Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

briany

Let's all drive the wrong way down a dual carriageway at top speed.

I know what the experts will say: that there's a very high probability of having a head-on collision, but we don't KNOW that this will happen. I, for one, am a better driver than most, and you really have to think that even if a crash did happen, it would be because of the intransigence and negativity of the other road users. So, let's just get on with it. Think of the thrill. Think of the notoriety, if we're successful.

Let's do any old mad thing. Hey, if we can't be certain what the results might be, it's got to be OK to have a go, right?

... right?

First Up

briany wrote:

Let's do any old mad thing. Hey, if we can't be certain what the results might be, it's got to be OK to have a go, right?

But we are only driving like that because some people in the back seat are calling you chicken. Proving them wrong is all that matters.

prunudo

briany wrote: »

Let's all drive the wrong way down a dual carriageway at top speed.

I know what the experts will say: that there's a very high probability of having a head-on collision, but we don't KNOW that this will happen. I, for one, am a better driver than most, and you really have to think that even if a crash did happen, it would be because of the intransigence and negativity of the other road users. So, let's just get on with it. Think of the thrill. Think of the notoriety, if we're successful.

Let's do any old mad thing. Hey, if we can't be certain what the results might be, it's got to be OK to have a go, right?

... right?

But we are only driving like that because some people in the back seat are calling you chicken. Proving them wrong is all that matters.

Probably 2 of the best analogies of Brexit that I've read.

DOCARCH

Peregrinus wrote: »

He has already changed his name. He was born Mark François, but from his adolescence he has spelt it "Francois", and reportedly he gets very upset if anybody spells his name "François".

Whatever his name, he makes my blood boil! He can't be that thick so I often wonder what personal gains he stands to make out of Brexit?

Peregrinus

DOCARCH wrote: »

Whatever his name, he makes my blood boil! He can't be that thick so I often wonder what personal gains he stands to make out of Brexit?

Why can't he be that thick?

VinLieger

DOCARCH wrote: »

Whatever his name, he makes my blood boil! He can't be that thick so I often wonder what personal gains he stands to make out of Brexit?

No he's 100% that thick, the likes of Mogg and Boris who do stand to gain a hell of a lot personally from Brexit are absolutely using him and other less intelligent emotional members of the ERG and Tories. They may have promised them rewards but these people aren't anywhere near the top of the chain in regards to why brexit is really happening and that quite simply is EU tax laws.

Russman

VinLieger wrote: »

No he's 100% that thick, the likes of Mogg and Boris who do stand to gain a hell of a lot personally from Brexit are absolutely using him and other less intelligent emotional members of the ERG and Tories. They may have promised them rewards but these people aren't anywhere near the top of the chain in regards to why brexit is really happening and that quite simply is EU tax laws.

Not doubting you or having a go, more a genuine wondering, do you think it really comes down to that ? I can fully get on board with the notion that a few ultra rich tories don't want to pay tax, but what has changed for them to bring Brexit to a head now ?

prawnsambo

Russman wrote: »

Not doubting you or having a go, more a genuine wondering, do you think it really comes down to that ? I can fully get on board with the notion that a few ultra rich tories don't want to pay tax, but what has changed for them to bring Brexit to a head now ?

Well it all started coming to a head back when the new tax avoidance directive was agreed. The UK would have been due to ratify it around the time of B-day 1.

Peregrinus

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well it all started coming to a head back when the new tax avoidance directive was agreed. The UK would have been due to ratify it around the time of B-day 1.

Much as I hate to say it, this is a bit of a conspiracy theory. The directive concerned, the Anti Tax Avoidance Directive, was adopted on 12 July 2016. It's aimed at EU companies who seek to shift profits to non-EU countries where they will be taxed at a lower rate. Basically, it combats this by allowing (not requiring) EU member states to tax companies on the profits they have shifted out to non-EU countries, as if they hadn't shifted them out.

The thing is, SFAIK it doesn't require the UK government to do anything. It allows UK to tax UK companies on profits that they have shifted out of the UK to a non-EU country. But if the UK government doesn't want to do that, it won't have to. And Brexit will change nothing. Obviously the Anti Tax Avoidance Directive will no longer apply in the UK after Brexit, but the situation on the ground will be unchanged; if the UK government wants to tax UK companies on profits that they have shifted abroad, it can; if it doesn't want to, it doesn't have to.

And the other thing is that the Directive is already in force. It entered into force on the date that it was always going to, 1 January 2019. Back in 2016, when the Brexit referendum was called, you could make the case that the idea was to get the UK out within 2 years, before the ATAD entered into force. But once UK hadn't served A50 notice by the end of 2016, there was no possibility of leaving the EU before the ATAD came into force.

But the story won't die. People will assure you with their hands on their hearts that the whole thing is tax-driven, an attempt to avoid EU anti-avoidance legislation. But press them for details, and it's sadly lacking. Ask them to explain in a concrete way how Brexit faciliates tax avoidance by wealthy UK residents, and you'll be sadly disappointed at the incoherent responses.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: No more insults please.

Tacitus Kilgore

Peregrinus wrote: »

Much as I hate to say it, this is a bit of a conspiracy theory.

It may be a bit of a theory, but to me it makes more sense than any other reason or logic that has been put forward as to why Brexit is a good idea, I find it hard to find many other reasons that aren't either just plain stupid, or directly contradictory - like the: closing-the-borders-but-leaving-the-only-actual-border-wide-open, reason.


The only other reason I can think of is that a couple of bored rich lads decided to have a bet to see if they could convince a country to top itself - kinda like trading places but instead of making a fella rich, they're throwing an entire country down the jacks...

Peregrinus

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

It may be a bit of a theory, but to me it makes more sense than any other reason or logic that . . .

It doesn't make any sense unless you can explain how Brexit facilitates tax avoidance.

VinLieger

Good video explaining the tax issue from Stephen Fry

Key part of the tax and financial secrecy is around minute 5

Enzokk

Nothing to worry about, just the economy shrinking for the first time since 2012. I am sure it has nothing to do with Brexit though and in any case if the economy just believed it would get it done.

U.K. Economy Unexpectedly Shrinks for First Time Since 2012

The U.K. economy shrank for the first time in more than six years in the second quarter, delivering a blow to newly installed Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

Gross domestic product fell 0.2% following a solid 0.5% advance in the previous three months, the Office for National Statistics said on Friday. Economists had expected output to be unchanged. In June alone, the economy stagnated. The pound fell after the report, sliding to $1.2096 as of 9:32 a.m. in London.

The abrupt loss of momentum came as many firms ran down inventories built up ahead of the original March 29 deadline to leave the European Union. Stock levels fell by 4.4 billion pounds ($5.3 billion), knocking 2.15 percentage points off GDP.

Robert McGrath

Watching that Mark Francois clip, I notice that his debating rival mentioned the mistakes made by generals who “believed in Britain” in the past.

This is something that should probably be mentioned more often. Every time a Brexiter invokes the Blitz spirit of WWII, they should be reminded that there as a war before that in which huge swathes of the ordinary youth of Britain were sacrificed because of the arrogant and imperialistic follies of the upper classes and political elites ... WWI is a much better metaphor for this sh*tshow

Tacitus Kilgore

Peregrinus wrote: »

It doesn't make any sense unless you can explain how Brexit facilitates tax avoidance.

I certainly cannot, fair point.

Whole thing just doesn't make any sense so.

Professor Moriarty

Nothing that a bit of boosterism won't fix.

Enzokk

This is a very good point that should be asked of no-deal MPs and advocates,


https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1159399697838149632?s=20

If the UK is willing to accept damage from no-deal to stick to their principles, why is it a surprise that other countries will do the same, when the damage will be less for them?

ambro25

Peregrinus wrote: »

Much as I hate to say it, this is a bit of a conspiracy theory. The directive concerned, the Anti Tax Avoidance Directive, was adopted on 12 July 2016. It's aimed at EU companies who seek to shift profits to non-EU countries where they will be taxed at a lower rate. Basically, it combats this by allowing (not requiring) EU member states to tax companies on the profits they have shifted out to non-EU countries, as if they hadn't shifted them out.

The thing is, SFAIK it doesn't require the UK government to do anything. It allows UK to tax UK companies on profits that they have shifted out of the UK to a non-EU country. But if the UK government doesn't want to do that, it won't have to. And Brexit will change nothing. Obviously the Anti Tax Avoidance Directive will no longer apply in the UK after Brexit, but the situation on the ground will be unchanged; if the UK government wants to tax UK companies on profits that they have shifted abroad, it can; if it doesn't want to, it doesn't have to.

And the other thing is that the Directive is already in force. It entered into force on the date that it was always going to, 1 January 2019. Back in 2016, when the Brexit referendum was called, you could make the case that the idea was to get the UK out within 2 years, before the ATAD entered into force. But once UK hadn't served A50 notice by the end of 2016, there was no possibility of leaving the EU before the ATAD came into force.

But the story won't die. People will assure you with their hands on their hearts that the whole thing is tax-driven, an attempt to avoid EU anti-avoidance legislation. But press them for details, and it's sadly lacking. Ask them to explain in a concrete way how Brexit faciliates tax avoidance by wealthy UK residents, and you'll be sadly disappointed at the incoherent responses.

I don't disagree with your take on the role and relevance of the EU's tax directive, in and of its own, amongst all other interests pushing Brexit...

...but the story deserves not to die, if it will help ever more people realise how London (and remote dependencies) has long already been a ("the") tax & money laundering centre, a situation under which the Singapore-on-Thames direction of travel facilitated by a very hard or 'no deal' Brexit can best be appreciated.

Useful reference material/summary here

If I hadn't already recorded hundreds of IP rights' transfers from bona fide UK innovating and trading entities to VI or Bermuda-based IP holdings throughout my career, then I was reminded of all this again last night, during an event with guided tour at Luxembourg's Freeport, whose CEO did not waste an opportunity to remind us that Johnson's recent noises about Brexit allowing the UK to create dozens of such Freeports was as accurate as his kipper-ice pocket discourse: nothing to stop the UK creating such zones, since before joining the EEC, after joining it, and ever since.

Having well understood the operating principle of such zones, but also the high disparity of standards about ATA/AML processes and procedures amongst Freeports across the world (some, like the Lux Freeport, handling very high value goods, practice stronger due diligence than even tax offices, to achieve and retain a 'whiter than white' rating; others, particularly in Latin America, handle much lower value consignments and are significantly laxer, permitting large-scale TA/ML acts), it made me realise that these "UK Freeports" noises by Johnson is actually bizdev for the hard-Brexited UK, with expectedly very low standards of customs involvement (in sync with the City's opacity of practices involving Brit tax havens): you can bet relevant oppotunists heard Johnson's pitch just right, and are busy tax-&-logistics pre-planning right now, just in case.

J Mysterio

Enzokk wrote: »

Nothing to worry about, just the economy shrinking for the first time since 2012. I am sure it has nothing to do with Brexit though and in any case if the economy just believed it would get it done.

U.K. Economy Unexpectedly Shrinks for First Time Since 2012

You have to love the headline: 'UK economy unexpectedly shrinks'!

Ooh, what a shock.

J Mysterio

Robert McGrath wrote: »

Watching that Mark Francois clip, I notice that his debating rival mentioned the mistakes made by generals who “believed in Britain” in the past.

This is something that should probably be mentioned more often. Every time a Brexiter invokes the Blitz spirit of WWII, they should be reminded that there as a war before that in which huge swathes of the ordinary youth of Britain were sacrificed because of the arrogant and imperialistic follies of the upper classes and political elites ... WWI is a much better metaphor for this sh*tshow

Great point

Nody

Enzokk wrote: »

If the UK is willing to accept damage from no-deal to stick to their principles, why is it a surprise that other countries will do the same, when the damage will be less for them?

Because they don't have the Blitz WW2 spirit of course; you know the thing that's constantly referred back to as some kind of magical talisman or ultimate fact in an argument that can't be disputed...

briany

Nody wrote: »

Because they don't have the Blitz WW2 spirit of course; you know the thing that's constantly referred back to as some kind of magical talisman or ultimate fact in an argument that can't be disputed...

Most of the people in the UK are too young to remember what the Blitz was like, and the rest are too old to remember what the Blitz was like.

Professor Moriarty

Nody wrote: »

Because they don't have the Blitz WW2 spirit of course; you know the thing that's constantly referred back to as some kind of magical talisman or ultimate fact in an argument that can't be disputed...

The USSR won WW2.

storker

Nody wrote: »

Because they don't have the Blitz WW2 spirit of course; you know the thing that's constantly referred back to as some kind of magical talisman or ultimate fact in an argument that can't be disputed...

What's often overlooked by those who invoke that idea is that German civilians displayed it too. Mass bombing of German cities - on a much larger scale than the Germans were able to manage in Britain - did not produce the national collapse of morale that was expected. It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the potential for exhibiting a Spirit of the Blitz is a human trait rather than a solely British one...but good luck with getting British exceptionalists to even imagine that such a thing might be possible.

ancapailldorcha

briany wrote: »

Most of the people in the UK are too young to remember what the Blitz was like, and the rest are too old to remember what the Blitz was like.

The pro-Brexit boomers were born in the years after the war. Actual veterans of the war came out for Remain before the referendum. He's one article on the subject. It is nothing more than empty jingoism from the generations who reaped the fruits of the post-war boom and then voted to cripple the prospects of next generations of Brits.

storker

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The USSR won WW2.

Please tell me you're not being serious. The Allies, including the USSR won WW2. It's unlikely that anyone would have been able to do it without the other.

storker

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The pro-Brexit boomers were born in the years after the war. Actual veterans of the war came out for Remain before the referendum. He's one article on the subject. It is nothing more than empty jingoism from the generations who reaped the fruits of the post-war boom and then voted to cripple the prospects of next generations of Brits.

Nice quote from Cameron:

"Isolationism has never served this country well. Whenever we turn our back on Europe, sooner or later we come to regret it. We have always had to go back in, and always at much higher cost."

True. Next time the bill will probably include adopting the Euro, Schengen, etc...

Professor Moriarty

storker wrote: »

Please tell me you're not being serious. The Allies, including the USSR won WW2. It's unlikely that anyone would have been able to do it without the other.

I'm serious.

storker

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'm serious.

Well, not an argument for here, and it's been argued aplenty elsewhere. I'm satisfied that anyone who thinks the USSR did it alone or could have done it alone is taking a very blinkered, and possibly partisan (no pun intended) view, even if the USSR did do the bulk of the heavy lifting (when finally goaded out of its cooperation with Nazi aims).