Angry Brexiteers contact Dutch bike parts website that stopped shipping to the UK; Nail trap found on popular MTB trail; Beryl Burton mural graffitied; Cycling can improve your chances of employment by 12%; Pro cycling's baby boom + more on the live blog

To be fair to Ryan, he is probably looking beyond his own experience and social grouping and pointing out the wider effect of this crime, not just how it affects us. The inference that he injury caused by a nail through a horse's hoof or dog's paw is of greater harm than an inconvenient picture also seems pretty fair? His statement both increases the likelihood of getting police commitment to action and shows maturity and concern for others. He did not suggest the behaviour would be acceptable if only cyclists were affected.

You are really over-thinking this.  Of course he doesn't mean it would be less concerning if only targeting cyclists which is why it wasn't worth mentioning.

I would say strictly as the change or charges did not apply whilst the UK was in the EU and they do now it is a side effect of brexit ? The effect expressed as a benefit or negative upon the supplier and consumer  is a different discussion. It will be for each company to choose the advantage to them as against the cost and your example is fair that the projected cost will need to be balanced against each potential purchase. It is not so much the charge of VAT as the rates were standardised within the EU as the additional administration and time that each company will now have to incorporate which will hit smaller companies more than larger companies and risks eroding consumer choice ?

Yes there is admin, but surely the cost of that is not the £8 per order that the royal mail were taking from customers in order to recieve their delivery. An inefficient charging system caused partialy by th mail covering themselves against non payment.

Sell to UK customers pay UK VAT, seems fairly simple to me. Don't want to pay UK VAT, then don't. bikebits is at liberty to make that decision, based on an assessment of their current business volumes.

Potentially there may be a small reduction in choice, or we may see more choice within the UK. But there will certainly be an increase in clarity with customers no longer recieving deliveries with unexpected bills.

It's a balance between placing the admin burden on the customer versus on the seller. Obviously paying tax + fees at the point of import is an inconvenience, but for some customers that inconvenience is worth it if it means getting a particular item. I suspect there's quite a lot of companies (especially American companies with a large domestic customer base and few UK customers) that won't bother jumping through the extra hoops and that will just reduce options for customers.

I don't see why there couldn't be a two-tier system. Companies that do a lot of business with the UK can register for VAT and pay it at the point of sale in order to provide their customers with a seamless experience. Non-registered companies are still allowed to send goods untaxed and require the customer to pay the taxes upon import.

Maybe more could be done to educate customers about the taxes and fees so they are not "unexpected" but I don't see an inherent problem with that system.

Great summary.  One element I do think is a bit cheeky though is HMRC charging Businesses a fee for the priviledge of doing HMRC's job for them.

I've always been a bit confused by Brexit arguments as they seem to to want to cherry pick which bits of a free market economy / neo-liberalism suit them best.

However, making it harder to buy from non-UK companies and protecting British business is surely what "some" Brexiteers wanted.

I've never fully accepted the argument though. I prefer/choose to purchase from UK based companies that pay the requisit taxes to HMRC and employ people based in the UK. If all 17m Brexit voters did the same I think our economy would be much better for it.

Another alternative for a small business is to simply set up a UK serving shop on eBay/Etsy/Amazon Marketplace etc.

Increase the prices slightly to compensate for whatever fee the platform charges and all the VAT will be managed by said platform.

Minimal investment required if you already have an online business.

This IS a Brexit story. If the UK was still within the EU / single market these changes would not have occured. I take your point on the fairness of collecting taxes etc. but trade within the EU is streamlined by the fact that for the consumer all taxes have already been included (and paid). Different story outside the EU and that hasn't changed.

The way I would like to see it (neglecting just getting rid of VAT as inherently regressive) is that consumers can open an online acccount with HMRC. When they order something online they register the future delivery and make sure there is enough money in their account to cover the taxes and then everything is checked electronically and mail just flows through.

Retailers could take advantage of an HMRC API to do the form filling out for you and if you already had your credit card linked with HMRC then you woudln't need to even do anything yourself.

I think the other aspect that is worth a mention is that a number of EU member states already have similar VAT / Import / duty obligations that the UK now has - I believe NL is included in that list. 

all EU member states will have the same rules from July, it should have been implemented EU wide on January 1st, as with the UKs change,and ironically perhaps as it was originally an EU led policy, the UK has simply adopted it for them first. But the EU delayed their change to give all its remaining member states more time to make the changes, due to the efforts focussed on dealing with Covid currently.

https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/vat/modernising-vat-cross...

Awavey wrote:

all EU member states will have the same rules from July

Only for shipments into the EU from non-EU countries (mainly to close a VAT loophole for low value goods).

Within the EU, VAT collection is going to get easier. They are removing the limits that require member state registration and introducing a 'One Stop Shop', whereby all VAT is paid in a single state.

https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/vat-e-commerc...

migrant, not expat.

(sorry, as a migrant, it's a pet bugbear of mine - the way people refer to UK citizens living in the EU as 'expats', whereas EU citizens living in the UK are 'migrants'. It stops there being a sensible debate about migration and freedom of movement.)

alexuk wrote:

Frankly, who gives a s**t. It's just one supplier in a sea of suppliers. Non-story, remainer-division cr@p.

Have you been using their contact form, alex??? 

Alex is obviously having a bad Brexit. Let the poor soul  be.

Bigfoz wrote:

Alex is obviously having a bad Brexit. Let the poor soul  be.

Isn't everyone? I don't know why the Brexiters are still angry. They "won".

Ah, well, does the GDPR apply to data subjects outside the EU?

Sriracha wrote:

Ah, well, does the GDPR apply to data subjects outside the EU?

I don't think it matters where the individual is located, but obviously a company operating outside of the EU (and not processing any EU data) won't have to comply. Companies operating in the EU have to abide by GDPR for all individuals.

I am not a data reg lawyer but my understanding is that the GDPR applies to EU citizens (regardless of their geographic location of the company or theoretically the resident). Now I don't know what has been agreed on data protection in the trade deal - unless it is covered by the arrangements then hte GDPR would not apply as the data does not relate to EU citizens so should be in the clear.

Carior wrote:

I am not a data reg lawyer but my understanding is that the GDPR applies to EU citizens (regardless of their geographic location of the company or theoretically the resident). Now I don't know what has been agreed on data protection in the trade deal - unless it is covered by the arrangements then hte GDPR would not apply as the data does not relate to EU citizens so should be in the clear.

My understanding is that the opposite applies. Companies operating in the EU have to be careful with processing personal information of any person, whereas companies outside of the EU won't have to comply even if the individual is an EU citizen (the EU law wouldn't have jurisdiction, so it's irrelevant where the individual was born). It's more complicated when EU data is passed across to non-EU companies and the brunt of compliance is on the EU companies sending that data across borders.

External-EU companies agree to comply otherwise they can't do business. Yes if they breach it then the fines might not be enforceable but I suspect it depends on the company setup. After all the EU had the clout about IE being enforced in Windows bck in the day and other changes in Tech. 

You are correct that it is up to the EU company when dealing with externals but normally it consists of "Where do you store our data and does it comply with GDPR or Safe Harbour?" (or whatever the new equivalent is) "The answer is no! Sorry we have to go elsewhere with our business". Hence why most of them comply to it.