Fresh Calls For Guarantees on Digital Taxation in Future UK-US Trade Deal (cityam.com) 32
One of America's largest internet advocacy groups has published a six-point wish list for a future UK-US trade deal, including calls for no unilateral digital taxes. From a report: The Internet Association's new white paper calls for a future trade deal to include provisions to ensure the free flow of information between the two countries, a guarantee to not unilaterally impose taxes on digital services companies and a guarantee that "measures do not undermine the intermediary liability protections." The new paper suggests that any potential new taxation on digital services should be set up in "an internationally coordinated manner." The Internet Association, which was set up by companies such as Facebook and Amazon, said in its white paper that the UK now exports $34.8bn to the U.S., an increase of 56 percent from 2006 to 2017. Meanwhile, $48.8bn is exported from the US to the UK. Internet Association director of trade policy Jordan Haas said: "The US and the UK lead the world in digital technology and this agreement should include policies that will bolster that success."
International coordination (Score:3)
Sovereignty: The right to do whatever the USA tells us to.
Now, there's no doubt that an international agreement on this matter would be a Good Thing, but it has been a long time coming. I'd say it's reasonable, as an interim measure, to enact unilateral taxes until such time as an international system can be set up. Maybe that would even help to light a fire under those dragging their heels on this.
Re:International coordination (Score:4, Informative)
It's worse than that. Not only are we being bullied by the US, we have to choose between them and the EU. The EU is too big for the US to force terms on but if we don't adopt whatever tax measures the EU decides on it will affect our trade with them.
Re: (Score:3)
It's worse than that. Not only are we being bullied by the US, we have to choose between them and the EU. The EU is too big for the US to force terms on but if we don't adopt whatever tax measures the EU decides on it will affect our trade with them.
Actually it's even worse than that. We can't choose between the EU and the US because it's physically impossible to deliver the food from the US (more than four week round trip for a ship) at the rate need to replace the EU (4 hour round trip). This effectively means we end up giving the EU a trade deal for their imports without getting one for the things that we want to sell to them (mostly services). Given that the UK is planning a low tariff regime, WTO terms are actually perfect for the EU and don't
Re:International coordination (Score:4, Interesting)
You're looking at the economical situation. Politically, it's even uglier. British politics has been ugly ever since the go-ahead was given for the withdrawal referendum. I know you will be familiar,but I'll try to explain the situation for the rest of the world.
The party currently in charge, the Conservative party, generally holds to a low-regulation free-market ideology. They are not the same as the Republicans are in America, but there are similarities in many ways. So to them, a trade deal is a great opportunity. They can make 'concessions' that would result in deregulation of some key sectors, even in ways that would be very unpopular with the public - the most significant in that aspect being the loosening of animal welfare and food safety standards in the agricultural sector. The blame can be pinned on America and - best of all - it's an international agreement, so even when the pendulum of power swings the other way and the Labour party are back in charge, they'll be powerless to undo the reforms without violating a binding international agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
International treaties are complicated beasts, and what happens if someone wants to back out is a significant part of that complication and often a tricky area for diplomats who negotiate these things.
It is possible to create a binding treaty that does not provide any mechanism for either party to withdraw. There might still be grounds for later withdrawal, but then you're getting into Vienna Convention territory.
Of course any country can unilaterally withdraw at any time anyway. That is the essence of bein
Re: (Score:2)
Most trade treaties include a clause where, with notice, usually 6 months to a year, a country can withdraw from the treaty. What happens though is things are often unbalanced. Take NAFTA, while Canada could have withdrawn when America broke the spirit of the deal by putting on tariffs for national security reasons (Canada is a bigger security risk then Russia in Trumps view), enough of our economy depends on the trade that withdrawing wasn't really an option and due to the leverage of America's economy's s
Re: (Score:2)
Whoever gets in next will be under immense pressure to rejoin the EEA or the EU. Economically it's the only way out.
Re: (Score:2)
Economically it's the only way out.
I'm not sure how true that is any more, even if there was a reasonable argument for it pre-Brexit. The biggest economic problem with Brexit was never really the long-term situation, it was that the losses would be felt relatively early but most benefits would not be felt until later.
The main economic losses would mostly be caused by uncertainty at first, then later due to any practical changes in trade arrangements when any transition period ended.
The main economic benefits would first need to complete any
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of this is simply propaganda spread by the UK press though. This is really the problem the EU faces; if it acts rapidly it's called dictatorial by those who want to tear it down (i.e. Russia, and the UK's right wing press), if it acts slowly then it's called divided and unable to work together.
I agree that there is an element of bias, but I do think there's more to it than that. The fact that EU member states have significant inequalities in various respects is always going to be a source of tension. The speed of negotiations doesn't change the facts that certain mostly southern nations have been hit harder by the virus while certain mostly northern nations have been relatively lightly affected, or that the northern nations are mostly stronger economically. Those things are probably more importan
Re: (Score:2)
It all depends how badly botched it is. If we crash out with no deal then industries like aerospace are fucked. Airbus isn't going to keep making wings here.
The recovery time for that kind of thing will be decades. Many mining and manufacturing towns never recovered. And a lot of them voted brexit.
Re: (Score:2)
It all depends how badly botched it is.
Oh, I agree, and I'm not expecting the current government to suddenly produce some all-star team of political leaders and skilled negotiators who have been hiding over the hill just waiting for the time to make their big entrance. But equally, I don't think it's plausible that we'll crash out with no deal and remain on politically distant terms with the EU for a long time (by international diplomatic standards).
My reason for that view is very simple. It is clearly in both sides' best interests to have a clo
Re: (Score:2)
I can't see that there is any EU member state that will be hit as badly as the UK...except, perhaps Ireland
Ireland will be hit significantly worse, even according to their own government's projections. This is partly because they do have a relatively high volume of their international trade with the UK. It's partly because so much of the rest of their trade goes via the UK to the rest of the EU and back, so anything that screws up cross-border shipping for the UK is also screwing it up for Ireland. It's not just about trade, either: there are the non-trade issues, like the airspace around Ireland mostly being un
Yawn (Score:2)
"US and UK promise not to turn into France"
There was little risk of it happening, anyways.
Re: (Score:3)
You have been asleep at the wheel. The UK imposed a digital service tax 3 months ago largely modeled on the one adopted by France.
https://www.gov.uk/government/... [www.gov.uk]
Britain is great again (Score:1)
These unilateral taxes are filling a gap (Score:5, Insightful)
What all the little Englanders who voted for Brexit donâ(TM)t seem to understand is that every trade deal involves sacrificing some sovereignty and freedom.
Hopefully this idea wonâ(TM)t go anywhere. Companies like Google do need to pay their fair share of tax rather than taking advantage of current tax laws and pretending their profits are elsewhere, and that requires changing the laws. There doesnâ(TM)t seem to be much incentive to reach an international agreement on this matter, especially from the US side, so these unilateral taxes seem reasonable and maybe will increase pressure on others to reach such an agreement.
Re:These unilateral taxes are filling a gap (Score:4, Insightful)
As we see here, those companies do not need to pay their fair share of tax at all. It is more cost-effective to instead lobby the US government to aid them in not paying their fair share.
Underhanded, immoral? Sure. Welcome to business.
poor UK (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Considering that the Conservative party opposes regulation as a matter of general principle, and always favors a private-sector solution over direct government control? I don't think that's getting robbed blind: I think it's 'losing' on purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no real danger of any trade deal being made with the US that would significantly threaten the NHS. It is, to borrow a metaphor from our friends across the pond, the third rail of UK politics. That was the case even before the current pandemic, which has only increased public respect and support for the already popular NHS.
If Boris and co want to bring down their own government before its time, the slightest hint that someone once had a private thought that maybe in the distant future they might lay
In other words (Score:2)