How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 4)
Discussion
Didn't see where this little gem form the weekend was being discussed on here: https://www.politico.eu/article/matteo-salvini-eu-...
Matteo Salvini said:
The EU is not conducting Brexit talks with the U.K. in “good faith,”
Helicopter123 said:
The democratic thing to do would be to put the final deal to the people.
By this, do you mean by this a referendum on a Negotiated Deal (whatever is proposed by HMG - including withdrawal agreement and FTA or WTO) vs No Deal (no withdrawal agreement and trading terms to be determined but WTO to start off with)? JagLover said:
psi310398 said:
Interesting article on tax reform. (Words I never thought I'd write!)
This is the kind of thing Brexit supporters do need to be pushing, putting some meat on the bone of "take back control" in a concrete rather than abstract way:
https://brexitcentral.com/brexit-lower-fairer-simp...
Interesting article This is the kind of thing Brexit supporters do need to be pushing, putting some meat on the bone of "take back control" in a concrete rather than abstract way:
https://brexitcentral.com/brexit-lower-fairer-simp...
Illustrates why many voted for Brexit, as they wanted a system that works for the people and not multi-nationals.
At the moment both companies employ a substantial number of people in the UK. They may not pay much corporation tax but those employees pay a substantial amount of tax.
Both companies could close its UK operations if they choose.
Just proves my point all politicians lie.
Edited by Mrr T on Monday 30th July 09:10
Mrr T said:
Elphicke has always been an idiot and this article proves he remains an idiot. Taxation particularly international taxation is complex and oddly enough has international implications. The test of whether a business is taxable and what is taxable in a country is complex. The idea we can tax Amazon income from sales in the UK even thought its resident in Luxembourg would mean other counties might seek to tax sales by a UK company because the UK company has sales people, service engineers in the country. Google income comes from advertising not users. How exactly do you work out what is taxable in the UK.
At the moment both companies employ a substantial number of people in the UK. They may not pay much corporation tax but those employees pay a substantial amount of tax.
Both companies could close its UK operations if they choose.
Just proves my point all politicians lie.
Google may be able to reduce its UK physical presence but Amazon is going to have a hard job servicing its UK customers without any UK presence. At the moment both companies employ a substantial number of people in the UK. They may not pay much corporation tax but those employees pay a substantial amount of tax.
Both companies could close its UK operations if they choose.
Just proves my point all politicians lie.
Mrr T said:
Elphicke has always been an idiot and this article proves he remains an idiot. Taxation particularly international taxation is complex and oddly enough has international implications. The test of whether a business is taxable and what is taxable in a country is complex. The idea we can tax Amazon income from sales in the UK even thought its resident in Luxembourg would mean other counties might seek to tax sales by a UK company because the UK company has sales people, service engineers in the country. Google income come from advertising not users. How exactly do you work out what is taxable in the UK.
At the moment both companies employ a substantial number of people in the UK. They may not pay much corporation tax but those employees pay a substantial amount of tax.
Both companies could close its UK operations if they choose.
Just proves my point all politicians lie.
So it's complex, but the rules can be tightened and taxes designed in such a way that this kind of avoidance is minimised. Alternatively, we ensure that our system benefits the UK: we can play Luxembourg at its own game re tax. At the moment both companies employ a substantial number of people in the UK. They may not pay much corporation tax but those employees pay a substantial amount of tax.
Both companies could close its UK operations if they choose.
Just proves my point all politicians lie.
The point he makes about Australia forcing Amazon to levy GST isn't false, is it? If Australians can face down Amazon, then I think a country with a population three times its size might be able to manage. It might do a fair bit to save our High Streets.
psi310398 said:
So it's complex, but the rules can be tightened and taxes designed in such a way that this kind of avoidance is minimised. Alternatively, we ensure that our system benefits the UK: we can play Luxembourg at its own game re tax.
The point he makes about Australia forcing Amazon to levy GST isn't false, is it? If Australians can face down Amazon, then I think a country with a population three times its size might be able to manage. It might do a fair bit to save our High Streets.
It is indeed complex but often it is so blatant you can see very well what is going on.The point he makes about Australia forcing Amazon to levy GST isn't false, is it? If Australians can face down Amazon, then I think a country with a population three times its size might be able to manage. It might do a fair bit to save our High Streets.
For example Starbucks which funnelled most of its European profits through that well known coffee producing country, the Netherlands, via a royalty fee for the use of its intellectual property such as its brand and business processes.
Expecting Multinationals to pay the same tax rate as anyone else on their "true" UK profits doesn't seem to be me to be too onerous and will indeed be easier to achieve outside the EU.
JagLover said:
It is indeed complex but often it is so blatant you can see very well what is going on.
For example Starbucks which funnelled most of its European profits through that well known coffee producing country, the Netherlands, via a royalty fee for the use of its intellectual property such as its brand and business processes.
Expecting Multinationals to pay the same tax rate as anyone else on their "true" UK profits doesn't seem to be me to be too onerous and will indeed be easier to achieve outside the EU.
Doesn't Switzerland tax companies on turnover? For example Starbucks which funnelled most of its European profits through that well known coffee producing country, the Netherlands, via a royalty fee for the use of its intellectual property such as its brand and business processes.
Expecting Multinationals to pay the same tax rate as anyone else on their "true" UK profits doesn't seem to be me to be too onerous and will indeed be easier to achieve outside the EU.
vonuber said:
1) of course it was hyperbole. It's a throw away one liner; your obsession with it and trying to prove. a point over it is purely justbpint scoring, rather than an attempt to address the larger point i was making - we are not so important that the EU can't survive without us and will suddenly implode if they don't get a deal with us. The onus is on us
2) already answered the second one (again)
This does sum up neatly my other point though - bizarre petty point scoring rather than any meaningful discussion.
One of the reasons that meaningful discussion is difficult, is that people like you, Mrr 2) already answered the second one (again)
This does sum up neatly my other point though - bizarre petty point scoring rather than any meaningful discussion.
T and PurpleM frequently resort to stupid hyperbole, rather than attempt to discuss the issue sensibly. And mx5nut just make the same nonsense statements over and over again.
HTH.
sidicks said:
Helicopter123 said:
The democratic thing to do would be to put the final deal to the people.
You must have missed the rules that Cameron set for the referendum?Unless you mean have a vote on a) leave with no deal v b) leave on the negotiated deal?
Sadly, I suspect you don’t, however.
Ghibli said:
sidicks said:
Helicopter123 said:
The democratic thing to do would be to put the final deal to the people.
You must have missed the rules that Cameron set for the referendum?Unless you mean have a vote on a) leave with no deal v b) leave on the negotiated deal?
Sadly, I suspect you don’t, however.
Assume Remain win a second referendum. By your logic, any future referendums on future EU treaties must have three options. Accept treaty, reject treaty, leave the EU. Accept/Reject would only apply to remain voters and not the whole country
JagLover said:
Google may be able to reduce its UK physical presence but Amazon is going to have a hard job servicing its UK customers without any UK presence.
The delivery is already outsourced even the warehouses use contract labour. More likely Amazon would just sell its distribution centers to a service company such as Capita.Mrr T said:
JagLover said:
Google may be able to reduce its UK physical presence but Amazon is going to have a hard job servicing its UK customers without any UK presence.
The delivery is already outsourced even the warehouses use contract labour. More likely Amazon would just sell its distribution centers to a service company such as Capita.Ghibli said:
As I have pointed out before, the two options that you have given above only apply to leave voters and not the whole country.
No they don't. The concepts are not difficult.
The country voted in a referendum that was explicitly run on the basis that it was once-only question and the government would act on the result. Under the rules of that referendum, Leave won by a bigger margin than any other vote in British history. The country therefore decided to leave. That is democracy.
The only conceivable justification for having a further referendum would be to put to the people a question on the negotiated deal if indeed there is one. Do you accept the deal or not? If not, we leave without a negotiated deal.
amusingduck said:
Assume Remain win a second referendum. By your logic, any future referendums on future EU treaties must have three options. Accept treaty, reject treaty, leave the EU. Accept/Reject would only apply to remain voters and not the whole country
Digga said:
Mrr T said:
JagLover said:
Google may be able to reduce its UK physical presence but Amazon is going to have a hard job servicing its UK customers without any UK presence.
The delivery is already outsourced even the warehouses use contract labour. More likely Amazon would just sell its distribution centers to a service company such as Capita.psi310398 said:
No they don't.
The concepts are not difficult.
The country voted in a referendum that was explicitly run on the basis that it was once-only question and the government would act on the result. Under the rules of that referendum, Leave won by a bigger margin than any other vote in British history. The country therefore decided to leave. That is democracy.
The only conceivable justification for having a further referendum would be to put to the people a question on the negotiated deal if indeed there is one. Do you accept the deal or not? If not, we leave without a negotiated deal.
The people who voted to leave still don't know what they will be getting, why should they get another choice while the remaining 48% don't get a choice ?The concepts are not difficult.
The country voted in a referendum that was explicitly run on the basis that it was once-only question and the government would act on the result. Under the rules of that referendum, Leave won by a bigger margin than any other vote in British history. The country therefore decided to leave. That is democracy.
The only conceivable justification for having a further referendum would be to put to the people a question on the negotiated deal if indeed there is one. Do you accept the deal or not? If not, we leave without a negotiated deal.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff