen Green's FT articles on the process for Brexit and he includes this entertaining quote from Donald Tusk about Boris' cake (which I hadn't seen before).

When it comes to the essence of Brexit, it was largely defined in the UK during the referendum campaign. We all remember the promises, which cumulated in the demand to "take back control". Namely the "liberation" from European jurisdiction, a "no" to the freedom of movement or further contributions to the EU budget. This approach has definitive consequences, both for the position of the UK government and for the whole process of negotiations. Regardless of magic spells, this means a de facto will to radically loosen relations with the EU, something that goes by the name of "hard Brexit".
This scenario will in the first instance be painful for Britons. In fact, the words uttered by one of the leading campaigners for Brexit and proponents of the "cake philosophy" was pure illusion: that one can have the EU cake and eat it too. To all who believe in it, I propose a simple experiment. Buy a cake, eat it, and see if it is still there on the plate.

The close-ness of the pro/anti Brexit split is amazing, yet the government continues to behave as though it is a unanimous verdict. That doesn't really make sense.

http://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/in-highsight-do-you-think-britain-was-right-or-wrong-to-vote-to-leave-the-eu/

This government - and its press - is unable to deal with complex arguments. Everything is broken down into reactionary bullshit. It's the only way they can force this whole thing through; if they were to admit that no one knows what the hell is going to happen and we're in for a rough and uncertain ride, then they would lose all that 'authority' and 'stability' that they're currently claiming.

It does make me wonder who within the Tory party are driving this. We all know there is a block of Tory MPs, (the remnants of John Major's b4st4rds and recent additions like Gove), who outnumber the current Tory parliamentary majority, but the main Tory financial supporters must see some upside that is beyond my current comprehension.

i imagine once they scrap employment and human rights it will make them all plenty of money.

Yes, that really puzzles me too. The other week I asked a tax accountant friend whether he had any ideas as to how the likes of Rees Mogg's friends (choosing him as a random example of a Tory with significant money market interests) might benefit but he didn't really know. I would be interested to find out.

I wonder if it is the full-on privatisation of the NHS & Secondary education, which can be pushed through with an enhanced Tory majority achieved on the pro-Brext tidal wave of 3.8%.
Thatcher era privatisations provided capital gains and ongoing dividend payments, but the rate of return is nothing like as good as appropriating public land and building flats, (which have the benefit of the perpetual income from unchallengeable 'management fees').
If you think of the Tories as the party of the 7%, (who send their kids to fee paying schools), perhaps there is enough plunder from the NHS & secondary schools that they have no concerns about the real economy.

Well the only way we'll be able to make Britain competitive on the international stage after Brexit decimates trade is to make ourselves a tax haven for the super rich. So there's that possibility they're hedging their bets on.

I can see the attraction of 'no rights' to poor, (as in unscrupulous), employers, but unskilled workers need some income, and it either comes as wages or benefits from the State. Surely even the most rabid rightwinger must question Amazon & Tesco being subsidised to employ minimum wage earners on zhcs?

I wondered about this. At the time, one of the main reasons I thought there was no chance that it would go through was because every business (all the banks, the services, basically everyone except for sodding Dyson) was advocating remain. I thought they were the Tory taskmanagers.

I guess somewhere there's a cabal of wealth, and it must be private, which has greater sway.

Well there's Murdoch, of course, who has admitted it's about power.

edit: I should point out Murdoch has denied he ever said it was about power; however testimony and evidence to the contrary suggests he's a lying evil old ball sack who would sacrifice his own mother if he thought it would bring him more wealth, power and influence.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/19/rupert-murdoch-ive-never-asked-any-prime-minister-for-anything

If we ignore the 7%, and examine the 1%, we end up with many large landowners, not just the historical aristocracy, but recent arrivistes like Paul Dacre, (with his Scottish 'castle'), who profit handsomely from the EU Common Agricultural Policy.
(Post the brexit vote, one of the first 'We''ll guarantee matched EU funding/subsidies' that issued from the Tory party was to reassure landowners).
Do these people gain enough income from 'rents', filtered through offshore companies that ensure they accrue no taxes, that they are insulated from the real economy?

This has been my opinion from the start. There's enough Tory MP's with mates who run businesses that would prefer to not have to deal with things like minimum wage, unfair dismissal, maternity leave, etc.

As you get to the murky backbenches you get more 'out' Tories, and obviously these views will have changed since the referendum (i.e. moved in favour of Brexit).

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/which-tory-mps-back-brexit-who-doesnt-and-who-is-still-on-the-fence/

'Will of the people' is a very fluid concept:

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/reading-berkshire-news/eu-referendum-result-wokingham-mp-11521760
(Remain 'won' by 10,000 votes in the constituency of career-long serial underachiever john Redwood).

There was a recent news article about a new, private police force being given access to the normal police computer system.