Brexit discussion thread II

Fratton Fred

demfad wrote: »

It will take a body like the EU to withstand the powers of big data and corporations so that these rules can be created fairly and reproduced etc.. Nation States cannot do this clearly, neither can empires.

aah, right, so corporations, particularly big pharma, has no influence in Brussels.

10 million vapers would disagree.

listermint

Fratton Fred wrote: »

aah, right, so corporations, particularly big pharma, has no influence in Brussels.

10 million vapers would disagree.

I think he said 'withstand', did he not?

Is it your assertion that the EU have not been one of the leaders in the globe of holding large business to task ?

Genuinely...

demfad

Fratton Fred wrote: »

aah, right, so corporations, particularly big pharma, has no influence in Brussels.

10 million vapers would disagree.

I said that Brussels can withstand these influences. Its dealing (legislating against) with big data while the US and UK capitulated is case in point.

Fratton Fred

demfad wrote: »

I said that Brussels can withstand these influences. Its dealing (legislating against) with big data while the US and UK capitulated is case in point.

The eu can be influenced by big corporations, the TPD clearly shows this. Hell, pharma companies spend €40m per year lobbying Brussels so they can influence legislation. To think Brussels is any better at controlling big corporations is naive in the extreme. As for big data, how do you know what they're up to?

listermint

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The eu can be influenced by big corporations, the TPD clearly shows this. Hell, pharma companies spend €40m per year lobbying Brussels so they can influence legislation. To think Brussels is any better at controlling big corporations is naive in the extreme. As for big data, how do you know what they're up to?

Again


"Is it your assertion that the EU have not been one of the leaders in the globe of holding large business to task ?"

Genuinely...

Fratton Fred

listermint wrote: »

Again


"Is it your assertion that the EU have not been one of the leaders in the globe of holding large business to task ?"

Genuinely...

To a degree, but so have various governments. The big fines handed out for libor manipulation, for example, were done by the US and UK governments. The eu is also one of the leaders in allowing big companies avoid corporation taxes by facilitating tax avoidance schemes.

The eu is no better or worse than anyone else.

ancapailldorcha

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The eu is also one of the leaders in allowing big companies avoid corporation taxes by facilitating tax avoidance schemes.

This isn't true. Member states set their own taxation structures, not the EU.

Fratton Fred

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This isn't true. Member states set their own taxation structures, not the EU.

but it is eu rules on cross border trade that facilitate these loopholes and eu leaders that have blatantly frustrated attempts at closing them.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/01/jean-claude-juncker-blocked-eu-curbs-on-tax-avoidance-cables-show

Which makes you wonder why, a man who helped create such a tax haven became the president no one wanted
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/27/eu-democratic-bandwagon-juncker-president-wanted

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Them's short days, wherever you live in the UK. It was still only "evening" mere hours ago.

solodeogloria wrote: »

It's not really pie in the sky.

It is, because nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The EU are hardly going to object to such arrangements and the UK are making plans to implement them.

Do you have details? Links, please.

solodeogloria wrote: »

It's worth pointing out that "settled status" is a different thing to the "permanent residence" that existed previously. All EU citizens will need to apply for "settled status" irrespective.

Confusing both isn't accurate.

"Settled status" is "permanent residence" re-badged for (qualifying) EU immigrants. There is no confusion.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Why wouldn't it be implemented?

Please read the links I posted in my recent replies to you. Because, by the evidence of your question, you haven't.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK are keen to implement a deal. If the EU aren't this isn't something you can blame the UK for.

The UK are keen to implement what they want. Unsurprisingly.

That is not 'a deal'.

'A deal' is whatever eventually gets agreed with the EU. And negotiations on that front are at a standstill.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I believe it won't because there is no evidence that it will. If anything the evidence points to the contrary.

What is this evidence which points to the contrary, solodeogloria?

solodeogloria wrote: »

Yes I do. I make clear reference to what the British government are planning to do and what they have offered to date.

And I make clear references -with links- to what the British government are actually doing. Where does that leave us?

solodeogloria wrote: »

The only "certainty" in this list is the Article 50 end date.

Brexit (or not, as the case may be) has started to damage the British economy and this damage will take along time to repair,

>How do you explain the UK's spectacular tumble from fastest-growing economy to red lantern inside one year of the referendum result? [to simply skimp on copy-pasting the Himalaya of evidence of same, since accepted by pro-Leave Ministers themselves]

there is a large popular sentiment against the EU and EU immigrants,

>representative sample of another Himalaya of evidence in respect of the above.

the government is letting itself be guided by that ideology more than by the economic interests of the UK,

>see point about the UK's economical tumble above.

The best economic interests of the UK were at all times to remain in the EU. Again, even [sensible, not frothing] pro-Leavers accept that.

That is now not going to happen, Ms May saw to that with triggering Article 50.

Anything short of that is de facto following an ideology (of whichever flavour or orientation) which runs contrary to the economic interests of the UK.

If you're going to push the bias to hand-waving irrefutable facts, I'm not sure there's any mileage in discussing with you further, tbh. Perhaps that's your intended aim.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I wish you the best. I'm staying put because I don't believe the fearmongering and the UK is actually quite a good country to live in.

If you substitute 'UK' for 'Dublin' the above, so said a fair few posters to me in the economy/housing threads on here in late 2007 to early 2008. I was gone lock, stock, and barrel by August.

Might be case that economic migrants have a bit of knack for sensing the wind more keenly than locals. My theory is that it's a perception of amplifying nationalistic/jingoistic/anti-immigrant rumbles around, iteratively built and refined over time: basically, the louder the rumbles get, the closer the s***storm is. Now I stand on the shoulders of 2 earlier generations of economic migrants, so you could say it's a genetic ability by now

Enough with the quote Ping-Pong. I'll take my gut feel (and the certainty of the destination situation relative to staying put) over your naivety: you'll have to forgive me for taking the one in the hand, rather than the two in the bush which you're peddling.

Sam Russell

Fratton Fred wrote: »

but it is eu rules on cross border trade that facilitate these loopholes and eu leaders that have blatantly frustrated attempts at closing them.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/01/jean-claude-juncker-blocked-eu-curbs-on-tax-avoidance-cables-show

Which makes you wonder why, a man who helped create such a tax haven became the president no one wanted
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/27/eu-democratic-bandwagon-juncker-president-wanted

Taxation is not an EU competence, so NO the EU are not involved in taxation. That may change, but it will require a treaty change, and Ireland has a veto.

Luxembourg and the Netherlands, as well as Ireland have been accused of being tax havens, but other countries do sweetheart deals on corporation taxation. The USA are also party to tax fiddles, allowing off-shore profit hoarding - waiting for a repatriation amnesty.

The real problem are the corporations that are not tax resident ANYWHERE, and so pay no tax at all.

The EU are on the case though.

Fratton Fred

Sam Russell wrote: »

Taxation is not an EU competence, so NO the EU are not involved in taxation. That may change, but it will require a treaty change, and Ireland has a veto.

Luxembourg and the Netherlands, as well as Ireland have been accused of being tax havens, but other countries do sweetheart deals on corporation taxation. The USA are also party to tax fiddles, allowing off-shore profit hoarding - waiting for a repatriation amnesty.

The real problem are the corporations that are not tax resident ANYWHERE, and so pay no tax at all.

The EU are on the case though.

I'd go as far as to say taxation is an eu incompetence. it has been obvious for years what the likes of Apple, Google, Amazon and Starbucks have been up to, but despite setting up the code of conduct group for business taxation in 1998, it has managed to do absolutely zero to stop it.

And yes, Ireland has a veto, but would it really put itself out in the cold by using it?

demfad

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The eu can be influenced by big corporations, the TPD clearly shows this.

This is the third reply where you have been told I used the word 'withstand' not 'influence'. If you think that corporations hold the same sway within the Institutions of the EU as they do in the US (Citizens United) , UK with the likes of the GOP and Tories well that's your problem. I'm not going to waste my time arguing this point with you.

As for big data, how do you know what they're up to?

As big data was the decicive factor in the recent US elections and Brexit I have taken an interest in it as every citizen who can should IMO.

This year a change in EU protection law means Europeans are about to get a lot more control over their social media data.

America has gone the opposite way. The UK with big data anti democracy players like Cambridge Analytica backing the Tories and Brexit will go likewise assuming no ECJ juristiction.

The changes will be required under the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which comes into force in May 2018. The regulation sets out a series of "harmonised" data protection principles, that will be implemented into local laws for the 28 member states. The focus of the GDPR is to give greater protections to individuals as well as tougher rules on those who handle data.

"One of the things we have high hopes for significant change under the GDPR is how transparency is really delivered to users, particularly by these internet companies, We know from our engagement with them that a lot of them are looking very proactively at how they are going to do the transparency under the GDPR."

Sam Russell

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'd go as far as to say taxation is an eu incompetence.

Your view could be valuable to you, but it does not change the facts of the matter.

Taxation is not an EU competence. It is within the competence of each member state. The current Apple tax case was taken under state aid rules and not taxation rules, and anyway is being appealed to the EUCJ as not being within the Commissions competence.

We await the judgement.

Fratton Fred

demfad wrote: »

This is the third reply where you have been told I used the word 'withstand' not 'influence'. If you think that corporations hold the same sway within the Institutions of the EU as they do in the US (Citizens United) , UK with the likes of the GOP and Tories well that's your problem. I'm not going to waste my time arguing this point with you.

sorry, but you are living in a fantasy world.

There are estimated to be over 30,000 lobbyists in Brussels, who spend over €1.5bn per year trying to influence the eu. https://transparency.eu/lobbyistsinbrussels/ If they had little sway, do you think they would dedicate so much time and effort to it?

Add in the 50% of ex commissioners who take up post eu jobs as eu lobbyists, then you really really have to question how much influence big corporations have on the eu. https://transparency.eu/revolving-door-pr/

And as for your obsession with Putin and his influence on the UK and US elections, have you ever wondered what his mate was talking to Guenther Oettinger about in his private plane? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38002207

Because you don't see it, it doesn't mean it isn't there.

Fratton Fred

Sam Russell wrote: »

Your view could be valuable to you, but it does not change the facts of the matter.

Taxation is not an EU competence. It is within the competence of each member state. The current Apple tax case was taken under state aid rules and not taxation rules, and anyway is being appealed to the EUCJ as not being within the Commissions competence.

We await the judgement.

yes, the bizarre case of a government appealing against the amount of tax a company has been ordered to pay to it.

its hard to make this stuff up really.

The very fundamentals of the eu helped to create the means for companies to avoid tax and for countries to use their internal tax laws to compete against other countries and give their companies unfair advantage, which is quite obviously against the spirit of the eu.

You have to ask why these issues have never been addressed.

murphaph

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You are presuming it will be European. The Russians, Chinese and Americans may disagree on this.

I'm not presuming anything. Ultimately we will forget about nation states but how do we realistically get there without first building regional superstates, like the US and EU?

flutered

Brexit: What happens if talks collapse and there's no deal? over on uk.yahoo news,
The Independent Jon Stone,The Independent, i cannot post the link for some reason
a hard hitting piece which is being ridiculed by the brexiteers

Fratton Fred

murphaph wrote: »

I'm not presuming anything. Ultimately we will forget about nation states but how do we realistically get there without first building regional superstates, like the US and EU?

Oh yeah, I don't disagree with you there, but the uk leaving the eu isn't a step back from this, unless you think the eu is the answer.

We're talking about something that won't happen in our kid's lifetime though, let alone ours.

Enzokk

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'd go as far as to say taxation is an eu incompetence. it has been obvious for years what the likes of Apple, Google, Amazon and Starbucks have been up to, but despite setting up the code of conduct group for business taxation in 1998, it has managed to do absolutely zero to stop it.

And yes, Ireland has a veto, but would it really put itself out in the cold by using it?

And the UK has been a bastion in charging these corporations their tax? Lest we forget the UK is part of the EU, so any shortcomings are to be borne by the UK as well. Leaving will not mean the UK will charge these corporations their tax all of a sudden. Or are the UK politicians not subject to lobbying from those that try to influence other nations politicians?

Water John

If talks collapse, UK leaves EU in Mar 2019, since they triggered Article 50, and all trade with them becomes subject to WTO rules.

Sam Russell

Fratton Fred wrote: »

yes, the bizarre case of a government appealing against the amount of tax a company has been ordered to pay to it.

its hard to make this stuff up really.

The very fundamentals of the eu helped to create the means for companies to avoid tax and for countries to use their internal tax laws to compete against other countries and give their companies unfair advantage, which is quite obviously against the spirit of the eu.

You have to ask why these issues have never been addressed.

The set up of the EU has been a gradual process. It started with Iron and Coal trading between warring neighbours, with the intention of making another war in Europe impossible. They went on to the EEC, with the Treaty of Rome, which added the agricultural policy to make Europe self sufficient in food, which worked.

We now have Schengen with free movement without barriers. And then the Euro, which is not quite right but getting there, as the financial crisis of 2008 proved a massive test.

They are moving closer on foreign policy, and are trying to strengthen defence. They added policies one by one, but have not got to tax harmonisation yet.

It is early days, but the UK leaving will speed things. I think the future is looking brighter for the EU, but not so certain for the UK.

Peter Flynt

Water John wrote: »

If talks collapse, UK leaves EU in Mar 2019, since they triggered Article 50, and all trade with them becomes subject to WTO rules.

If talks collapse and the UK has no deal then they will not leave in March 2019.
It would be economic suicide to do so.

I think this has been the plan all along from May.

Calina

Fratton Fred wrote: »

yes, the bizarre case of a government appealing against the amount of tax a company has been ordered to pay to it.

Taxation is a member state competence. So yes, you might think it's bizarre but it is a member state asserting its right to make taxation decisions.

The UK is in no position to point any fingers given the contribution some Crown dependencies and overseas territories make to tax evasion opportunity.

In the meantime, one of the key issues with Ireland is that it has a low baseline corporation tax. But it collects most of it. Its collection rate is broadly close to its nominal rate. This is not the case in France, for example, where a complex system of allowances and write offs mean that the net tax bill tends to be significantly lower than the equivalent would be in Ireland. France's effective rate is significantly lower than its nominal rate.

You might want to bear in mind that the issue with the Apple case - complex and all as it is - is about competition between states for FDI rather than about taxation per se. It will be interesting to see if in fact, the Commission will be found to have applied competition law correctly here because it is not that Apple enjoyed benefits vis a vis competitors but that Ireland enjoyed benefits vis a vis other member states.

Peter Flynt

Calina wrote: »

In the meantime, one of the key issues with Ireland is that it has a low baseline corporation tax. But it collects most of it. Its collection rate is broadly close to its nominal rate. This is not the case in France, for example, where a complex system of allowances and write offs mean that the net tax bill tends to be significantly lower than the equivalent would be in Ireland. France's effective rate is significantly lower than its nominal rate.

That's a complete myth spun by Official Ireland.

If France's effective tax rate were much lower than in Ireland then they would be mopping up the sort of business that LinkedIn set up yesterday.

Foreign companies are not in IRL for sentimental reasons as they like to pay more tax here. Get real.

Apple pay 2% tax in Ireland

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2013/0521/451564-apple-tax-arrangements/

Calina

Peter Flynt wrote: »

That's a complete myth spun by Official Ireland.

If France's effective tax rate were much lower than in Ireland then they would be mopping up the sort of business that LinkedIn set up yesterday.

Foreign companies are not in IRL for sentimental reasons as they like to pay more tax here. Get real.

Apple pay 2% tax in Ireland

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2013/0521/451564-apple-tax-arrangements/

You might want to have a look at a slightly more indepth discussion on the matter via Ronan Lyons based on PWC research. Here's the link. I wouldn't use Apple as a general reflection of taxation in Ireland per se either.

Nate--IRL--

Peter Flynt wrote: »

If talks collapse and the UK has no deal then they will not leave in March 2019.

The text of Article 50 begs to differ.

Nate

Peter Flynt

Calina wrote: »

You might want to have a look at a slightly more indepth discussion on the matter via Ronan Lyons based on PWC research. Here's the link. I wouldn't use Apple as a general reflection of taxation in Ireland per se either.

Ireland is a tax haven.....Get over it.

Peter Flynt

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

The text of Article 50 begs to differ.

Nate

If the UK decided to stay they would be facilitated by the rest of the EU.

It just makes everything simpler and avoids a lot of headaches.

demfad

Peter Flynt wrote: »

If talks collapse and the UK has no deal then they will not leave in March 2019.
It would be economic suicide to do so.

I think this has been the plan all along from May.

If the UK wants to stay in the EU they must ask the other 27 States. If talks collapse how will they achieve this?

Even though May has behaved as someone who is trying to sabotage Brexit, I fear she is really just bad. Setting up two new depts for it, triggering A50 too soon, fighting Gina Millar in both courts, calling an election. All huge blunders.

First Up

Peter Flynt wrote:

If the UK decided to stay they would be facilitated by the rest of the EU.

Care to describe what political process would need to take place for the UK to "decide to stay"?

ancapailldorcha

First Up wrote: »

Care to describe what political process would need to take place for the UK to "decide to stay"?

Davis or any replacement he might have would have to bring it up in the negotiations though the only justification I could see for this action from him or his potential successor would be a recession and/or businesses leaving in significant numbers.

Samaris

I don't see anyone actively voting against it, although I could well see countries firmly insisting that Britain doesn't get all its sweetheart deals back. It joins at the same level of everyone else or no dice. Ireland might cave on that, we have most to lose after Britain itself, but I don't see all 26 spontaneously agreeing to let Britain back in at exactly the same privileged place it had before after all this.

listermint

Peter Flynt wrote: »

That's a complete myth spun by Official Ireland.

If France's effective tax rate were much lower than in Ireland then they would be mopping up the sort of business that LinkedIn set up yesterday.

Foreign companies are not in IRL for sentimental reasons as they like to pay more tax here. Get real.

Apple pay 2% tax in Ireland

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2013/0521/451564-apple-tax-arrangements/

Sentimental reasons?

No speaking English.

demfad

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Davis or any replacement he might have would have to bring it up in the negotiations though the only justification I could see for this action from him or his potential successor would be a recession and/or businesses leaving in significant numbers.

I could see them asking for an extension or suspension of A50. In fact I think this and a messy no-deal hard Brexit are the two most likely scenarios.

There wont be a bespoke transition deal after the leaks about May's plans for immigrants. There can't really be a true transition deal as the UK Gov is still divided 3 ways on where it is going.

The truth is that A50 as a tool is not fit for purpose, never was meant to be used. They made a mess of using it but they could focus on it and ask for leniency.

If the Tory party is truly under the control of the loony hard Brexiter MPs and the corrupt crew associated with the Legatum Institute then they will go off the cliff. Some of them will make a pretty penny out of it.

oscarBravo

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Apple pay 2% tax in Ireland

Can you provide a link to the relevant legislation that allows Apple to pay 2% tax in Ireland?

Failing that, can you provide evidence that the Revenue Commissioners are complicit in a flagrant breach of Irish tax law by allowing Apple to illegally evade tax?

Peter Flynt

oscarBravo wrote: »

Can you provide a link to the relevant legislation that allows Apple to pay 2% tax in Ireland?

Failing that, can you provide evidence that the Revenue Commissioners are complicit in a flagrant breach of Irish tax law by allowing Apple to illegally evade tax?

I provided you with a link showing Apple's head of tax stating, under oath and questioning from US Senate, that they pay 2% in Ireland.

A deal was struck with Apple in 1991 to help them avoid tax.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/how-apple-managed-to-get-its-tax-deal-in-ireland-in-1991-2016-8

Peter Flynt

First Up wrote: »

Care to describe what political process would need to take place for the UK to "decide to stay"?

I don't believe there is one at present but, to quote Merkel's favourite English phrase, ....."Where there's a will there's a way"

Macron made it clear to the Brits that Article fifty can be revoked.

In the end will they leave?
Who knows?

I think they have to to appease Tory headbangers.
So if they don't have a deal a transitionary arrangement would be essential.

oscarBravo

Peter Flynt wrote: »

I provided you with a link showing Apple's head of tax stating, under oath and questioning from US Senate, that they pay 2% in Ireland.

That's nice, but it's not what I asked you for. I asked for the legal basis for a 2% tax on corporate profits.

A deal was struck with Apple in 1991 to help them avoid tax.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/how-apple-managed-to-get-its-tax-deal-in-ireland-in-1991-2016-8

The Irish government agreed a deal with Apple in 1991 to only tax a certain bracket of its earnings...

Either that agreement is legal, in which case there's legislation allowing it; or it's illegal, in which case Revenue are complicit in tax evasion.

Which is it?

Peter Flynt

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's nice, but it's not what I asked you for. I asked for the legal basis for a 2% tax on corporate profits.

I gave you a credible source.

You want a different source.

Why don't you go looking up legislation yourself?
Or contact the relevant Minister if you're that interested?

Because I'm not doing it for you.

ambro25

flutered wrote: »

Brexit: What happens if talks collapse and there's no deal? over on uk.yahoo news,
The Independent Jon Stone,The Independent, i cannot post the link for some reason
a hard hitting piece which is being ridiculed by the brexiteers

link to article

All already very familiar to many posters on here (dissenters notwithstanding). The consequences of 'no deal' by 01 April 2019 have long been entirely predictable, as a simple and automatic operation of Treaty clauses. In that context, that is why the talks have about 12 months to go, not 18: there won't be too much of 6 months to get 'the deal' (if) ratified by all the national Parliaments and other assemblies in time by end March 2019. Because if even only one of them hasn't ratified by midnight when the two years are up...that is an 'exit with no deal' situation.

solodeogloria

demfad wrote: »

I could see them asking for an extension or suspension of A50. In fact I think this and a messy no-deal hard Brexit are the two most likely scenarios.

There wont be a bespoke transition deal after the leaks about May's plans for immigrants. There can't really be a true transition deal as the UK Gov is still divided 3 ways on where it is going.

The truth is that A50 as a tool is not fit for purpose, never was meant to be used. They made a mess of using it but they could focus on it and ask for leniency.

If the Tory party is truly under the control of the loony hard Brexiter MPs and the corrupt crew associated with the Legatum Institute then they will go off the cliff. Some of them will make a pretty penny out of it.

Good evening!

Admittedly I'd much much rather just leave if it was a case of extending Article 50.

Transitional terms to arrange a good deal would be helpful best outcome. I'm not 100% convinced that leaving without would be the apocalypse that some describe on this thread.

Status quo forever is what the hard remainers want. It would be much better to leave and to begin making the adjustments necessary to thrive outside the EU rather than uncertain limbo for years and years.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

blanch152

Samaris wrote: »

I don't see anyone actively voting against it, although I could well see countries firmly insisting that Britain doesn't get all its sweetheart deals back. It joins at the same level of everyone else or no dice. Ireland might cave on that, we have most to lose after Britain itself, but I don't see all 26 spontaneously agreeing to let Britain back in at exactly the same privileged place it had before after all this.

There would be a few differences for the UK if they rejoined - they would have to join the Euro and Schengen as their exemptions would have lapsed when they left.

They would also lose the special UK rebate as it would also have lapsed.

Gerry T

oscarBravo wrote:

That's nice, but it's not what I asked you for. I asked for the legal basis for a 2% tax on corporate profits.

I may be wrong but my understanding is this is a case of misunderstanding. IRL tax rules charges tax on income derived in the country. So if Apple "moves" money from say UK or France business transactions to IRL then that income is not subject to tax in IRL. Only revenue generated by the IRL Apple entity. The assumption being UK or France will tax the revenue on income in their territory. But they don't as their tax rules are different to ours. So if you look at the combined revenue generated in IRL plus UK and set against the tax paid in IRL on ONLY the IRL revenue you come up with a silly 2%. I might be wrong but it might explain the statistic"

listermint

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Admittedly I'd much much rather just leave if it was a case of extending Article 50.

Transitional terms to arrange a good deal would be helpful best outcome. I'm not 100% convinced that leaving without would be the apocalypse that some describe on this thread.

Status quo forever is what the hard remainers want. It would be much better to leave and to begin making the adjustments necessary to thrive outside the EU rather than uncertain limbo for years and years.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Why do you keep talking about the apocalypse some describe on this thread.

The down turn in the UK is already in full swing just as was outlined before the vote.

The only person describing falsehoods is you. The UK is heading into a recession of its own making. It's kinda laudable but equally saddening that you would stick with cheer leading it on. Even many brexiters don't agree with your current sentiment

Jim2007

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Macron made it clear to the Brits that Article fifty can be revoked.

It does not matter what the politicians say. It is a legal matter, there is no provision in the treaties to allow it to be revoked. You can't continue the relationship on that basis only for the ECJ to toss it out at a later stage.

BREXIT is going to have to happen from a legal point of view, it's a given. The question is what happens on 01.04.2019, reapply for EU membership, apply for EFTA/EEA membership, ???

oscarBravo

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Why don't you go looking up legislation yourself?

Because I'm not the one claiming that Apple pay 2% tax.

You clearly believe this to be the case, which means you either believe that there's a provision in the Irish tax code for paying 2% on corporate profits; or you believe that Revenue are complicit in tax evasion.

It's a simple question: which is it?

Jim2007

Peter Flynt wrote: »

If talks collapse and the UK has no deal then they will not leave in March 2019.
It would be economic suicide to do so.

I think this has been the plan all along from May.

It will not be their choice to make! It will be solely up to the EU to decide to pull the plug or not. Some plan!

Peter Flynt

Jim2007 wrote: »

It does not matter what the politicians say. It is a legal matter, there is no provision in the treaties to allow it to be revoked. You can't continue the relationship on that basis only for the ECJ to toss it out at a later stage.

BREXIT is going to have to happen from a legal point of view, it's a given. The question is what happens on 01.04.2019, reapply for EU membership, apply for EFTA/EEA membership, ???

Brexit will probably happen because the Brits will decide they have to go through with it for a variety of reasons.

Regarding it being a legal matter. . . Of course it matters what senior politicians say. They're the ones controlling Barnier. Politicians can amend the Lisbon treaty or even come out with a separate treaty involving an amendment to article 50 to preventing UK from leaving if they decided to change their minds.

There's a year of this left. By then we'll all know as it all must be wrapped up by this time next year.

Peter Flynt

oscarBravo wrote: »

Because I'm not the one claiming that Apple pay 2% tax.

You clearly believe this to be the case, which means you either believe that there's a provision in the Irish tax code for paying 2% on corporate profits; or you believe that Revenue are complicit in tax evasion.

It's a simple question: which is it?

I'm believing what Apple's head of tax stated to a US senate committee under oath.

I'm also believing that there was a deal between Apple and the Irish government over taxation in 1991, which there was.

blanch152

Peter Flynt wrote: »

I'm believing what Apple's head of tax stated to a US senate committee under oath.

I'm also believing that there was a deal between Apple and the Irish government over taxation in 1991, which there was.

Well then you should be able to provide links to back all of that up.

I would suggest you go to Seamus Coffey's blog though for the real information.