Irexit party yay or nay?

deirdremf

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's OK to admit that you've misunderstood what the proposal is about. Alternatively, you can double down and continue to insist that the EU will use powers it doesn't have and can't acquire to punish us in ways that are and will remain illegal, and that we should form policy based on that possibility. It's up to you.

They may not have the powers on paper, but look at the austerity imposed on various EU countries since 2008.
Where there's a will, there's a way, if you are big enough and strong enough.


If and when Brexit goes ahead, our special tax regime for american corporations (officially for all corporations) will go the way of the dodo, as the Brits won't be at the table to defend it.
It may take a few years, but I have no doubt that it will go.
It may remain on paper, to save face, but de facto it will go.

prawnsambo

deirdremf wrote: »

I think the yanks have been meddling in Europe for decades now too.
They even have lots of soldiers and weapons in lots of European countries - whatwould you suggest we should do about that?

Is this some sort of justification for Russian meddling in elections in Europe? Are we all supposed to say "well that's alright then"?

listermint

prawnsambo wrote: »

Is this some sort of justification for Russian meddling in elections in Europe? Are we all supposed to say "well that's alright then"?

Its Russia man,

theyre our friends now. Its cool when they do things. Because you know, 'the west' have been doing it for years.

Warm cuddly Russia.

oscarBravo

deirdremf wrote: »

They may not have the powers on paper, but look at the austerity imposed on various EU countries since 2008.
Where there's a will, there's a way, if you are big enough and strong enough.

That's the hand-waving I was talking about.

It doesn't matter about the will; there is no way. The EU is a rules-based organisation, and the rules are written down in the Treaties.

Direct taxation is not an EU competence. The EU can't influence our corporation tax rate. There isn't a discussion to be had here. There's fact, and there's fiction. If you can't back up your argument with reference to the treaties, your argument is fiction.

deirdremf

prawnsambo wrote: »

Your input is appreciated, but that wasn't the point I was making. The outright numerical differences between 1975 and 2016 were being compared as if the numbers were more important than the actual majority.

I doubt think so.
I think the suggestion was being made by some that the 2016 majority wasn't a real majority.
The nitpicking about 17.4 million vs 17.3 million, and about whether it was a majority of the electorate or only of those who voted is really irrelevant; but it is interesting that the 2016 majority is larger in real terms than the 1975 one.


The reality here is that those who lost the 2016 referendum are furious and are somehow in denial about what the British electorate (the ones who voted) decided.
Of course the boot will be on the other foot if the Scots vote to leave a newly-independent UK, and the Brexiteers will not want them to go, but the EU would love to accept the result of such a hypothetical Scottish referendum. Unfortunately, to do so would implicitly force them to accept Catalonia as independent of Spain.


Interesting times ahead, I think.

prawnsambo

deirdremf wrote: »

I doubt think so.
I think the suggestion was being made by some that the 2016 majority wasn't a real majority.
The nitpicking about 17.4 million vs 17.3 million, and about whether it was a majority of the electorate or only of those who voted is really irrelevant; but it is interesting that the 2016 majority is larger in real terms than the 1975 one.


The reality here is that those who lost the 2016 referendum are furious and are somehow in denial about what the British electorate (the ones who voted) decided.
Of course the boot will be on the other foot if the Scots vote to leave a newly-independent UK, and the Brexiteers will not want them to go, but the EU would love to accept the result of such a hypothetical Scottish referendum. Unfortunately, to do so would implicitly force them to accept Catalonia as independent of Spain.


Interesting times ahead, I think.

Would you ever just read the post I replied to? My point was directed to the content of that post and nothing else. And specifically the notion that a number being bigger than another number is nothing without the context.

4068ac1elhodqr

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's the hand-waving I was talking about.

It doesn't matter about the will; there is no way. The EU is a rules-based organisation, and the rules are written down in the Treaties.

Direct taxation is not an EU competence. The EU can't influence our corporation tax rate. There isn't a discussion to be had here. There's fact, and there's fiction. If you can't back up your argument with reference to the treaties, your argument is fiction.

This is the current situation yes, if the EU want to alter or interfer with tax affairs they will find a way to suit their already stated ambition. If they want to force a company to pay €15bn to a country that doesn't even want all that lovely crispy cash, it shall be imposed nonetheless.

Ok, fine assuming they can't change it (anytime soon), what about if the rest of the EU acts in stealth i.e. drops their CorpTax to say 12.5%, what type of effect do you think that will have on an island, based off another (non-eu, taxhaven) island?

prawnsambo

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

This is the current situation yes, if the EU want to alter or interfer with tax affairs they will find a way to suit their already stated ambition. If they want to force a company to pay €15bn to a country that doesn't even want all that lovely crispy cash, it shall be imposed nonetheless.

Ok, fine assuming they can't change it (anytime soon), what about if the rest of the EU acts in stealth i.e. drops their CorpTax to say 12.5%, what type of effect do you think that will have on an island, based off another (non-eu, taxhaven) island?

The 'forcing' has to go through court yet, so whatever justification there is will have to stand up to that scrutiny. Which is perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned. Rules were said to be broken. A court will decide.

"In stealth"? How do you change your CT rate in stealth? Do you not tell anyone? How do corporations avail of it if it's secret? This option has been open to every country in the EU for ever. Lithuania have a 15% rate others have higher. The problem with dropping CT rates is that it automatically means less tax revenue. Donald Trump did it in the US and strangely enough, the US tax income has dropped like a stone leading to threats of pay freezes and pay cuts for the public service.

ancapailldorcha

Posts deleted. Serious discussion only please.

oscarBravo

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

This is the current situation yes, if the EU want to alter or interfer with tax affairs they will find a way to suit their already stated ambition.

"They will find a way" is just another way of saying "I can't back up my assertion, but I won't back down from it either."

Ok, fine assuming they can't change it (anytime soon), what about if the rest of the EU acts in stealth i.e. drops their CorpTax to say 12.5%, what type of effect do you think that will have on an island, based off another (non-eu, taxhaven) island?

Why are you continuing to posit unlikely-to-the-point-of-farcical scenarios as if they're serious enough to base national policy on?

If you think that the EU can wave a magic wand and wield powers it doesn't have, or if you think that every EU member state is suddenly going to gut its tax base out of some sort of petty spite, then perhaps you should plan your future strategy accordingly. You'll have to excuse me if I'd rather our government didn't.

swampgas

Never mind that we (Ireland) are part of the EU. Saying that "the EU want ..." or "the EU will ..." seems to suggest a mindset where the EU is run out of Mordor, with Sauron running the show, and poor little Ireland powerless to do anything that "the EU" chooses to throw at us.

This isn't how the EU has operated in the past, there is no reason to suggest it would change so dramatically in the future.

4068ac1elhodqr

prawnsambo wrote: »

The 'forcing' has to go through court yet, so whatever justification there is will have to stand up to that scrutiny. Which is perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned. Rules were said to be broken. A court will decide.

"In stealth"? How do you change your CT rate in stealth? Do you not tell anyone? How do corporations avail of it if it's secret? This option has been open to every country in the EU for ever. Lithuania have a 15% rate others have higher. The problem with dropping CT rates is that it automatically means less tax revenue. Donald Trump did it in the US and strangely enough, the US tax income has dropped like a stone leading to threats of pay freezes and pay cuts for the public service.

Well tax-harmonisation by stealth, essentially EU-wide harmony in all but name (by matching Ireland's 12.5% themselves). Yes a lower tax take (not seemingly a problem for Ireland), but equates to extra investment and more business as a result.

Trump is enjoying bull markets across all major stock indices, he's not complaining about the buoyant economy.

prawnsambo

swampgas wrote: »

Never mind that we (Ireland) are part of the EU. Saying that "the EU want ..." or "the EU will ..." seems to suggest a mindset where the EU is run out of Mordor, with Sauron running the show, and poor little Ireland powerless to do anything that "the EU" chooses to throw at us.

This isn't how the EU has operated in the past, there is no reason to suggest it would change so dramatically in the future.

This. It's a way of creating a gap between who we are and who 'they' are. It's been so helpful in that context to hear leaders of the EU 27 countries come out individually and state that they are completely behind the push to find a solution to our border issue with brexit.

oscarBravo

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

Well tax-harmonisation by stealth, essentially EU-wide harmony in all but name (by matching Ireland's 12.5% themselves).

Oh, come on. It's been repeatedly pointed out to you that that's not what tax harmonisation means. Doubling down on being wrong won't suddenly make you right.

I quoted the Wikipedia entry on CCCTB for you; now I've even linked to the page so you won't have to Google it. If you don't like Wikipedia, try the European Commission's page for the horse's-mouth version. From the "questions and answers" link on that page:

Is the CCCTB a first step towards the harmonisation of tax rates?

No. The CCCTB is not about tax rates. Member States will continue to decide their own corporate tax rates, as is their sovereign right. What the CCCTB will do is create more transparency with regard to the effective corporate tax rate in Member States, thereby creating fairer tax competition within the EU.

(Emphasis mine.) The only excuse for continuing to be wrong about this is either wilful ignorance, or an intention to mislead. Neither reflects well on you.

prawnsambo

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

Well tax-harmonisation by stealth, essentially EU-wide harmony in all but name (by matching Ireland's 12.5% themselves). Yes a lower tax take (not seemingly a problem for Ireland), but equates to extra investment and more business as a result.

Trump is enjoying bull markets across all major stock indices, he's not complaining about the buoyant economy.

It's not a problem for Ireland because we've had it for a long time. It's not something you can drop on the exchequer without a plan to replace the missing billions. Hungary and Bulgaria have lower rates btw.

And it's not the only reason we attract foreign investment. Surveys have shown that it's a factor, but not the main one since there are reasnably competitive rates available elsewhere in Europe. Poland gets a lot of FDI and their rate is 19%. Scotland has also been traditionally a competitor of ours and have a CT rate of 20%. Incidentally, that's one of the reasons Scotland both voted to remain in the UK and remain in the EU.

Unfortunately for Scotland, they've now lost one of their main factors in attracting inward investment. FDI in the UK fell 92% between 2016 and 2017.

demfad

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

Took out a few lines, but the summary appears to imply some sort of 'conspiracy', whereby you reject the outcome of the brexit vote, fair enough.

Three Leave campaigns have been ruled to have committed crimes by the Electoral Commission. Here is a table of offences and sanctions.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/106737/Table-of-offences-and-sanctions_for_EP.pdf

The EC have also sent information to the police on two individuals for potential criminal prosecution.

The Official campaigns are allowed to spend £7m each. Other campaigns can spend up to £1m. To make sure Official campaigns don't set up smaller campaigns to increase their funding pool by proxy they are not allowed to coordinate with other campaigns.

Vote Leave spent almost £4m, over half its allowance, on recruiting a little known IT company called AggregateIQ. BeLeave spent the entirety of it's £1m approx allocation on AggregateIQ under instruction from Vote Leave directors. This is an election crime giving Official Vote Leave a 16% spending advantage over Official Remain. They cheated.

Also note that Veterans for Leave and the DUP also paid monies to AggregateIQ, a company you couldn't google in 2016.

They blatantly broke the law planning to use the fascistic 'will of the people' slogan to terrify any political opposition. It worked.

But stop describing it as a democratic result. The Leave campaigns knowingly subverted democracy to get their result.

Seth Brundle

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

If they want to force a company to pay €15bn to a country that doesn't even want all that lovely crispy cash, it shall be imposed nonetheless.

Where have the Irish government ever said that they don't want it?
To my recollection, they claimed that they were not entitled to it, which is quite different.

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

Ok, fine assuming they can't change it (anytime soon), what about if the rest of the EU acts in stealth i.e. drops their CorpTax to say 12.5%, what type of effect do you think that will have on an island, based off another (non-eu, taxhaven) island?

I'm confused.
Are you suggesting that the other EU states will actively conspire against Ireland to reduce their tax rate or are you trying to imply that the EU has tax rates?
Obviously neither is correct but this appears to be at the level you've been posting all day.

4068ac1elhodqr

demfad wrote: »

Three Leave campaigns have been ruled to have committed crimes by the Electoral Commission.

Yet the UK Marches on with the brexit, how come?

What what happen on their streets if they voided the election result as you recommend, probably wouldn't like to imagine.

Sure, no election is perfect as one or more sides will peddle their own point of view and be creative with their marketing. That's life, that's the system that exists, and maybe that's the best alternative outside of a dictatorship. Has there ever been a 'perfect election' with zero distortion?

Once saw a chap remove someone's election poster only to replace it with one of his own, and the election still went ahead, shocker!

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Where have the Irish government ever said that they don't want it? To my recollection, they claimed that they were not entitled to it, which is quite different.

Seems a bit far fetched to play the 'not entitled/aware' of the potential tax issue arising, over such a long time, that equated to a singe fine of €15,000,0000,000 circa.

Some reports suggest it represented an effective tax rate of 1% over these years. Being forced to take it was perhaps embarassing, maybe even indicative of a state of denial. The European Courts of Justice went as far as classing it as illegal state aid.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the other EU states will actively conspire against Ireland to reduce their tax rate or are you trying to imply that the EU has tax rates? Obviously neither is correct but this appears to be at the level you've been posting all day.

Are you suggesting it isn't a very strong ambition of the EC? Or that many other countries in the Eurozone don't feel in anyway it's an unfair advantage? All it would take might be for x3 of the largest to match 12.5%, a level playing field of sorts, which could result in economic mayhem.

prawnsambo

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

Seems a bit far fetched to play the 'not entitled/aware' of the potential tax issue arising, over such a long time, that equated to a singe fine of €15,000,0000,000 circa.

Some reports suggest it represented an effective tax rate of 1% over these years. Being forced to take it was perhaps embarassing, maybe even indicative of a state of denial. The European Courts of Justice went as far as classing it as illegal state aid.

Are you sure the ECJ has said this? Because afaik, that case hasn't been heard yet.

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

Are you suggesting it isn't a very strong ambition of the EC? Or that many other countries in the Eurozone don't feel in anyway it's an unfair advantage? All it would take might be for x3 of the largest to match 12.5%, a level playing field of sorts, which could result in economic mayhem.

Every country in the EU can adopt that tax rate if they want to. Very few have. And as I have already pointed out, it's not the major factor in FDI. But you stil focus on it as if it were.

4068ac1elhodqr

prawnsambo wrote: »

Are you sure the ECJ has said this? Because afaik, that case hasn't been heard yet.

Ok if you nitpick, they 'support' the proposal by Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, in charge of competition policy, who previously said "Ireland has to recover up to 13{15} billion euros in 'illegal State aid' from Apple."

Hence the big fine, the case might only be dropped from progression if the fine is paid in full. It's fair to say the ECJ do consider it as 'illegal state aid', otherwise why such a big bill if they did nothing wrong, and why has payment commenced from Apple...

prawnsambo

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

Ok if you nitpick, they 'support' the proposal by Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, in charge of competition policy, who previously said "Ireland has to recover up to 13{15} billion euros in 'illegal State aid' from Apple."

Hence the big fine, the case might only be dropped from progression if the fine is paid in full. It's fair to say the ECJ do consider it as 'illegal state aid', otherwise why such a big bill if they did nothing wrong, and why has payment commenced from Apple...

Again you're back to quoting the ECJ as if they've already ruled in this case. They haven't. The ruling came from the Commission, the Competition Commission to be exact and it's not a 'fine', it's an estimate of tax that the commission believe is due. To Ireland.

Can you not post so many mistakes all the time, it's tiresome correcting you.

4068ac1elhodqr

Ok, so today we learned:

i) Apple shouldn't pay that €15bn fine, obviously the case should be taken further. Whatever could go wrong?
ii) Brexit should be void and null, due to 'foreign influence' and the 52% not sufficent enough a result. Full revert should take place within 6mths.
iii) All European states and the EC are perfectly happy with Ireland's 12.5% tax, no complaints at all. Long should it continue they all say.
iv) There is more chance of an 'major asteroid impact' than pressure for CT being raised, or of others harmonising theirs, to match/better it if they so feel the need.

oscarBravo

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

Ok, so today we learned:

i) Apple shouldn't pay that €15bn fine, obviously the case should be taken further. Whatever could go wrong?
ii) Brexit should be void and null, due to 'foreign influence' and the 52% not sufficent enough a result. Full revert should take place within 6mths.
iii) All European states and the EC are perfectly happy with Ireland's 12.5% tax, no complaints at all. Long should it continue they all say.
iv) There is more chance of an 'major asteroid impact' than pressure for CT being raised, or of others harmonising theirs, to match/better it if they so feel the need.

Ah, snark. The last resort of someone who doesn't know how to admit he was wrong.

i) It's not a fine.
ii) Cheating and interference in the referendum campaign are among the least of the reasons why Brexit shouldn't happen. The fact that it's batsh*t insane would be at the top of my list.
iii) Straw man. Nobody has argued that everyone's happy with Ireland's CT rate; it was pointed out to you repeatedly that it doesn't matter how they feel about it, because there's not a damn thing that they can do about it.
iv) It's astonishing just how hard some people will work to avoid understanding something that doesn't suit their agenda, but I'll point out for the umpteenth time that you don't seem to understand what harmonisation means.

On that last point, it's beyond me how you can't understand it, because it's been repeatedly explained to you. As I said, it's either wilful ignorance or an intention to mislead. Which is it? Because you're clearly not stupid, so it has to be one or the other.

ancapailldorcha

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

Ok, so today we learned:

i) Apple shouldn't pay that €15bn fine, obviously the case should be taken further. Whatever could go wrong?
ii) Brexit should be void and null, due to 'foreign influence' and the 52% not sufficent enough a result. Full revert should take place within 6mths.
iii) All European states and the EC are perfectly happy with Ireland's 12.5% tax, no complaints at all. Long should it continue they all say.
iv) There is more chance of an 'major asteroid impact' than pressure for CT being raised, or of others harmonising theirs, to match/better it if they so feel the need.

Lazy strawmen aren't what this forum is for. No more please.

zell12

Missed this yesterday
Herman Kelly, Spokesperson, Irexit Freedom Party, joined Sean O'Rourke to tell us all about this new political party.

##Mod Snip##

Quin_Dub

zell12 wrote: »

Missed this yesterday
Herman Kelly, Spokesperson, Irexit Freedom Party, joined Sean O'Rourke to tell us all about this new political party.
##Mod Snip##

##Mod Note##

Please don't just post links to external content.

By all means , use links to support a point you are making etc. but simply dropping in links to other content is not acceptable.

Thanks

badtoro

demfad wrote: »

A Sunday Times article this week noted Russia's heightened interest in Ireland as somewhere to potentially destabilise after Brexit.

I would tend to agree and the links to Russia coupled with Irexit servicing Russian foreign policy means all the ducks are visible, walking and quacking.

I presume this is the article? Surprised there has been little reaction to it tbh.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russia-smuggling-in-spy-cars-to-ireland-under-diplomatic-cover-zhqt9rv37

Hurrache

I wonder is it because we're a pretty small country and everyone within political circles and the periphery are well known.

Any outside organisation trying to get involved in the recent referendum were hunted down pretty well with groups getting together to do so so I'd expect experience from then will be used and improved in the future.

We've also got a good referendum commission so less likely to push out bill**** and get away with it.

Doff

If they call it Irexit instead of Byerland I'm voting remain.

ancapailldorcha

Doff wrote: »

If they call it Irexit instead of Byerland I'm voting remain.

Mod: Serious discussion only, please.