Brexit discussion thread IV

ancapailldorcha

Water John wrote: »

I have no doubt JRM is fully aware where this is going.
How stupid though are the authors/funders to launch this at this particular time?
More Koch Bros financing. Really hope this gets the full publicity it deserves.

They're not stupid. They're blinded by their own agendas, greed and venality. It's a small but significant distinction.

Zubeneschamali

briany wrote: »

Do you think that JRM fully knows what he's doing, e.g. that he's cynically using the cloak of patriotism to further his own ends and he knows this full well, or has he done some mental gymnastics into believing that what will benefit him and select others will also overall benefit the UK?

I don't think he cares about the UK. He cares about the interests of born-rich Tory investment bankers like himself and his chums.

If the UK economy after Brexit is a smaller pie, JRM won't care as long as he and his class get a bigger slice.

kowtow

briany wrote: »

Do you think that JRM fully knows what he's doing, e.g. that he's cynically using the cloak of patriotism to further his own ends and he knows this full well, or has he done some mental gymnastics into believing that what will benefit him and select others will also overall benefit the UK?

Neither, JRM has always - at least since his teenage years - been absolutely passionate and outspoken about small government and the removal of regulatory impediment to commerce. His position is one of principle, no matter how much you may disagree with it or fear it's consequences should it become policy.

It's difficult to argue that he is "using the cloak of patriotism to further his own ends" when his stated position has not changed materially since he was a schoolboy.

Imreoir2

Trasna1 wrote: »

Some people seem to think that the EU is a union of complete solidarity, like a family where there is no payback for support received. In fact it is much much more transactional, as can be seen from response to the migration crisis. You can bet your backside Ireland has offered support on a variety of European issues, like the budget in exchange for support on Brexit. Public utterances by officials belie the realpolitik behind the scenes and It should come as no surprise to anyone that there people gunning to take it down Irish tax policy in the commission and in other European governments and will use any leverage they can to break the steadfast Irish resistance (to date) to it. This could of course also be British mischief making, but you can be sure there is some truth to it too.


That said, Ireland has been in a weaker position in Europe and still managed to come out with it's tax policy intact.

It's not just the EU, its diplomacy in general. Germany has been paying us back for decades for going out of our way to facilitate German Unification back in the early 90's. Thats part of the reason we got so mucht funding from the EU in the 90's. Who even remembers that Ireland played a significant role in pushing German Unification onto the agenda when the UK and France wanted to pour cold water on it after the wall came down? The answer is that they remember. Diplomatic cores have long memories.

If you think about it like a bank balance of diplomatic credit you have with other countries, then we got a lot of credit for working through our problems back in the recession without upsetting the apple cart. We are reaping the benfit of being the "good boys of Europe" now. You can bet that we will have a diplomatic debt to pay if Brexit can be managed by the EU to sheild Ireland from the worst effects. That does not mean that we have to role over on our national interests, but it does require a certain extra flexibility, working closely with other countries to further our interests and not putting ourselves in the position where we are the lone voice causing problems.

Enzokk

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think there is some confusion here over what is being discussed by the EU and Bloomberg here; it has nothing to do with corporate tax rates but corporate tax bases.

There is no pressure on Ireland to harmonise CT rates. What Ireland is (incorrectly) objecting to is a change to how digital profits are taxed. As it stands, profits made in other EU member states on digital income (advertising etc.) are taxed only at the seat of the company (e.g. Ireland); the EU (IMHO correctly) proposes that if money is being made by companies on digital content in Member States then that income should be taxed in that Member State.

The example I've used elsewhere is a company based on Ireland has digital income in Germany, that digital income is taxed in Germany at German rates, but the company still pays its total corporation tax on the remainder of income at Ireland's 12.5% rate.

I actually don't see what's wrong with this proposal other than Ireland not wanting to lose income (estimated at 5% of CT income).

But it is nothing to do with CT rates in Member States.

I believe, from reading the Bloomberg article, that we and other countries including Malta want to wait for a worldwide solution to this and not just an EU solution. Whether this is just a stalling tactic or actual concerns remains to be seen, but if corporations can get rid themselves of the problem by just moving out of the EU and having the same arrangements as now without having to deal with the EU then they will do that. They will happily pay their local tax and move their profits to their headquarters in the UK (post hard Brexit) or the Caribbean if it makes them more money and it avoids extra taxes.

ancapailldorcha

Imreoir2 wrote: »

It's not just the EU, its diplomacy in general. Germany has been paying us back for decades for going out of our way to facilitate German Unification back in the early 90's. Thats part of the reason we got so mucht funding from the EU in the 90's. Who even remembers that Ireland played a significant role in pushing German Unification onto the agenda when the UK and France wanted to pour cold water on it after the wall came down? The answer is that they remember. Diplomatic cores have long memories.

If you think about it like a bank balance of diplomatic credit you have with other countries, then we got a lot of credit for working through our problems back in the recession without upsetting the apple cart. We are reaping the benfit of being the "good boys of Europe" now. You can bet that we will have a diplomatic debt to pay if Brexit can be managed by the EU to sheild Ireland from the worst effects. That does not mean that we have to role over on our national interests, but it does require a certain extra flexibility, working closely with other countries to further our interests and not putting ourselves in the position where we are the lone voice causing problems.

Indeed. It's a tragedy that Mrs. Thatcher shirked away from German reunification. Had she played her hand better, the UK could have been the de facto EU leader.

J Mysterio

Apparently - on top of the well publicised previous scandals - the ERG have a second account for funding which has not been disclosed. Where is this money coming from?

https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/james-cusick/second-bank-account-mps-demand-probe-into-rees-mogg-s-brexit-group

Also, the ERG is a publically funded group which is actually supposed to conduct research. Pretty sure they havent conducted any research nor published any either.

Zubeneschamali

kowtow wrote: »

It's difficult to argue that he is "using the cloak of patriotism to further his own ends" when his stated position has not changed materially since he was a schoolboy.

Not when the school is Eton it isn't, and his schoolboy hobby was demanding higher dividends at the AGMs of companies he owned shares in.

Zubeneschamali

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Indeed. It's a tragedy that Mrs. Thatcher shirked away from German reunification. Had she played her hand better, the UK could have been the de facto EU leader.

That isn't a tragedy, it's a bullet we dodged.

Imreoir2

kowtow wrote: »

Neither, JRM has always - at least since his teenage years - been absolutely passionate and outspoken about small government and the removal of regulatory impediment to commerce. His position is one of principle, no matter how much you may disagree with it or fear it's consequences should it become policy.

It's difficult to argue that he is "using the cloak of patriotism to further his own ends" when his stated position has not changed materially since he was a schoolboy.

He has been brought up to value being able to put his own greed ahead of the common good. Call that a principle if you like, in this case it boils down to him putting his own interests ahead of his countries, that is the principle he is supporting. Greed is good and all that.

ancapailldorcha

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That isn't a tragedy, it's a bullet we dodged.

Depends on your perspective. The UK has long been a key ally to several European states like Ireland, Denmark, The Netherlands as well as the Eastern States. It was instrumental in creating the single market and has pushed for its completion aggressively before we ended up with Cameron winning his unexpected majority in 2015. Without the UK, these states lose their largest ally in the EU leaving it vulnerable to any protectionist machinations of France or Germany. For example, one is prohibited from owning more than one Pharmacy in Germany.

Spook_ie

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well, yeah, but then that has a been the case for the last number of years.

Its the tying it to Brexit which is the problem.

I think since the Uk is leaving, trying to push Ireland to tax harmonisation will likely lead to a significant increase in the calls to leave the EU.

Whilst of course Ireland is irrelevant in total to the EU, having another long standing member leave is not anything the EU is going to want to even give a chance to.

But the odds on caving in are far better than the odds of following the UK England and Wales

kowtow

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Not when the school is Eton it isn't, and his schoolboy hobby was demanding higher dividends at the AGMs of companies he owned shares in.

On the contrary, by Eton standards, he was significantly poorer than the majority of his peers.

What he did with his communion money is hardly relevant - except as evidence of a precocious young man. He had - and has - a very strong liberal streak and was always opposed to "big government". That's not a completely unusual view in British Public schools, but if anything his beliefs had a moral / religious dimension to them where others were purely money minded.

In either case the views are well held, and are anything but a cloak of convenience put on in later life to further his own interests - which is not to say that he isn't to some extent talking his own book - that is the nature of political discourse and everybody does it.

Zubeneschamali

kowtow wrote: »

In either case the views are well held, and are anything but a cloak of convenience put on in later life to further his own interests -

I think we agree - he never cared about the UK or its peoples welfare, just about his own wealth.

kowtow

Imreoir2 wrote: »

He has been brought up to value being able to put his own greed ahead of the common good. Call that a principle if you like, in this case it boils down to him putting his own interests ahead of his countries, that is the principle he is supporting. Greed is good and all that.

In my opinion, he sincerely believes that small government and less regulation, matched no doubt by an increase in personal responsibility, would lead to a thriving economy and be good for the country.

To the best of my knowledge, those have always been his beliefs (albeit a poor summary).

What you are saying is that he cannot possibly hold that position because he would be doing so for (unspecified) selfish reasons which amount to a conflict of interest?

I would have thought that his views, couched in plain language and extreme as they are, would be pretty easy to argue with on their merits, so there is hardly a need to attack his upbringing or caricature him as some sort of poster boy for British wealth. He is and always was an unusual character of great sincerity - anything but a natural politician - and to suggest otherwise appears a bit small minded to me.

Leroy42

kowtow wrote: »

OHe had - and has - a very strong liberal streak and was always opposed to "big government". That's not a completely unusual view in British Public schools, but if anything his beliefs had a moral / religious dimension to them where others were purely money minded.

Rubbish. He wants government to control those areas (abortion for example) that he doesn't agree with and leave the areas he likes alone.

kowtow

Leroy42 wrote: »

Rubbish. He wants government to control those areas (abortion for example) that he doesn't agree with and leave the areas he likes alone.

Is there any evidence for that?

Leroy42

Evidence that he is against abortion? Yes, tons of interviews.

kowtow

Leroy42 wrote: »

Evidence that he is against abortion? Yes, tons of interviews.

It's perfectly well known that he is against abortion, clearly he feels it is something for the legislature to decide as a matter of conscience which it has done.

I've never seen any suggestion that he has sought actively to change the law on abortion, or on gay marriage?

sameoldname

From looking at his voting record he:

Opposes gay marriage,
Favours lower taxes for corporations,
Favours higher VAT (guess which classes that effects the most?)
Favours reduced social and health spending
Favours military spending and Trident
Favours increased government surveillance, both foreign and domestic
Favours tuition fees

...and so on.

He's a typical tory. Socially conservative, economically liberal with a touch of vindictiveness.

trellheim

JRM is very useful for HMG to push against "Chequers or these lunatics" or its Corbyn

flatty

Jrm is first and foremost a zealot. He is a very odd individual. It is bizarre that he has so much clout. Being a zealot rarely ends well for everyone.

Imreoir2

kowtow wrote: »

What you are saying is that he cannot possibly hold that position because he would be doing so for (unspecified) selfish reasons which amount to a conflict of interest?

I am saying that his position, long held or not, is the promotion of his own interests regardless of the impact that will have on the people around him, or his country as a whole. He may believe that the selfish promotion of his own interest will benefit his country too, despite all evidence to the contrary, but if he does then this is an added bonus rather than his aim.

In reality it is clear what he is doing, he is promoting economic chaos in the UK because he has positioned himself to profit from such chaos. You can call the fact that he has wanted this for a long time "principled", personally I would not.

Professor Moriarty

sameoldname wrote: »

From looking at his voting record he:

Opposes gay marriage,
Favours lower taxes for corporations,
Favours higher VAT (guess which classes that effects the most?)
Favours reduced social and health spending
Favours military spending and Trident
Favours increased government surveillance, both foreign and domestic
Favours tuition fees

...and so on.

He's a typical tory. Socially conservative, economically liberal with a touch of vindictiveness.

And zero hours contracts. What would you expect from an Oxford educated Old Etonian born into privilege and steeped in elitist delusions of superiority. JRM is the epitome of his type.

kowtow

Imreoir2 wrote: »

In reality it is clear what he is doing, he is promoting economic chaos in the UK because he has positioned himself to profit from such chaos. You can call the fact that he has wanted this for a long time "principled", personally I would not.

And how precisely has he "positioned himself" to profit from such chaos?

You can disregard the fact that two funds controlled by a management vehicle in which he is a shareholder have been located in Dublin - Somerset funds have structures in plenty of tax havens and specialist asset management jurisdictions, it's a compliment to the IFSC that they chose it but it doesn't make a jot of difference to the positions they hold and hence the funds ability to profit from Brexit - whether chaotic or not. It is not the jurisdiction of the fund or the asset manager which determines the returns.

So what positions has he, personally, booked which will generate profits from a chaotic Brexit as opposed to a smooth one?

Leroy42

It doesn't have to be that he has direct investment in anything. Directorships, speaking engagements, etc are all part of the source of funds for these people. Take for example the odd actions of Farage on the night of the result. Claiming it was all lost as soon as the polls closed when he already had a good idea that they had won. Making that statement on TV had a large impact on the sterling market. Now maybe he was just feeling overly pessimistic!

Looking at it objectively, one need to try to consider why JRM would be willing to gamble on the future of the UK. And even he admits that it is a gamble, 50 years he said before they will know.

With that in mind, one needs to look at the rationale behind it. It could be that he really, really, really believes in the UK and wants it to regain its position of the largest empire and thus the leader of the world. However, I assume that the man is well educated and understands the current global order and where the UK can ever position itself within that.

So, whilst that may well be playing a part in it, it seems a very big gamble to take. A gamble that he has made sure that he is protecting himself against whilst many of those that will be effected (the car makers etc) are in no such position.

kowtow

Leroy42 wrote: »

It doesn't have to be that he has direct investment in anything. Directorships, speaking engagements, etc are all part of the source of funds for these people. Take for example the odd actions of Farage on the night of the result. Claiming it was all lost as soon as the polls closed when he already had a good idea that they had won. Making that statement on TV had a large impact on the sterling market. Now maybe he was just feeling overly pessimistic!

Directorships / speaking engagements etc. are a pretty paltry income source compared to retaining his role as an asset manager which he gave up when he entered parliament. As for Farage - who knows - but IIRC the Yougov poll publication was the trigger for a big short squeeze in sterling, not surprising given the way the markets were hedged at the time. It's easy to explain away peoples actions when the ticker has printed...

Looking at it objectively, one need to try to consider why JRM would be willing to gamble on the future of the UK. And even he admits that it is a gamble, 50 years he said before they will know.

That's true if you regard Brexit as a purely economic phenomenon. One of the key differences between the Irish (media) view of Brexit and the British view (both Electoral and Political) is that Ireland appears to view the issue as a purely economic one, whereas for the British there are important questions of sovereignty and independence - whether you agree with them or not. I can't remember precisely but I have a feeling that the question to which JRM responded (fifty years...) was couched in economic terms. It is quite possible that he feels that Brexit is absolutely the right path to take regardless of the immediate economic consequences and we will not know those until we have the benefit of hindsight.

There are plenty of politicians on both sides of the question who have been, and continue to be, less forthright and objective in their assessment.

With that in mind, one needs to look at the rationale behind it. It could be that he really, really, really believes in the UK and wants it to regain its position of the largest empire and thus the leader of the world. However, I assume that the man is well educated and understands the current global order and where the UK can ever position itself within that.

So, whilst that may well be playing a part in it, it seems a very big gamble to take. A gamble that he has made sure that he is protecting himself against whilst many of those that will be effected (the car makers etc) are in no such position.

Disregarding, for a moment, the hyperbole over Empire and assuming that he just feels that Britain's relationship with Europe has led to a loss of too much sovereignty and too much independence - as he defines those concepts ... and, furthermore, that the freedom to reduce the regulatory burden and trade with the rest of the world on mutually agreed terms may have significant economic benefits...

Is it the case that his own relative wealth and ability to protect himself in part against adverse economic consequences (and that ability is shared with many other relatively wealthy people on both the remain and the leave side) ... must necessarily disqualify him from expressing his honestly held views and doing the job he is elected to do in Parliament? If that is to be the case then surely we must disqualify an awful lot of elected representatives, both in the UK and Ireland, purely on the basis that they are relatively financially insulated from the effect of their own political activities?

There are plenty of opportunistic political operators on all sides of Parliament in the UK (and probably to a lesser extent here) working to get the EU deal which best suits their own careers rather than the pockets or the constitutional rights & freedoms of their Electors. .. my only real point is that JRM is the least venal of men in that regard, albeit someone whose upbringing and eccentricity makes him an easy target to take aim at.

Play the ball and not the man!

Leroy42

I am not playing the man, I am trying to work out the reasoning behind the path he is taking.

Every indicator points to this being the wrong path, certainly economically, for the UK. Now it is easy to dismiss the economic impact when it won't impact one personally. Like wars, politicians and kings make the decisions but the soldiers on the front line pay the price.

Look at it this way. Before Brexit, who was JRM? A backbencher, nothing of note. Now he is in the frame to be the leader of the Tory party. Just like Boris, he made a calculated decision on which way to go. He was all in favor of a second vote when asking for a brexit vote, but now its all anti-democratic and against the will of the people.

You dismiss the advantages that the likes of Murdoch etc can bestow on people. Get in the right places and you are sorted for life. He is already independently wealthy so becoming an MP must be because he wants to make the UK a better place. So to do that he has decided to ignore all the advice from experts on go with this plan.

And what is he saying that will outweigth these economic costs? Sovereingty? Ability to make laws. Yet he has never been able to articulate, and one thing he is very good at is articulating his position, beyond vague notions of what that actually means. What laws are so horrible? What has the EU forced the UK do to?

So I am judging him on what I know from him. Which is that whilst he claims that economics has nothing to do with it, he has made sure that he has at least some of his earning power protected from any ill effects. He has been unable to say what the other benefits are. He has been unable to say how the NI question will be resolved? He has been unable to show how the general public will actually be better off.

Havockk

Leroy42 wrote: »

I am not playing the man, I am trying to work out the reasoning behind the path he is taking.

Free market liberalism. They see their great victory on the horizon. they will have their bonfire of regulations and live happily ever after in the warm glow of the free market. In other words, they are insane.

An Ciarraioch

So, a UK government committee has recommended that freedom of movement for EU citizens should end, and be replaced by a Canadian-style points system, based on qualifications, education and language. Irish citizens should be exempt, given our pre-EU agreements in that regard, but would probably meet most requirements in any event. Still, the net effect could well increase non-EU migration, which was hardly the intention of Leave voters in 2016:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/18/brexit-eu-citizens-special-access-migration-advisory-committee