WindyJ wrote:

integrale wrote:

Sorry Pickles, but I think you know you are going to foment divisive opinions with that post.

Personally I think people insinuating that others not to bring the subject up because it’s “divisive” are without doubt the ones who seek to divide and are by that insinuation are attempting to brandish those who do as “bad” people. Pure NPC.

Quote:

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of
the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in
paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned,
unanimously decides to extend this period

Quote:

Subject to any transitional arrangement that may be contained in a possible withdrawal
agreement, as of the withdrawal date, the EU rules in the field of customs and indirect taxation (VAT and excise duties – see below, 2) no longer apply to the
United Kingdom.5
This has in particular the following consequences as of the withdrawal date


Goods which are brought into the customs territory of the EU from the United
Kingdom are subject to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the
tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff.

This implies
the application of the relevant customs duties.

and


Goods which enter the VAT territory of the EU from the United Kingdom or are
dispatched or transported from the VAT territory of the EU to the United Kingdom
will respectively be treated as importation or exportation of goods in accordance with
Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of
value added tax (the 'VAT Directive').
10 This implies charging VAT at importation,
while exports are exempt from VAT.

Quote:

Entitlement of healthcare under the Union law on social security
coordination99
Union law100 provides for access to healthcare during temporary stay abroad
based on European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) or, for planned treatments,
based on the prior authorisation by the relevant competent institution (e.g. the
institution with which the person concerned is insured).
Costs of such healthcare are reimbursed between the relevant institutions of
the Member States involved.
As of the withdrawal date, these rules no longer apply vis-à-vis the United
Kingdom

lozza wrote:

"we sell all these sheep to the eu...what suddenly they are going to change there taste

discomog wrote:

Pickles, here's another view from Oz, written by former PM Tony Abbott:-

"It’s pretty hard for Britain’s friends, here in Australia, to make sense of the mess that’s being made of Brexit. The referendum result was perhaps the biggest-ever vote of confidence in the United Kingdom, its past and its future. But the British establishment doesn’t seem to share that confidence and instead looks desperate to cut a deal, even if that means staying under the rule of Brussels. Looking at this from abroad, it’s baffling: the country that did the most to bring democracy into the modern world might yet throw away the chance to take charge of its own destiny.
Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation — it’s surrender. It’s all give and no get. When David Cameron tried to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership, he was sent packing because Brussels judged (rightly) that he’d never actually back leaving. And since then, Brussels has made no real concessions to Theresa May because it judges (rightly, it seems) that she’s desperate for whatever deal she can get.
The EU’s palpable desire to punish Britain for leaving vindicates the Brexit project. Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. The EU seems to think that Britain will go along with this because it’s terrified of no deal. Or, to put it another way, terrified of the prospect of its own independence.
But even after two years of fearmongering and vacillation, it’s not too late for robust leadership to deliver the Brexit that people voted for. It’s time for Britain to announce what it will do if the EU can’t make an acceptable offer by March 29 next year — and how it would handle no deal. Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy?
A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. That means no border controls for goods coming from Europe to Britain. You don’t need to negotiate this: just do it. If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe.
Next, the UK should declare that Europeans already living here should have the right to remain permanently — and, of course, become British citizens if they wish. This should be a unilateral offer. Again, you don’t need a deal. You don’t need Michel Barnier’s permission. If Europe knows what’s best for itself, it would likewise allow Britons to stay where they are.
Third, there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions. Only for work, not welfare. And with a foreign worker’s tax on the employer, to make sure anyone coming in would not be displacing British workers.
Fourth, no ‘divorce bill’ whatsoever should be paid to Brussels. The UK government would assume the EU’s property and liabilities in Britain, and the EU would assume Britain’s share of these in Europe. If Britain was getting its fair share, these would balance out; and if Britain wasn’t getting its fair share, it’s the EU that should be paying Britain.
Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic, so let’s not pretend you need to check for problems we all know don’t exist. Some changes may be needed but technology allows for smart borders: there was never any need for a Cold War-style Checkpoint Charlie. Irish citizens, of course, have the right to live and work in the UK in an agreement that long predates EU membership.
Of course, the EU might not like this British leap for independence. It might hit out with tariffs and impose burdens on Britain as it does on the US — but WTO rules put a cap on any retaliatory action. The worst it can get? We’re talking levies of an average 4 or 5 per cent. Which would be more than offset by a post-Brexit devaluation of the pound (which would have the added bonus of making British goods more competitive everywhere).
UK officialdom assumes that a deal is vital, which is why so little thought has been put into how Britain might just walk away. Instead, officials have concocted lurid scenarios featuring runs on the pound, gridlock at ports, grounded aircraft, hoarding of medicines and flights of investment. It’s been the pre-referendum Project Fear campaign on steroids. And let’s not forget how employment, investment and economic growth ticked up after the referendum.
As a former prime minister of Australia and a lifelong friend of your country, I would say this: Britain has nothing to lose except the shackles that the EU imposes on it. After the courage shown by its citizens in the referendum, it would be a tragedy if political leaders go wobbly now. Britain’s future has always been global, rather than just with Europe. Like so many of Britain’s admirers, I want to see this great country seize this chance and make the most of it."
Tony Abbott served as Prime Minister of Australia from 2013 to 2015

integrale wrote:

WindyJ wrote:

integrale wrote:

Sorry Pickles, but I think you know you are going to foment divisive opinions with that post.

Personally I think people insinuating that others not to bring the subject up because it’s “divisive” are without doubt the ones who seek to divide and are by that insinuation are attempting to brandish those who do as “bad” people. Pure NPC.

Brexit is a divisive subject. No-one can deny it.

Personally, I believe this forum best serves Land Rover related discussion, rather than political, religious or other matters, for which any number of alternative discussion platforms exist.

Clearly, WindyJ, you disagree – hence your recent post that “Britain needs a Trump.” That’s your view and you’re entitled to it, but you know it’s a controversial remark.

Is this the appropriate forum for contentious political debate? Or, should we reserve it for things we all share in common – like enjoyment of Land Rovers? That was my point to Pickles.

Oh well, if YOU think its not the forum for it then it cant be can it

The clue is in the forums actual title “OFF TOPIC” .... you are welcome to keep to the LR specific areas of the site, but dont come in this part and lecture people to what they should or should not be discussing.