Utopia Talk / Politics / The UK adopts EU law

jergul large member	Fri Dec 08 01:27:51 http://ec....litical/files/joint_report.pdf Check it out and discuss particulars (too long to highlight everything, but I do have some favorites - amongs them the free movement of people for as long as they enter the UK from Ireland to Northern Ireland and thereafter to anywhere they want to work and live).
jergul large member	Fri Dec 08 06:50:46 Seb What is your take on the report? I take it you have read it.
Seb Member	Fri Dec 08 07:36:08 My take remains everybody is fucking crazy and british politics is broken right now.
Seb Member	Fri Dec 08 07:44:41 In the last two days we have had: 1. David Davis explain that the 57 varieties of brexit impact assessment that he claimed would be done before A50 and which he's been citing as proof that all is well, but which were too critical to negs to publish, not only are a thin collection of public domain info, but no actual quantitative analysis never actually existed. This is either a confession that he misled parliament in the past, or he's misleading it now. I'm sure quantitative analysis of some form has been done (HMT statements imply it has). Perhaps so bad that the beautiful theory of brexit must be protected by ugly truth? 2. The chancellor admits that we are pushing up start negs on future agreement while cabinet has yet to discuss or agree what "our end-state position is". I.e. cabinet literally doesn't know where we want to be. 3. The only way I can credit the joint report is that it means: a. We're all in the CU and SM and brexit is pointless - the Norway option. Or b. DUP will end up being sold down the river, there will be a hard border in the Irish sea, which brexiteers with Labour support will accept instead of no deal at the last minute.
Seb Member	Fri Dec 08 07:45:32 In the latter case, better make sure it's EU staff manning the customs checks.
Seb Member	Fri Dec 08 07:51:32 It's quite nice that Junker shook TMs hand. I thought the normal thing was you had to hand over your sword and small arms.
murder Member	Fri Dec 08 09:27:14 I don't understand what the UK is doing. If you're going to capitulate, what is the point formalizing it with "negotiations"? You're a nuclear power. EU countries rely on you for their security. If they insist on being assholes, then give it right back. You're a free agent. Russia is right there more than happy to take on an ally that can help them advance their goals. Quit being a victim just because the EU demands it.
Paramount Member	Fri Dec 08 09:48:54 ”the free movement of people for as long as they enter the UK from Ireland to Northern Ireland and thereafter to anywhere they want to work and live).” Man, Ireland will get flooded with refugees and eastern europeans, among them thousands of leather gay men, who is looking to go to live and work in the UK. Rip.
Seb Member	Fri Dec 08 11:13:46 murder: 1. France has nukes that have the same capability as ours. 2. Barnier has explicitly said they don't want us on their security frameworks after brexit. So security isn't a strong card to play. In terms of why our position is weak, it is much like a person just about managing and with no savings vis-a-vis his boss. Sure, he can find a new job, but he's working flat out to feed his family and he can't afford the time to job hunt, and will starve in the six weeks it might take him to find a new one. Sure, we have a huge trade deficit in goods and services - but in practice because all our trade deals with the rest of the world are through the EU, the short term impact of leaving is a completely unmanagable clusterfuck. We literally don't have the infrastructure to handle the administration of imports and tarrifs - and on the export side that means that: 1. all UK goods would get taxes at WTO rates 2. nobody will accept our current tarrif schedules as they see it as a protective barrier being raised 3. even if agreed ftas (which take decades), until we have the infrastructure in place to track place of origin, because of the deeply integrated supply chains that are currently not tracked at all, nobody would accept our exports as we wouldnn't be able to prove it's a british product (say 50% of the components of the car are from Europe, that would be classed in the country we exported to as a European product, not a British one and would not be eligable for any reduced tarrif agreed between them and us). So basically, there's no way we can handle a cliff edge no deal brexit. None at all. And finally there is NI - if we have a hard border across NI then we start the troubles all over again and the polls suggest we probably lose Ireland as enough people that currently support union with the rest of the UK would prefer to maintain access to southern Ireland. And the alternative then is to have a customs border between NI and the mainland UK overseen by the ECJ - which is little different. None of this is new news. This is eaxactly what people said would be the outcome during the referrendum. Brexit is illogical. Worse, it is basically a surrender gussied up as victory. For 500 years English and British policy has been to prevent the emergence of a dominant power in Europe that would restrict access to their market. The way that battle gets fought these days is in the EU institutions. Brexit is a bunch of idiots throwing their hands up and trying to walk away. This is called surrender. This agreement is the logical consequence of that surrender. Finally, alignment with Russia: I agree - the natural consequence of a bad Brexit would be the eventual emergene of a revanchist movement in the UK that would see our closest shared interests being with Russia and Turkey to contain and open up the EU. However, this would cost the UK it's alliance with the US (unless the US and Russia allign). So it seems doubtful in the short term and fucking retarded in the long term: Which sane person would trade the UK's pre referrendum position as having full access to the largest and deeepest FTA encompassing the richest market in the world, and a deeply integrated security and diplomatic agreement with the worlds most technologically advaned and powerful miltiary and diplomatic power - in order to have a crap alliance of convenience with a basket case like Russia and a mid ranking regional power with a significant and growing drift to totalitarianism.
Seb Member	Fri Dec 08 11:15:39 The smart move here would be to cancel brexit. The reality is we will drift into becoming a defacto satelite of Europe because anything else is too damaging and painful; and confronting the electorate with that is too embarassing. It's like Suez all over again.
jergul large member	Fri Dec 08 14:03:47 "The smart move here would be to cancel brexit." "We will not leave if we cannot get a good deal for the UK" is an entirely valid response, though not a particularly good negotiating technique. Good faith negotiations followed by a evaluation on if the deal offered is actually good enough to leave. If it is, fine. If not, then simply say fuck it and stay.
jergul large member	Fri Dec 08 14:04:51 "Fuck it and stay" by way of a new referedum asking if the terms are good enough we should leave, do they suck and we should stay?
Seb Member	Fri Dec 08 14:06:59 Provided we can unilaterally revoke A50. Otherwise there's another negotiation to understand what staying means.
jergul large member	Sat Dec 09 05:54:07 You cannot unilaterally revoke A50. So yes, another negotiation to understand what staying means. ============= Voters can use the next general election to have their say on a final Brexit deal, Michael Gove has said. The environment secretary praised Theresa May's "tenacity and skill" in securing a last-minute deal to end phase one negotiations on Friday. But, writing in the Daily Telegraph, he said if British people "dislike the arrangement", they can change it. Reports suggest the cabinet will meet on 19 December to discuss its "end state" plans for Brexit. This is just two days before Parliament's two-week Christmas recess. Kuenssberg: Theresa May buys breathing space So, did 'soft Brexit' just win? Reality Check: What next for talks? Full text of EU-UK statement Brexit: All you need to know Mr Gove, one of the cabinet's leading Brexiteers, said the primary agreement between the two sides had "set the scene for phase two" negotiations - where issues such as trade will be discussed. But he said that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" at the end of the process. After a two-year transition period, the UK would be able to pass laws with "full freedom to diverge from EU law on the single market and customs union", he added. And the British people would "be in control" to make the government change direction if they were unhappy, he said. "By the time of the next election, EU law and any new treaty with the EU will cease to have primacy or direct effect in UK law," said Mr Gove. "If the British people dislike the arrangement that we have negotiated with the EU, the agreement will allow a future government to diverge." Media captionBrexit: What still needs to be worked out? The next general election is currently due to be held in 2022, three years after the UK leaves the EU. However, it could be sooner if the prime minister calls one, and MPs agree to it, or if the government collapses. The former Conservative leader, Iain Duncan Smith, said the next phase - the trade discussions - would be the "bruising but vital bit". 'Breakthrough' Friday's deal between Theresa May and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker agreed on three key aspects: No "hard border" between Northern Ireland and the Republic The rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU to live, work and study will be protected. The agreement includes reunification rights for relatives who do not live in the UK to join them in their host country in the future The so-called "divorce bill" will amount to between £35bn and £39bn, Downing Street sources say. This includes budget contributions during a two-year "transition" period after the UK leaves the EU in March 2019 Mr Juncker said it was a "breakthrough" and he was confident EU leaders would approve it at a European Council summit next week. Image copyright Reuters Image caption Theresa May and Jean-Claude Juncker agreed a deal early on Friday Talks can then move on to a transition deal to cover a period of up to two years after Brexit and the "framework for the future relationship" - preliminary discussions about a future trade deal. However, the EU says a deal can only be finalised once the UK has left the EU. A final withdrawal treaty and transition deal will have to be ratified by the EU nations and the UK Parliament, before the UK leaves. Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party, whose opposition on Monday led to talks breaking down, said there was still "more work to be done" on the border issue and how it votes on the final deal "will depend on its contents". Leave campaigner, Andrea Leadsom, leader of the Commons, said the deal was a "significant achievement" for Mrs May. "People on all sides of the argument are now seeing that she is determined and is succeeding in making a success of leaving the EU," she said. 'Easy bit' Iain Duncan Smith, another Leave campaigner, said it had been fascinating to see how the EU had reacted after failing to secure a deal in Brussels on Monday. "They realised they were staring down the eyes of a no-deal, and so they got into action for the first time for many months, and literally drove with the UK government the changes that were necessary to get this thing on track. "Why? The EU recognises that they really do need and want a free trade arrangement with the UK," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. But Sir Andrew Cahn, a former head of UK trade and investment, said that was "simply not true", and it was the UK who had blinked first by agreeing to pay more money and by fudging the Northern Ireland issue. He said the UK had done the "easy bit" and now the UK had to decide what sort of arrangement it wanted with the EU, which has not been done yet. Barry Gardiner, Labour's international trade secretary, said it was difficult to see the Northern Ireland agreement as anything other than a fudge, as the PM appears to have contradictory red lines. His party wants to see an agreement which harms neither the settlement, nor the economic situation, he added. Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable said Mr Gove wanted to deny the public the right to block a poor deal. By the time of a general election in 2022, the UK would not have the option of returning to the EU on the current terms, he said. "The only way to give people control is for a vote on the terms of the deal, with the option of an exit from Brexit," he added.
Seb Member	Sat Dec 09 07:51:58 jergul: That's far from clear actually - so I'm surprised you continue to express such certainty about it. Customary international law is that treaty withdrawl notifications can be withdrawn unilaterally. Lisbon treaty is silent on the matter. IIRC your arguments tend to cite the process for rejoining the union, however as the UK would not yet have left the union, it's clearly not a relevant clause. It would need an ECJ ruling to determine, but it's worth noting that all the treaties etc. of the European Union preface intent being about ever closer union etc. So it's quite possible that ECJ ruling on the matter could determine that unilateral revocation - provided it is constitutionally sound and the intent was consistent with the principles of enhancing union - would be permissible under Lisbon. I would suggest an act of Parliament instructing the government to revoke article 50, and an instruction to the Government that the no further notification under article 50 can be raised or a referendum held on the matter for 15 years without a further vote in both houses with a two thirds super majority of Parliament. Legally, I would say there is a good chance that this would satisfy the requirements of the law - though we may find that out soon enough as there is a crowd sourced legal challenge about to be launched to specifically seek an ECJ ruling on this. From a political perspective, this would also meet the conditions set out in the negotiation mandates agreed by the Council issued by Bariner. Combined with the alternative (disorderly hard brexit) I suspect it would be politically impossible for anyone to try and scupper a revocation or attach conditions to it. In terms of getting to such a position though, I would say the odds have probably increased a bit. We've basically boxed into becoming Europe's Canada - if we are in the SM and CU in all but name, then I think people will switch off for the next year. To change direction, Parliament needs: a. growing acceptance that this approach is stupid and not as good as membership b. full acceptance that there is no hard brexit alternative c. psychological willingness for people to change their mind d. a trigger point to reject the deal I think politically that would need another referendum for MPs to feel comfortable they won't be punished by the electorate, and I don't see how that happens now that the biggest threat - being out the SM and CU - appears to have receded. Nor do I see how we might have another GE - Labour seems that it wants the Tories to own brexit fully so don't want to interrupt the enemy in the process of making a mistake. Still, a year is a long time in politics. If Trump comes to bits, that might have some weird spillover effect on national psyche. Particularly as the connections between Russia and Brexit campaigners are beginning to show.
jergul large member	Sat Dec 09 08:28:11 Seb 49 is not unclear. "The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period" The notification referred to in paragraph 2 has been given. I do not see how any creative intepretation of the word "shall" can change the fundamental irreversibility. The UK generally qualifies for re-entry into the EU in any event. Though there would be a tax (I doubt British reservations would hold).
Seb Member	Sat Dec 09 11:46:04 jergul: The point about withdrawal of the notification is that the notification then is not given. There is similar language in other international treaties and examples of withdrawal of notice. Given that senior judges that have held positions in European courts have come to the conclusion that it's ambiguous, I'm not really sure why you are so certain - but I think we will have to agree to differ on this. The UK does not qualify for re-entry. We would need to adopt the Euro, which is a game changer. I would vote to leave under those circumstances (even a hard brexit). There is no circumstances in which I would accept the adoption of Germany's deflationary fiscal policies which is the price of entry.
Seb Member	Sat Dec 09 11:54:44 The purpose of that clause is to ensure the process comes to an end - not to make it a one way street - which is something that the ECJ would take into account.
pillz Member	Sat Dec 09 11:57:43 https://www.rt.com/news/412392-schulz-united-states-of-europe/ http://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idINKBN1E12D8 UK made the right choice. German ambitions are for a United States of Europe and always have been. This was brought up extensively during Brexit as the history of the EU was discussed.
Seb Member	Sat Dec 09 11:58:40 Plus, if you take that to be the case, then the councils mandate to barnier on revoking article 50 through agreement of the council would clearly be illegal. If 50(3) means what you say it means.
Seb Member	Sat Dec 09 13:25:06 Pillz: Shulz has no power to bring this about - however with the UK - the most powerful non-Euro member - it will be much harder for this to be blocked. Should Germany adopt this policy, what do you think they will do? Probably they would use European Parliament to spanner up brexit to ensure a catastrophe for the UK. Then use that to threaten and pressure other countries. With the UK out, they can get a QMV. Now none of that means they can alter the treaties to the degree necessary, but what they can do is put increasing pressure on the remaining smaller countries that do not want this. So, as I said - the field of battle for preventing an overwhelming, centralised power that would dominate Europea are in the meeting rooms of Brussels. And Britain quit. This is like saying "It's jolly good we retreated from Europe at Dunkirk, this Hitler fellow has annexed France. Imagine if we had stayed fighting them!"
Seb Member	Sat Dec 09 13:26:22 Should probably clarify that last post a bit more as in retrospect it look contradictory. 1. I don't think Germany will adopt Schulz vision. 2. If it did, it's not clear they could bring it out, but the consequences of them trying would be very bad for the UK, and we have no means to oppose it now.
Seb Member	Sat Dec 09 13:28:08 3. Had we stayed in, this would be a complete non-starter, as you wouldn't even be able to get a qualified majority, let alone unanimity needed.
Pillz Member	Sat Dec 09 13:40:09 I agree they'd try to throw a spanner into Brexit, but ultimately believe that if the UK stayed it'd be worse off, because the vision will eventually be realized. A lot of those British youth you wish were the only eligible voters last summer would support this, for example. Ultimately I think it will happen, but don't think it'd be bad for independent Britain. You've got lots of possibilities to trade with outside of the EU, if you're willing
jergul large member	Sat Dec 09 14:59:02 "The point about withdrawal of the notification is that the notification then is not given." I will agree to the point of "It would need an ECJ ruling to determine" Is it so certain that German fiscal policy would hold sway with the UK in the euro?
jergul large member	Sat Dec 09 15:06:08 Seb Stiff upper lip and all that. To paraphrase Putin: The UK leaving the EU is the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 21st century. I would pay the tax for re-entry.
murder Member	Sat Dec 09 15:18:52 "1. France has nukes that have the same capability as ours. 2. Barnier has explicitly said they don't want us on their security frameworks after brexit." Seb: No one will ever feel safe relying on the French. And unless that Barnier dude represents eastern Europe, what he wants isn't particularly relevant. Brexit is a fact. It is happening. The UK's strongest play is Russia. I don't care what Barnier says, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, don't want the UK outside of their security framework ... and they sure as hell don't want them on the opposite side.
jergul large member	Sat Dec 09 15:43:33 No one will ever feel safe relying on nukes murder. Its a deterrent of last resort.
jergul large member	Sat Dec 09 16:05:31 Ach, Barnier is speaking of Euro security frameworks. Nato is the blanket umbrella. This is relevant when, and only when, the EU decides to decouple its military capability from Nato (In US sense - A member, but only a fraction of its military capability is assigned to Nato tasks at any given time).
jergul large member	Sat Dec 09 16:07:49 This is never an issue for frontline states. Or should not be. Norway's defence challenge now relates to force projection capability at the expense of home defence. States bordering the USS...Russia (sorry) should never be put in a position to prioritize anything other than frontline defence. Stupid, so stupid.
Seb Member	Sat Dec 09 16:22:13 Jergul: Re fiscal policy, yes. Osborne and then Hammond have been able to mitigate their version of austerity by breaching Eurozones deficit limits and borrowing from a central Bank. So in the Euro, we'd have had Greece level austerity and deflation. Pillz: Why on earth is anyone going to undertake the regulatory alignments required to open their markets to our service providers? Any FTA on goods alone is pretty crap for the UK. But even if there was a structural shift in the UK economy and we became a goods exporter, the EU is the largest market in the world and on our doorstep. Trade patterns show distance matters. Basically, it's simply not true there are loads of markets available to us that are not available now. And in anycase, the EU has better access to them now than we are likely to negotiate within a decade. Cf. usa - price of an agreement would be reduction in food safety standards, deregulation of healthcare markets. Murder: Eastern Europe trusts France as much they trust us. Hell, the biggest motivator for brexit was immigration from those countries. The strongest play is Russia. But that's politically unimaginable for our politicians and institutions. Such a realignment would take decades. And would cost us our alliance with the US. Russia would see to that. Escaping a partnership with Europe to become a willing proxy for Putin is stupid. Jergul: No way Britain could threaten withdrawal from NATO as leverage for EU deal. IT would damage our relationship with the US.
Seb Member	Sat Dec 09 16:38:08 Plus pillz, if the EU did try to become fully federal, the UK would be able to organise a group of nations leaving collectively on much better terms than we are now. There's simply no way this "waaa Schulz" stuff makes the slightest bit of sense. Strategically speaking, we've voted to be not at the table but on the menu instead.
Pillz Member	Sat Dec 09 16:58:07 'we left too early, waaah'. EU will federalize, it's just a matter of when and under what circumstances. Nobody is getting out of it except maybe Hungry and Poland, either, because they're going to be the only ones whose citizens threaten war and revolution. UK wouldn't get out either. For fucks sake, you just barely made it now. Imagine with all the idiots praising the confederation of Europe as the second coming of Muhammad
Seb Member	Sat Dec 09 17:03:38 Pillz: No, we managed to get out when it made no sense to leave. So obviously we'd have left if it ever did.
jergul large member	Sat Dec 09 17:09:36 Seb Yah, I checked out monetary policy. Amazing how locked in austerity is. The only real solution is federalizing debt. I did not mean leaving Nato was an option, but rather that non-involvement in Euro security framework is irrelevant for as long as Nato exists as the predominant security arrangement for EU countries. Beriner's view does not matter. Pillz Sometimes federalization makes sense. I doubt that even in your wildest dreams that you would inflict on Canada the devolvement of power the EU currently has.
Seb Member	Sat Dec 09 18:05:50 Jergul: It clearly signals that the EU won't trade security for market access. The UK hasn't been below the deficit limit the eurozone put in place for most of the crisis (not sure we are now). What that means in practice is that we wouldn't even have been eligible for the ECB bond buying. Without access to lender of last resort, refinancing abs borrowing costs would go through the roof. So the govt would have been forced to go for austerity on steroids or much higher taxes. Given irrespective of tax policy, generally the UK had struggled ever to collect more than circa 35-40% GDP in taxes in practice, that points to much heavier austerity and thereby deflation. Generally, the UK weathered the recession well by many measures (growth and employment). To some extent productivity and hence GDP per person are a consequence of that. But the social and political cost of a decade of lost income growth is brexit. Can you imagine if the govt had been forced by Euro rules to impose actual steep cuts in expenditure rather than holding spending down in nominal terms? Country would have blown to bits.
Pillz Member	Sat Dec 09 18:49:18 "Sometimes federalization makes sense. I doubt that even in your wildest dreams that you would inflict on Canada the devolvement of power the EU currently has." Sure, but not in the case of Europe. And the EU is a horrible mistake, so no, I wouldn't. I'm a federalist in so much as I do believe Canada should remain united, although I wouldn't meet definitions of statist or federalist with regards to domestic considerations regarding governance. But Canada is not Europe, so..
jergul large member	Sun Dec 10 01:26:43 Seb I was acknowledging your point. Austerity is hardwired. UK exceptions to federalization are undoubtable bottom-up driven and closer alignment would have only ensured brexit (or ensured that a referendum would not have been called given the likelihood of the wrong result). I could not find compliance with debt:gdp limits to be a hard ECB rule. It is not exactly forthcoming with the debt that it owns. Generally though, damn those informal economies (including that of the UK - pamana paper stuff included). No representation without taxation!
jergul large member	Sun Dec 10 01:27:20 Pillz Ok, I get where you are coming from. We agree to disagree then?
Seb Member	Sun Dec 10 02:54:50 Jergul: Thought you were drawing a distinction between monetary and fiscal - my mistake. The Euro is and remains a terrible mistake. Big contributor to brexit too as austerity drives mass migration as a stabilisation mechanism. The eurozone exported deflation to the UK via skilled migration. Didn't generate unemployment but did hold down investment in productivity which is a contributor to wage stagnation. ECB has rules on who and who cannot participate in the QE prog that are related to the various factors. The combination of breach of that limit (which incurs a number of bad side effects) plus the downgrades due to lack of buyer of last resort would have been bad I think. UK had Greek levels of deficit (though with different context) - euro would have screwed us. Which also shows how unnecessary all the pain the piigs bore.
The Children Member	Sun Dec 10 03:05:43 we got a butter lady. thats progress son. from iron 2 butter in give or take 3 decades.
jergul large member	Sun Dec 10 03:16:05 Seb Skilled EU migration = Poland. It is fundamentally a bilateral problem framed by EU rules. A quick glance seems to indicate that the UK has a net population outflow to at least 8 EU countries. The Euro is probably a good idea. Particularly from a global reserve currency perspective. Global imbalances blah blah (The US exports enough of its inflation as is). Some of the reform demands are quite reasonable. Particularly those aimed at limiting the size of untaxed informal economies. PIGSUKs are characterized by untaxable income above all.
Seb Member	Sun Dec 10 12:49:36 Only Greece has a problem with untaxable income. Spain, and Ireland all had a problem with ability to refinance. All had good levels of debt and surpluses until they were forced to take on the debt of others. The UK had a fairly mild overspending issue, and the structural issue that prevents taking more than 40% in tax (remember the math of primary surplus, this is consistent with about 46% GDP actually being spent) is not about income but about being an open economy with lots of footloose industries. Ultimately if you try to tax prof service industries, they can move. The UK therefore has been fine running a 9% deficit as it softens austerity and took on huge amounts of bad bank debt. Because the markets recognise that's the best thing to be doing. The fact the UK has a Lenser of last resort eliminates any risk of volatility or liquidity in the deft market. Ireland and Spain didn't have that option, and taking 25% more than baseline tax out of the economy in tax isn't a viable option for any oecd country. So - austerity on stilts. I've left out Italy as I'm hazy on its details, but I recall it is closer to Italy and Spain. You are also wrong re Poland. Loads of Spanish, Hungarians, Romanians. Poland was pre crisis. Spanish migration after the crisis was huge.
jergul large member	Sun Dec 10 15:26:11 Seb The UK has huge problems with untaxable income. As does Portugal, Italy, Spain and Greece. The reasons vary from large informal economies, to extensive tax planning overseas, to lax tax rates in some or all sectors, to a combination of all factors. Some impact on gdp, others on government tax revenue. I checked the numbers on immigration by EU country. Its Poland.
Seb Member	Sun Dec 10 17:23:30 jergul: Low tax rates are not the same thing as "untaxable income" jergul.
Pillz Member	Sun Dec 10 21:53:12 Nobody was really paying taxes. And there was the rampant and out of control theft and fraud by government employees and elected officials.. But the problems in Greece are attributable to many factors and parties.
jergul large member	Sun Dec 10 22:00:12 Seb You just argued that they were: "about being an open economy with lots of footloose industries. Ultimately if you try to tax prof service industries, they can move" I will rephrase if you feel that low taxes are a choice governments make and not forced outcomes dictated by circumstance.
Pillz Member	Sun Dec 10 22:23:18 They shouldn't be able to move.
Seb Member	Mon Dec 11 05:11:18 Jergul: That's a novel definition of income, and the difficulty of taxing service co's is inherent to their business model, not a national feature. The UK's "problem" - as you put it - is that it's highly competitive for high value service companies, has good access to global markets and capital, and is open to foreign investment. If these are problems, well let's just say Brexit will fix all of that. No doubt tax receipts will soar as high productivity prof services are driven out and replaced by more local firms and the UK gets back into low skill manufacturing. Pillz: I thought the East Germans had demonstrated that doesn't really work as an economic policy. Also, given the prof services firms sell services to predominantly international markets, I'm not really sure that clamping down on movement is going to help.
jergul large member	Mon Dec 11 13:01:41 Seb Companies are not moving because of a looming tax burden threat. They are moving because they want unfettered access to the EU market. Tax exemption is not inherent to the business model. Otherwise all companies would relocate to Ireland and not also to France and Germany. Brexit seems to indicate above all that a beggar thy neighbour tax regime is not really sustainable. Or incurs business risks where companies risk losing sunk costs as they are forced to relocate (see the agreement on the UK not having to cover relocation costs for EU institutions that provide - services). So yah, untaxable income and untaxable corporate profits (as you are being pedantic) are the commonality PIGSUKs share. Tax receipts will soar in the common market for as long as you maintain a common market. This would be an expected effect of businesses moving to countries with higher tax loads.
jergul large member	Mon Dec 11 13:04:34 I though Somalia proves that having a poor tax base demonstrates it does not really work as an economic model. East German industry proved to be highly mobile. It was moved to the USSR in the late fourties.
Seb Member	Tue Dec 12 02:29:48 Jergul: Once they have moved, they will no longer be here to tax, and so the untaxable income problem will have been solved. :)
Seb Member	Tue Dec 12 02:35:36 Jergul: Of course it's intent to the business model - not all companies have the business model, but you will note that the UK has the majority of the relevant economic activity for the eu. It's not just tax of course (cluster effects, quality of life, time zone, language) but cost of doing business matters. I'm not sure covering the cost of two agencies has the slightest relevance at all to, say, Goldman moving to wherever. And indeed, isn't the whole point of putting up borders making it harder to sell services across jurisdictions - this limiting the ability for companies to locate away from their markets? It sounds to me given what we agree is likely to happen is that the rest of Europe has an untaxable income problem in that the service providers have chosen to locate away from where they deliver their services. In that light, aren't we actually doing quite well off of taxing companies that wouldn't otherwise be here?
Seb Member	Tue Dec 12 02:53:39 As for beggar thy neighbour - the corporate rate is higher than Ireland and not dissimilar to other countries. The other things that attract such companies to the UK are important effects. The point is because they are footloose, you can't tax then at whatever it is comrade Corbyn might want to. Taking 35-40% of gdp seems quite reasonable.
Seb Member	Tue Dec 12 02:55:24 We probably do have an untaxable income problem with cars, prosseco and agricultural problems. Yay for protectionism!
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: