Brexit discussion thread II

View

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

ambro25 wrote: »

The only alternative available to UK exporters to the EU, to remain price-competitive in view of these new exporting costs, is to absorb these new exporting costs either into their profit margin or into their UK labour costs

Thanks to the UK staying out of the Euro, some of this will happen automatically via currency movements.

Sterling has weakened considerably against the Euro, so labour in the UK is cheaper now (in Euros) than it was. Today's "UK in a Changing Europe" remoaner report predicts a further 10-15% fall in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

So the average Briton is already financially worse off and this could worsen further?

Brexit will have to be an astonishingly success to compensate for such losses.

View

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

ambro25 wrote: »

The only alternative available to UK exporters to the EU, to remain price-competitive in view of these new exporting costs, is to absorb these new exporting costs either into their profit margin or into their UK labour costs

Thanks to the UK staying out of the Euro, some of this will happen automatically via currency movements.

Sterling has weakened considerably against the Euro, so labour in the UK is cheaper now (in Euros) than it was. Today's "UK in a Changing Europe" remoaner report predicts a further 10-15% fall in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

So the average Briton is already financially worse off and this could worsen further?

Brexit will have to be an astonishingly success to compensate for such losses.

Zubeneschamali

View wrote: »

So the average Briton is already financially worse off and this could worsen further?

Brexit will have to be an astonishingly success to compensate for such losses.

The Brexit camp have stated openly that there will be a price to pay, but it will be worth it to get back control and sovereignty. They do not even pretend that the growth lost will ever be made back.

The only disagreement is how big the losses will be. The UK government pre-referendum said a hard brexit would cost 6% of GDP. I think they were very optimistic.

Inquitus

Interesting report on the cost of "No Deal"

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Cost-of-No-Deal-The-UK-in-a-Changing-Europe.pdf

BlitzKrieg

all that talk of joining EFTA and we leave out a key detail

EFTA has to be unanimous in all its decisions, including accepting new members.

there have been mixed messages from the current members if they'd accept the uk or not. Iceland seems in favour but norway has bounced back and forth. And I cant seem to find any comment from Lichtenstein or Switzerland.

View

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

View wrote: »

So the average Briton is already financially worse off and this could worsen further?

Brexit will have to be an astonishingly success to compensate for such losses.

The Brexit camp have stated openly that there will be a price to pay, but it will be worth it to get back control and sovereignty. They do not even pretend that the growth lost will ever be made back.

That's not what they said to the British public during the referendum.

Then it was more a case of "Leave EU" and suddenly everyone is better off. The reality is likely to be "Leave EU" and everyone is worse off apart from the politicians who hold Ministerial office as a result of their pro-Brexit stance.

ambro25

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

all that talk of joining EFTA and we leave out a key detail

EFTA has to be unanimous in all its decisions, including accepting new members.

there have been mixed messages from the current members if they'd accept the uk or not. Iceland seems in favour but norway has bounced back and forth. And I cant seem to find any comment from Lichtenstein or Switzerland.

Personally, I doubt that the EFTA members would agree to the UK joining within the Article 50 timescale, for eminently pragmatic reasons: the UK is, quite simply, too politically unsound and fragmented, to constitute a reliable partner.

ancapailldorcha

ambro25 wrote: »

Personally, I doubt that the EFTA members would agree to the UK joining within the Article 50 timescale, for eminently pragmatic reasons: the UK is, quite simply, too politically unsound and fragmented, to constitute a reliable partner.

It's also much bigger than the other EFTA members both in terms of population and economically.

Capt'n Midnight

ambro25 wrote: »

Personally, I doubt that the EFTA members would agree to the UK joining within the Article 50 timescale, for eminently pragmatic reasons: the UK is, quite simply, too politically unsound and fragmented, to constitute a reliable partner.

It's going to be hard to get consensus when the UK doesn't seem to know what it wants yet. The two party flip/flop FPTP system won't help either.

http://www.efta.int/faq

The EFTA Council is the highest governing body of EFTA, where the four EFTA States – Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland – meet at ambassadorial or ministerial level. Each Member State is represented and decisions are taken by consensus.

Also the UK has a much larger population and GDP, and the whole Brexit thing is to take back control, so they won't be happy with a situation where a country with a population of less than 40,000 would have the same rights they have.

sondagefaux

ambro25 wrote: »

Personally, I doubt that the EFTA members would agree to the UK joining within the Article 50 timescale, for eminently pragmatic reasons: the UK is, quite simply, too politically unsound and fragmented, to constitute a reliable partner.

It's not possible for the UK to join EFTA while it remains a member of the EU.

It could make informal approaches to the EFTA members (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland) and, if they're unanimously agreeable to the UK joining (EFTA decisions are taken unanimously), preparations could be made to ensure the UK joins EFTA as soon as possible after it leaves the EU.

However, membership of EFTA is not the same as membership of the European Economic Area.

Three out of four members of EFTA (Iceland, Norway & Liechtenstein) are parties to the EEA Agreement, Switzerland can become party but chose not to and instead its relationships with the EU are governed by a set of bilateral EU-Switzerland treaties.

Even if the UK was allowed to join EFTA, it would have to get the agreement of the other EEA Agreement parties (i.e. the 27 remaining EU states plus Iceland, Norway, Switzerland) and accept all the responsibilities of EEA membership, including freedom of movement, to become a party to the EEA Agreement.

I've seen it argued that the UK could remain a party to the EEA Agreement because Article 127 of the Agreement requires parties to give 12 months notice before withdrawing.

However, Article 126 says that the Parties to the EEA Agreement are Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and those territories to which the European Community (now European Union) treaties apply.

Once the UK leaves the EU, its treaties will no longer apply to the UK's territories (this is stated explicitly in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union) and therefore the EEA Agreement will no longer be a contracting party to the EEA Agreement, rendering the Article 127 obligation null and void as regards the UK.

Basically, the UK is a party to the EEA Agreeement as a result of its membership of the EU and it cannot be party to the EEA Agreement once it leaves the EU unless the other parties to the EEA Agreement unanimously agree to change the Agreement to allow for continued UK membership - so much for 'taking back control'.

The text of the EEA Agreement is here:

http://www.efta.int/Legal-Text/EEA-Agreement-1327

The main text has to be read in conjunction with the Protocols and Annexes for you to get a full picture of its legal implications.

solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's going to be hard to get consensus when the UK doesn't seem to know what it wants yet. The two party flip/flop FPTP system won't help either.

Good evening!

It's worth pointing out that the bolded statement is a myth.

In January the Prime Minister laid out the direction of travel in her Lancaster House speech.

In March the Government published a white paper explaining the type of relationship Britain wants after Brexit.

In March the Prime Minister explained the desired aims of the Government in the Article 50 letter.

It isn't true to say that the UK doesn't know what it wants.

Some people seem to be of the opinion that if David Davis doesn't publish every detail publicly that Britain doesn't know what it wants.

I'm sorry but that's nonsense. You don't send 90 odd negotiators to Brussels with nothing to say.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

sondagefaux

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So what are you claiming, that Ireland has some sort of hugely productive workforce and that attracts us companies, it maybe it's that famous Irish hospitality they come looking for?

Yes to the first part, no to the second. :P

Irish workers in multi-national companies based in Ireland are actually among the most productive in the EU:

The strength of Ireland’s Manufacturing sector productivity growth is also evident, with growth averaging 4.3 per cent over 2001-2014. As highlighted by the OECD, average labour productivity of large manufacturing firms is significantly higher in Ireland, reflecting in large part the high intellectual property content of output, typically provided by multinational firms. Growth in the sector was also relatively strong in Denmark where it
increased by 3.2 per cent. In Ireland’s case the performance of the ICT sector is particularly striking. This reflects the increasing presence of ICT multinationals producing high value added services in Ireland in recent years. The average annual growth in ICT gross value added per hour worked in Ireland was 15 per cent over the period 2001-2014, compared with rates of 6.4 per cent, 1.9 per cent and 2.8 per cent in Denmark, the UK and Euro area respectively

http://www.competitiveness.ie/Publications/2016/NCC-Benchmarking-Irelands-Productivity-2004-2014-report.pdf

Growth in Irish productivity has been reasonably strong in the past 10 years or so:

https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/productivity

Ireland is the sixth most competitive country in the world in global competitive rankings:

Ireland ranks in sixth place in the IMD world competitiveness rankings, its second highest ever placing.

The survey of 63 countries, compiled by the IMD business school in Lausanne, Switzerland, linked Ireland’s rise in the rankings to the State’s recent economic performance; the ongoing level of inward investment and what it described as a high level of business efficiency.

The 2017 edition of the IMD survey, which is acknowledged as one of the most reputable barometers of international competitiveness, put Hong Kong on top again with Switzerland and Singapore in second and third.

The US, the Netherlands, Ireland, Denmark, Luxembourg, Sweden and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) completed this year’s top 10.

Each country’s ranking is based on an analysis of over 260 criteria derived from four principal factors: economic performance, government efficiency, business efficiency and infrastructure. A survey of some 6,250 business executives was also taken into account.

Ireland’s highest position in the rankings, achieved in 2000, was fifth. However, it fell to 24th position in 2011, only months after being forced into an international bailout. Since then it has been steadily rising in the rankings.
Ireland again scored strongly in the economic performance category, coming third overall when it came to the performance of the domestic economy, which has been the fastest growing economy in Europe for the past three years. It was also ranked third overall for attracting international investment.

Ireland topped the international rankings when it came to business productivity and efficiency; and was third in terms of positive business attitudes.

However, it came down the list in the categories of employment, which includes labour market flexibility, infrastructure and access to finance, the latter being a perennial problem for businesses here since the banking crash.

The survey also listed a number of significant challenges facing Ireland, including Brexit, further international currency volatility and a possible slowdown in global growth. It also cited risks associated with a tightening of ECB monetary policy and future investment in infrastructure.

From a list of 15 attractiveness indicators, respondents in the IMD’s executive survey also scored the various countries. In Ireland’s case, high educational achievement and tax competitiveness were seen as the main draws while access to finance, competency of government, and quality of corporate governance were viewed as the least attractive traits.

For the first time, IMD published a separate report ranking the digital competitiveness of countries, which put Ireland in a modest 21st place, which may be linked to the poor level of broadband in non-urban areas.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-moves-to-sixth-place-in-global-competitiveness-rankings-1.3103043

Ireland had the fifth highest output per capita in the world in 2014:

http://www.competitiveness.ie/Publications/2016/NCC-Benchmarking-Irelands-Productivity-2004-2014-report.pdf

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Or maybe it's just the numerous loopholes in Irish law that allows them to greatly reduce their European tax liability?

A 12.5% corporation tax rate is obviously very attractive. Although Cyprus also has a 12.5% corporation tax rate, Bulgaria has a 10% rate and Hungary has a 9% rate.

All are in the EU and have the same level of participation in the Single Market as Ireland does.

Cyprus also uses the euro in case that's a factor for any company.

Despite this, Ireland is far more attractive as a destination for FDI than any of those countries, especially US FDI but also FDI from other countries, and still attracts a far larger share of FDI coming into the EU than either the size of its economy or its population relative to the total size of the EU's population/economy.

As for the loopholes you mention, they were closed by Michael Noonan at the last budget and, as we've already seen, the European Commission has ruled that the deal offered to Apple by the Revenue Commissioners violated EU state aid law.

Despite the ruling (which the ECJ will ultimately decide on), FDI into Ireland increased significantly in 2015 and looks set to continue at a high level for the next couple of years.

sondagefaux

Worth reading in full.

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86544

Two weeks ago, on 6 July, Michel Barnier gave a speech in Brussels, addressing the issue of Brexit. We reported it the following day, but it was largely ignored by the media.

"For a third country", Barnier said, "one hundred percent of imports of live animals and products of animal origin … are and would remain subject to EU border controls". To this, he then added: "Moreover, before these products can be exported from a third country to the European Union, the sanitary and phytosanitary conditions for these exports to take place would have to be established".

On 29 March 2019, the UK in relation to the EU becomes a third country and, says Barnier: "One sees clearly, to speak frankly, the constraints that this entails for the agri-food industry". And one does indeed see "clearly" the constraints this entails. Specifically, these constraints are Regulation (EU) 2017/625 and, in respect of animals and products of animal origin, Regulation (EU) 2016/429.

According to Article 229 of Regulation (EU) 2016/429, no animals and products of animal origin may be admitted into the Union from a third county unless that country is officially listed as one permitted to export to the EU. Similar provisions apply to foods of plant origin although we do not yet know what rules will apply as they are under revision.

Country listing, though, is not automatic. Those who want to be vastly entertained can find the criteria set out in Article 230 of 2016/429. This cross-refers to Article 266 and, if I have understood this correctly, six months must elapse between the Commission approving a listing and it taking effect.

Clearly, the UK is not currently on the third country list. It cannot be, because it is a member of the European Union. Nor will it be when we leave the EU, or for some months thereafter.

Because of this (and the restrictions on other foods), I was confidently able to assert on 18 July that: "As near as can be certain, on exit day – 29 March 2019 – UK exports of food to EU member states are going to stop". I added: "This is not a matter for negotiation and nor can it be avoided. It is an inevitable consequence of the UK leaving the Single Market and becoming a 'third country'".

What I was actually doing was putting clothes on Barnier's statement. The effect of what he was saying is exactly that which I assert openly – that from exit day and some time thereafter, there are going to be no food exports to the EU. And for the foreseeable future, exports are going to be heavily restricted.

Now, if you don't accept that, then we're no longer talking rational politics. It can only be that you do not believe M. Barnier, in which event we're dealing with belief systems. You must believe that the EU's chief negotiator is bluffing and that the EU will not apply its own law to the UK when it becomes a third country.

But, if this is really the case, as one commenter asks: "why are we not hearing from the likes of Asda or Tesco?". Possibly though, because these supermarket companies are mainly importers, they are not the ones we should expect to hear from. However, we should certainly have heard from the likes of the NFU, the Food and Drink Federation and the trade bodies representing the meat industry.

Yet, in a strange vacuum of information, organisations such as the NFU have made no mention of crucial issues such as the need for inspections at the point of entry. The best I can find is a powerpoint presentation from Alan Matthews, Professor Emeritus of European Agricultural Policy, Trinity College Dublin.

Headed: "Implications of Brexit for the UK and EU meat sectors", this was delivered to the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board Meat Export Conference, on 29 June 2017. And if it truly represents meat industry (and farming) thinking on Brexit, they are in very serious trouble.

On one of his slides, Matthews asserts that "we want to avoid or minimise … inspection and sampling at Border Inspection Posts", whence on another he states that it is: "Highly desirable to have a series of Mutual Recognition Agreements attached to [a Free Trade Agreement] to allow for equivalence and mutual recognition of inspection procedures".

It is certainly possible to reduce inspection and sampling but, on the basis of EU law, it cannot be avoided altogether. And even if inspection is minimised, the goods must be presented to a Border Control Post (to use the updated terminology) for document checks and the issue of a Common Veterinary Entry Document (CVED) – see also Commission Regulation (EC) No 136/2004.

As regards mutual recognition of inspection procedures, as the Canadians are finding, there is no such thing. The exporting country either has to adopt EU procedures in full, or the goods will not be admitted. And, while there is provision in EU law for pre-export controls to be carried out by third countries, these are normally confined to specific checks, such as the determination of aflatoxin levels in groundnuts.

In actuality, seeking approval from the Commission for pre-export controls might be a way out – although widescale application would be an unprecedented concession. But, again, approval cannot be given automatically. Formal applications must be made for all the categories of product for which approval is sought, and the Commission must carry out extensive investigations to ensure that the condition set out in EU law are satisfied.

Should this be an option, then one would expect the relevant trade bodies to be pushing for precisely this sort of thing to be included in the Article 50 settlement. But, on this, there has been total silence, with no indication that the industry is even aware of this possibility.

Looking at this in the broader context, this very much gels with the observation of Karen Briggs at KPMG that businesses are "in denial" over Brexit, with some refusing to acknowledge the "significant risks" that will accompany the UK's departure from the EU.

murphaph

It's not a myth solo.

The Lancaster House speech was vague.

"We want the closest relationship with the EU as possible" or whatever is useless language.

Now it's crunch time. The UK must state exactly what it wants in concrete terms,not waffle. They are leaving. They need to say what they want over and above being a 3rd country like Morocco or Ukraine.

It's not up to the EU to suggest a path forthe UK.

sondagefaux

murphaph wrote: »

Now it's crunch time. The UK must state exactly what it wants in concrete terms,not waffle. They are leaving. They need to say what they want over and above being a 3rd country like Morocco or Ukraine.

Or Elbonia:

Everyone has access to the single market. If I'm a dildo producer in Elbonia I can export to the EU but I must pay a tariff and go through the third country customs channels. Because Elbonia does not have a preferential trade agreement with the EU it has a low score on the EU database so a container is 100% likely to be stopped at the docks while goods are sent away for formaldehyde testing at the expense of the producer. Meanwhile the container is taking us space incurring a thumping daily fee for every day it is held - which can be anywhere up to two weeks depending on the workload of labs. Ten times more expensive than tariffs. This is why non-tariff barriers are the greater threat to UK trade.

http://howtobeacompletebastard.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/brexit-corbyns-issue-illiteracy.html

Incidentally, both Morocco and Ukraine have quite comprehensive trade deals with the EU.

murphaph wrote: »

It's not up to the EU to suggest a path forthe UK.

True, although the EU is dropping pretty heavy hints:

Alex Davies‏ @GMCC_Alex
Oh come on. Could they make this more obvious? They are literally putting the solution on the table, and our side is wriggling to avoid it.

Nick Gutteridge‏
@nick_gutteridge
V interesting from Barnier when asked what other country accepts jurisdiction of foreign court over its citizens: Cites Norway & EFTA court.

https://twitter.com/GMCC_Alex/status/888006098350997504

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

It's not a myth solo.

The Lancaster House speech was vague.

"We want the closest relationship with the EU as possible" or whatever is useless language.

Now it's crunch time. The UK must state exactly what it wants in concrete terms,not waffle. They are leaving. They need to say what they want over and above being a 3rd country like Morocco or Ukraine.

It's not up to the EU to suggest a path forthe UK.

Good evening!

What do you think the negotiators are doing?

The Department for Exiting the EU have been working on their plan for some time now. Just because you don't know every detail doesn't mean:
A) the UK doesn't know what it wants
Or that the UK doesn't have a negotiating strategy.

I think it was wise for the UK to refuse to bring calculations for the bill. The second you do that you declare a minimum. It doesn't mean the Government doesn't have them but the EU presenting their estimates and the negotiators challenging them is a much better technique.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nate--IRL--

Want details Solo? An Open and transparent process from the EU. A concise breakdown of this weeks talks and each sides positions...........

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publications/joint-technical-note-eu-uk-positions-citizens-rights-after-second-round-negotiations-0_en

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/brexit-negotiations/negotiating-documents-article-50-negotiations-united-kingdom_en

Nate

solodeogloria

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Want details Solo? An Open and transparent process from the EU. A concise breakdown of this weeks talks and each sides positions...........

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publications/joint-technical-note-eu-uk-positions-citizens-rights-after-second-round-negotiations-0_en

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/brexit-negotiations/negotiating-documents-article-50-negotiations-united-kingdom_en

Nate

Good evening!

The UK Government posted the citizens rights comparison on gov.uk today also to be fair along with a lot of other content.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nate--IRL--

That's a useful link - much obliged.

Nate

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

What do you think the negotiators are doing?

Panicking.

Sorry but you can't seem to see the sh1tstorm coming. Read the posts above...it will be compulsory to send all animal derived food products through an EU customs post when exporting into the EU. France has 2 tiny ones at Least Havre and Dunkirk. They'd need to start expanding them now to be ready for no deal day (you do advocate no deal in some circumstances) but I don't think they've even considered this stuff.... France will be in no hurry to build and staff these posts either.

As for the Maybot taking 3 weeks holidays...

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

In January the Prime Minister laid out the direction of travel in her Lancaster House speech.

In March the Government published a white paper explaining the type of relationship Britain wants after Brexit.

In March the Prime Minister explained the desired aims of the Government in the Article 50 letter.

It isn't true to say that the UK doesn't know what it wants.

Some people seem to be of the opinion that if David Davis doesn't publish every detail publicly that Britain doesn't know what it wants.

I'm sorry but that's nonsense. You don't send 90 odd negotiators to Brussels with nothing to say.

the UK is still at the Red/White/Blue "we want to have our cake and eat it" aspirational stage


In fact the House of Lords EU committee even suggest that cake could even come in different flavours when it comes to immigration.
Scots 'could have different Brexit deal'


Finally Liam Fox is starting to get it.

It could take a further two years for Britain to fully leave the EU and start negotiating new trade deals with other countries, Liam Fox has said.

The international trade secretary told the BBC there could be a two-year "implementation phase" after the UK officially left the EU, in March 2019.

Whether he truly understands that the Brexit clock in inexorably counting down is a different matter.

http://news.sky.com/story/how-long-until-britain-leaves-the-eu-live-countdown-10817397
617 Days 01 Hours 46 Mins to get a deal


BTW You said "Direction of travel" , not the mode of travel, not which road to take, nor the destination , and most certainly no timetable or how much you are prepared to pay for the tickets.

The EU have said http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40662740

Mr Barnier said: "We require this clarification on the financial settlement, on citizens' rights, on Ireland - with the two key points of the common travel area and the Good Friday Agreement - and the other separation issues where this week's experience has quite simply shown we make better progress where our respective positions are clear."

ie. so far the UK has been as clear as mud. All this stuff was already on the agenda. It took the EU27 60 seconds to agree on this. Documents are on the EU website.

Junkyard Tom

Anyone else thinking Brexit isn't going to happen? Maybe some sort of Fakexit? (fake-exit)

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

The UK Government posted the citizens rights comparison on gov.uk today also to be fair along with a lot of other content.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Another slice of cake.

the UK wants it's citizens in the EU to have rights they aren't sharing
Current family members
UK wants - Residents above will fall within the scope of the WA as an independent right holder

Criminality commited post exit
UK wants - Expulsion for post-exit
actvity assessed under UK immigraton rules
I may be mistaken but the UK has strict immigration rules for criminals.
- cherry picking

Voting rights
EU says - this arises from EU citzenship rights
(not a difficult concept that non-EU citizens have less rights)**
UK says - UK wants to protect existng
rights of UK/EU citzens to
vote and/or stand in local
electons in their host state in
the WA - yummy yummy cake

Further movement rights
EU says - UK natonals in scope of WA
only have protected rights in
the state(s) in which they
have residence rights on exit
day
UK wants - UK natonals in scope should
be able to change their place
of residence within EU27 as
per Directve 2004/38
WTF ?- so the UK wants free movement within the EU for non-EU citizens ?
really ?




**the fly in the ointment is thatIrish EU citizens can't vote outside the EU.
So about 300,000 Irish citizens living there could be disenfranchised by UK exit
the other side of the coin is the suggestion that Irish citizens could be allowed vote in EU elections abroad. This gets interesting when you consider that this could apply to 1.8m people up north and about 6m overall in the UK with the grandparent rule.

Fratton Fred

sondagefaux wrote: »

Yes to the first part, no to the second. :P

Irish workers in multi-national companies based in Ireland are actually among the most productive in the EU:



http://www.competitiveness.ie/Publications/2016/NCC-Benchmarking-Irelands-Productivity-2004-2014-report.pdf

Growth in Irish productivity has been reasonably strong in the past 10 years or so:

https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/productivity

Ireland is the sixth most competitive country in the world in global competitive rankings:



https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-moves-to-sixth-place-in-global-competitiveness-rankings-1.3103043

Ireland had the fifth highest output per capita in the world in 2014:

http://www.competitiveness.ie/Publications/2016/NCC-Benchmarking-Irelands-Productivity-2004-2014-report.pdf



A 12.5% corporation tax rate is obviously very attractive. Although Cyprus also has a 12.5% corporation tax rate, Bulgaria has a 10% rate and Hungary has a 9% rate.

All are in the EU and have the same level of participation in the Single Market as Ireland does.

Cyprus also uses the euro in case that's a factor for any company.

Despite this, Ireland is far more attractive as a destination for FDI than any of those countries, especially US FDI but also FDI from other countries, and still attracts a far larger share of FDI coming into the EU than either the size of its economy or its population relative to the total size of the EU's population/economy.

As for the loopholes you mention, they were closed by Michael Noonan at the last budget and, as we've already seen, the European Commission has ruled that the deal offered to Apple by the Revenue Commissioners violated EU state aid law.

Despite the ruling (which the ECJ will ultimately decide on), FDI into Ireland increased significantly in 2015 and looks set to continue at a high level for the next couple of years.

Go read about the Dutch Irish sandwich and post again.

The headline rate of tax is irrelevant, it's the loopholes that matter.

Fratton Fred

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Anyone else thinking Brexit isn't going to happen? Maybe some sort of Fakexit? (fake-exit)

I'm on holiday at the moment with a number of people that work in the City and that seems to be the general consensus.

murphaph

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Anyone else thinking Brexit isn't going to happen? Maybe some sort of Fakexit? (fake-exit)

I think the clock will run down and businesses will start to panic, heaping pressure on the government to ask for a Norway deal. No deal is simply not an option for the UK no matter how many times U Turn May says so.

Water John

Business is already putting on the pressure. They see the fingers in the ears, saying la la la around them.

Hammond's view beginning to prevail, slowly.

Junkyard Tom

murphaph wrote: »

I think the clock will run down and businesses will start to panic, heaping pressure on the government to ask for a Norway deal. No deal is simply not an option for the UK no matter how many times U Turn May says so.

Maybe as B-day gets closer the markets/businesses will panic and the British will seek a ten year freeze-frame allowing more young people to join the electorate and older folks to pop thier clogs?

Does anyone know if they have to be out within the two year time-frame or is there flexibility on that?

Nate--IRL--

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Maybe as B-day gets closer the markets/businesses will panic and the British will seek a ten year freeze-frame allowing more young people to join the electorate and older folks to pop thier clogs?

Does anyone know if they have to be out within the two year time-frame or is there flexibility on that?

Talks about such flexibility come after, Financial settlement, Ireland, and residential rights are pretty much done.

It may be that they achieve agreement on a 5 year EEA type deal. However, current progress doesn't make me optimistic.

Nate

Capt'n Midnight

murphaph wrote: »

I think the clock will run down and businesses will start to panic, heaping pressure on the government to ask for a Norway deal. No deal is simply not an option for the UK no matter how many times U Turn May says so.

Norway exports food , raw materials and energy to the EU and imports manufactured goods. So very little conflict of interest. The UK by comparison imports/exports roughly the same for most of the major categories.

Norway pays the EU about the same as the UK per capita.

For that they get
- an opt out on fishing or some such , which may make sense for primary producers but would be just bat-guano insane for a country that imports food and raw materials

Norwegians
- Have NO say on EU laws or rules
- Have NO passporting rights for services

- MUST accept the ECJ
- MUST accept EU tariffs and trade deals with third parties.
- MUST accept free movement of people and services etc.


So a Norway deal means handing over the Veto and other voting rights. About the only beneficiaries would be the foreign companies that own half of the UK's fishing quota. The NHS won't be getting a slice of €350m per week because there won't be any savings.