Brexit matters

[overthewater]

Father Jack has the prefect words for Boris..

 

[21C101]

Some more Brexit benefits coming our way soon.....

From the Independent (for balance, the Torygraph are also reporting this story). It’s not quite as bad as the headline states, as it will be for ‘emergency‘ usage only, but still concerning and arguably shouldn’t be used at all.

Government to let farmers use bee-killing pesticide banned in EU

We really need to keep a very close eye on what this government is up to post-Brexit. Although sadly they’ll just do what they like, regardless of what is reported in the media.

Good. These were banned, almost uniquely, by the EU under the "precautionary principle" which stems from the Napoleonic Legal code in which nothing is allowed unless expressly permitted in law.

Wheras UK common law permits everything unless prohibited by law. This means that those wanting something banned have to first demonstrate to at least the balance of probability that such a ban is justified.

This is in any case a bit of a non story as France are doing much the same as the EU law allows states to issue short-term emergency exemptions for “special or exceptional circumstances” to save a crop.

The only thing that has changed is that it is no longer possible to take the UK government to a judicial review as the UK government now decides what is and isn't banned wheras until 31st December the UK could be taken to UK courts and have to justify that their decision was in line with permitted exemptions under EU law.

Given the exemption to be allowed is temporary and for a specific crop plagued by a virus, it is doubtful that a judicial review would have succeeded were we still in the EU.

However it is good that ministers can now act quickly and decisively without having to look over their shoulder all the time and that no longer will they have to spend large sums of taxpayers money defending theselves against fanatics bringing cases based on EU law.

 

[najaB]

This is in any case a bit of a non story as France are doing much the same as the EU law allows states to issue short-term emergency exemptions for “special or exceptional circumstances” to save a crop.

But I thought the EU was a sovereignty-stealing behemoth which removed all rights from member States and we were lucky to get out from under their iron thumb? I'm confused now.

 

[21C101]

But I thought the EU was a sovereignty-stealing behemoth which removed all rights from member States and we were lucky to get out from under their iron thumb? I'm confused now.

What has changed is that it is no longer possible to take the UK government to a judicial review as the UK government now decides what is and isn't banned, wheras until 31st December the UK could be taken to UK courts and have to justify that their decision was in line with permitted exemptions under EU law.

So ministers can now act quickly and decisively without having to look over their shoulder all the time and no longer will they have to spend large sums of taxpayers money defending their decisions against fanatics bringing cases based on EU law.

 

[najaB]

So ministers can now act quickly and decisively without having to look over their shoulder all the time...

But surely, since the UK government is virtuous and always acts in the best interests of the UK public, that was a non-issue. No? Oh, wait. I forgot about their specific and limited law breaking.

 

[21C101]

But surely, since the UK government is virtuous and always acts in the best interests of the UK public, that was a non-issue. No? Oh, wait. I forgot about their specific and limited law breaking.

If they exceed their powers under uk law then they can still be taken to court, but I'm sure you know that

You also now have the option to campaign for Parliament to go further than the EU and pass a law outlawing them altogether, without exemptions (which have been used on average once every two weeks by EU states since the EU ban). Again that was not possible before December 31st and suh action is already being taken regarding things like live animal exports.

 

[najaB]

If they exceed their powers under uk law then they can still be taken to court, but I'm sure you know that

So, we've moved from the position where if the Government exceeded their powers under a UK law that implemented an EU directive (no such thing as a "EU law" but I'm sure you know that) they could be taken to court, to a situation where if the Government exceeded their powers under a UK law they can be taken to court.

Another Brexit win.

 

[21C101]

So, we've moved from the position where if the Government exceeded their powers under a UK law that implemented an EU directive (no such thing as a "EU law" but I'm sure you know that) they could be taken to court, to a situation where if the Government exceeded their powers under a UK law they can be taken to court.

Another Brexit win.

Yes there is such a thing as an EU law and has been since the Lisbon Treaty gave the EU a legal personality and allowed it to issue regulations that apply in member states without being trsnscribed into state law first.

And, since January 1st, should a case win in court that the UK government decides is not in the Public interest. It can repeal or amend the law concerned, nullifying the decision.

Wheras up to 31st December, should a case in a UK court against a UK government decision based on EU law succeed, the UK government was powerless and had to accept it as it could not change EU law

This has changed the balance between parliament, the UK government and the UK courts, which no longer have supremacy over the UK parliament or the UK government on the considerable body of legislation originating with EU directives and regulations and the considerable body of ECJ case history.

You may not like it, but that is a huge consitutional change resulting from the UK leaving the EU.

 

[Journeyman]

You may not like it, but that is a huge consitutional change resulting from the UK leaving the EU.

You're right, I don't like it. It's extensively stripped me of my rights, and threatens to erode them further.

 

[Dave1987]

What has changed is that it is no longer possible to take the UK government to a judicial review as the UK government now decides what is and isn't banned, wheras until 31st December the UK could be taken to UK courts and have to justify that their decision was in line with permitted exemptions under EU law.

So ministers can now act quickly and decisively without having to look over their shoulder all the time and no longer will they have to spend large sums of taxpayers money defending their decisions against fanatics bringing cases based on EU law.

As the saying goes there is nothing so permanent as a “temporary change” in Government position. No doubt there will be plenty of lobbying to get the lift of the ban extended and extended.

Much like the Government are currently be lobbied to remove the right for contractors to be paid the same as full time employees for doing the same job. The “race to the bottom” has already started!

 

[alex397]

Good. These were banned, almost uniquely, by the EU under the "precautionary principle" which stems from the Napoleonic Legal code in which nothing is allowed unless expressly permitted in law.

Wheras UK common law permits everything unless prohibited by law. This means that those wanting something banned have to first demonstrate to at least the balance of probability that such a ban is justified.

This is in any case a bit of a non story as France are doing much the same as the EU law allows states to issue short-term emergency exemptions for “special or exceptional circumstances” to save a crop.

The only thing that has changed is that it is no longer possible to take the UK government to a judicial review as the UK government now decides what is and isn't banned wheras until 31st December the UK could be taken to UK courts and have to justify that their decision was in line with permitted exemptions under EU law.

Given the exemption to be allowed is temporary and for a specific crop plagued by a virus, it is doubtful that a judicial review would have succeeded were we still in the EU.

However it is good that ministers can now act quickly and decisively without having to look over their shoulder all the time and that no longer will they have to spend large sums of taxpayers money defending theselves against fanatics bringing cases based on EU law.

I understand your points here, but at the same time, it also means our government have less restrictions to do what they want and with less scrutiny, and I really don’t trust our government to do the right thing. I’d quite like ministers to have to keep looking over their shoulder, in case they get too comfortable being able to do what they like.

Talking about the pesticides themselves, in my opinion they shouldn’t be used at all considering the crisis that UK nature is in. I have a huge interest in nature and an a member of the Kent Wildlife Trust, so perhaps I am biased. I’m also a bit cynical when the government use the word ‘temporary’.

 

[21C101]

Talking about the pesticides themselves, in my opinion they shouldn’t be used at all considering the crisis that UK nature is in. I have a huge interest in nature and an a member of the Kent Wildlife Trust, so perhaps I am biased. I’m also a bit cynical when the government use the word ‘temporary’.

To be honest I think that antotal ban on them is more likely to happen outside the EU than in it. The green lobby in the UK is very powerful.

I have mixed feelings on it but am less bothered if the UK bans it as it is much easier to unban it later if it proves mistaken, or events necessitate it, if Parliament decides to ban them totally.

One of the big problems of the EU is that once they have acted on anything it is so difficult to get it changed or revoked and takes years if it can be done at all.

An example is the so called tampon tax. Britain were trying to get them to change their rules to allow it to be dropped for years, but the UK government were able to drop it in one day once we were out.

 

[Journeyman]

An example is the so called tampon tax. Britain were trying to get them to change their rules to allow it to be dropPed for years, but the UK government were able to drop it in one day once we were out.

Ireland classes tampons as medical goods and doesn't charge tax on them. This option was always available to us as an EU member, but we chose not to use it.

It's almost like someone was trying to make it look like EU members can't control their own affairs.

 

[najaB]

An example is the so called tampon tax. Britain were trying to get them to change their rules to allow it to be dropped for years, but the UK government were able to drop it in one day once we were out.

What's the rate of tax on feminine hygiene products in Ireland (an EU country)?

 

[Journeyman]

What's the rate of tax on feminine hygiene products in Ireland (an EU country)?

Zero. Germany charges zero as well.

 

[najaB]

Zero. Germany charges zero as well.

That's strange, I thought that

Britain were trying to get them to change their rules to allow it to be dropped for years, but the UK government were able to drop it in one day once we were out.

It's almost like that was a lie which was being spread by our government. But, of course they wouldn't do that.

 

[Journeyman]

That's strange, I thought that
It's almost like that was a lie which was being spread by our government. But, of course they wouldn't do that.

Effectively our government kept charging tax on them for far longer than necessary, simply so they could claim it as a Brexit dividend.

 

[ComUtoR]

Zero. Germany charges zero as well.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...-luxury-items-scrapped-petition-a9195601.html

Germany has eliminated its tampon tax following a landmark vote in German Parliament this week to scrap the levy.
Menstrual products in the country were classed as "luxury" items and put into the 19 per cent tax bracket, while other non-essential items like flowers or books are charged less.

This is the highest tax rate possible in the European country, and made sanitary products subject to some of the highest taxes on feminine hygiene products of any country in the European Union, with Germany’s tampon tax ranking 11th out of 28 states with a similar tax.

The tax was regularly adding a fifth on to the price of tampons, menstrual cups and sanitary pads.

Even products such as cut flowers, but fares, train tickets and household pets had been given exemption from the higher rate sooner than tampons.

From 1 January 2020 the products will be charged 7 per cent VAT given to everyday household items, rather than the “luxury” tax usually found on cigarettes and wine.

Tampon tax - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Most European Union countries are barred from creating zero-rated value added taxes, but Ireland's exemptions are grandfathered.[3] The EU countries are planning to remove the minimum 5% tax rate by 2022.

Ireland levies no value-added tax on tampons, panty liners, and sanitary towels. Ireland is the only EU country to have a zero tax rate on sanitary goods.[15]
In Germany, the amount of tax on sanitary items was cut from 19% (the basic rate) to 7% (the reduced rate) as of 1 January 2020.[15][16] This is said to be a step toward a tax system that does not discriminate against women.[15]
Other European countries France, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands either plan to, or have already, slashed their taxes in recent years.[15]

 

[najaB]

Most European Union countries are barred from creating zero-rated value added taxes, but Ireland's exemptions are grandfathered.[3] The EU countries are planning to remove the minimum 5% tax rate by 2022.

The UK was also able to zero-rate items while in the EU, so the Government could have applied the zero rate to feminine hygiene products if they so desired while still in the EU.

Plus, the issue with "Tampon Tax" isn't that they are/were taxed, but that they were classed as luxury items and taxed at a higher rate than other general goods.

 

[ComUtoR]

The UK was also able to zero-rate items while in the EU, so the Government could have applied the zero rate to feminine hygiene products if they so desired while still in the EU.

This rate was reduced to 5% specifically for sanitary products in 2000 with lobbying from Member of Parliament Dawn Primarolo saying that this reduction was "about fairness, and doing what we can to lower the cost of a necessity."[18] This is the lowest rate possible under the European Union's value added tax law, which as of 2015 does not allow zero rates

I don't have the ins and outs of the specific EU laws and wikipedia has the usual caveats but I truly do not believe that years of lobbying and many people repeatedly saying the EU would not allow it was a huge lie.

Activists cheer as 'sexist' tampon tax is scrapped

Campaigners say cutting of the 5% VAT rate on tampons and sanitary towels ends a 'sexist' tax.

www.bbc.co.uk

The EU is itself in the process of abolishing the tampon tax. In 2018 the European Commission published proposals to change the VAT rules, which would give countries the right to stop taxing tampons and other period products, but the move has not yet been agreed by all members. The Republic of Ireland has zero VAT on sanitary products as the rate was in place prior to EU legislation imposing the 5% minimum VAT rate on EU members.

 

[najaB]

I don't have the ins and outs of the specific EU laws and wikipedia has the usual caveats but I truly do not believe that years of lobbying and many people repeatedly saying the EU would not allow it was a huge lie.

I have no problem at all believing that the UK governments of 2010 to present would lie about it, you just have to look at the glee with which they have imposed hardship on the vulnerable in society to see how genuinely heartless they are. Medicines and medical devices are VAT exempt so even if they are telling the truth that there was no way to zero-rate them (I don't believe that they were) then they could have gone down the Irish route and classified them as medical devices.

 

[JamesT]

I have no problem at all believing that the UK governments of 2010 to present would lie about it, you just have to look at the glee with which they have imposed hardship on the vulnerable in society to see how genuinely heartless they are. Medicines and medical devices are VAT exempt so even if they are telling the truth that there was no way to zero-rate them (I don't believe that they were) then they could have gone down the Irish route and classified them as medical devices.

Ireland do not classify them as medical devices, they are explicitly listed as an item by themselves. https://www.revenue.ie/en/vat/vat-r...pons-other-zerorated-goods-and-services-.aspx
You’ll note that ‘medical tampons’ are actually standard rated.

Ireland are allowed to do this because that was the rate they had in 1991 when the EU brought in the VAT directive. https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/taxation/vat/vat-rules-rates/index_en.htm

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35834142 has:

A Commission spokeswoman said: "EU VAT rules are not imposed by the European Commission. They are decided on and agreed unanimously by member states.
"Contrary to some media reports, tampons do benefit from reduced taxation."
She added that under current rules, member states were not allowed to apply a zero VAT rate to a product unless all other member states agreed.
"Zero rates are an exception and run against generally accepted VAT principles. Most member states tax sanitary products like tampons at around 20% or more," she added.

 

[najaB]

Ireland are allowed to do this because that was the rate they had in 1991 when the EU brought in the VAT directive.

Fair enough. That just means that the answer as to why they're taxed isn't because the EU forced us to add VAT, but rather because we chose to impose VAT in the first place.

 

[JamesT]

Fair enough. That just means that the answer as to why they're taxed isn't because the EU forced us to add VAT, but rather because we chose to impose VAT in the first place.

Well, in the general case, being a member of the EU does force you to add VAT. In the particular case, no UK government between 1973 and 1991 decided to exempt or zero rate them, so VAT had to continue to be charged.

 

[najaB]

In the particular case, no UK government between 1973 and 1991 decided to exempt or zero rate them, so VAT had to continue to be charged.

Which is definitely not how it was spun in the Brexit-favouring press.

 

[21C101]

Germany has eliminated its tampon tax following a landmark vote in German Parliament this week to scrap the levy.
Menstrual products in the country were classed as "luxury" items and put into the 19 per cent tax bracket, while other non-essential items like flowers or books are charged less.

This is the highest tax rate possible in the European country, and made sanitary products subject to some of the highest taxes on feminine hygiene products of any country in the European Union, with Germany’s tampon tax ranking 11th out of 28 states with a similar tax.

The tax was regularly adding a fifth on to the price of tampons, menstrual cups and sanitary pads.

Even products such as cut flowers, but fares, train tickets and household pets had been given exemption from the higher rate sooner than tampons.

From 1 January 2020 the products will be charged 7 per cent VAT given to everyday household items, rather than the “luxury” tax usually found on cigarettes and wine.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...-luxury-items-scrapped-petition-a9195601.html

Right, so Germany have lowered their rate from 19% to 7% (higher than the 5% UK charged on such products), not to zero.

EU states are free to impose VAT on items but not to abolish VAT on them. With special permission they can cut it to 5%. Labour had to go to Brussels and ask them nicely if they could reduce VAT on Fuel from 17.5% to 5% after Kenneth Clarke imposed it in then 1990s.

Labour wanted to abolish VAT on domestic fuel altogether but EU laws did not permit it to go lower than 5% (and they still had to go crawling to them for permission for that).

I suspect VAT on domestic fuel will be abolished in this springs budget.

Every EU member state has the authority to approve medicines for emergency use within its own country without waiting for EU-wide approval - and indeed we were still under EU rules when that happened. So the UK could have started vaccinating in exactly the same way if we'd still been a member.

Really?

Had we remained in the EU, unless we had done what Germany has just done and broken EU law (which would have had remainers bouncing up and down with outrage), virtually no one in the UK would have been vacinnated.

"EU chief warns members cannot negotiate separate vaccine deals​

Warning comes after Germany agreed with BioNTech to supply 30 million additional doses in a side deal.

European Union member states will not be permitted to negotiate separate vaccine deals with pharmaceutical companies, in parallel to the bloc’s efforts as a whole, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said on Friday.

She told reporters at the EU’s headquarters in Brussels that the 27-member bloc would continue to work as one to secure vaccine doses from suppliers

“The only framework we are negotiating in is as 27,” she said. “We do this together and no member state on this legal binding basis is allowed to negotiate in parallel or to have a contract in parallel.”

EU chief warns members cannot negotiate separate vaccine deals

Warning comes after Germany agreed with BioNTech to supply 30 million additional doses in a side deal.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[najaB]

Had we remained in the EU, unless we had done what Germany has just done and broken EU law (which would have had remainers bouncing up and down with outrage), virtually no one in the UK would have been vacinnated.

Again, as far as I've seen the problem with EU vaccination programs has not been access to the vaccine but rather the delivery. For example, as of two days ago Germany had administered fewer than 400,000 of the 1.2 million doses available. That suggests that we would have been able to vaccinate at the same speed as we have, just at a lower cost per-dose.

 

[Journeyman]

While I'm willing to acknowledge that EU tax policy isn't great, and that on occasions member states' hands can be tied in a way that doesn't help, I'm yet to be convinced that the small freedoms we're taking advantage of are worth the enormous cost in lost trade, and the massive loss in rights, protections and democratic participation we've suffered. Certain things being fractionally more expensive feels like a small price to pay for what we gained as members, and I feel like some of the absolutely tiny gains of Brexit are very scant compensation for what we've lost.

 

[RT4038]

While I'm willing to acknowledge that EU tax policy isn't great, and that on occasions member states' hands can be tied in a way that doesn't help, I'm yet to be convinced that the small freedoms we're taking advantage of are worth the enormous cost in lost trade, and the massive loss in rights, protections and democratic participation we've suffered. Certain things being fractionally more expensive feels like a small price to pay for what we gained as members, and I feel like some of the absolutely tiny gains of Brexit are very scant compensation for what we've lost.

I'm not convinced either, but then after only 11 days of the new dispensation I would not expect to be! No gain without pain and all that. Ask again in 10 years time, about the time it took for any meaningful advantages to come through from joining in the first place. However, I'm not that convinced either that the 'enormous' and 'massive' benefits that you refer to were anything but a pretty mixed bag anyway.

Whatever, the die is cast. We can either go through the rest of our lives bitter, constantly and boringly telling everyone how the country would have been better off if the referendum had gone the other way in 2016, or we can get on with, and make the best of, life under the new dispensation, however that may pan out. You never know, it might even be better?

 

[Journeyman]

I'm not convinced either, but then after only 11 days of the new dispensation I would not expect to be! No gain without pain and all that. Ask again in 10 years time, about the time it took for any meaningful advantages to come through from joining in the first place. However, I'm not that convinced either that the 'enormous' and 'massive' benefits that you refer to were anything but a pretty mixed bag anyway.

Whatever, the die is cast. We can either go through the rest of our lives bitter, constantly and boringly telling everyone how the country would have been better off if the referendum had gone the other way in 2016, or we can get on with, and make the best of, life under the new dispensation, however that may pan out. You never know, it might even be better?

It might be better. But so far all I can see is what we've lost forever. Freedom of movement, Erasmus, visa-free travel, protection of European courts, opportunity to fully participate in the running of one of the most powerful organisations in the world, shopping and business complicated by customs procedures, small businesses struggling...all the supposed gains seem tiny in comparison. Also, of course, the divisive effects of the vote have massively destabilised the UK, and made Scottish independence far more likely, which personally I think will be a disaster on both sides of the border.