The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[Enda]

28 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I'm also in an industry that will be affected by it to a greater degree (because everyone is getting tarred with it ultimately but financial services will get a hammering) and will also get to see a lot of happening because I get to see a lot of business related info. It'll affect my job, perhaps badly, but I don't know. I'm waiting to see.

In the meantime it's banging the 'this is really **** stupid' drum and waiting for the pain to hit everyone.

UK universities (my industries) will be hit badly too. All six of America's 2016 Nobel Prize winners are/were immigrants there, several of them from the UK actually. Cambridge and Oxford and the LSE are not going to be able to attract the best in the world. The UK will lose out on brain power, on the free advice academics offer to government/the national debate, and on brilliant teachers inspiring the next generation. You'll be less innovative as a result.

[limpid]

7 hours ago, colhint said:

The population has risen about 8m in nearly 20 years.  So a basic calculation could be Brum has 1m and 42 hospitals, and the population has risen by 8 times this factor, so have we built another 300 plus hospitals and nearly 2000 more schools to cope with demand. Even   a 20% increase just to show they are trying. Not a chance.

What does that have to do with the EU? That's our government(s) failing to provide the infrastructure, not the EU.

Article 7 allows our government(s) to limit migrants from the EU to those who could prove they could support themselves (for a period). These would be paying taxes which competent governments would have reinvested in infrastructure. Serial governments didn't use this provision.

Leaving the EU won't fix this internal incompetence.

[peterms]

Some comments on the negotation process in this thread.

 

[snowychap]

 

[peterms]

7 hours ago, colhint said:

My only ever concern with immigration was the lack of infrastructure. 

I based it on this premise. Birmingham has about 45 hospitals of varying size, and over 400 schools. 

It also has a population of about 1m.

The population has risen about 8m in nearly 20 years.  So a basic calculation could be Brum has 1m and 42 hospitals, and the population has risen by 8 times this factor, so have we built another 300 plus hospitals and nearly 2000 more schools to cope with demand. Even   a 20% increase just to show they are trying. Not a chance.

Lack of infrastructure was a political choice.

It would make far more sense to determine the need for new infrastructure based on the comprehensive and robust population projections the stattos produce, build it, employ many thousands and spend many billions into the economy in the process, enjoy the consequent economic demand from all those people spending all that money, and at the same time enjoy the better service from more and better staffed facilities.

Instead, we are losing NHS and other key staff as we fall back into a trench warfare concept of economic development, cutting spending, losing skills, and choosing a downward spiral driven by economic illiteracy, and more than a soupcon of xenophobia.

Take back control, my arse.

If we want to take back control, we should tackle the tax dodgers, the landed gentry, the hedge funds, the PFI contracts, and all the other swindlers who do us down.

Do that first, and see what a difference that makes.

[colhint]

So both parties made the political choice not to invest in infrastructure to accommodate increased numbers over the last 20 years. And your solution is to continue the same path and hope they do?

I would suggest you vote for a party which will do this, but history makes me think neither of the 2 major parties would be the one for you.

And isn't the tax dodger the head of the EU

[limpid]

4 minutes ago, colhint said:

So both parties made the political choice not to invest in infrastructure to accommodate increased numbers over the last 20 years. And your solution is to continue the same path and hope they do?

I would suggest you vote for a party which will do this, but history makes me think neither of the 2 major parties would be the one for you.

And isn't the tax dodger the head of the EU

No idea who you are asking. What makes you think the same incompetents will be able to undertake the most complicated international treaty in history if they can't manage to relate "increasing population" to "needing more infrastructure"?.

Nice "whataboutism" in the last sentence. Perhaps we should stay in and use the weight of the EU to remove this tax dodging from trade agreements. We certainly won't be able to do anything about it when we are the ones desperate for trade deals. We'll probably need to become even more of a tax haven than we already are.

[colhint]

Interesting view, but more complicated than Westphalia, Paris, Vienna or Versailles? Really.

 

Perhaps we should use the weight of the EU to remove this tax dodging from trade agreements I mean they recognised that apple wasn't paying enough tax in 1980. So 37 years later (before we won the European cup) and they are still are nowhere near. 

Perhaps you may understand why I'm a little skeptical.

 

[LondonLax]

6 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

I’m also ‘crying’ about the way the result is now going to pan out.
On a personal level, it’s really disappointing that there appears to be such a shallow level of debate, even now. Our leaders deliberately quoting and re quoting lies, promising the terminally thick that there will be more money to spend. I find that political side of things truly depressing.
I’m sad that two of the best talents we have in our office, one from Spain and one from Bulgaria have decided to leave the country and work elsewhere. They don’t ‘know’ that staying here will be a problem, but they do know that moving elsewhere definitely won’t be, so they’ve done the sensible thing and got comparable jobs elsewhere. It took a long time to recruit that talent and right now I’m at a loss where I will find replacements that don’t think they deserve footballer wages just for turning up. I guess I can just tell the Clients they’ll be paying more and they can just put up their prices, the consumer will stick with them rather than switch to cheaper stuff and everything will be fine.
I’m sad that my nipper, currently in uni will now find it a little bit harder to work in Europe. The mirror of what has happened to our Spanish and Bulgarian colleagues. When CV’s arrive from EU and non-EU candidates for a job in Belgium or Germany or Greece who will have the advantage?
I’m sad that idiots will simply retort, get your nipper in to your UK job. It really isn’t that simple. It isn’t that restricted. A job isn’t a job isn’t a simple unit of work where one gets swapped out for another. Work specialisms that take years to acquire are leaving. We will not simply be putting our art graduates in to our project management roles. We will not be simply putting our designers to work as lab technicians. 
People have been sold a pup by liars they knew deep down were liars, but it fitted the lies they told themselves. That we’d be better off without foreign types and all this health and safety nonsense. That BMW will not risk losing a sale of a 3 series, so they’ll go behind the scenes and make sure we get a better deal than the USA, than Canada, than the rest of the EU. Delusional. 
This will take 10 years to fix, having just had 10 years of fixing everything due to the financial crisis. 
We’ve lost a lot of progress and the world will be meaner and harder and poorer for it.
Well done to the politicians and their egos. Well done to the media. Well done to those that wanted 1966 back. Well done to those that only think of Germany as ‘the war’. Well done to those that voted leave because of all the muslims in Rotherham. Absolute **** stars.
 

A top post and I agree with all of it, however I want to point out many of the people who voted Brexit (or Trump for that matter) do not live in our world. We work in skilled professions with a high degree of social mobility. People like ourselves have done failry well out of the status quo prior to Brexit, we also want our children to have that social mobility and be able to travel and live in multiple countries etc.

Many people who voted Brexit were not seeing any of that lifestyle and saw it as a widening gap post financial crisis. In their world they are competing for resources with new migrants from poorer parts of the EU who are willing to accept less because it is still better than what they had back home. What we see as a net benefit they see (rightly or wrongly) as a net drain on their life prospects.  

The seeds were sown 10 years ago and I think there is possibly some justification for the anger and frustration that has resulted in Brexit. The sad part is things are only going to get worse for the UK now as a result of this vote, not better.   

[Xann]

1 hour ago, colhint said:

... they recognised that apple wasn't paying enough tax in 1980.

Perhaps you may understand why I'm a little skeptical.

That'll be the year after the Tories, you know - the people you've handed the legislature to, tore a fat new arsehole in the UK tax system.

You can appreciate why we'd think you were misguided?

[colhint]

bugger all to do with the Tories, the EU knew that apple were selling from Ireland to the rest of the EU with little or no taxes for 37 years.

 

I am curious though, how you can think that any UK legislation could prompt the EU to think that apple didn't pay enough taxes  on sales between them and  26 other countries? Excluding us of course

[Xann]

So you're counting Europe's tax affairs as a point against them, but ignoring the tax affairs, and indeed incompetence, of Tory Team UK?

That equation isn't balanced.

You'll keep getting the wrong answer.

[limpid]

9 hours ago, colhint said:

Interesting view, but more complicated than Westphalia, Paris, Vienna or Versailles? Really.

I don't think an agreement like this has ever been terminated other than by unilateral action.

9 hours ago, colhint said:

Perhaps we should use the weight of the EU to remove this tax dodging from trade agreements I mean they recognised that apple wasn't paying enough tax in 1980. So 37 years later (before we won the European cup) and they are still are nowhere near. 

You are the one who mentioned taxation as part of a vague attack on a leader/country based on their tax position. Do you think that IF there is a desire to reform taxation (there doesn't appear to be) that it would be best achieved by a stronger bloc participating in trade negotiations? 

9 hours ago, colhint said:

Perhaps you may understand why I'm a little skeptical.

I don't even understand what it is that you are sceptical of.

[Chindie]

This mornings round up ..

Theresa May says were committed to European security. Despite hinting otherwise recently in what totally wasn't a threat.

Junker has said there's basically no chance we'll have a deal before the deadline. Nobody saw that coming.

The EU Parliament is going to suggest Northern Ireland stays in the single market, which will go down like a lead balloon.

I'm sure more good news will follow later.

[darrenm]

Here's the good news. Everything Brexit related has to go through the Lords because of Theresa May calling a 2 year parliamentary session.

The Lords have already shown they'll resist anything madcap Brexit related as, being unelected, they aren't subject to the same demands of populism as MPs.

They'll just keep on rejecting bill after bill

 

[snowychap]

33 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Here's the good news. Everything Brexit related has to go through the Lords because of Theresa May calling a 2 year parliamentary session.

The Lords have already shown they'll resist anything madcap Brexit related as, being unelected, they aren't subject to the same demands of populism as MPs.

They'll just keep on rejecting bill after bill

All bills have to go through the Lords.

The issue is about applying the Parliament Act to force something through if the Lords reject it and that, because the Government have decided to make this session of parliament a two year one, the Act doesn't look like it could be used (as it seems that the Act applies to a session not a year).

What it probably means (as per points 10 and 11 of DAG's thread) is:

It may well also lead to more constitutional upheaval with arguments about the Salisbury convention, headlines and government ministers invoking the 'will of the people', &c., and quite possibly a firming up of the Parliament Act in the near future (as they threatened to do after the Tax Credits revolt in the Lords). That, along with the provisions in the Withdrawal Bill (should they not be amendedd) and the decisions on Select Committees and the governments attitude to courts and House of Commons scrutiny, ought to have people really worrying.

[blandy]

On 9/29/2017 at 00:37, colhint said:

bugger all to do with the Tories, the EU knew that apple were selling from Ireland to the rest of the EU with little or no taxes for 37 years.

I am curious though, how you can think that any UK legislation could prompt the EU to think that apple didn't pay enough taxes  on sales between them and  26 other countries? Excluding us of course

I don't understand your point. The EU has ruled that the Irish Government gave Apple tax advantages which were illegal under EU law and which the Irish government should not have done, and the EU ordered that Apple pay 11billion taxes to the Irish gov't. 

So when the EU investigated and found out, the EU acted on the breach of regulations... But the EU is to blame for the Irish gov't breaching the rules?

I don't get the point at all.

 

 

[colhint]

35 minutes ago, blandy said:

I don't understand your point. The EU has ruled that the Irish Government gave Apple tax advantages which were illegal under EU law and which the Irish government should not have done, and the EU ordered that Apple pay 11billion taxes to the Irish gov't. 

So when the EU investigated and found out,m the EU acted on the breach of regulations, But the EU is to blame for the Irish gov't breaching the rules?

I don't get the point at all.

 

 

I was responding to a point made  yesterday, can't remember who, when they suggested the EU is the way to go to tackle tax avoidance. I used the Apple situation as an example. 

The EU knew about the situation 37 years ago. Have they got any money off Apple, no. Will they get some who knows, but it won't be before many lengthy appeals, likely to be a few years yet. 

Have there been any censures or fines against Ireland, no. Is Ireland happy with the current situation yes. Do they want Apple to pay the fine, well I guess not when they spent a ton of money defending apple before it went before the EU. 

So why would I believe that the EU is the best way to tackle tax avoidance when they have been sitting on this for nearly four decades.

[peterms]

 

[blandy]

2 hours ago, colhint said:

I was responding to a point made  yesterday, can't remember who, when they suggested the EU is the way to go to tackle tax avoidance. I used the Apple situation as an example. 

The EU knew about the situation 37 years ago. Have they got any money off Apple, no. Will they get some who knows, but it won't be before many lengthy appeals, likely to be a few years yet. 

Have there been any censures or fines against Ireland, no. Is Ireland happy with the current situation yes. Do they want Apple to pay the fine, well I guess not when they spent a ton of money defending apple before it went before the EU. 

So why would I believe that the EU is the best way to tackle tax avoidance when they have been sitting on this for nearly four decades.

Thanks for expanding.

The Irish government set up tax arrangements which apple found to be beneficial (as did Ireland, as it attracts companies). It allows apple (once they got big) to pay low rates of tax, as set up and permitted under Irish law. The Irish Gov't and Apple say compliance with Irish law was established. So any arrangements were set up by Ireland.

The EU has in recent years been looking at various arrangements in low tax states and assessing whether they comply with EU law. They deemed that the Irish Gov't one gave Apple (in this case) an unfair competitive advantage (because of the low rates) compared to other Co.s.

The alleged "crime" was by Ireland, the alleged beneficiary was Apple and the "police" was the EU. 

So they might have taken a while to catch the bad guy (and it's a repeated thing - other nations and Corporations have also been "caught") but the EU isn't the "Wrongdoer" - the EU is the (slow reacting, I accept) fire brigade, not the arsonist in all this. No EU and Ireland and Apple would be able to go on with the "avoidance".