Brexit - was it worth it? (Vol. 3)

[Sway]

Mortarboard said:

Sway said:

Mortarboard said:

Sway said:

Why? Because levies apply to domestic as well as imported services... So of course they're not going to be covered by a FTA - and nor would retaining membership have avoided them...

Well, that would be a really stupid thing to ignore during the negotiation then, would it not? Especially if HMG intends on "readjusting" parts of the "agreement" unilaterally.

Still, that's sovereignty for you. Nations get the government they deserve.

M.

No, it's not.

Are you really suggesting that UKG should have attempted to get UK businesses to be exempt from any future levies that'd be applied to the EU's own businesses?

Come on chap. There are reasons to criticise the negotiations, but this is really, really scraping the barrel.

Of course not, but as usual you're grabbing the wrong end of the stick. Try engaging in the point made, rather than what you think you might have a comeback for.

Why didn't the UK included "no levies on UK services" as part of the deal?
Failure to do so was egregiously shortsighted, considering the import of that sector to the uk economy.

M.

Because they can't apply 'levies on UK services' only...

That's the point. Any levies applied to services in the EU apply to member nation companies and third nation companies by default.

[Mortarboard]

Sway said:

Because they can't apply 'levies on UK services' only...

That's the point. Any levies applied to services in the EU apply to member nation companies and third nation companies by default.

Unless there's an FTA or similar agreement in place.

M.

[Sway]

Mortarboard said:

Sway said:

Because they can't apply 'levies on UK services' only...

That's the point. Any levies applied to services in the EU apply to member nation companies and third nation companies by default.

Unless there's an FTA or similar agreement in place.

M.

So you do think that we should have tried to exempt UK businesses from levies the EU charged their domestic businesses...

Amusing.

[blueg33]

andymadmak said:

blueg33 said:

If we make things cheaper for importers surely that impacts any British producers of the same item, potentially making them less competitive

The idea is that we choose what we make cheaper…

But have additional costs if we want to sell it to europe

[Mortarboard]

Sway said:

So you do think that we should have tried to exempt UK businesses from levies the EU charged their domestic businesses...

Amusing.

Still wrong. Try reading. Or at least, engaging.

M.

[Sway]

Mortarboard said:

Sway said:

So you do think that we should have tried to exempt UK businesses from levies the EU charged their domestic businesses...

Amusing.

Still wrong. Try reading. Or at least, engaging.

M.

I have.

I've explained that 'levies' apply to all transactions within a jurisdiction irrespective of where the company providing that service resides.

You repeatedly say that UKG shouldn't have tried to exempt UK businesses from levies that would also apply to EU businesses (as that'd be a really stupid ask) - yet also repeatedly state that they should have included exemptions from levies in the FTA...

So, it's rather difficult to engage with someone who's making opposing points.

[Mortarboard]

Sway said:

I have.

I've explained that 'levies' apply to all transactions within a jurisdiction irrespective of where the company providing that service resides.

You repeatedly say that UKG shouldn't have tried to exempt UK businesses from levies that would also apply to EU businesses (as that'd be a really stupid ask) - yet also repeatedly state that they should have included exemptions from levies in the FTA...

So, it's rather difficult to engage with someone who's making opposing points.

They most certainly need not apply in a blanketed fashion.
To believe so is naive in the extreme.

M

[Sway]

Yes, they do.

Otherwise, they're discriminatory - and that's counter to many OECD and similar agreements way above mere FTAs.

[Mortarboard]

Sway said:

Yes, they do.

Otherwise, they're discriminatory - and that's counter to many OECD and similar agreements way above mere FTAs.

bks. E.g. engineering services only supplied by personnel with EU recognized qualifications are subject to zero rate.
Auditing to be carried out to EU recognized standards etc.

I believe it was the Germans and Belgians that planned to have uk chocolate forced into a higher tarrif of some sort due to the fats used being predominantly vegetable rather than animal in origin. Even proposed forcing it to be called "vegelate"

So if you think similar can't be done for services, you're infor a rude awakening if things get feisty.

Not an environment for anyone in a niche industry, that's for sure. Semiconductors is one industry that is earmarked for attention (including in the US, not just the eu)

M.

[Sway]

Mortarboard said:

Sway said:

Yes, they do.

Otherwise, they're discriminatory - and that's counter to many OECD and similar agreements way above mere FTAs.

bks. E.g. engineering services only supplied by personnel with EU recognized qualifications are subject to zero rate.
Auditing to be carried out to EU recognized standards etc.

I believe it was the Germans and Belgians that planned to have uk chocolate forced into a higher tarrif of some sort due to the fats used being predominantly vegetable rather than animal in origin. Even proposed forcing it to be called "vegelate"

So if you think similar can't be done for services, you're infor a rude awakening if things get feisty.

Not an environment for anyone in a niche industry, that's for sure. Semiconductors is one industry that is earmarked for attention (including in the US, not just the eu)

M.

You're going to have to provide details on that Engineering services claim...

Otherwise, you're talking market access, not levies. Of course auditing has to be done to EU standards - same as products sent to EU nations have to conform. Again, no FTA is ever going to change that, and those standards apply internally as well as to third nations.

Chocolate is a good. If the Germans and Belgains had been successful, that name would have applied to any similar chocolate made in the EU. It'd have been zero rated under the FTA as no UK CoO goods have duties on them under it.

So no, I'm not 'in for a rude awakening' - cause I actually understand the topics being discussed.

[Mortarboard]

Sway said:

You're going to have to provide details on that Engineering services claim...

Otherwise, you're talking market access, not levies. Of course auditing has to be done to EU standards - same as products sent to EU nations have to conform. Again, no FTA is ever going to change that, and those standards apply internally as well as to third nations.

Chocolate is a good. If the Germans and Belgains had been successful, that name would have applied to any similar chocolate made in the EU. It'd have been zero rated under the FTA as no UK CoO goods have duties on them under it.

So no, I'm not 'in for a rude awakening' - cause I actually understand the topics being discussed.

Work to X standard, Y rate.

Otherwise, levy applies.

Absolutely nothing stopping the EU doing it. The more the UK deviates from EU standards, the easier it becomes.

M.

[Sway]

That's no detail at all...

How much the UK deviates is irrelevant. Anything supplied to a nation meets their standards or it doesn't get supplied. No FTA changes that - so what exactly did you want included in the FTA?

[Mortarboard]

Sway said:

That's no detail at all...

How much the UK deviates is irrelevant. Anything supplied to a nation meets their standards or it doesn't get supplied. No FTA changes that - so what exactly did you want included in the FTA?

And standards are an easy way to discriminate.
An inclusion in the FTA/CTA/"Agreement" (you whatever language you wish) to ensure that the UK services (at least in some areas) would be deemed "equivalent" would have been smart.

If you don't understand the significance of that, there's nowt I can do for you.

M.

[Sway]

Mortarboard said:

Sway said:

That's no detail at all...

How much the UK deviates is irrelevant. Anything supplied to a nation meets their standards or it doesn't get supplied. No FTA changes that - so what exactly did you want included in the FTA?

And standards are an easy way to discriminate.
An inclusion in the FTA/CTA/"Agreement" (you whatever language you wish) to ensure that the UK services (at least in some areas) would be deemed "equivalent" would have been smart.

If you don't understand the significance of that, there's nowt I can do for you.

M.

So when you went off on one about services levies, what you actually meant was market access through equivalence - and nothing to do with levies at all?

I'm not entirely sure you understand your own arguments. You're flip flopping all over the place.

[Mortarboard]

Sway said:

So when you went off on one about services levies, what you actually meant was market access through equivalence - and nothing to do with levies at all?

I'm not entirely sure you understand your own arguments. You're flip flopping all over the place.

"certified engineering services" - zero rate
"non-certified engineering services" - X% rate

"certified" = members/subscribers/experienced in/to any old ste the EU decides on.
For example - EASA experienced airplane maintenance only counts. CAA doesn't count

If you're still struggling, then I'll leave you to it.

M.

[Sway]

Mortarboard said:

Sway said:

So when you went off on one about services levies, what you actually meant was market access through equivalence - and nothing to do with levies at all?

I'm not entirely sure you understand your own arguments. You're flip flopping all over the place.

"certified engineering services" - zero rate
"non-certified engineering services" - X% rate

"certified" = members/subscribers/experienced in/to any old ste the EU decides on.
For example - EASA experienced airplane maintenance only counts. CAA doesn't count

If you're still struggling, then I'll leave you to it.

M.

Oh. So we're inventing stuff...

In your example, you think that it's possible to operate CAMO services in the EU without being certified by the national regulator under EASA?

[Mortarboard]

Sway said:

Oh. So we're inventing stuff...

In your example, you think that it's possible to operate CAMO services in the EU without being certified by the national regulator under EASA?

CAA is not a national regulator in the EU. And it's still not nothing to do with access, and all to do with what attracts a rate. And what qualifies for what rate.

M.

[Sway]

Mortarboard said:

Sway said:

Oh. So we're inventing stuff...

In your example, you think that it's possible to operate CAMO services in the EU without being certified by the national regulator under EASA?

CAA is not a national regulator in the EU. And it's still not nothing to do with access, and all to do with what attracts a rate. And what qualifies for what rate.

M.

It's everything to do with access.

You claimed there were 'uncertified engineer' levies.

Except there aren't.

In your example, someone with a CAA ticket couldn't work in the EU without taking the EASA Part 66 AML requirements - anyone who had a licence prior to leaving had the option to gain EASA licencing cheaply. Some EASA national regulators even recognise UK experience towards the licencing requirements...

There would never be an option to negotiate that out and have blanket equivalence of licencing. That's quite simply not how it works.

A UK based aircraft maintenance organisation can do maintenance work on a EASA registered aircraft with no levies.

Once again - you're expecting the UK to have negotiated against potential future legislation (legislation that is highly complex, subject to many multinational agreements, and incredibly politically charged) which is just utter nonsense.

[blueg33]

andymadmak said:

blueg33 said:

If we make things cheaper for importers surely that impacts any British producers of the same item, potentially making them less competitive

The idea is that we choose what we make cheaper…

But have additional costs if we want to sell it to europe

[Sway]

blueg33 said:

andymadmak said:

blueg33 said:

If we make things cheaper for importers surely that impacts any British producers of the same item, potentially making them less competitive

The idea is that we choose what we make cheaper…

But have additional costs if we want to sell it to europe

Not if it's part of a manufactured good with UK CoO.

If it's purely resales, then you'd be foolish to bring it into the UK to then onward sell - but that goes both ways, and the balance of payments shows that negative is more keenly felt in the EU...