Brexit Penny Dropping?

[P.K.]

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Don’t forget cyclists😁

I think you are a very well balanced individual.

You've got a chip on each shoulder...

[The Voice of Reason]

14 hours ago, P.K. said:

I think you are a very well balanced individual.

You've got a chip on each shoulder...

All three of them apparently.

[P.K.]

19 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

The Guardian reported that Ofcom said that the print edition of the Guardian is most trusted by its readers amongst UK newspapers. But not apparently the news source provided by the online version, which fact conveniently does not appear in the headline.

So there is a little selectively and obfuscation going on here 

Never mind. That’s what happens. People are taken in.

As regards my comment re the gullibility of Guardian readers this is a classic example of confirmation bias which our friend PK has displayed in spades. They read it in blind faith and are blind to its flaws.

I used to take the Guardian for years until it stopped being serious. Shame really as it did make you think then, rather than telling you what to think ( I suppose that suits some, mentioning no names)

In the same way that my ex father in law thought that reading the Daily Mail made him a member of the intelligentsia, those that read the Guardian think it makes them somewhat superior, and that they are somewhat unique.

Sure you like winding folks up but the above just makes you look stupid:

"The Guardian reported that Ofcom said that the print edition of the Guardian is most trusted by its readers amongst UK newspapers. But not apparently the news source provided by the online version, which fact conveniently does not appear in the headline.

So there is a little selectively and obfuscation going on here."

So you compare the online version of the Guardian against the printed version and find "selectivity and obfuscation going on" on a regular basis then...? Yeah... Right...

The rest of your post is just condescending nonsense...

Incidentally, has your Telegraph come up with any Brexit Benefits recently...?

[Zarley]

Looking for Brexit benefits is a bit like looking for gold off the end of Peel breakwater; plenty of turds and used condoms, but no gold.

Brexiteers, however, would find a dead goldfish someone flushed down their bog, and declare victory. 

[Zarley]

I found a Brexit benefit, but it only benefits the people who run mobile phone networks. 

Pre-Brexit, EU regulations stopped these companies from profiteering on roaming charges and while these companies promised they wouldn't make changes to roaming charges, surprise surprise, most have reneged. Ca-ching!

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/aug/08/mobile-firms-breaking-promises-on-roaming-fees-post-brexit-warns-martin-lewis 

[The Voice of Reason]

2 hours ago, Zarley said:

Looking for Brexit benefits is a bit like looking for gold off the end of Peel breakwater; plenty of turds and used condoms, but no gold.

Brexiteers, however, would find a dead goldfish someone flushed down their bog, and declare victory. 

Speaking of things at the end of Peel breakwater.

Did you know that until 2016 member states had to apply to the EU for permission ( yes, permission) to remove the tax on tampons and other sanitary items, as the EU deemed them nonessential or luxury items. Until then and without such permission the UK by dint of being a member of the EU was obliged to levy this disgraceful tax, which it has  since abolished.

“Wow big deal” I hear you Remainers say. OK in the scheme of things not that significant but it does illustrate that the terms “regaining sovereignty “ and “ taking back control” are so much more than the empty slogans that Remainers claim they are.

 

[John Wright]

13 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Speaking of things at the end of Peel breakwater.

Did you know that until 2016 member states had to apply to the EU for permission ( yes, permission) to remove the tax on tampons and other sanitary items, as the EU deemed them nonessential or luxury items. Until then and without such permission the UK by dint of being a member of the EU was obliged to levy this disgraceful tax, which it has  since abolished.

“Wow big deal” I hear you Remainers say. OK in the scheme of things not that significant but it does illustrate that the terms “regaining sovereignty “ and “ taking back control” are so much more than the empty slogans that Remainers claim they are.

 

Except.

UK government could have reduced to 5% at any time. Did it? No!

UK government could have sought a derogation to zero rate. Did it? No!

Would it have been refused? No!

[The Voice of Reason]

 

Yes it could have reduced it to 5% at any time. But it couldn’t have abolished it altogether without going cap in  hand to the EU. Maybe the EU would have graciously granted the wish or maybe it wouldn’t have.

All these “excepts” only just illustrate the lack of self determination the UK had whilst a member of the EU

This from the UK government. Make of it what you will.

“The Chancellor announced on 1st January 2021 that the ‘Tampon Tax’ would cease. This was due to exiting the EU and the UK no longer being bound by the EU VAT Directive to charge 5% tax on all sanitary products. “

[manxman1980]

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

“The Chancellor announced on 1st January 2021 that the ‘Tampon Tax’ would cease. This was due to exiting the EU and the UK no longer being bound by the EU VAT Directive to charge 5% tax on all sanitary products. “

That would be the Chancellor of a pro-brexit Government correct? 

The same Government that has had to appoint a Minister of Brexit Benefits who seems to be spending most of his time complaining about people working from home rather than finding and brexit benefits? 

Sorry but this Government had proves time and again it cannot be trusted to tell the truth and this statement is another example of it bending the truth to breaking point in an attempt to look good.

Did the PM get rid of the Kipper pillows yet?  Remember him waving around some Manx Kippers blabbering on about that and blaming the EU?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

10 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

That would be the Chancellor of a pro-brexit Government correct? 

The same Government that has had to appoint a Minister of Brexit Benefits who seems to be spending most of his time complaining about people working from home rather than finding and brexit benefits? 

Sorry but this Government had proves time and again it cannot be trusted to tell the truth and this statement is another example of it bending the truth to breaking point in an attempt to look good.

Did the PM get rid of the Kipper pillows yet?  Remember him waving around some Manx Kippers blabbering on about that and blaming the EU?

 

Yes it’s correct that it is the Chancellor of a pro Brexit government.

I am not quite sure what point you’re trying to make. The only party ,except maybe for a few fringe parties,that was anti-Brexit was the Liberals ( and look how they fared!) Labour was ambiguous to say the least.

I’m really not sure how you come to the conclusion that the Government statement is “ another example of it bending the truth to breaking point in an attempt to look good”

Its a factual statement and is the truth. I can’t see that there is any bending involved but feel free to explain.

 

 

[John Wright]

13 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Yes it’s correct that it is the Chancellor of a pro Brexit government.

I am not quite sure what point you’re trying to make. The only party ,except maybe for a few fringe parties,that was anti-Brexit was the Liberals ( and look how they fared!) Labour was ambiguous to say the least.

I’m really not sure how you come to the conclusion that the Government statement is “ another example of it bending the truth to breaking point in an attempt to look good”

Its a factual statement and is the truth. I can’t see that there is any bending involved but feel free to explain.

 

 

So, for 11 years, Tory chancellors exercised sovereignty, charged 15% more than they could have, didn’t ask about the final 5%? That’s the fact. If there had been the political will they could have been zero rated. FACT, TRUTH.

[Eris]

Never mind.  The UK has achieved its independence from the EU and has sovereignty returned and all that remains to be done is end the restrictions that are still associated with the EU.  Now the most important thing is to put a full, immediate, and shuddering stop to undocumented immigration and clear out those people illegally in the UK.   IMO a change in UK government is desperately needed because I do not believe that the inherent sleaze and corruption that runs through this crop of Conservative MP's is fixable.  Time for them and their supporters "to sit on the naughty step" for a term.

 

 

 

[John Wright]

10 minutes ago, Eris said:

Never mind.  The UK has achieved its independence from the EU and has sovereignty returned and all that remains to be done is end the restrictions that are still associated with the EU.  Now the most important thing is to put a full, immediate, and shuddering stop to undocumented immigration and clear out those people illegally in the UK.   IMO a change in UK government is desperately needed because I do not believe that the inherent sleaze and corruption that runs through this crop of Conservative MP's is fixable.  Time for them and their supporters "to sit on the naughty step" for a term.

 

 

 

So, enlighten us, what are the “restrictions that are still associated with the EU”, and remind us again how the EU stopped the UK from properly dealing with undocumented immigration over the last 48 years. Immigration wasn’t a pooled sovereignty matter. It was an area where the UK retained full sovereignty.

[The Voice of Reason]

15 minutes ago, John Wright said:

So, for 11 years, Tory chancellors exercised sovereignty, charged 15% more than they could have, didn’t ask about the final 5%? That’s the fact. If there had been the political will they could have been zero rated. FACT, TRUTH.

Well it is a fact that they could have been zero rated.

Its also a fact that it was in the EU's powers not to allow the zero rating (and that really is the crux of the matter, whatever they may have decided).

 It matters not that due to precedent etc, yes it probably would have been granted. Yes I do mean "granted". The once proud United Kingdom having to grovel for permission from faceless bureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourg.  

So the EU can set tax rates for the UK which they then must adopt..  A loss of sovereignty whichever way you look at it, which was the major factor in the Brexit vote going the way it did. 

(The fact that the UK could have reduced the tax to 5%, and the Government of the day (for whatever reason) chose not to is an internal UK political matter). 

[Eris]

11 minutes ago, John Wright said:

So, enlighten us, what are the “restrictions that are still associated with the EU”, and remind us again how the EU stopped the UK from properly dealing with undocumented immigration over the last 48 years. Immigration wasn’t a pooled sovereignty matter. It was an area where the UK retained full sovereignty.

John Major relinquished UK sovereignty when he signed Maastricht.   I do wonder where BREXIT leaves the Island though in view of its relationship with the UK.  That's not yet been tested in court but it might be amusing when it eventually is.