As some readers are also aware, the UK has put in place decidedly half-hearted measures to supposedly tackle this issue which largely exonerate Amazon and eBay from any responsibility for addressing the estimated £1.5 billion loss to the UK a year arising from this abuse.
The EU wants to go further: what it wants to do is put in place the Australian solution, which is to simply make Amazon and eBay responsible for collecting the tax owing and to pay it over. It's simple; it's easy and it's effective.
However, I hear from sources that one country is objecting most strongly in the EU. Guess who? It's the UK, of course. We want, as ever, to hinder the chances that the right amount of tax will be paid in the right place at the right time. It's as if we thought it was our national role to promote tax abuse.
You can see why some in the EU are looking forward to seeing us going.
You can also see why their greatest fear is that Brexit won't happen, which seems increasingly likely. But if so you can see why they may want to attach some conditions to our cancellation of Article 50. Quite a lot of conditions, I would imagine. Starting with some on tax abuse.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I can’t say I’m surprised but it is still sad that this country does this sort of thing.
I’ve recently read a book about American trade deals up to about the mid-late 1970’s and the country that has been the most supine of the European countries in its dealings with America in the post war age has been dear old Blighty itself.
Many a time we could have led a bulwark against US policy and instead we have acted a staging post for American trade and economic hegemony. What is also incredible is that even though we have helped the Americans they have still treated us like muck. ‘Special relationship’ – my glutes!
And we are still doing it today. I bet Liam Fox can’t wait for the NHS to be ran by an American so-called ‘health provider’.
As a (mostly) unapologetic Lexiter, I’ve always thought (and commented here once or twice) that the ‘better off without us’ case for leaving the EU was a strong one. On pretty much every potentially advantageous move the EU wanted to make, the UK has been a hinderance or complete obstruction – to tax abuse you could add vehicle emissions, pesticide regulation, foreign policy (particularly wrt to Israel) and data protection.
The ‘concessions’ negotiated by Cameron prior to the Brexit vote – particularly to reduce restrictions on the City of London only served to entrench these.
All the threats of having to ‘accept the rules’ without being able to influence them following a leave vote I always saw as a net benefit, not a cost, given ‘our’ long and ignoble history of not playing nicely.
So you’d rather concede to the UK right wing and give them free rein? Why?
I’m not sure that conceding to the right-wing necessarily follows from my comment on the UK’s generally obstructive behaviour in the EU.
It’s that the EU would almost certainly have continued its right-ward drift with us still as a member perenially tugging them in that ‘light-touch’ direction.
If i understand you properly though on conceding to the right-wing, I think the current state of UK politics is as far away from that as it has been since the early 80s. The TINA narrative is at last being seriously challenged and we have a chance to get our own house in order. I think the chances of that happening following a remain vote were slim to non-existent.
I confess I have little clue what you are actually arguing
I think AdrianD is arguing for one of the positives of Brexit. The EU will be able to implement your preferred model ( which would not happen with the UK as a member ) and the UK can implement its more neoliberal model.
The EU is happy is they get to operate their model which means the cyber equivalent of the shopping centre collects the consumption tax of the shops that operate there. The UK operates its model where the market might be better regulated but the sellers are liable for writing the cheque.
We find out which approach works best.
His is quite an optimistic attitude in my view.
Hi Richard and Ophelia,
I probably should have been more clear. Ophelia is mostly right in what she says. I do think that the EU will likely be a better regulated place without the UK’s continued obstruction and implementing the Australian solution on VAT is just one example of this. If the UK has to accept these, almost certainly better, regulations to maintain access to the single market then that would be a good thing. .
However, it seems that you and Ophelia assume that I think that the only alternative to this would be policies currently favoured by the right — that the Uk’s options are only the neoliberal ones.
In fact I’m very much more optimistic than Ophelia thinks – I see the eventual outcome as being much more akin to the Courageous State than to a John Redwood fantasy island. The result of the recent General Election have only served to make me more optimistic.
I hope you are right
It looks like Larry Elliott has had similar thoughts to those I’ve been trying to express here recently (I was the commenter who suggested considering a possible counter-factual outcome had we voted to remain in the EU – on your ‘humble pie’ blog):
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/21/capitalism-fat-cats-brexit-leaving-eu
Larry and I have been known to share a bottle on this issue
Well…assuming Brexit of some sort DOES happen:
We ( UK) has shown itself incapable of maintaining any semblance of a ribust manufacturing base most of which has been intentionally either left to wither on the vine or transported overseas destined to remain offshore forever.
The finsncusl/ invisible services powerhouse that is the City and accounts for the majority of any GDP we still aspird to will similarly leave for ( it would appear ) Frankfurt.
Ergo the only card UK will have left to play as the Osbornites and Jonsonans hinted at when Cameron was still PM would be to mutate into an ” offshore financisl centre ” possibly with the odd trade deal buttressing employment in the residual gig economy such as it will be after robotisation.
Any better ideas?
The UK state publicly that tax avoidance is morally wrong yet seem to do very little to change the system. So endemic is it as demonstrated by the Panama papers that even our ex prime ministers father ADVERTISED Blairmore holdings as “seeking sophisticated investors who wished to legally avoid British tax” all perfectly legal of course. To me its like a back door was written into the law that only rich people knew about.
Obviously i’ve got to be careful what i say on a public blog but it Beggars belief that its so easy with the right financial planning and still going on! This from another (one of many) websites.
The registration requirements of a company registered in Panama does NOT require that the company provides information of its owner, shareholders and or members just the ID of its legal representative (ie Fonseca) also company registers are not available for public inspection, shareholders enjoy exemption from all local taxes and duties, including income tax, capital gains and corporation tax and no reporting of any overseas gains are necessary
How can this be morally wrong yet still be legal! what other reason is there to use such companies? Something we would never have known about if it wasnt for the panama papers data leak!
Richard has anybody ever estimated the amount of UK money held offshore? or how long its been going on for? or how much tax could have been collected if these types of schemes weren’t legal?
Also didnt they change the law recently to stop “anyone knowingly using complicated tax avoidance schemes” would be prosecuted?? or did i dream that last bit lol
There are estimates but they’re extrapolations form other work
I estimated the loss in 2014. Google £119.4 billion tax and you’ll find the report
For other estimates look at the Tax Justicoe Network web site, I think under ‘scale of the problem’ or something like that
Hi Richard,
Thanks for bringing these issues to our attention.
Why do you think or why does the EU think the UK is so against these sensible rules ? Has anyone from the EU given any suggestions as to our motives ?
Ron
Good question
We must not ‘disrupt the market’