Brexit: UK gov would probably lay out tax plans in post-'leave' vote emergency budget The UK government would be likely to have an "emergency" budget shortly after next month's EU referendum if there is a "leave" vote. It would use that budget to give clarity on its priorities for changes to the tax regime. Its proposed changes to the corporate tax regime would be influenced by the eventual trading relationship …
"There is no way that the UK alone is going to get better terms than it gets as part of the EU which has a lot more clout in these situations"
Not only that but there will be overlapping periods of uncetainty for each country/block. Initially know one will know what is going to happen, then we will drop onto interim/default/de facto trading arrangements for each country, then there will be negotiations, finally there will be agreements. It will be tempting for countries to gain leverage by applying or thretening to apply punitive interim trading arrangements. Final agreements will take years, some will take a decade or more . It is very likely that there will be very few, possibly no, agreeements which are beneficial to the UK compared to the current EU based arrangements. There will be strong efforts to offusticate what the agreement means to save UK embarassment. Despite that the biggest damage will be in the long period of uncertainty. The uncertainty and poor agreements will be blamed on foreign governments rather than the predictable consequences of brexit.
"Well, perhaps we should take anything Major says about the EU with a pinch of salt given what happened on his watch."
True, but why is Majors point worth less than those of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove? At least Major has some points on his record he can be proud of. I'm not sure if Johnson or Gove have done anything good other than act a clown and pretend they know everything about education.
Major had to U-turn on the Eurozone and stay out of Schengen only because his party wouldn't let him go along with it after Black Wednesday. If it weren't for that the UK would be in both.
If you don't agree with BoJo the Clown and Gove's points there are those from David Davis or Paul Mason which make infinite more sense. Certainly more than Cameron saying he's Turkey's strongest advocate and now saying they won't join the EU because of a veto that he holds, or calling the new mayor of London an extremist then sharing a platform with him a week later, or etc...
"... including offering additional incentives without having to seek EU state aid clearance."
Ermm, I thought Brexiters were mostly on the right of the political spectrum, so perhaps not that much in favour of state aid. And why should tax payers' money (collected from successful individuals and businesses) go to prop up failing businesses? Anyway, to negotiate favourable access to the EU markets we would probably have to abide by the same state aid rules as the EU. So I very much doubt this argument flies.
"The Treasury might also be tempted to introduce a law abolishing historic EU-law based tax refund claims, saving the exchequer many billions of pounds."
Ermm, this Brexit stuff is supposed to be business-friendly. That doesn't really tally with screwing folk out of legitimate tax refund claims.
"However, leaving the EU would enable the UK to extend the scope of zero rating and exemptions."
Which will just be tinkering in the margins to come up with a few populist items. Every pound that is not collected in VAT will have to be collected elsewhere. Or lead to another pound of austerity (which is going to hit folk at the bottom hardest).
"... whether the UK is able to secure the same or improved terms to those currently available ..."
Have you any idea how difficult it is to negotiate these agreements? Most unlikely to manage that in two years. Unless you go for the Norwegian option: get favourable access to the EU market, but have to contribute to EU budgets, allow freedom of movement, have to follow EU legislation - all without having a vote in the EU. That seems totally pointless and much worse than the status quo.
Also the EU and the USA (which are broadly the same size) are finding it v difficult to negotiate a new trade treaty (TTIP). So the UK (broadly ten times smaller than the US) is going to find that even more difficult.
Incidentally, what really p.... me off is that toffs like Johnson and Farage are, in my view, misleading people in low paid jobs, working long hours, who are most likely to be adversely affected by economic upsets and the loss of some worker protection legislation.
"Ermm, I thought Brexiters were mostly on the right of the political spectrum, so perhaps not that much in favour of state aid."
They Tory's only ideological guiding principle is power. If helping out their friends and past/future colleagues (of course in the name of the greater good) helps ensure this then that is what will happen.
I've found that even the most right-wing people usually become very favourable to state aids as long as they pour into their pockets, and keep alive their burned companies which true capitalism would need to fail to clear the space for new, better ones. Of course, capitalism is good as long as it makes you money, when it shows you the bill for complacency and incompetence it suddenly becomes bad, and taxpayers have to save your business... double standards are what are killing the western world.
And after all, to the extreme right wing of the political spectrum you will find the fascisms which were all intervening a lot into economics and pouring money into friendly companies...
Ermm, I thought Brexiters were mostly on the right of the political spectrum, so perhaps not that much in favour of state aid. And why should tax payers' money (collected from successful individuals and businesses) go to prop up failing businesses?
The business isn't failing, it's just going through a rough patch due to the slow economy. The CEO says he just needs a few billion to stave off impending job losses, and the company will be able to pay it back lickety-split. I've no reason to doubt the word of an old Eton chum.
Also the EU and the USA (which are broadly the same size) are finding it v difficult to negotiate a new trade treaty (TTIP). So the UK (broadly ten times smaller than the US) is going to find that even more difficult.
Nah. When equals make a treaty it does take time to come to a compromise, but it'd be comparatively quick for the UK and US to finalise a trade treaty, because the UK would have to accept whatever they're given, or be effectively locked out of the US market.
Well we don't have a trade deal with the US now and yet it's our biggest single trading partner, so how does that work?You pay customs duties on every item exported to or imported from the US, that's how it works.
Also some service companies have limited access to the US market, and US law reserves certain government contracts to US countries.
Not having a trade deal doesn't make commerce impossible, it just makes it harder, more expensive and potentially unfair.
Notwithstanding that, TAFTA or whatever it's called at the moment is shit, and with a bit of chance France (among others) will veto it, with the EU parliament as a backstop if no country can quite work up the courage.
Exactly what I thought, too. A lot of if, would, might, could, likely, unlikely etc etc
In essence the article supports what the "fear mongers" (remain camp) are saying: We do NOT know what's going to happen when Britain leaves, or when. A lot of things will have to be re-negotiated, which takes time and causes uncertainty - and that's always bad news for business.
On the pro side, if Britain left the EU, the next 1-2 goverments here will have a very hard time blaming any shit on the EU or migrants.
@ sysconfig
"On the pro side, if Britain left the EU, the next 1-2 goverments here will have a very hard time blaming any shit on the EU or migrants."
It also means that we can vote for our government and have changes based on what we want. If we want to move more left or right we can.
I do wonder what will become of the EU. It cant survive as it is which means the EU will have to go through some serious and likely unpopular changes. The question is of which countries it will be unpopular with. Or maybe it will stay as it is and continue as the economic basket case until it crashes. I hope they fix their problems before more people and countries suffer.
It would also benefit the environment.
With Britain (Or more likely England) out of the EU they wouldn't have to keep watering down their environmental protection laws.
That would means 27 countries with much higher standards for the price of one with poor standards, as opposed to 28 with compromised standards.
It would make the extra expense and trouble of going to the EU worth it.
We are not like Norway.
Norway is like a neighbour on the other side of the road who is earning really good money which they are carefully investing in sensible options (North Sea black gold -> Sovereign Wealth Fund)
We are like the people over-mortgaged, with two premium cars on finance, several credit cards all maxed out wondering how we are going to pay to have the leaking roof repaired and the subsiding foundations shored. (NHS & Pensions).
I bet the EU members of the EEA would try to stall the UK trying to get back to the EEA, to extend the example for other, potential, EU leavers: look, it really does NOT pay to leave us...
p.s. while such tricks stink big time, it does not mean I will vote to "leave", on the basis of "we should show them!"
That has crossed my mind too. Basically, it's going to be a very nasty divorce, with too many emotional issues and everyone is going to get hurt and likely to be v unhappy.
Also, a vote for Brexit may well lead to another Scottish referendum. Before you know it there could be two nasty divorces instead of just one. (And then some parts of the North may decide they like Holyrood more than Westminster, leading to even more headaches.)
Also, a vote for Brexit may well lead to another Scottish referendum.
Not only that. A vote for Brexit could add quite some fuel to the fires in Germany, France and other countries, where voices for a referendum get a lot louder recently, too. It would set kind of a precedent in Europe, being the first to leave. A couple of years down the line we may suddenly find ourselves renegotiating everything with pretty much everyone individually.
I am not sure if you're a troll, trying to be funny or just stupid but here goes. The UK steel industry is screaming bloody murder because Chinese produced steal is being dumped for less than it cost to make on the world market in an effort to soften the blow reducing over capacity will have on the Chinese internal jobs market and prevent social unrest. Without tariffs how do you plan to stop this abuse?
If we vote to leave the EU on the 23rd we're not immediately out of it, nor do our responsibilities for implementing/enforcing its rules end there.
How you leave the EU is stated in the Treaty of Lisbon (Article 50). When a state says it wants to leave it has 2 years in which to agree what our relationship with the EU is going to look like, the extent and type of access we have to the EU single market, etc. Until this happens we are still subject to EU treaties.
So, will there be an emergency budget? No. We are bound by EU treaties until June 23rd 2018 and cannot change any items (VAT on fuel, etc) if they are restricted by existing EU directives/treaties/blah. Not only that, we may not be able to change them as these items may be bound up in an agreement with the EU covering future relations with it.
"So, will there be an emergency budget? No. We are bound by EU treaties until June 23rd 2018 and cannot change any items (VAT on fuel, etc) if they are restricted by existing EU directives/treaties/blah. Not only that, we may not be able to change them as these items may be bound up in an agreement with the EU covering future relations with it."
You're only half right.
There is no mention in the article you've stated that says when that 2 year time period starts - or how it would even be 2 years. The country needs to notify the EU of it's intention to leave. So this involves Cameron going to Brussels to do it. That won't be the day after the referendum. And Cameron has been quoted in the recent past saying that the result of the referendum will be used to change the minds of the EU. So voting No won't mean we leave the EU automatically, it'll be used for bargaining power first. Then ultimately we will leave.
What it does say in the treaty that you missed is that after the intention to leave has been served there will be a period of negotiation. After the negotiation, and on agreement of a qualified majority, then the state can leave. So there will be a massive period of negotiations which the UK would have to agree to as would the Council, and then it has to be voted on etc.
So, actually, even if the UK say they want to leave but can't agree how they would leave, then the UK couldn't leave.
http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html
Furthermore, it's worth pointing out that when Ireland voted against the Lisbon Treaty a high profile member of the EU basically told them to re-run the vote until the result was what they wanted.
No. If that happens after 2 years we are out with no agreements.
My guess is the only way such negotiations would go smoothly are if either:
1. We go for Norway style EEA membership.
2. Scotland votes to stay in the EU, and subsequently to quit the UK and the negotiations include sorting this out (The Auld Alliance would help this I think.)
Otherwise I would predict stalling by any nations holding a grudge against us.
I also predict EU compensation for any businesses who move to remain within the EU.
So for all us contractors out there there will be two years of solid work, before the bottom falls out of the market.
"No. If that happens after 2 years we are out with no agreements."
Actually no. Again, there is no time frame set out in the rules of the Treaty of Lisbon, and there is no reference to time frames and/or negotiation lengths in Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. So it's negotiation, negotiation, negotiation until an agreement is struck upon. Otherwise the UK will be slapped with massive legal bills, legal challenges, and ultimately compensation if it decides to pick it's football up and go home without a word.
Furthermore, what countries have "a grudge" against the UK? The UK are pulling out of the EU, which will wreck the economies of the EU. If the shoe were on the other foot and it was Germany wanting to pull out of the EU what do you think the UK's response would be? A shake of the hands and a wish of good luck?
We have signed up to these rules through various MEPs we have sent (UKIP, Labour, Conservatives etc). The MEPs we sent over agreed to this. It's not just some optional thing like going to a local WI meeting or Scouts group where you can just say "Ah I'm not coming back next week". If this country votes to leave then we go through the process of leaving, whether that is 2 years or 10 years.
Errmm, para 3 of Article 50 does give a two year limit -
"3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."
and para 2 -
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention...
Quote the full article.
"3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."
So again it might be 2 years, it might be 10 years. The 2 year thing is a rough yard stick that can be moved.
"Actually no. Again, there is no time frame set out in the rules of the Treaty of Lisbon, and there is no reference to time frames and/or negotiation lengths in Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union."
http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
"If the UK was to reach the end of the two year period specified by Article 50 without
having reached an agreement, and if any of the 27 other Member States vetoed an extension
of this period, this would lead to the UK leaving the EU with no immediate replacement
agreed, without any protection under EU law for the rights of UK business to trade on a
preferential basis with Europe or the EU’s free trade agreement partners, UK citizens to live
and work in Europe, or UK travellers to move about freely in Europe."
ref: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/504216/The_process_for_withdrawing_from_the_EU_print_ready.pdf
And grudges, it would be easier to ask which countries haven't. The whole point of the EU was to set aside all the historical garbage that has caused problems of varying degrees in the past. If we pull out, especially since it will cause them some damage, it will resurface.
The most obvious one is Spain, with Gibraltar.
Good point. You may well be right here. From the papers I get the impression that there is also a lot of that here in NL where I'm currently living. A large proportion of the electorate, throughout the world, seem to think that we need strong leaders and simple solutions for complex problems. That really worked so well the last time .....
I get the impression too many people don't want to stop and think about how the world works - it's an infinitely complex web of interconnected economies and systems, as well as limited and unequally divided resources - it's not an app on the latest whizzbang phone. People seem to forget that imposes many constraints on our actions and that simple, knee jerk solutions are not going to work. Does that amount to loss of sovereignty? Yes, but the only way we can be completely sovereign is to move into a cave, grow our own food and die a miserable and early death.
are the brexiters treating the EU referendum as a protest vote against the past 40 odd years of right and centre right UK government? Most of their issues seem to have nothing to do with or very little could change if we're in or out of the EU.
No, they are treating it as a protest against the left or center left government of the last 40 years.
We haven't really had a right wing government since Churchill, and he was hardly Mussolini.
The nearest we got was Thatcher, but she was hardly 'right wing'
Its been pinko liberal lefty since Macmillan really.
The EU is a Euro socialists faced Mafia. An oligarchy that holds reign by paying off bureaucrats and lefty organisations and the media across the EU, and calls itself socialist, but is in fact broadly supported and paid for by multinationals who all together despise the citizens they spend their lives lying to and selling to. Just like the virtue signalling Champagne Socialists of the Islington and Hollywood Wankerati.
Its about as intelligent to expect a centrally governed Europe to work as having a dashboard full of engine management dials in your car. You have the control, but you cant possibly keep up with the changing conditions. That's why you have an autonomous 'local governing body' to run the engine.
The EU cant possibly hope to 'govern' Europe effectively, and it doesn't even try. You only have to look at the drunken shambling Junckers to get a glimpse of the reality. Its a boys club for the boys, a marvellous gravy train to ride, and they chuck power at unelected little grey men sitting in offices who at a stroke will destroy and entire industry (like fishing) at the stroke of a ballpoint pen.
All that matters is staying in power and riding the gravy train. Immigrants? Who really cares? What's the Liberal Line on immigrants Claude? Oh, we should be tolerant and Christian? Ok:
'Europe must be tolerant and Christian, and allow itself to become Islamic'
ER, what???
Even the Orwellian Doublethink is simply ignored.
Increase your salary, stay drunk, take the money, spend it on whores - that's all that is worth doing, and if challenged tell them its 'all about social justice'.
Ok, as long as its all about social justice, its OK!
Most of the arguments that we keep hearing all over the media, trade/how much we pay/immigration etc are of little relevance. The absolutely fundamental issues are getting next to no airing at all.
The people who make the laws are not elected by the people, they are elected by other politicians who might be elected by the people. Now I don't know about the rest of you but that's not bloody well good enough for me!
For centuries we have wrested power from the elites and passed it closer to the people, we fought a civil war and chopped off a king's head to prove there was no divine right to rule. This is the first time that I can think of (admittedly only an amateur student of political history) where the direction of power has been the other way round. Those who seek to rule us are now less accountable than they were 50 years ago. Back then we could directly vote for or against the top decision makers, now we can only vote for people who might vote for the top decision makers we want.
They ignore referenda in smaller countries like Ireland, making them vote again until they get the answer they want. They have desposed elected governments in Italy and Greece and placed appointed apparatchiks in their place. The EU Arrest Warrant undermines our ancient right of Habeas Corpus (Google Andrew Symeou).
I really wish all those points were the top item on the media and the Leave campaign's agenda but I barely hear a peep about it.
"The people who make the laws are not elected by the people, they are elected by other politicians who might be elected by the people. Now I don't know about the rest of you but that's not bloody well good enough for me!"
Not strictly true. MEPs make the laws, and all UK citizens can vote for their MEP (that's how UKIP got theirs in). However, you raise a point that may be at the heart of disillusionment with UK politics.
Namely that in our Local and General Elections you can only vote for the people that your particular Political Party puts forward. So although you think you've got a free democratic vote, you have no choice in what candidates you can vote for, and if you don't particularly like the representative of your particular Party affiliation, then you're in the same boat.
Of course perfectly principled candidates do often come up, but since they're almost always independents with nowhere near the campaigning power of a major Political Party, hardly anyone is even aware of them, let alone votes for them.
It's obvious this is the case, because you only have to look at any particularly despised member of the current (or any previous) Government. If everyone hates IDS or Theresa May or Michael Gove, why were they elected? A significant amount of their Constituents voted for them, probably because in the UK most people vote for the Party, regardless of whether they like the candidates on their ballot paper or not.
Strictly speaking the British Public didn't elect David Cameron as Prime Minister. His constituents only voted him a seat in Parliament. It was his Party who voted him as Leader.
In fact isn't the US system a bit like this as well? US citizens don't vote for their President, they vote for Electors, who are actually the ones who vote.
"Not strictly true. MEPs make the laws"
I'm not sure that's accurate, as I understand it MEP's only get to vote on laws that are proposed by the EU Commission/Council/Whatever which is the same amount of power as our House of Lords has, they cannot propose laws themselves. Whereas our MP's do make the laws, even opposition MP's can bring a private member's bill to be voted on.
If you haven't already watched it Brexit the Movie does discuss this among a host of other issues:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYqzcqDtL3k
I strongly agree with the rest of your post however, and I've always considered the US method of open primaries to be very interesting. e.g. Love him or loathe him, the Republican voters want Trump and they are getting him.
"I'm not sure that's accurate, as I understand it MEP's only get to vote on laws that are proposed by the EU Commission/Council/Whatever which is the same amount of power as our House of Lords has, they cannot propose laws themselves. Whereas our MP's do make the laws, even opposition MP's can bring a private member's bill to be voted on."
You're probably right there. Though they do have more power than the House of Lords because if just one country's representative votes no, then the law isn't passed. Every country has the option of Veto on every law. Brexiters often quote that the UK has had a Veto taken away, but as I understand it that is on certain economic matters of the Euro, meaning that the UK should have no say in laws applicable only to the Eurozone, which we're not a part of.
Another point that I keep hearing is that the UK only has until 2020 before it will be forced to accept the Euro. However I have been unable to find any factual documentation to back this up. If there was any hard evidence that our Eurozone opt-out had a time limit, then I'm sure both Leavers and Remainers would have posted links to it, and yet there's nothing but hearsay. In fact this Telegraph article from 2014 implies that we won't be forced to join (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10935617/After-2020-all-EU-members-will-have-to-adopt-the-euro.html):
"...by 2020, all but five member states of the EU are due to be euro members and Poland is likely to join by then as well, leaving just the UK, Denmark, Sweden and Bulgaria outside."
The appalling thing is that democratic voters seem to want Hillary.
Trump is a relatively loathsome piece, but Hillary should have stayed under a stone.
The whole problem with US politics is that that is what is on offer, at all.
I'm not sure that's accurate, as I understand it MEP's only get to vote on laws that are proposed by the EU Commission/Council/WhateverMEPs get to amend, accept or reject laws proposed by the Commission.
It is indeed unfortunate that MEPs can't directly propose legislation, but then again, in practical terms neither can back bench MPs.
even opposition MP's can bring a private member's bill to be voted on.The only private members bills that get passed are the ones that get government support, and include such gems as the Knives Act 1997.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
