Scrutable

What's the difference between customs duty and a tariff, in practical terms? It seems like either way the importer is paying more money.

If you buy something in the UK to ship to Spain then I think what should actually happen is the UK VAT should be deducted from the price and you pay the Spanish one yourself when it arrives.

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 20, 2021 1:40 am

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 19, 2021 7:17 am

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 19, 2021 1:48 am

We have ceased the agreement which allowed trade, so that's cutting ourselves off. And how is that negotiating going, do you claim? As well as the Brexiteer claimed it would before the referendum?

We do still trade with the EU. We have a tariff free trade deal with the EU. I am not sure what you’re referring to here.

There's a lot more to trade than tarriffs. There's whether or not customs paperwork and inspections are performed, and there's things like conformance to standards and regulations.

Yes, but Canada and a lot of other nations have those with the EU too. Thats not the same as being unable to trade.

Oh I see. Sheldrake, no one here has said that the UK is currently banned from trading with the EU. Does that help clarify things for you?

The point that I am failing to make clear is that trade between the UK and the EU is absolutely nothing like friction-free. In fact it's a pain in the arse.
Especially for those who are still desperate for Richmond sausages.
From what my carnivorous friends tell me, Spain actually does much nicer sausages anyway.

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 17, 2021 11:30 pm

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 17, 2021 10:58 am

That little f.cking checkbox about cookies for a start.

There's no legitimate reason why any website should ask about cookies. It shows that they want to collect unnecessary data, and therefore need your consent. The solution is not getting your consent, but not collecting the data. If we do diverge from the EU on this, it should be to ban the collection of such information.

That would just result in UK users receiving lots of "Sorry this website is not available in your location" messages when they try to access pages on the internet. The EU is large and powerful enough that most websites are forced to allow opt-outs so as to be available in those countries, and they rely on most users lazily clicking "accept all" to maintain their revenue. But occasionally when you click on links to US news sites, you still get these "not available" messages. The UK would have far less power to force websites to adapt to their policies, and a total block that does not allow for the lazy default option would make this even less likely.

Websites and services are not free to run, but are, other than a few specific exceptions, free to use. Data collection and advertising make up this shortfall. The annoying EU checkboxes are probably the best solution to keeping things free and available online, while still allowing users control over their data.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 20, 2021 8:40 am

What's the difference between customs duty and a tariff, in practical terms? It seems like either way the importer is paying more money.

They are overlapping terms, and not necessarily precise terms.

Customs duties include commodity taxes that are chargeable regardless of origin, such as alcohol duties, payable by local producers as well as on imports all at the same rate. But country-specific import duties are also customs duties.

Whereas the term "tariff", in a trade sense, is usually restricted to country-specific import duties.

Though the term tariff plainly has other uses, such as your electricity tariff, a bar tariff, etc.

plodder wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 20, 2021 10:48 am

Oh I see. Sheldrake, no one here has said that the UK is currently banned from trading with the EU. Does that help clarify things for you?

I was replying to this: "We have ceased the agreement which allowed trade," posted by Millenial

This is untrue. There was then a silly discussion where people thought we *didn't* have tariff free trade with the EU, which was also untrue. Then people started debating about what 'tariff' meant, and shifted the discussion to something called 'friction free trade', which I never mentioned.

We have a trade deal with the EU that includes tariff free trade. If you look, you'll also see that we now export more to the EU than we did in March 2016 https://www.statista.com/statistics/284 ... ade-value/

People are very mislead about the impact of Brexit by echo-chamber media staffed by people who *really* can't process admitting they were wrong about something.

shpalman wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 20, 2021 9:01 am

If you buy something in the UK to ship to Spain then I think what should actually happen is the UK VAT should be deducted from the price and you pay the Spanish one yourself when it arrives.

This is exactly the point of IOSS.

WFJ wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:26 am

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 17, 2021 11:30 pm

There's no legitimate reason why any website should ask about cookies. It shows that they want to collect unnecessary data, and therefore need your consent. The solution is not getting your consent, but not collecting the data. If we do diverge from the EU on this, it should be to ban the collection of such information.

That would just result in UK users receiving lots of "Sorry this website is not available in your location" messages when they try to access pages on the internet. The EU is large and powerful enough that most websites are forced to allow opt-outs so as to be available in those countries, and they rely on most users lazily clicking "accept all" to maintain their revenue. But occasionally when you click on links to US news sites, you still get these "not available" messages. The UK would have far less power to force websites to adapt to their policies, and a total block that does not allow for the lazy default option would make this even less likely.

The UK could make it illegal to discriminate against UK users, with escalating fines for violations. The USA has no compunction about making their rules have extra-territorial effect.

Websites and services are not free to run, but are, other than a few specific exceptions, free to use. Data collection and advertising make up this shortfall. The annoying EU checkboxes are probably the best solution to keeping things free and available online, while still allowing users control over their data.

Very many such problematic sites are selling things. I very much doubt banning collection of unnecessary information would make much difference.

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 20, 2021 10:26 pm

WFJ wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:26 am

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 17, 2021 11:30 pm

There's no legitimate reason why any website should ask about cookies. It shows that they want to collect unnecessary data, and therefore need your consent. The solution is not getting your consent, but not collecting the data. If we do diverge from the EU on this, it should be to ban the collection of such information.

That would just result in UK users receiving lots of "Sorry this website is not available in your location" messages when they try to access pages on the internet. The EU is large and powerful enough that most websites are forced to allow opt-outs so as to be available in those countries, and they rely on most users lazily clicking "accept all" to maintain their revenue. But occasionally when you click on links to US news sites, you still get these "not available" messages. The UK would have far less power to force websites to adapt to their policies, and a total block that does not allow for the lazy default option would make this even less likely.

The UK could make it illegal to discriminate against UK users, with escalating fines for violations. The USA has no compunction about making their rules have extra-territorial effect.

Now I'm not sure if you are serious or joking. How would the UK courts prosecute websites that chose not to allow access to their site to users in the UK? You think the USA or other countries would help the UK to collect fines from their businesses because they chose not to provide free services to UK users?

Websites and services are not free to run, but are, other than a few specific exceptions, free to use. Data collection and advertising make up this shortfall. The annoying EU checkboxes are probably the best solution to keeping things free and available online, while still allowing users control over their data.

Very many such problematic sites are selling things. I very much doubt banning collection of unnecessary information would make much difference.

I doubt retail sites would block access. But many news sources and other information sites would. Just as some do to EU users at the moment.

Who exactly do you want to target? If it's Facebook, Twitter, Google etc then cookies are a tiny part of their analytics. They get most of their data from logged-in users who have agreed to have their data collected in the TOCs when they created their accounts. Banning data collection via cookies would just result in even more sites requiring users to create accounts and sign in before accessing their services. Twitter has already done this in recent weeks. It is no longer possible to search posts or view people's feeds without logging in. Sites like the BBC and the Guardian constantly nag users to create accounts to view their news, for little benefit to the user, so they get analytics data.

I found this quite interesting - sort of explained the history behind the weights and measures and pint glasses stuff.

But there are 2 main problems
1) the double coffin lid - as per the article
e.g. the government is to “set out ambitious plans which include modernising outdated EU vehicle standards to unlock the expansion of new transport technologies as outlined in TIGRR”
Now surely somebody in the government must realise that EU vehicle standards are actually produced by UNECE’s World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29)
A large amount of "EU Regulations" actually originate from Regional and Global Standards bodies that we are still bound by (ISO, CEN, UNECE, IMO, FAO, WHO, Codex, OIE, ITU, ILO )

2) The "Brussels effect" ( and the "Geneva Effect")
Which shows the futility of leaving the single market for regulatory sovereignty

We do now have an independent voice at all these Regional and Global Standards bodies, but if we want to influence we need to club together with like minded countries, we will have no influence in splendid isolation

WFJ wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:14 am

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 20, 2021 10:26 pm

The UK could make it illegal to discriminate against UK users, with escalating fines for violations. The USA has no compunction about making their rules have extra-territorial effect.

Now I'm not sure if you are serious or joking. <snip>

I can think of some other words...

WFJ wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:14 am

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 20, 2021 10:26 pm

The UK could make it illegal to discriminate against UK users, with escalating fines for violations. The USA has no compunction about making their rules have extra-territorial effect.

Now I'm not sure if you are serious or joking. How would the UK courts prosecute websites that chose not to allow access to their site to users in the UK? You think the USA or other countries would help the UK to collect fines from their businesses because they chose not to provide free services to UK users?

The same way it works for the USA. In some cases, if you get a judgement in a UK court against an entity in America (or elsewhere) a foreign court will enforce the judgement. If the entity has UK assets, pursue them. If not, resort to arresting company officers when they are reachable.

Banning data collection via cookies would just result in even more sites requiring users to create accounts and sign in before accessing their services. Twitter has already done this in recent weeks. It is no longer possible to search posts or view people's feeds without logging in. Sites like the BBC and the Guardian constantly nag users to create accounts to view their news, for little benefit to the user, so they get analytics data.

Making people sign up is ok, but using that to collect information is not. Refusing access if someone does not consent is illegal. This is just the existing position under GDPR.