Brexit-lite here we come

[Bearbehind]

Theresa May has today said the UK wants to maintain the closest possible economic ties with the EU and to guarantee the rights of EU citizens living in the EU.

Are any Leave voters actually happy with that?

I can't believe I'm discussing drivers' hours on Mumsnet on a thread about Brexit.

Yes, journeys like a school bus run under 50km are outside the scope of EU regs but still come under GB domestic rules, which have their own weekly rest requirements for passenger vehicle drivers, but the work he does at weekend is in scope of EU regs which means he still has to take his 45 hours weekly rest period, and IIRC observe the daily EU work (as opposed to driving) limits on any week where he drives in scope.

I hope that's clear.

I have to say that I'm more clued up on the freight side of things than passenger, and possibly he'd be exempt from requirement for a weekly fortnightly (under GB rules) rest if he was only driving out of scope. But he isn't only driving out of scope.

There are no compulsory rests or breaks at all for drivers of goods vehicles working under GB rules by the way. Think of that next time you get cut up by a 'white van man'.

It's all just details anyway. Mostly these EU laws which are 'undemocratically imposed' on us are IMHO very much for the greater good. They override party-political (and party-sponsorship) issues and are for the greater good of the people in general. They might not suit the man who wants to drain the pond in the field behind his house but they mean that a newt which is rare in most of Europe is protected. They might not suit the water company which wants to pump raw sewage into the sea but they mean that most of Europe's beaches are cleaner. They might not suit the wishes of a minibus driver who wants to work Friday morning and afternoon, 8 hours on Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights and then start work again at 7.30 Monday morning, driving children to school, but they make it illegal for many professional drivers to work (or be pressured to work) excessive and dangerous hours.

It's been shown on many occasions that the UK government doesn't stand up to big business (or the unions in some cases) on important matters which affect people.

The EU on the other hand seems to me to be more than happy to stamp all over big business, and totally ignore the unions, at every opportunity. Am I being naive in believing that? Without ridiculous scare stories which I'm going to have to spend hours reading about to find out the truth, are there occasions where the EU have ridden roughshod over people in order to support big business?

Grandad's summary is very good.

Didn't we vote in favour of EU laws something like 2000 times, against 50, and abstained a few times? There was a radio 4 programme on it. So we can't really complain that EU laws are imposed against our will.

We have been trying to find clear cut examples where the EU has definitely stopped people doing something. Finding such an example is so far proving somewhat elusive; it's usually not 100% straightforward and most examples either have some sort of health and safety issue underpinning them. Or with e.g. fishing quotas, it's the way our Government has allocated them which cause the problems, rather than the EU.

I'm back - after a day's travelling - and not surprised to see that my question provoked an (as usual) futile for a search for an EU regulation that directly and adversed affected the poster.

It really is pathetic that people voted to leave the EU based up vague and unsubstantiated 'feelings' that they were being done down in some way.

I could give you some of the usual examples offered - based on a speech by the barrister leader of Lawyers for Britain (doubtless with some new role in put 'brexit department) - here they are:

• the fact that your employer has to agree to reschedule your statutory holiday if you fall ill while on holiday;

• the fact that your holiday pay must include regular overtime and commission pay;

• the fact that if an employer sells their business, they can't just sack everyone - the nasty EU says that your contract transfers automatically with no change to your terms and conditions;

• the fact that some agency workers are entitled (omg) to parity of wages, holidays and hours to the least well paid direct employee of the hirer;

• the fact that you can't ask refuse to recruit someone if you find out she is pregnant;

• the fact that pregnant women are protected from negative treatment during pregnancy or maternity leave without comparing herself with a sick man;

The fact that if you make more than 20 people redundant you have to (shock horror) consult with their representatives or else pay a penalty based on (omg) their actual wages;

The fact that the uk has to have a scheme in place to fund some of o/s wages and notice pay of workers when their employers go bust.

There is more ...

Do you know it's all so fucking unreasonable, it's just making my headache thinking about it. No wonder people get so upset about petty/insufferable EU regulation

The devaluation will more than compensate for any imposed tariffs.

Not necessarily, because in some areas of manufacturing a significant % of components are imported. 60% for the car industry, I think roughly similar for aerospace and electronics. So sterling devaluation + import tariffs will push up production costs, quite apart from export tariffs.

Figment what about my comment on fiscal policy restraints mentioned above - no Remainer has tackled that.

The VAT policy is a minor level of fiscal policy constraint, and the only one that the UK was subject to.

It stops governments from slashing VAT on prodcuts/services to make them more competitive ( which is unfair) and means that it supports the freedom of movement of good. Basically it also simplifies admin work for freight forwarders. Previously, in spite of the customs union, the differing VAT rates and the separate VAT admin rules led to high costs being incurred for cross-border trade.

Good enough for you?

The other thing that you haven't recognised, is that for the same level of access to the common market, it is likely that we will continue to abide by EU VAT rules for this purpose!

There are many different rates across the EU for VAT and different items are zero rated/low rated in each country, so no pure harmonization. No simplification for freight and no impact on free movement. Actually VAT fraud makes up 33% of the tax gap, with 'missing trader' fraud the largest culprit. EU rules make this easier and is one reason the EU are pushing for more harmonization, not less.

The split of fiscal policy between consumption taxes (which tend to be regressive) and other taxes is a very important lever of fiscal policy and much debated by economists. Being unable to use these levers significantly constrains alternative fiscal policies in the UK.

The US has different levels of consumption tax at a retail level in different states, with no attempt at harmonization, and they seem to manage fine.

And why is more competitive 'unfair'?

VAT policy is not a minor level of fiscal policy, for small businesses especially EU harmonisation has been very painful and certainly doesn't foster fairness once again meaningless rhetoric from Smallfox not sure you inhabit the same country as me your ivory tower must be lovely while us plebs struggle against your wishes.

There is no pure harmonisation, but the VAT is further towards it. In general it makes it vastly simpler than previous arrangements

Also as the base rate general VAT is 15% and UK VAT has been higher than that for years, I don't get you complaining about this, the last time it was 15% was during 08/09 and has been 20% for 6 years, from the 1990s onwards it was 17.5 %.

You don't need to lecture me about regressive and progressive taxes. I think the wealthy should pay far more as they benefit far more from society, at the minute our current government seem to find using regressive taxes far more satisfactory than taxing wealth effectively

The competition point, ok, if the Government intervenes in a market in order to make its own countries products cheaper than others by removing VAT from it, it has been artificially lowered and is a manipulated market. Its why the US charges tariffs of up to 220% on Chinese steel. The EU basically agrees sets rules that governments won't manipulate the markets to make them uncompetitive in this way.

Well that's a great reason to vote out then the U.S. still has a steel industry we don't thanks in a large part to the EU

The EU proposed tariffs, I wonder if you know who vetoed them cause it would upset the Chinese?

The EU proposed tariffs, I wonder if you know who vetoed them cause it would upset the Chinese?

Surely... surely... it couldn't have been... Look! A squirrel!

Vat only works competitionwise at a retail level, not at company level, so could not distort competition prior to the internet except in cross border towns. This is very limited, as companies selling more than £70k a year of goods into the UK must register, charge and pay UK VAT.

The UK government are restricted on how they can reduce consumption tax because of the VAT laws and struggle to add other consumption taxes, such as the Scottish minimum pricing on alcohol.

I cannot understand why you fail to recognize that this is a significant impediment to potential UK fiscal policy changes.

The Scottish issue just said that they may have to impose a tax using another option.

On competition, say a country removes the need for certain companies to pay VAT on energy,.

I can't understand why you'd vote for something that will economically be to our detriment over something so minor.

TBF Carol even in the circumstances you are talking about its a minor issue.

Clutching at straws are we?

caroldecker even assuming VAT is as significant as you are insisting, how to you envisage it changing post -Brexit, if we strive to trade as closely with the EU as we do now?

This has been put to Carol, Bear, she declines to answer.

why doesn't that surprise me?

This thread has epitomised what I find so frustrating with the situation we are currently in.

Leave voters make throw away comments about things like 'petty EU rules' then either refuse to give examples of said rules or refuse to give any indication why leaving the EU will change them.

It saddens me that, 5 weeks on, the best reason I've heard for voting leave is 'it was a roll of the dice'.

The EU supported by the British Government is just about to bring in a rule that designer furniture can't be copied for 70 years instead of the 25 years at present. So no going to a cheapo furniture shop for a £300 knock off of an Eames chair. There are whole factories in China producing such knock off copies. You will have to stump up the full £££££ for a genuine product.

Now that looks like a petty rule, but in fact, it's backed by British designers, and is to protect their designs.

As are the EU rules on protected food names.

Not so sure about the designer furniture thing, 70 years! how often do fashions come around? 70s stuff is very fashionable at the moment. What's a designer and not a designer? no copying G plan or Habitat!
Bet it was an Italian idea. We'll all have to revert to utility furniture of ww2!
Imagine if they decided to extend it to the fashion industry, how would that work? Everything has a designer to start with.

Utility furniture of WW2 was good and solid. My parents kept their utility sideboard for the whole of their married lives ~60 years. It was a simple stylish design, which wouldn't look out of place in a modern home.

The point is about the Designer furniture that the British Government has been happy to go along with the idea, and that British designers are too.