- Passengers going to the EU will be able to buy duty-free alcohol and tobacco products like they can now for non-EU destinations.
- But they will no longer be allowed to bring in unlimited amounts of goods from the EU for personal use. Instead, there will be specific limits.
- The government is getting rid of tax-free sales to all destinations (that will hit retailers in airports, like Dixons) - they had to do that because WTO rules demand equal treatment for all countries, so it was either that or extend tax-free sales to EU destinations.
- The government is getting rid of the ability of non-EU visitors to get VAT refunds on stuff they carry home with them. This will make the UK less attractive as a shopping destination for well-heeled foreigners. (Instead, they have to have the products sent overseas by stores!)
Summary: some positives, some negatives - but as a whole, the negatives outweigh the positives. We lose tax-free shopping in UK airports, and tourists lose cheaper products. We can no longer bring unlimited amounts of stuff back from the EU. But we gain duty-free booze to the EU.
Of course, since alcohol is more expensive in the UK than almost anywhere else in Europe, it's hard to see how many people will be queueing up to load up on alcohol before heading overseas. More than they do now, I mean.
If you're a consumer, the new rules will take getting used to, especially the limited personal allowance for "everything else".
If you're a business, especially an airport retailer, the changes could be devastating.
Thanks, Brexit!
/END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Inland border checks are going to be off the scale bonkers. A failure of implementation only a Tory government could dream up.
1) Enter the UK. 2) Drive 22 miles to get checked. 3) If found dodgy, drive 22 miles back and meekly leave the UK.
Gaping holes ripe for exploitation.
Why does it matter? The article helpfully explains:
"The EU carries out strict controls on all goods coming into the bloc, but exerts a lower degree of control on goods transiting, for example from outside the EU to the UK." archive.ph/2024.04.27-071…
And what happens when the checks at the inland border take several hours and the drivers run out of legal driving time that day? Are there huge lorry parks in the area where they can stop and rest for the legally required amount of time, while their loads wilt or rot in the back?
The Tories have published their new definition of extremism. It includes 3 components.
It is well worth reading the full definition of each of the components (reproduced later in this thread) because they're extremely sweeping. gov.uk/government/pub…
Wonder how advocating to leave the ECHR (and indeed agitating to hold a referendum on doing so) squares with this?
After all, doing so would unquestionably strip us of numerous legal protections.
"And we have secured the most comprehensive deal that the EU has ever agreed to in its history."
Er, no. That would be their EU membership offering.
Our own trade deal with them is a mouse fart in a hurricane by comparison.
Let's take a random lie as an example: "Within the EU, the UK would not have been able to cut VAT on the installations of solar panels, heat pumps and insulation to zero"
In case you missed it, today we've had the Daily Mail, Telegraph and Express all soiling themselves with glee at a report showing that trade since Brexit has been going well.
Only snag is, the report (by murky Tufton Street outfit the IEA) was quite literally a pack of lies...
How did they pull their stupid stunt off? Quite simply.
1) They compared two different types of data (inflation-adjusted for the pre-Brexit period, unadjusted for the post-Brexit period) to draw false conclusions.
2) They got Kemi Badenoch to swallow the lot and talk about it.
Here's more info about the holes in the original IEA report the size of the Grand Canyon...