By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
OUT WITH A DEAL EATING OUR CAKE AND LOVING IT suck it up remoaners
And like a typical anti democracy remoaner he decided the will of the people should be ignored the minute the democratic result was in total fecking hypocrite 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Despite it being voted in to law by the commons the spineless two faced remoaner MPs have totally abandoned any morals and decided to ignore the will of the British people.
It will be remembered and no election or referendum will ever be the same again in this country.
The one thing that will come is a massive surge in the popularity of UKIP or a similar party in the future who stand for the 52%.
Happy Days.
[Post edited 1 Jan 2021 14:13]
OUT AFLI SUCK IT UP REMOANER LOSERS
🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧
Why the Irish Taoiseach has a vested interest in keeping the UK locked into EU economic structures
The Irish Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, has played a strong hand in the Brexit negotiations, bringing in both the Good Friday Agreement and any possible border friction, real or imagined, to try to keep the UK locked into the EU’s economic structure throughout any transition period and then in perpetuity through a future UK/EU Free Trade Agreement.
So far the EU has backed him. The stakes for Ireland and the UK are very high: in a major paper published today by Global Britain and written by Ewen Stewart and myself entitled The Irish economic miracle — fact or fiction?, we show how Ireland benefits from exploiting bona fide arrangements in the international structure for corporate taxation and the freedoms of the EU, and by how much.
The losers are the UK, the other main EU Member States and the USA.
Ireland’s main economic indicators infer a miracle: annual GDP per head at US$78,800, second only to Luxembourg in the EU and some 40% higher than the Eurozone as a whole, and GDP growth of 39% since 2005, double the UK rate and three times the Eurozone average.
Ireland went through a €85bn financial bailout in 2010 but has rebounded dynamically compared to other bailout countries like Greece, Portugal and Cyprus.
Ireland’s economy is a two-speed one, composed of a sluggish onshore one, based on agriculture, manufacturing and a portion of services, and then the offshore one — handling huge financial flows that come into Ireland and go out again. This part has boomed, is the engine of GDP and employment growth, and is based on Ireland having created a tax-advantaged ‘flag of convenience’, whose benefits to its users go far further than the misunderstood low headline rate of Corporation Tax of 12.5%.
Ireland is increasingly using a series of structures for international companies to dog-leg revenues and profits through Ireland that relate to economic activities primarily in other EU Member States, but in non-EU countries as well. The structures are legal, but have the effect of shifting jobs and investments, revenues and profits into Ireland, leaving more menial activities to be carried out in the other countries, minimising their income and social taxes, and Corporation Tax takings. In other words, Ireland’s model works to the detriment of the UK’s and others’ exchequers, and this detriment is one of the significant hidden costs of UK membership of the EU, its Customs Union and Single Market.
So great is the scale of the operation that we estimate that €130bn or 40% of Irish GDP can be accounted for by ‘flag of convenience’ activity.
Once it becomes apparent how significant these distortions are, it is clear why Ireland needs the UK to be fully aligned to its economy. This does not serve UK interests, however.
Were the UK to diverge from EU rules and defend itself against these practices, there would be no advantage for the likes of Apple — which routes over €100bn of its annual revenues through Ireland — or Google and Dell to dog-leg their UK business through Ireland.
Very few of the sales are for goods, and indeed an even smaller proportion are for goods that need physically to move across the Ireland/Northern Ireland border. The overwhelming proportion of the sales are of services and of licence fees for usage of intellectual property. Ireland’s model deserves to be severely challenged, as it is an example of dog-legging business through Ireland for no other purpose than tax management. Global GDP is not increased or decreased by one cent, but the Irish government is getting a disproportionately large slice of the pie. That slice is being taken directly off the plates of other countries, with the UK in the front rank.
Raising the claim that that regulatory alignment is required to meet the terms of the Good Friday Agreement — and putting the issue of a ‘hard’ border on the island of Ireland so high up the negotiating agenda — are both convenient red herrings, obfuscating the scale and substance of the trade that Ireland is seeking to protect.
Ireland’s ‘flag of convenience’ model is challenged by any form of Brexit, particularly by a “No Deal” one and explains why its government has been so willing to work on the EU’s behalf to frustrate and deny Brexit in any meaningful sense. It’s called a vested interest and it’s high time we all recognised that.
A short primer for Philip Hammond on the benefits of free trade deals
The news concerning the negotiations is at present confusing. Different sides put out different leaks and we all remain none the wiser. However the EU is at least engaging seriously with the UK and for the present that has given a number of people hope that something can be agreed.
How strange, then, that at this very point, Philip Hammond chose to take aim at the effect of free trade deals on the UK economy and assert there was “a lack of substance in the free trade narrative”. In that, he drew on what many economists believe were flawed assumptions underlying the Treasury forecast, particularly when it comes to Free Trade. For there is a great deal of substance underlying the belief in the beneficial effects of Free Trade, too much of which has been ignored.
Looking back, it’s worth reminding ourselves of the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 when tariffs on imported grain were eliminated. This move led to decades of growth that persisted until after the turn of the century. Singapore unilaterally eliminated all tariffs and other trade barriers with the result that their GDP per capita grew from 72 percent that of the UK in 1992 when they agreed their first free trade deal with ASEAN to 155 per cent that of the UK today. The same story has been repeated by New Zealand and Australia. The Australian government recently commissioned an independent report that showed the enactment of liberal trade policies had boosted Australian GDP by a remarkable 5.4 per cent.
Furthermore, Free Trade modelling by economists independent of the government and other quasi-governmental bodies produce benefits from Free Trade Agreements significant greater than the astonishingly low 0.2% of GDP that Mr Hammond claimed. The well-known World Trade Model at Cardiff University — a model which has over the years achieved a great deal of success in its forecasting — predicts a long-term boost to the UK economy of 4 per cent of GDP. Even the Centre for Business Research at Cambridge University estimated a boost to UK GDP of up to 2 per cent.
It is, of course, all about the assumptions you make. That the Treasury model could be so far apart from these real world and independent modelling results rests on their key assumptions.
First, there was the strange assumption that the UK would stay aligned to the EU’s existing tariffs barriers. Then hidden deep within the 156-page Treasury forecasting report and technical annex of last November were three other assumptions that collectively reduced what otherwise would have been the output of the model by a staggering multiple of sixteen. They were that despite the UK’s long-standing liberal stance on trade, the UK would eliminate only half of the existing EU non-tariff barriers in negotiations with non-EU countries; on top of that, they assumed the UK would be able to achieve Free Trade deals amounting to up to only half of our non-EU trade; finally they assumed that undefined ‘implementation difficulties’ (subjective or what?) would result in a paltry quarter of any Free Trade deal ever being implemented.
Interestingly, this report didn’t even consider that achieving a Free Trade deal with the United States alone would be equivalent economically to achieving Free Trade deals with the entire world, something on which most Free Trade modellers agree. This is because the vast US economy could supply virtually every good that the UK currently imports. Moreover, the US market trades pretty much at world market prices that are lower than those in the EU market because of the EU’s enormous protectionism. The reality of this is that the US is a microcosm of the rest of the world, something not considered by the Treasury report.
Then there is the interesting question of immigration. The Treasury model assumes there will be zero immigration in future from EEA countries, a remarkably ‘helpful’ assumption because it allowed the authors to forecast a reduced population which in turn reduces GDP. Yet this is counter to announced government policy. Of course, the final induced hit to the UK’s GDP is that the report left out any savings from the UK no longer paying its annual contribution to the EU budget — £19 billion gross.
As we head, I hope, towards a Free Trade deal with the EU, it is worth reminding ourselves that Free Trade has brought huge benefits to the world in recent decades. Importantly it has reduced global child poverty by half and improved the living standards of the poor. How strange then that some Conservatives should seek to denigrate the positive effects of Free Trade for the UK post-Brexit, whilst saying they support it elsewhere. I have no doubt that the UK will benefit enormously from Free Trade. As a natural Free Trader and the fifth largest economy in the world and the fifth largest export destination, we will also re-inject a new dynamic into the global economy.
Perhaps the last word should be from Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman (no fan of Brexit, I hasten to add), who said about the Treasury forecasts: “I have worried in all this about motivated reasoning on the part of people who oppose Brexit…” Or as Boris Johnson would put it, the ‘doomsters and the gloomsters.’
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 13:24 - Oct 16 by Kerouac
A short primer for Philip Hammond on the benefits of free trade deals
The news concerning the negotiations is at present confusing. Different sides put out different leaks and we all remain none the wiser. However the EU is at least engaging seriously with the UK and for the present that has given a number of people hope that something can be agreed.
How strange, then, that at this very point, Philip Hammond chose to take aim at the effect of free trade deals on the UK economy and assert there was “a lack of substance in the free trade narrative”. In that, he drew on what many economists believe were flawed assumptions underlying the Treasury forecast, particularly when it comes to Free Trade. For there is a great deal of substance underlying the belief in the beneficial effects of Free Trade, too much of which has been ignored.
Looking back, it’s worth reminding ourselves of the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 when tariffs on imported grain were eliminated. This move led to decades of growth that persisted until after the turn of the century. Singapore unilaterally eliminated all tariffs and other trade barriers with the result that their GDP per capita grew from 72 percent that of the UK in 1992 when they agreed their first free trade deal with ASEAN to 155 per cent that of the UK today. The same story has been repeated by New Zealand and Australia. The Australian government recently commissioned an independent report that showed the enactment of liberal trade policies had boosted Australian GDP by a remarkable 5.4 per cent.
Furthermore, Free Trade modelling by economists independent of the government and other quasi-governmental bodies produce benefits from Free Trade Agreements significant greater than the astonishingly low 0.2% of GDP that Mr Hammond claimed. The well-known World Trade Model at Cardiff University — a model which has over the years achieved a great deal of success in its forecasting — predicts a long-term boost to the UK economy of 4 per cent of GDP. Even the Centre for Business Research at Cambridge University estimated a boost to UK GDP of up to 2 per cent.
It is, of course, all about the assumptions you make. That the Treasury model could be so far apart from these real world and independent modelling results rests on their key assumptions.
First, there was the strange assumption that the UK would stay aligned to the EU’s existing tariffs barriers. Then hidden deep within the 156-page Treasury forecasting report and technical annex of last November were three other assumptions that collectively reduced what otherwise would have been the output of the model by a staggering multiple of sixteen. They were that despite the UK’s long-standing liberal stance on trade, the UK would eliminate only half of the existing EU non-tariff barriers in negotiations with non-EU countries; on top of that, they assumed the UK would be able to achieve Free Trade deals amounting to up to only half of our non-EU trade; finally they assumed that undefined ‘implementation difficulties’ (subjective or what?) would result in a paltry quarter of any Free Trade deal ever being implemented.
Interestingly, this report didn’t even consider that achieving a Free Trade deal with the United States alone would be equivalent economically to achieving Free Trade deals with the entire world, something on which most Free Trade modellers agree. This is because the vast US economy could supply virtually every good that the UK currently imports. Moreover, the US market trades pretty much at world market prices that are lower than those in the EU market because of the EU’s enormous protectionism. The reality of this is that the US is a microcosm of the rest of the world, something not considered by the Treasury report.
Then there is the interesting question of immigration. The Treasury model assumes there will be zero immigration in future from EEA countries, a remarkably ‘helpful’ assumption because it allowed the authors to forecast a reduced population which in turn reduces GDP. Yet this is counter to announced government policy. Of course, the final induced hit to the UK’s GDP is that the report left out any savings from the UK no longer paying its annual contribution to the EU budget — £19 billion gross.
As we head, I hope, towards a Free Trade deal with the EU, it is worth reminding ourselves that Free Trade has brought huge benefits to the world in recent decades. Importantly it has reduced global child poverty by half and improved the living standards of the poor. How strange then that some Conservatives should seek to denigrate the positive effects of Free Trade for the UK post-Brexit, whilst saying they support it elsewhere. I have no doubt that the UK will benefit enormously from Free Trade. As a natural Free Trader and the fifth largest economy in the world and the fifth largest export destination, we will also re-inject a new dynamic into the global economy.
Perhaps the last word should be from Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman (no fan of Brexit, I hasten to add), who said about the Treasury forecasts: “I have worried in all this about motivated reasoning on the part of people who oppose Brexit…” Or as Boris Johnson would put it, the ‘doomsters and the gloomsters.’
Wont the new EU tax directives stop Ireland doing this?
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 13:15 - Oct 16 by Kerouac
Why the Irish Taoiseach has a vested interest in keeping the UK locked into EU economic structures
The Irish Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, has played a strong hand in the Brexit negotiations, bringing in both the Good Friday Agreement and any possible border friction, real or imagined, to try to keep the UK locked into the EU’s economic structure throughout any transition period and then in perpetuity through a future UK/EU Free Trade Agreement.
So far the EU has backed him. The stakes for Ireland and the UK are very high: in a major paper published today by Global Britain and written by Ewen Stewart and myself entitled The Irish economic miracle — fact or fiction?, we show how Ireland benefits from exploiting bona fide arrangements in the international structure for corporate taxation and the freedoms of the EU, and by how much.
The losers are the UK, the other main EU Member States and the USA.
Ireland’s main economic indicators infer a miracle: annual GDP per head at US$78,800, second only to Luxembourg in the EU and some 40% higher than the Eurozone as a whole, and GDP growth of 39% since 2005, double the UK rate and three times the Eurozone average.
Ireland went through a €85bn financial bailout in 2010 but has rebounded dynamically compared to other bailout countries like Greece, Portugal and Cyprus.
Ireland’s economy is a two-speed one, composed of a sluggish onshore one, based on agriculture, manufacturing and a portion of services, and then the offshore one — handling huge financial flows that come into Ireland and go out again. This part has boomed, is the engine of GDP and employment growth, and is based on Ireland having created a tax-advantaged ‘flag of convenience’, whose benefits to its users go far further than the misunderstood low headline rate of Corporation Tax of 12.5%.
Ireland is increasingly using a series of structures for international companies to dog-leg revenues and profits through Ireland that relate to economic activities primarily in other EU Member States, but in non-EU countries as well. The structures are legal, but have the effect of shifting jobs and investments, revenues and profits into Ireland, leaving more menial activities to be carried out in the other countries, minimising their income and social taxes, and Corporation Tax takings. In other words, Ireland’s model works to the detriment of the UK’s and others’ exchequers, and this detriment is one of the significant hidden costs of UK membership of the EU, its Customs Union and Single Market.
So great is the scale of the operation that we estimate that €130bn or 40% of Irish GDP can be accounted for by ‘flag of convenience’ activity.
Once it becomes apparent how significant these distortions are, it is clear why Ireland needs the UK to be fully aligned to its economy. This does not serve UK interests, however.
Were the UK to diverge from EU rules and defend itself against these practices, there would be no advantage for the likes of Apple — which routes over €100bn of its annual revenues through Ireland — or Google and Dell to dog-leg their UK business through Ireland.
Very few of the sales are for goods, and indeed an even smaller proportion are for goods that need physically to move across the Ireland/Northern Ireland border. The overwhelming proportion of the sales are of services and of licence fees for usage of intellectual property. Ireland’s model deserves to be severely challenged, as it is an example of dog-legging business through Ireland for no other purpose than tax management. Global GDP is not increased or decreased by one cent, but the Irish government is getting a disproportionately large slice of the pie. That slice is being taken directly off the plates of other countries, with the UK in the front rank.
Raising the claim that that regulatory alignment is required to meet the terms of the Good Friday Agreement — and putting the issue of a ‘hard’ border on the island of Ireland so high up the negotiating agenda — are both convenient red herrings, obfuscating the scale and substance of the trade that Ireland is seeking to protect.
Ireland’s ‘flag of convenience’ model is challenged by any form of Brexit, particularly by a “No Deal” one and explains why its government has been so willing to work on the EU’s behalf to frustrate and deny Brexit in any meaningful sense. It’s called a vested interest and it’s high time we all recognised that.
This article could be worthwhile if it says how much of British GDP is siphoned off through Ireland's low commercial tax policy. Then we could weigh up whether this is worth the financial hit that would come about from leaving.
It's quite a mystery to me that Ireland can have the low tax economy that Brexiters seem to crave, whilst being paid up members of the EU.
Amusingly, the author also sites his own "major paper" as the source of information this whole article is based on.
0
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 13:45 - Oct 16 with 1867 views
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 13:44 - Oct 16 by Batterseajack
This article could be worthwhile if it says how much of British GDP is siphoned off through Ireland's low commercial tax policy. Then we could weigh up whether this is worth the financial hit that would come about from leaving.
It's quite a mystery to me that Ireland can have the low tax economy that Brexiters seem to crave, whilst being paid up members of the EU.
Amusingly, the author also sites his own "major paper" as the source of information this whole article is based on.
Ireland won't have that low tax economy for long, post Brexit. EU not big fans so post Brexit, expect action.
Of course, UK won't be there to help them out, so...
0
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 13:50 - Oct 16 with 1865 views
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 13:24 - Oct 16 by Kerouac
A short primer for Philip Hammond on the benefits of free trade deals
The news concerning the negotiations is at present confusing. Different sides put out different leaks and we all remain none the wiser. However the EU is at least engaging seriously with the UK and for the present that has given a number of people hope that something can be agreed.
How strange, then, that at this very point, Philip Hammond chose to take aim at the effect of free trade deals on the UK economy and assert there was “a lack of substance in the free trade narrative”. In that, he drew on what many economists believe were flawed assumptions underlying the Treasury forecast, particularly when it comes to Free Trade. For there is a great deal of substance underlying the belief in the beneficial effects of Free Trade, too much of which has been ignored.
Looking back, it’s worth reminding ourselves of the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 when tariffs on imported grain were eliminated. This move led to decades of growth that persisted until after the turn of the century. Singapore unilaterally eliminated all tariffs and other trade barriers with the result that their GDP per capita grew from 72 percent that of the UK in 1992 when they agreed their first free trade deal with ASEAN to 155 per cent that of the UK today. The same story has been repeated by New Zealand and Australia. The Australian government recently commissioned an independent report that showed the enactment of liberal trade policies had boosted Australian GDP by a remarkable 5.4 per cent.
Furthermore, Free Trade modelling by economists independent of the government and other quasi-governmental bodies produce benefits from Free Trade Agreements significant greater than the astonishingly low 0.2% of GDP that Mr Hammond claimed. The well-known World Trade Model at Cardiff University — a model which has over the years achieved a great deal of success in its forecasting — predicts a long-term boost to the UK economy of 4 per cent of GDP. Even the Centre for Business Research at Cambridge University estimated a boost to UK GDP of up to 2 per cent.
It is, of course, all about the assumptions you make. That the Treasury model could be so far apart from these real world and independent modelling results rests on their key assumptions.
First, there was the strange assumption that the UK would stay aligned to the EU’s existing tariffs barriers. Then hidden deep within the 156-page Treasury forecasting report and technical annex of last November were three other assumptions that collectively reduced what otherwise would have been the output of the model by a staggering multiple of sixteen. They were that despite the UK’s long-standing liberal stance on trade, the UK would eliminate only half of the existing EU non-tariff barriers in negotiations with non-EU countries; on top of that, they assumed the UK would be able to achieve Free Trade deals amounting to up to only half of our non-EU trade; finally they assumed that undefined ‘implementation difficulties’ (subjective or what?) would result in a paltry quarter of any Free Trade deal ever being implemented.
Interestingly, this report didn’t even consider that achieving a Free Trade deal with the United States alone would be equivalent economically to achieving Free Trade deals with the entire world, something on which most Free Trade modellers agree. This is because the vast US economy could supply virtually every good that the UK currently imports. Moreover, the US market trades pretty much at world market prices that are lower than those in the EU market because of the EU’s enormous protectionism. The reality of this is that the US is a microcosm of the rest of the world, something not considered by the Treasury report.
Then there is the interesting question of immigration. The Treasury model assumes there will be zero immigration in future from EEA countries, a remarkably ‘helpful’ assumption because it allowed the authors to forecast a reduced population which in turn reduces GDP. Yet this is counter to announced government policy. Of course, the final induced hit to the UK’s GDP is that the report left out any savings from the UK no longer paying its annual contribution to the EU budget — £19 billion gross.
As we head, I hope, towards a Free Trade deal with the EU, it is worth reminding ourselves that Free Trade has brought huge benefits to the world in recent decades. Importantly it has reduced global child poverty by half and improved the living standards of the poor. How strange then that some Conservatives should seek to denigrate the positive effects of Free Trade for the UK post-Brexit, whilst saying they support it elsewhere. I have no doubt that the UK will benefit enormously from Free Trade. As a natural Free Trader and the fifth largest economy in the world and the fifth largest export destination, we will also re-inject a new dynamic into the global economy.
Perhaps the last word should be from Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman (no fan of Brexit, I hasten to add), who said about the Treasury forecasts: “I have worried in all this about motivated reasoning on the part of people who oppose Brexit…” Or as Boris Johnson would put it, the ‘doomsters and the gloomsters.’
" The well-known World Trade Model at Cardiff University" Patrick Minford by any chance? The economist who claimed the collapse of our home grown industries will be collateral were we to Brexit.
There's also nothing in that article outlining the complexity and loss of advantage from trying to negotiate trade deals around the globe from a starting point of zero trade deals.
0
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 13:58 - Oct 16 with 1855 views
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 13:50 - Oct 16 by Batterseajack
" The well-known World Trade Model at Cardiff University" Patrick Minford by any chance? The economist who claimed the collapse of our home grown industries will be collateral were we to Brexit.
There's also nothing in that article outlining the complexity and loss of advantage from trying to negotiate trade deals around the globe from a starting point of zero trade deals.
I believe Minford actually said the running down of auto, Steel and manufacturing industries is a,necessity.
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 13:50 - Oct 16 by Batterseajack
" The well-known World Trade Model at Cardiff University" Patrick Minford by any chance? The economist who claimed the collapse of our home grown industries will be collateral were we to Brexit.
There's also nothing in that article outlining the complexity and loss of advantage from trying to negotiate trade deals around the globe from a starting point of zero trade deals.
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 13:45 - Oct 16 by bluey_the_blue
Ireland won't have that low tax economy for long, post Brexit. EU not big fans so post Brexit, expect action.
Of course, UK won't be there to help them out, so...
Whats Brexit going ahead or not, got to do with the EU's position on Ireland's low tax economy? Why do we need to leave for the EU to put a halt to it?
[Post edited 16 Oct 2019 14:46]
0
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 14:47 - Oct 16 with 1804 views
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 14:45 - Oct 16 by Batterseajack
Whats Brexit going ahead or not, got to do with the EU's position on Ireland's low tax economy? Why do we need to leave for the EU to put a halt to it?
[Post edited 16 Oct 2019 14:46]
EU will put an end to Ireland's low tax economy.
Not that we've any real influence, but us going loses them a potential ally on the matter.
0
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 14:56 - Oct 16 with 1786 views
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 14:56 - Oct 16 by Batterseajack
So Ireland want us to stay, so that we help them in their quest to maintain a low tax economy allowing them to keep siphoning money from us.
Rrrrrright
Care to point out where I
1) Said Ireland want us to stay. 2) That we'd aid them in syphoning money.
Ireland's low tax economy has been a target of EU for a while now, plenty of other nations really pissed with Ireland. Their day of reckoning is coming.
There's nothing wrong with a low tax economy per se, those whining about say Singapore fail to look at their exemplary education system.
I've little doubt Brexit will allow us to lower taxes. People grumble, but figures show lower taxes lead to higher tax yield. If we stayed, then I suspect we'd be an ally on the issue but end of the day, EU can't allow Ireland to be successful by doing something EU doesn't want.
0
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 15:07 - Oct 16 with 1768 views
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 15:03 - Oct 16 by bluey_the_blue
Care to point out where I
1) Said Ireland want us to stay. 2) That we'd aid them in syphoning money.
Ireland's low tax economy has been a target of EU for a while now, plenty of other nations really pissed with Ireland. Their day of reckoning is coming.
There's nothing wrong with a low tax economy per se, those whining about say Singapore fail to look at their exemplary education system.
I've little doubt Brexit will allow us to lower taxes. People grumble, but figures show lower taxes lead to higher tax yield. If we stayed, then I suspect we'd be an ally on the issue but end of the day, EU can't allow Ireland to be successful by doing something EU doesn't want.
The article we're discussing is titled "Why the Irish Taoiseach has a vested interest in keeping the UK locked into EU economic structures" and It talks of nothing other than Ireland's low tax economy.
0
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 15:14 - Oct 16 with 1754 views
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 15:07 - Oct 16 by Batterseajack
The article we're discussing is titled "Why the Irish Taoiseach has a vested interest in keeping the UK locked into EU economic structures" and It talks of nothing other than Ireland's low tax economy.
I'm not referring to the article.
Article does nothing for me.
0
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 16:18 - Oct 16 with 1707 views
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 14:22 - Oct 16 by londonlisa2001
No we haven’t.
We have signed 15 continuity deals totalling c. 8% of our total trade. So pretty close to zero.
Can we please stop making stuff up.
That’s only true in relation to free trade deals. But you neglect to mention extensions to arrangements the UK has negotiated with countries where the EU doesn’t have ‘free trade’ deals to extend.
So, for example, the UK has also negotiated extension arrangements with US, Australia and NZ. Much bigger trading partners of ours, I’m sure you would agree. But because they are not free trade deals in the first place, they are excluded from the analysis you mention.
1
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 16:29 - Oct 16 with 1688 views
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 16:18 - Oct 16 by wobbly
That’s only true in relation to free trade deals. But you neglect to mention extensions to arrangements the UK has negotiated with countries where the EU doesn’t have ‘free trade’ deals to extend.
So, for example, the UK has also negotiated extension arrangements with US, Australia and NZ. Much bigger trading partners of ours, I’m sure you would agree. But because they are not free trade deals in the first place, they are excluded from the analysis you mention.
They are bigger partners, yes.
But we haven’t done anything of the sort.
We’ve agreed mutual recognition agreements with the three countries you mention, not trade deals. An MRA covers stuff like standards, labelling for food, medicine etc, conformity of products etc.
That’s why I neglected to mention them...
0
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 16:39 - Oct 16 with 1679 views
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 16:29 - Oct 16 by londonlisa2001
They are bigger partners, yes.
But we haven’t done anything of the sort.
We’ve agreed mutual recognition agreements with the three countries you mention, not trade deals. An MRA covers stuff like standards, labelling for food, medicine etc, conformity of products etc.
That’s why I neglected to mention them...
Yes, but I’m just pointing out your number of 8% is a bit disingenuous, as it could never be 100%.
It is a proportion of free trade deals extended as a proportion of our total trade, including those countries where we don’t currently have a free trade deal to extend. Like the USA, Australia and NZ. As the US is our single biggest trade partner by individual country, it’s a pretty big gap.
EDIT: I just decided to do a bit of googling to check my memory was right on this and it appears it is. This bbc article also suggests that the total trade covered by the existing EU free trade agreements is only 11% of our total trade. If that’s right, having 8% of that already rolled forward doesn’t sound so bad? I’m not sure if I’m reading that right though, I was surprised by the 11% figure being that low.
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 16:39 - Oct 16 by wobbly
Yes, but I’m just pointing out your number of 8% is a bit disingenuous, as it could never be 100%.
It is a proportion of free trade deals extended as a proportion of our total trade, including those countries where we don’t currently have a free trade deal to extend. Like the USA, Australia and NZ. As the US is our single biggest trade partner by individual country, it’s a pretty big gap.
EDIT: I just decided to do a bit of googling to check my memory was right on this and it appears it is. This bbc article also suggests that the total trade covered by the existing EU free trade agreements is only 11% of our total trade. If that’s right, having 8% of that already rolled forward doesn’t sound so bad? I’m not sure if I’m reading that right though, I was surprised by the 11% figure being that low.
No, you were pointing out we had made deals with other countries when we haven’t!
I have no idea whether deliberately or not, but you appear, in your figures of free trade deals, to be missing the one we currently have with the rest of the EU, which accounts for 45% or so of our total trade!
So we haven’t done ‘8% of the current 11%’, we’ve done 8% of the current 56%... That’s pretty dreadful.
The US trade deal will, of course, be of huge significance. But there are equally huge dangers with such a deal, given the inequality of negotiating positions. Particularly if we had a no deal Brexit, where the US Congress has stated that they will not agree a deal with us.
Even with a deal, the issue is access to the NHS for pharmaceutical companies which will result in higher drug prices here. It was a big stumbling block during the stalled negotiations on TTIP with the EU, which is a far bigger prize for the US, let alone if it’s just us. Trading with the US as part of a big block of countries protects us, particularly given the insanity of the current president and his trade wars. They impose tariffs, we impose them right back. If it’s just us, it becomes a problem.
0
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 19:23 - Oct 16 with 1538 views
In what may be the funniest political example of ‘hoist by their own petard’ in recent memory, it seems that a legal challenge is now being made as the deal currently being negotiated breaches an amendment to section 55 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. An amendment tabled by none other than Jacob Rees Mogg to make things more awkward for Theresa May’s hopes of passing a deal.
The amendment reads:
“1)It shall be unlawful for Her Majesty’s Government to enter into arrangements under which Northern Ireland forms part of a separate customs territory to Great Britain.
(2)For the purposes of this section “customs territory” shall have the same meaning as in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1947 as amended.”
And, hilariously, the GATT definition doesn’t worry too much about legal customs union, but economic customs union as it says ‘customs union is an agreement between two or more neighboring countries to remove trade barriers, reduce or abolish customs duty”. Which is exactly what Johnson has been negotiating.
Lol.
As an aside, it follows that if they have the numbers to pass a deal, they have the numbers to remove the JRM amendment, but not in time to avoid Johnson requiring an extension.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
