XPost: free.uk.amateur-radio, uk.radio.amateur, uk.d-i-y

What is curious about this whole debacle is the £135 watershed.

For imports above that level, then the importer, presumed to
be a business, must account for the VAT and import duty.

Below £135, the importer is presumed to be an individual
who is buying one-offs.

By putting such a Kafkaesque barrier in place suggests that
it is some insidious machiavellian government plot to hinder
individuals from bringing unidentifiable merchandise into
this country, and may therefore be an overshoot of security
concerns.

My question is ... when was this law change debated by
the Mother of Parliaments?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: free.uk.amateur-radio, uk.radio.amateur, uk.d-i-y

On 05/01/2021 11:36, gareth evans wrote:

My question is ... when was this law change debated by
the Mother of Parliaments?

This will almost certainly have been done by secondary legislation (a
statutory instrument) (as has the vast majority of English Covid
legislation). Secondary legislation doesn't normally require a debate
in parliament, and may even be enacted under the negative resolution
process <https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/negative-procedure/>,
in which it doesn't have to be formally approved by Parliament, although Parliament can raise an objection within at time limit.

The way that UK law works is that Acts get debated, but can enable the
creation of secondary legislation, which can be brought into force with
lighter weight processes.

You can also have tertiary legislation. I think the text of radio
licence is tertiary legislation, which is created by OfCom, rather than
the government.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: free.uk.amateur-radio, uk.radio.amateur, uk.d-i-y

On 05/01/2021 14:02, David Woolley wrote:

This will almost certainly have been done by secondary legislation (a statutory instrument) (as has the vast majority of English Covid legislation).  Secondary legislation doesn't normally require a debate
in parliament, and may even be enacted under the negative resolution
process <https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/negative-procedure/>, in which it doesn't have to be formally approved by Parliament, although Parliament can raise an objection within at time limit.

I think this is probably SI 2018/1376, which is a negative resolution statutory instrument, and was notified to Parliament on 18th December
2018 <https://statutoryinstruments.parliament.uk/details/065AhPkO/SI-20181376/>.
There will have been additional legislation that brought this into
law, which I haven't looked for.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: free.uk.amateur-radio, uk.radio.amateur, uk.d-i-y

"gareth evans" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:rt1j00$8kr$[email protected]...

What is curious about this whole debacle is the £135 watershed.

For imports above that level, then the importer, presumed to
be a business, must account for the VAT and import duty.

Below £135, the importer is presumed to be an individual
who is buying one-offs.

By putting such a Kafkaesque barrier in place suggests that
it is some insidious machiavellian government plot to hinder
individuals from bringing unidentifiable merchandise into
this country, and may therefore be an overshoot of security
concerns.

Its not that so much as deciding that the cost of
collecting the VAT on the cheaper stuff isnt worth
it for the govt given how much they collect.

My question is ... when was this law change debated by the Mother of Parliaments?

Lots of that sort of detail never is.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: free.uk.amateur-radio, uk.radio.amateur, uk.d-i-y

On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 03:01:13 +1100, Fred, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest trollshit unread>

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old senile Australian
cretin's pathological trolling: https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: free.uk.amateur-radio, uk.radio.amateur, uk.d-i-y

On 05/01/2021 16:01, Fred wrote:

Its not that so much as deciding that the cost of
collecting the VAT on the cheaper stuff isnt worth
it for the govt given how much they collect.

The impact assessment can be found at <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hmrc-impact-assessment-for-the-vat-treatment-of-low-value-parcels/hmrc-impact-assessment-for-the-vat-treatment-of-low-value-parcels>

Looking at it:

1) The £135 threshold is not new. The difference is that VAT is now
covered by the same limit, when, previously, it only impacted import duty.

2) The requirement to pay VAT hasn't gone away. Below the threshold the
seller has to pay it. The seller paying was always an option (for some countries). The impact is that one can now legally import something
from China, worth more than £15, without having to pay the Post Office
£8 for the privilege.

If it works, it will mean that VAT gets charged, one way or the other on personal imports from China, when, previously transactions below £15
(bottom line) were exempt, and ones above that often didn't have it
charged because of misdeclarations.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: free.uk.amateur-radio, uk.radio.amateur, uk.d-i-y

On Tue, 5 Jan 2021 11:36:26 +0000
Queen Bean <[email protected]> sought our attention:

By putting such a Kafkaesque barrier in place suggests that
it is some insidious machiavellian government plot to hinder
individuals from bringing unidentifiable merchandise into
this country, and may therefore be an overshoot of security
concerns.

Fuck off, Evans.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)