Fintan O’Toole: Disgracing ourselves Either Apple had a special deal in Ireland, which is illegal, or it didn’t – in which case its scandalous arrangements were available to everyone. Either way, this is bad. But the Government admits nothing. It deliberately defied EU law and had to be ordered a second time to collect the money from Apple. As of last March, the State had paid €7.1 million to lawyers to fight for Ireland’s sovereign right to help the world’s richest corporation make stuff up and avoid taxes – presumably the final bill will be much higher. All of this while trying to persuade the world that, while we may have done bad stuff in the past, we are now going clean. Our message: we didn’t do it but we’re not doing it any more.
It is not too late to stop disgracing ourselves. The Government should instruct its lawyers to stand up, withdraw the appeal and apologise to our neighbours. It should make a clear commitment to bring corporate taxation out of the shadows and to banish the phantoms. And then it should begin an overdue national conversation about how we exorcise the ghosts that haunt our claims to be decent global citizens
Luxembourg and Ireland are the EU countries with highest GDP per head. They also have the most interesting tax arrangements. Quite why their neighbours put up with this remains to be explained.
How exactly do you propose to negotiate something you’re then going to campaign against?
If you're referring to the Labour position, I believe Corbyn has hinted he'll essentially play a Wilson role on the proposed deal.
The position of some of his colleagues such as Thornberry is ridiculous though.
The issue though, which you rightly point to though, is that it would encourage the EU to offer us a terrible deal* in order that we stay in the club.
* I think the negotiated WA is fine, it's been labelled a terrible deal for all sorts of political purposes by plenty though.
It's very possible to pick holes in any way forward from here, but time marches inexorably onward.
It’s hard to see past a revoke/no deal referendum from here. The politicians have failed, the public should be reconsulted.
I don’t see why the WA/PD can’t be put to a referendum.
In fact, I think it should.
I don't see why revoke/remain should be in a referendum; we already decided to leave in a referendum accepted as binding. The issue is how to leave.
Exactly.
The Remainers in parliament are making almost impossible to leave (voting down every deal/making no deal illegal) then pointing at the quagmire and saying ‘look how difficult it is, shall we just stay?’
Interesting that we had a couple of people recently posting that they were denied a good broadband deal with Virgin, then when they walked away, they were offered the best deal available.
On the contrary, it was very easy to leave with a compromise position. A soft Brexit would have only resulted in a small deceleration in the economy, would have protected the GFA, would have protected the rights of EU expats in the UK and British immigrants in the rest of the EU, and left the moderate remainers and leavers feeling like their positions had been fairly weighed.
Resistance grows in proportion to the unreasonableness of the authority, and the first thing the Tory government did was torch the middle ground and draw idiotic red lines that contradicted the stated aims of the government.
It blindingly obvious that there was a better way. It's obvious now, and it was obvious at the time.
So May was being unreasonable when she came back with a deal that Labour and the Lib Dems voted against?
Labour with their 6 impossible tests before breakfast would have voted down any deal whatsoever.
Shami Chakrabati confident of victory, Sumption lacks the gumption to be so sure and predicts a government victory.
Personally I want justice to win. Am I an extremist?
It’s a hard case to call. I’m very suspicious about anyone who is confident on either side. If pushed, I’d be less surprised by a government victory, I think.
Government should win, as the facts here are no more or less than a piece of low political chicanery when our political world (including the world of 'Remain; and 'Leave') is full of it on all sides, but the SC should give some guidance as to how prorogation should work in the modern world and as to the court's jurisdiction over the matter - which it should have as an essential safeguard against arbitrary power.
Older PBs might like also to contemplate the question: 'What would Lord Denning have decided?'
Fintan O’Toole: Disgracing ourselves Either Apple had a special deal in Ireland, which is illegal, or it didn’t – in which case its scandalous arrangements were available to everyone. Either way, this is bad. But the Government admits nothing. It deliberately defied EU law and had to be ordered a second time to collect the money from Apple. As of last March, the State had paid €7.1 million to lawyers to fight for Ireland’s sovereign right to help the world’s richest corporation make stuff up and avoid taxes – presumably the final bill will be much higher. All of this while trying to persuade the world that, while we may have done bad stuff in the past, we are now going clean. Our message: we didn’t do it but we’re not doing it any more.
It is not too late to stop disgracing ourselves. The Government should instruct its lawyers to stand up, withdraw the appeal and apologise to our neighbours. It should make a clear commitment to bring corporate taxation out of the shadows and to banish the phantoms. And then it should begin an overdue national conversation about how we exorcise the ghosts that haunt our claims to be decent global citizens
Luxembourg and Ireland are the EU countries with highest GDP per head. They also have the most interesting tax arrangements. Quite why their neighbours put up with this remains to be explained.
Their GDP figures are, of course, artificially and significantly inflated by the tax avoidance arrangements of various multinationals, but your point is nonetheless valid.
Shami Chakrabati confident of victory, Sumption lacks the gumption to be so sure and predicts a government victory.
Personally I want justice to win. Am I an extremist?
It’s a hard case to call. I’m very suspicious about anyone who is confident on either side. If pushed, I’d be less surprised by a government victory, I think.
My non-expert prediction:
1. I expect the court to rule unambiguously that the decision to prorogue parliament is in principle justiciable, since no executive power can be completely unfettered and it is easy to come up with examples where that power could be exercised in a completely egregious and unreasonable way (for example, proroguing parliament for two years, or in order to evade losing a VONC).
2. However, I expect the court to rule that the PM's discretion is very wide, and to set a very high bar for anyone seeking to challenge a prorogation. The mere fact that political considerations or party advantage have been factors in a PM's decision won't be sufficient, the prorogation would have to be clearly egregious and unreasonable.
3. As to whether this particular prorogation meets that test, I agree with you that it's hard to say but that the government will probably win it (very likely with a dissenting judgement). It seems to me that this is just on the borderline of being unreasonable.
4. I expect there will be some pretty scathing criticism of the government's approach to the case.
More than somewhat misleading by Mr Jukes. Horribly cherrypicked.
He has conflated "relocate from UK" with "set up operations outside UK". The actual number planning substantial relocation is 5%. Full relocation will be even smaller.
Fuller context supplied by Faisal Islam. And this is a survey amongst members of IOD.
There wil be relatively few complete relocations, but a lot of busnesses will set up operations inside the single market so they can carry on doing what they used to do from the UK. As an example, we are looking at running our events business out of an office in Amsterdam or Barcelona. Money we would have invested in the UK to run that business will now be spent in the Netherlands or Spain. That will mean we'll create fewer jobs in the UK and pay less Corporation Tax. It adds more paperwork to our operaiton, but is relatively painless, so is an easy option. On our own it will make no difference to anything. But if you add all the businesses together that will do the same or similar then you have an issue. And what does the UK gain to counter-balance this?
The same will happen with EU27 businesses that currently do not have a UK operation and want to keep supplying their goods and services to the UK market.
It’s hard to see past a revoke/no deal referendum from here. The politicians have failed, the public should be reconsulted.
I don’t see why the WA/PD can’t be put to a referendum.
In fact, I think it should.
I don't see why revoke/remain should be in a referendum; we already decided to leave in a referendum accepted as binding. The issue is how to leave.
Exactly.
The Remainers in parliament are making almost impossible to leave (voting down every deal/making no deal illegal) then pointing at the quagmire and saying ‘look how difficult it is, shall we just stay?’
Interesting that we had a couple of people recently posting that they were denied a good broadband deal with Virgin, then when they walked away, they were offered the best deal available.
The difficulty, to pursue that analogy, is that Brexiteers seem to consider a good deal to be continuing to receive their original broadband service, cease paying for it, cease obeying Virgin's terms and conditions and no longer permit other people to access the same cables.
Anyone managed to do that deal with Virgin?
I thought the people talking about their virgin deals were making that analogy, it wasn’t mine.
Although I do think ruling out no deal weakens our hand, and makes it easy for those who want to remain at all costs to effectively fix the deck as Deal vs remain in parliament. The honest thing to do is just vote for the deal.
No deal is a nonsense, as it self evidently hurts us more than EU27. They know this. They know we know this too. Hence it's not credible as a negotiating position.
To be fair, that depends how crazy they think Johnson and the others are.
You can't negotiate with crazies, though.
And politically, it suits the EU if the UK crashes out. SM integrity and political cooperation, plus a good example case of someone committing economic suicide, is more valuable in the end.
Negotiations are between people, and people are emotional as well as rational beings.
He managed extremely well for a decade. We can now see exactly how remarkable that achievement was.
He indulged the headbangers. We can see now how big a mistake that was
Quite. In the 1930s Chamberlains's refusal to acknowledge the need to challenge fascism led ultimately to the disaster of Munich. And in the past decade Cameron's refusal to acknowledge the need to challenge Euroscepticism in his party ultimately led to the disaster that is Brexit.
Good to see the Guardian editor personally apologised to david Cameron for the appalling editorial the newspaper ran. I wonder if the Sun will extend the same courtesy to Ben Stokes for the utterly shameful story it has published today about his family.
I can see the 'cricket family' taking much the same view of the Sun as the citizens of Liverpool.
It’s hard to see past a revoke/no deal referendum from here. The politicians have failed, the public should be reconsulted.
I don’t see why the WA/PD can’t be put to a referendum.
In fact, I think it should.
I don't see why revoke/remain should be in a referendum; we already decided to leave in a referendum accepted as binding. The issue is how to leave.
Exactly.
The Remainers in parliament are making almost impossible to leave (voting down every deal/making no deal illegal) then pointing at the quagmire and saying ‘look how difficult it is, shall we just stay?’
Interesting that we had a couple of people recently posting that they were denied a good broadband deal with Virgin, then when they walked away, they were offered the best deal available.
The difficulty, to pursue that analogy, is that Brexiteers seem to consider a good deal to be continuing to receive their original broadband service, cease paying for it, cease obeying Virgin's terms and conditions and no longer permit other people to access the same cables.
Anyone managed to do that deal with Virgin?
I thought the people talking about their virgin deals were making that analogy, it wasn’t mine.
Although I do think ruling out no deal weakens our hand, and makes it easy for those who want to remain at all costs to effectively fix the deck as Deal vs remain in parliament. The honest thing to do is just vote for the deal.
No deal is a nonsense, as it self evidently hurts us more than EU27. They know this. They know we know this too. Hence it's not credible as a negotiating position.
To be fair, that depends how crazy they think Johnson and the others are.
If no deal is nonsense, then it does ask the question, Why is the possibility of it written right into the heart of how Article 50 works, and why were we foolish enough to sign up to it?
Shami Chakrabati confident of victory, Sumption lacks the gumption to be so sure and predicts a government victory.
Chakrabati thinks she will win Though it rests on the edge of a pin Because Sumption lacks Gumption He makes the assumption that The law’s why we’re in the mess that we’re in
Shami Chakrabati confident of victory, Sumption lacks the gumption to be so sure and predicts a government victory.
Personally I want justice to win. Am I an extremist?
It’s a hard case to call. I’m very suspicious about anyone who is confident on either side. If pushed, I’d be less surprised by a government victory, I think.
Government should win, as the facts here are no more or less than a piece of low political chicanery when our political world (including the world of 'Remain; and 'Leave') is full of it on all sides, but the SC should give some guidance as to how prorogation should work in the modern world and as to the court's jurisdiction over the matter - which it should have as an essential safeguard against arbitrary power.
Older PBs might like also to contemplate the question: 'What would Lord Denning have decided?'
The government's entire case appears to be that the matter is not justiciable - the PM has declined even to provide a witness statement.
No doubt Denning would have reflected on his 1977 pronouncement... To every subject of this land, however powerful, I would use Thomas Fuller's words over three hundred years ago, ‘Be ye never so high, the law is above you.’
How exactly do you propose to negotiate something you’re then going to campaign against?
If you're referring to the Labour position, I believe Corbyn has hinted he'll essentially play a Wilson role on the proposed deal.
The position of some of his colleagues such as Thornberry is ridiculous though.
The issue though, which you rightly point to though, is that it would encourage the EU to offer us a terrible deal* in order that we stay in the club.
* I think the negotiated WA is fine, it's been labelled a terrible deal for all sorts of political purposes by plenty though.
It's very possible to pick holes in any way forward from here, but time marches inexorably onward.
It’s hard to see past a revoke/no deal referendum from here. The politicians have failed, the public should be reconsulted.
I don’t see why the WA/PD can’t be put to a referendum.
In fact, I think it should.
I don't see why revoke/remain should be in a referendum; we already decided to leave in a referendum accepted as binding. The issue is how to leave.
Interesting that we had a couple of people recently posting that they were denied a good broadband deal with Virgin, then when they walked away, they were offered the best deal available.
On the contrary, it was very easy to leave with a compromise position. A soft Brexit would have only resulted in a small deceleration in the economy, would have protected the GFA, would have protected the rights of EU expats in the UK and British immigrants in the rest of the EU, and left the moderate remainers and leavers feeling like their positions had been fairly weighed.
Resistance grows in proportion to the unreasonableness of the authority, and the first thing the Tory government did was torch the middle ground and draw idiotic red lines that contradicted the stated aims of the government.
It blindingly obvious that there was a better way. It's obvious now, and it was obvious at the time.
So May was being unreasonable when she came back with a deal that Labour and the Lib Dems voted against?
Surely May's problems stemmed from the fact that she considered any discussion of the consequence of the Referendum vote to be a Conservative party matter and nothing to do with any other party.
Shami Chakrabati confident of victory, Sumption lacks the gumption to be so sure and predicts a government victory.
Personally I want justice to win. Am I an extremist?
It’s a hard case to call. I’m very suspicious about anyone who is confident on either side. If pushed, I’d be less surprised by a government victory, I think.
My non-expert prediction:
1. I expect the court to rule unambiguously that the decision to prorogue parliament is in principle justiciable, since no executive power can be completely unfettered and it is easy to come up with examples where that power could be exercised in a completely egregious and unreasonable way (for example, proroguing parliament for two years, or in order to evade losing a VONC).
2. However, I expect the court to rule that the PM's discretion is very wide, and to set a very high bar for anyone seeking to challenge a prorogation. The mere fact that political considerations or party advantage have been factors in a PM's decision won't be sufficient, the prorogation would have to be clearly egregious and unreasonable.
3. As to whether this particular prorogation meets that test, I agree with you that it's hard to say but that the government will probably win it (very likely with a dissenting judgement). It seems to me that this is just on the borderline of being unreasonable.
4. I expect there will be some pretty scathing criticism of the government's approach to the case.
There might be some mechanism suggested for controlling the length of a prorogation, or a requirement for parliament to meet x times per x during any prorogation
Ruth Davison just interviewed by Lorraine on GMTV, saying even though she campaigned for Remain, if you tell the public this problem is too big for politicians, and it’s their choice, you have to implement their decision, like it or not.
Amazing it needs to be said.
The public can’t even agree on what type of ‘leave’ they want.
Ruth Davidson can't even agree with herself on what type of 'leave' she wants.
Shami Chakrabati confident of victory, Sumption lacks the gumption to be so sure and predicts a government victory.
Chakrabati thinks she will win Though it rests on the edge of a pin Because Sumption lacks Gumption He makes the assumption that The law’s why we’re in the mess that we’re in
Excellent, Roger. Though surely it would be the point of a pin ?
More than somewhat misleading by Mr Jukes. Horribly cherrypicked.
He has conflated "relocate from UK" with "set up operations outside UK". The actual number planning substantial relocation is 5%. Full relocation will be even smaller.
Fuller context supplied by Faisal Islam. And this is a survey amongst members of IOD.
There wil be relatively few complete relocations, but a lot of busnesses will set up operations inside the single market so they can carry on doing what they used to do from the UK. As an example, we are looking at running our events business out of an office in Amsterdam or Barcelona. Money we would have invested in the UK to run that business will now be spent in the Netherlands or Spain. That will mean we'll create fewer jobs in the UK and pay less Corporation Tax. It adds more paperwork to our operaiton, but is relatively painless, so is an easy option. On our own it will make no difference to anything. But if you add all the businesses together that will do the same or similar then you have an issue. And what does the UK gain to counter-balance this?
The same will happen with EU27 businesses that currently do not have a UK operation and want to keep supplying their goods and services to the UK market.
The big difference is that the single market is home to 400 million people, while the UK is home to 65 million. There is less justification for setting up here to keep operating in the same way as now.
Fintan O’Toole: Disgracing ourselves Either Apple had a special deal in Ireland, which is illegal, or it didn’t – in which case its scandalous arrangements were available to everyone. Either way, this is bad. But the Government admits nothing. It deliberately defied EU law and had to be ordered a second time to collect the money from Apple. As of last March, the State had paid €7.1 million to lawyers to fight for Ireland’s sovereign right to help the world’s richest corporation make stuff up and avoid taxes – presumably the final bill will be much higher. All of this while trying to persuade the world that, while we may have done bad stuff in the past, we are now going clean. Our message: we didn’t do it but we’re not doing it any more.
It is not too late to stop disgracing ourselves. The Government should instruct its lawyers to stand up, withdraw the appeal and apologise to our neighbours. It should make a clear commitment to bring corporate taxation out of the shadows and to banish the phantoms. And then it should begin an overdue national conversation about how we exorcise the ghosts that haunt our claims to be decent global citizens
Luxembourg and Ireland are the EU countries with highest GDP per head. They also have the most interesting tax arrangements. Quite why their neighbours put up with this remains to be explained.
After the Troika had a good look at the Irish tax base as part of the bailout things have started to change. The stateless companies was cancelled as well as the double Irish tax arrangement as well. Also work on vat allocations.
The issue with Luxembourg is that an equivalent to the troika has not had the freedom to have a very close look at what has been going on including the government documents.
There's every chance of a surge in nationalism and bitterness towards the EU. That would not be a good thing.
The domestic and international political scene could yet become far more poisonous.
Within the UK, or in the wider EU? The sense I get is that the UK's self-immolation has led to some sober reflection in the EU27, and a reaffirmation of what they've got vs what they could lose.
There might be some mechanism suggested for controlling the length of a prorogation, or a requirement for parliament to meet x times per x during any prorogation
IANAL but I'd be surprised if they created micromanaging principles like that - the obvious requirement here is for the PM's actions not to be obviously fraudulent.
More than somewhat misleading by Mr Jukes. Horribly cherrypicked.
He has conflated "relocate from UK" with "set up operations outside UK". The actual number planning substantial relocation is 5%. Full relocation will be even smaller.
Fuller context supplied by Faisal Islam. And this is a survey amongst members of IOD.
There wil be relatively few complete relocations, but a lot of busnesses will set up operations inside the single market so they can carry on doing what they used to do from the UK. As an example, we are looking at running our events business out of an office in Amsterdam or Barcelona. Money we would have invested in the UK to run that business will now be spent in the Netherlands or Spain. That will mean we'll create fewer jobs in the UK and pay less Corporation Tax. It adds more paperwork to our operaiton, but is relatively painless, so is an easy option. On our own it will make no difference to anything. But if you add all the businesses together that will do the same or similar then you have an issue. And what does the UK gain to counter-balance this?
The same will happen with EU27 businesses that currently do not have a UK operation and want to keep supplying their goods and services to the UK market.
The big difference is that the single market is home to 400 million people, while the UK is home to 65 million. There is less justification for setting up here to keep operating in the same way as now.
Then those EU companies that chose not to do it will potentially lose their sales here to local companies.
Lady Hales intervention is bad news for the government because it suggests some thought might be given to issues other than motive .
Although it's not particularly damaging to the government if motive is not criticized, just 'effect'. Suggests to me a way of ruling without accusation of politicisation
I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint press conference with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.
Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.
Johnson
Defending
I’m not
I have some sympathy with the idea that Cameron could never have stayed on, the leavers would have howled him down at every turn.
One thing is undeniable though, from Cameron through May to Bozo the Clown the Conservative Party owns this mess lock, stock and barrel
Being a PM is a tough job, that’s what we were paying him for ( re howling from leavers) . The leavers all voted against Mays agreement with the EU, I’d say Cameron could have sold it better to remain inclined politicians and got it through... if only he had the sense of duty
Agreed, except Cameron's 'Leave' may have been softer than May's. He would have been more skillful if calling an election and better at handling his MPs if not. We would probably be out by now or have had a second referendum and stayed.
Yes, but that's all small potatoes. The fundamental problem for decades was the Europhobic wing of the Conservative Party. It was never properly addressed and ended up infecting us all.
This is an age-old europhile trope though, still being trotted out today, which is in the dog-ate-my-homework category of excuses.
The splits in the Conservative party reflect the split in the country. It arose due to the federalist direction the EU took after the late 80s and the fact that, amongst the electorate as a whole, there was disquiet about it amongst a vocal minority who had no obvious parliamentary representation.
It’s the symptom not the cause. If it hadn’t been the eurosceptic wing of the Conservative party, another political outlet would have been found.
Europe didn't figure as a major issue in the voting public before 2014. It was largely a niche (conservative) talking point. The reasons for the explosion of interest can be debated, but it doesn't coincide with the "late 80s", Maastricht, the eastern European enlargement, or the Lisbon Treaty.
He managed extremely well for a decade. We can now see exactly how remarkable that achievement was.
He indulged the headbangers. We can see now how big a mistake that was
Quite. In the 1930s Chamberlains's refusal to acknowledge the need to challenge fascism led ultimately to the disaster of Munich. And in the past decade Cameron's refusal to acknowledge the need to challenge Euroscepticism in his party ultimately led to the disaster that is Brexit.
Shami Chakrabati confident of victory, Sumption lacks the gumption to be so sure and predicts a government victory.
Personally I want justice to win. Am I an extremist?
It’s a hard case to call. I’m very suspicious about anyone who is confident on either side. If pushed, I’d be less surprised by a government victory, I think.
Government should win, as the facts here are no more or less than a piece of low political chicanery when our political world (including the world of 'Remain; and 'Leave') is full of it on all sides, but the SC should give some guidance as to how prorogation should work in the modern world and as to the court's jurisdiction over the matter - which it should have as an essential safeguard against arbitrary power.
Older PBs might like also to contemplate the question: 'What would Lord Denning have decided?'
The government's entire case appears to be that the matter is not justiciable - the PM has declined even to provide a witness statement.
No doubt Denning would have reflected on his 1977 pronouncement... To every subject of this land, however powerful, I would use Thomas Fuller's words over three hundred years ago, ‘Be ye never so high, the law is above you.’
The PM not providing a witness statement, says a lot.
Shami Chakrabati confident of victory, Sumption lacks the gumption to be so sure and predicts a government victory.
Personally I want justice to win. Am I an extremist?
It’s a hard case to call. I’m very suspicious about anyone who is confident on either side. If pushed, I’d be less surprised by a government victory, I think.
My non-expert prediction:
1. I expect the court to rule unambiguously that the decision to prorogue parliament is in principle justiciable, since no executive power can be completely unfettered and it is easy to come up with examples where that power could be exercised in a completely egregious and unreasonable way (for example, proroguing parliament for two years, or in order to evade losing a VONC).
2. However, I expect the court to rule that the PM's discretion is very wide, and to set a very high bar for anyone seeking to challenge a prorogation. The mere fact that political considerations or party advantage have been factors in a PM's decision won't be sufficient, the prorogation would have to be clearly egregious and unreasonable.
3. As to whether this particular prorogation meets that test, I agree with you that it's hard to say but that the government will probably win it (very likely with a dissenting judgement). It seems to me that this is just on the borderline of being unreasonable.
4. I expect there will be some pretty scathing criticism of the government's approach to the case.
Forced to guess, I'd agree almost entirely with that - but if they do follow this reasoning, have no idea which way they'll tip on 3. On the above basis, they ought, I think, to uphold the Scottish judgment, but the essential conservatism of the judiciary might go against that.
I think the fact that the government has essentially refused to make a case on motive for prorogation, despite the rather damning evidence of their own words against them on the matter, ought not to impress the court.
Fintan O’Toole: Disgracing ourselves Either Apple had a special deal in Ireland, which is illegal, or it didn’t – in which case its scandalous arrangements were available to everyone. Either way, this is bad. But the Government admits nothing. It deliberately defied EU law and had to be ordered a second time to collect the money from Apple. As of last March, the State had paid €7.1 million to lawyers to fight for Ireland’s sovereign right to help the world’s richest corporation make stuff up and avoid taxes – presumably the final bill will be much higher. All of this while trying to persuade the world that, while we may have done bad stuff in the past, we are now going clean. Our message: we didn’t do it but we’re not doing it any more.
It is not too late to stop disgracing ourselves. The Government should instruct its lawyers to stand up, withdraw the appeal and apologise to our neighbours. It should make a clear commitment to bring corporate taxation out of the shadows and to banish the phantoms. And then it should begin an overdue national conversation about how we exorcise the ghosts that haunt our claims to be decent global citizens
Luxembourg and Ireland are the EU countries with highest GDP per head. They also have the most interesting tax arrangements. Quite why their neighbours put up with this remains to be explained.
After the Troika had a good look at the Irish tax base as part of the bailout things have started to change. The stateless companies was cancelled as well as the double Irish tax arrangement as well. Also work on vat allocations.
The issue with Luxembourg is that an equivalent to the troika has not had the freedom to have a very close look at what has been going on including the government documents.
well if we end up staying in, any UK PM worth his salt will gut them both.
More than somewhat misleading by Mr Jukes. Horribly cherrypicked.
He has conflated "relocate from UK" with "set up operations outside UK". The actual number planning substantial relocation is 5%. Full relocation will be even smaller.
Fuller context supplied by Faisal Islam. And this is a survey amongst members of IOD.
There wil be relatively few complete relocations, but a lot of busnesses will set up operations inside the single market so they can carry on doing what they used to do from the UK. As an example, we are looking at running our events business out of an office in Amsterdam or Barcelona. Money we would have invested in the UK to run that business will now be spent in the Netherlands or Spain. That will mean we'll create fewer jobs in the UK and pay less Corporation Tax. It adds more paperwork to our operaiton, but is relatively painless, so is an easy option. On our own it will make no difference to anything. But if you add all the businesses together that will do the same or similar then you have an issue. And what does the UK gain to counter-balance this?
The same will happen with EU27 businesses that currently do not have a UK operation and want to keep supplying their goods and services to the UK market.
The big difference is that the single market is home to 400 million people, while the UK is home to 65 million. There is less justification for setting up here to keep operating in the same way as now.
Then those EU companies that chose not to do it will potentially lose their sales here to local companies.
Yep, that is the judgement they have to make. The UK runs a services surplus with the EU, though, so it is a much more of a live issue for our businesses.
Whilst I have not heard every word that Pannick has been saying, there has been very little talk of the law, precedent or anything else that I would recognise as legal argument and a huge amount of supposition based on inferences being drawn from interviews and appeals based on not liking what someone else is doing.
That is not what I would expect from a leading barrister at the top of his career.
Lady Hales intervention is bad news for the government because it suggests some thought might be given to issues other than motive .
Although it's not particularly damaging to the government if motive is not criticized, just 'effect'. Suggests to me a way of ruling without accusation of politicisation
Good point but if the judges find it unlawful the general public won’t be looking at the minutae of the judgement .
The Remainers in parliament are making almost impossible to leave (voting down every deal/making no deal illegal) then pointing at the quagmire and saying ‘look how difficult it is, shall we just stay?’
Interesting that we had a couple of people recently posting that they were denied a good broadband deal with Virgin, then when they walked away, they were offered the best deal available.
On the contrary, it was very easy to leave with a compromise position. A soft Brexit would have only resulted in a small deceleration in the economy, would have protected the GFA, would have protected the rights of EU expats in the UK and British immigrants in the rest of the EU, and left the moderate remainers and leavers feeling like their positions had been fairly weighed.
Resistance grows in proportion to the unreasonableness of the authority, and the first thing the Tory government did was torch the middle ground and draw idiotic red lines that contradicted the stated aims of the government.
It blindingly obvious that there was a better way. It's obvious now, and it was obvious at the time.
I think Leavers have two choices. If they want remainers to respect the result and for that result to not be challenged, they need to accommodate the views and opinions of them in implementing the result. Alternatively, if they don't want to and instead wish to pursue an extreme version of Brexit, they can't demand remainers go along with it. It seems what the likes of Brendan O'Neill and his cronies at Spiked wanted was remainers to essentially be a bunch of cucks, go along with an extreme version of Brexit, and should repent for forgiveness for ever having voted remain.
Remain voting MPs were elected on a promise to enact the referendum result, then voted against our PMs agreement with the EU. This is the biggest outrage of the whole shebang.
May's Deal failed because the ERG, DUP, and Labour MPs who argued the referendum result should be respected (Flint, Snell, Kinnock etc..) didn't vote for it because of partisan reasons. Had all these groups voted for it, May's Deal would have got through, regardless of what the likes of David Lammy and co did. Though to be quite frank, anyone who voted for Lammy in 2017 really shouldn't be surprised by his subsequent behaviour in the Commons. Vote for someone who refused to vote for Article 50; get someone who refuses to enact Brexit.
Fintan O’Toole: Disgracing ourselves Either Apple had a special deal in Ireland, which is illegal, or it didn’t – in which case its scandalous arrangements were available to everyone. Either way, this is bad. But the Government admits nothing. It deliberately defied EU law and had to be ordered a second time to collect the money from Apple. As of last March, the State had paid €7.1 million to lawyers to fight for Ireland’s sovereign right to help the world’s richest corporation make stuff up and avoid taxes – presumably the final bill will be much higher. All of this while trying to persuade the world that, while we may have done bad stuff in the past, we are now going clean. Our message: we didn’t do it but we’re not doing it any more.
It is not too late to stop disgracing ourselves. The Government should instruct its lawyers to stand up, withdraw the appeal and apologise to our neighbours. It should make a clear commitment to bring corporate taxation out of the shadows and to banish the phantoms. And then it should begin an overdue national conversation about how we exorcise the ghosts that haunt our claims to be decent global citizens
Luxembourg and Ireland are the EU countries with highest GDP per head. They also have the most interesting tax arrangements. Quite why their neighbours put up with this remains to be explained.
After the Troika had a good look at the Irish tax base as part of the bailout things have started to change. The stateless companies was cancelled as well as the double Irish tax arrangement as well. Also work on vat allocations.
The issue with Luxembourg is that an equivalent to the troika has not had the freedom to have a very close look at what has been going on including the government documents.
well if we end up staying in, any UK PM worth his salt will gut them both.
That is something which might achieve a welcome consensus.
UKIP campaigned for a referendum. They made it clear that their votes would go to whomever promised one. They comprised 4m/12% of the electorate and had until that point been effectively disenfranchised. David Cameron promised a referendum in order to attract those votes and form the next government.
Pressure group exerts pressure on political party for political ends.
It's precisely how democracy is supposed to work.
As we have seen, a referendum is not an end in itself.
UKIP should have been challenged to campaign for what they wanted - leaving the EU - rather than on having a vote about it.
Had they got more than one seat for 12% of the vote, we would have heard what they had to say loud and clear. It suited people who didn’t want to hear what they had to say to ignore that injustice.
You won't find me choosing an electoral system to exclude smaller parties.
If it's easier for smaller parties to be represented then the views they represent will be aired in Commons debate.
It’s hard to see past a revoke/no deal referendum from here. The politicians have failed, the public should be reconsulted.
I don’t see why the WA/PD can’t be put to a referendum.
In fact, I think it should.
I don't see why revoke/remain should be in a referendum; we already decided to leave in a referendum accepted as binding. The issue is how to leave.
Exactly.
The Remainers in parliament are making almost impossible to leave (voting down every deal/making no deal illegal) then pointing at the quagmire and saying ‘look how difficult it is, shall we just stay?’
Interesting that we had a couple of people recently posting that they were denied a good broadband deal with Virgin, then when they walked away, they were offered the best deal available.
The difficulty, to pursue that analogy, is that Brexiteers seem to consider a good deal to be continuing to receive their original broadband service, cease paying for it, cease obeying Virgin's terms and conditions and no longer permit other people to access the same cables.
Anyone managed to do that deal with Virgin?
I thought the people talking about their virgin deals were making that analogy, it wasn’t mine.
Although I do think ruling out no deal weakens our hand, and makes it easy for those who want to remain at all costs to effectively fix the deck as Deal vs remain in parliament. The honest thing to do is just vote for the deal.
No deal is a nonsense, as it self evidently hurts us more than EU27. They know this. They know we know this too. Hence it's not credible as a negotiating position.
To be fair, that depends how crazy they think Johnson and the others are.
You can't negotiate with crazies, though.
And politically, it suits the EU if the UK crashes out. SM integrity and political cooperation, plus a good example case of someone committing economic suicide, is more valuable in the end.
Negotiations are between people, and people are emotional as well as rational beings.
Virgin offered me a 50% reduction for 18 months, presumably after which I would be porked once again.
Suprisingly appropriate analogy for the EU... :-)
@Tabman - still need evidence that this would be "economic suicide".
Remember the extra half million unemployed just by holding a vote, which turned out to be 250,000 fewer unemployed...
I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint press conference with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.
Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.
Johnson
Defending
I’m not
I have some sympathy with the idea that Cameron could never have stayed on, the leavers would have howled him down at every turn.
One thing is undeniable though, from Cameron through May to Bozo the Clown the Conservative Party owns this mess lock, stock and barrel
Being a PM is a tough job, that’s what we were paying him for ( re howling from leavers) . The leavers all voted against Mays agreement with the EU, I’d say Cameron could have sold it better to remain inclined politicians and got it through... if only he had the sense of duty
Agreed, except Cameron's 'Leave' may have been softer than May's. He would have been more skillful if calling an election and better at handling his MPs if not. We would probably be out by now or have had a second referendum and stayed.
Yes, but that's all small potatoes. The fundamental problem for decades was the Europhobic wing of the Conservative Party. It was never properly addressed and ended up infecting us all.
This is an age-old europhile trope though, still being trotted out today, which is in the dog-ate-my-homework category of excuses.
The splits in the Conservative party reflect the split in the country. It arose due to the federalist direction the EU took after the late 80s and the fact that, amongst the electorate as a whole, there was disquiet about it amongst a vocal minority who had no obvious parliamentary representation.
It’s the symptom not the cause. If it hadn’t been the eurosceptic wing of the Conservative party, another political outlet would have been found.
Europe didn't figure as a major issue in the voting public before 2014. It was largely a niche (conservative) talking point. The reasons for the explosion of interest can be debated, but it doesn't coincide with the "late 80s", Maastricht, the eastern European enlargement, or the Lisbon Treaty.
More than somewhat misleading by Mr Jukes. Horribly cherrypicked.
He has conflated "relocate from UK" with "set up operations outside UK". The actual number planning substantial relocation is 5%. Full relocation will be even smaller.
Fuller context supplied by Faisal Islam. And this is a survey amongst members of IOD.
There wil be relatively few complete relocations, but a lot of busnesses will set up operations inside the single market so they can carry on doing what they used to do from the UK. As an example, we are looking at running our events business out of an office in Amsterdam or Barcelona. Money we would have invested in the UK to run that business will now be spent in the Netherlands or Spain. That will mean we'll create fewer jobs in the UK and pay less Corporation Tax. It adds more paperwork to our operaiton, but is relatively painless, so is an easy option. On our own it will make no difference to anything. But if you add all the businesses together that will do the same or similar then you have an issue. And what does the UK gain to counter-balance this?
Of course. The biggest damage will not be the big headline problems. It will be a constant underperformance in UK-PLC. Ther will only be a few companies giving up on the UK totally but many companies will doing significanlty less in the UK or less trade with UK businesses. A few jobs in Amsterdam rather than Manchester this year, a couple more jobs in Frankfurt rather than London the next year. Sourcing components from Antwerp rather than Rochester. A French expert in aeronautics not applying for a Job in Hampshire because he can get a job in Stuttgart with no need to apply for a work visa. Students chosing Ireland or Australia over the UK for a study abroad year...
Lady Hales intervention is bad news for the government because it suggests some thought might be given to issues other than motive .
I have spent a lot of time watching cases at the US Supreme Court and one thing I have learned is that you should never read anything into the interventions that the justices there make. Maybe it's different in the UK, but I would be surprised.
Can you show me where in the 2017 Lib Dem manifesto there's "a promise to enact the referendum result"?
'Tis rather implied Liberal Democrats campaigned for the UK to remain in the EU. However, we acknowledge the result of the 2016 referendum, which gave the government a mandate to start negotiations to leave. The decision Britain took, though, was simply whether to remain in or to leave the European Union. There was no option on the ballot paper to choose the shape of our future relationship with the EU on vital issues including trade, travel or security.
While much remains uncertain about Theresa May’s approach, it is now clear that the Conservatives are campaigning for a hard Brexit. This means leaving the single market, ending freedom of movement and abandoning the customs union – even though these choices will make the UK poorer and disappoint many leave voters who wanted a different outcome.
...
A hard Brexit will make all these problems worse. It is the wrong choice for the country. Liberal Democrats will fight to prevent a hard Brexit.
At the end of negotiations there will be a decision on the deal. The Conservatives want the decision to be taken by politicians. Liberal Democrats believe the British people should have the final say.
...
That’s why, when the terms of our future relationship with the EU have been negotiated (over the next two years on the Government’s timetable), we will put that deal to a vote of the British people in a referendum, with the alternative option of staying in the EU on the ballot paper. We continue to believe that there is no deal as good for the UK outside the EU as the one it already has as a member.
Every vote for the Liberal Democrats in this election is a vote to give the final say to the British people.
That was interpreted as a pledge to fight for the softest Brexit possible and put it to a confirmatory referendum.
However, in the Indicative Votes, numbers 1,3, and 4 were in the direction of being compatible with this* (Customs Union, Close Economic Relationship, Common Market 2.0), and only one LD MP (Norman Lamb) voted in favour of 1 and 4. Stephen Lloyd, who resigned the Lib Dem whip over his pledge to vote for a Deal, voted for all three.
All others abstained for all votes except Cable voted against 3, and Hobhouse voted against all three.
Had the abstainers voted for the Customs Union option, it would have passed.
*(To be fair, none of these were combined Customs Union-plus-Single Market, which is what the manifesto pledged to support)
He's earning his fee with the questions from the bench now. In a difficult spot trying to extend the rule in Padfield to a constitutionally reserved rather than expressly legislated power, but he doesn't appear troubled at all.
UKIP campaigned for a referendum. They made it clear that their votes would go to whomever promised one. They comprised 4m/12% of the electorate and had until that point been effectively disenfranchised. David Cameron promised a referendum in order to attract those votes and form the next government.
Pressure group exerts pressure on political party for political ends.
It's precisely how democracy is supposed to work.
As we have seen, a referendum is not an end in itself.
UKIP should have been challenged to campaign for what they wanted - leaving the EU - rather than on having a vote about it.
Had they got more than one seat for 12% of the vote, we would have heard what they had to say loud and clear. It suited people who didn’t want to hear what they had to say to ignore that injustice.
While as I stated earlier I have tremendous sympathy for the first part of this, the second part of your post implies that there is some great conspiracy against UKIP whereas as we know it is simply the good old British electoral system that we know and love and that the UK decided against changing when asked.
AV, of course, would have made it harder for small parties to be represented.
More than somewhat misleading by Mr Jukes. Horribly cherrypicked.
He has conflated "relocate from UK" with "set up operations outside UK". The actual number planning substantial relocation is 5%. Full relocation will be even smaller.
Fuller context supplied by Faisal Islam. And this is a survey amongst members of IOD.
There wil be relatively few complete relocations, but a lot of busnesses will set up operations inside the single market so they can carry on doing what they used to do from the UK. As an example, we are looking at running our events business out of an office in Amsterdam or Barcelona. Money we would have invested in the UK to run that business will now be spent in the Netherlands or Spain. That will mean we'll create fewer jobs in the UK and pay less Corporation Tax. It adds more paperwork to our operaiton, but is relatively painless, so is an easy option. On our own it will make no difference to anything. But if you add all the businesses together that will do the same or similar then you have an issue. And what does the UK gain to counter-balance this?
Of course. The biggest damage will not be the big headline problems. It will be a constant underperformance in UK-PLC. Ther will only be a few companies giving up on the UK totally but many companies will doing significanlty less in the UK or less trade with UK businesses. A few jobs in Amsterdam rather than Manchester this year, a couple more jobs in Frankfurt rather than London the next year. Sourcing components from Antwerp rather than Rochester. A French expert in aeronautics not applying for a Job in Hampshire because he can get a job in Stuttgart with no need to apply for a work visa. Students chosing Ireland or Australia over the UK for a study abroad year...
Yep, the slow drip-drip of fewer opportunities and lower investment. Unless, of course, the politicians can get us to an EFTA/EEA departure. Then there will be no reason to relocate or set up an office in the Single Market. I always thought this is where we would end up, so was not that bothered by the referendum result initially. But I put too much faith in the Tories' claims to be pro-business.
Good to see the Guardian editor personally apologised to david Cameron for the appalling editorial the newspaper ran. I wonder if the Sun will extend the same courtesy to Ben Stokes for the utterly shameful story it has published today about his family.
Stokes has issued an absolutely blistering statement quite rightly about the invasion of his family's privacy. Sun being c*nts as ever.
It's totally despicable. I would not want to be the Sun's cricket correspondent right now. It won't just be Stokes refusing to go near him except to tell him to F Off.
Indeed. Utter rag
My God, I've just discovered that the "privileged pain" quote was in a Guardian EDITORIAL. I had presumed it was so obviously revolting, it was made by some vile lefty pundit - an occasional contributor, now sacked.
Fintan O’Toole: Disgracing ourselves Either Apple had a special deal in Ireland, which is illegal, or it didn’t – in which case its scandalous arrangements were available to everyone. Either way, this is bad. But the Government admits nothing. It deliberately defied EU law and had to be ordered a second time to collect the money from Apple. As of last March, the State had paid €7.1 million to lawyers to fight for Ireland’s sovereign right to help the world’s richest corporation make stuff up and avoid taxes – presumably the final bill will be much higher. All of this while trying to persuade the world that, while we may have done bad stuff in the past, we are now going clean. Our message: we didn’t do it but we’re not doing it any more.
It is not too late to stop disgracing ourselves. The Government should instruct its lawyers to stand up, withdraw the appeal and apologise to our neighbours. It should make a clear commitment to bring corporate taxation out of the shadows and to banish the phantoms. And then it should begin an overdue national conversation about how we exorcise the ghosts that haunt our claims to be decent global citizens
Luxembourg and Ireland are the EU countries with highest GDP per head. They also have the most interesting tax arrangements. Quite why their neighbours put up with this remains to be explained.
After the Troika had a good look at the Irish tax base as part of the bailout things have started to change. The stateless companies was cancelled as well as the double Irish tax arrangement as well. Also work on vat allocations.
The issue with Luxembourg is that an equivalent to the troika has not had the freedom to have a very close look at what has been going on including the government documents.
well if we end up staying in, any UK PM worth his salt will gut them both.
Once Boris Brexits, I expect some very nasty exposures around the Luxembourg financial system to start embarrassing the EU......
More than somewhat misleading by Mr Jukes. Horribly cherrypicked.
He has conflated "relocate from UK" with "set up operations outside UK". The actual number planning substantial relocation is 5%. Full relocation will be even smaller.
Fuller context supplied by Faisal Islam. And this is a survey amongst members of IOD.
There wil be relatively few complete relocations, but a lot of busnesses will set up operations inside the single market so they can carry on doing what they used to do from the UK. As an example, we are looking at running our events business out of an office in Amsterdam or Barcelona. Money we would have invested in the UK to run that business will now be spent in the Netherlands or Spain. That will mean we'll create fewer jobs in the UK and pay less Corporation Tax. It adds more paperwork to our operaiton, but is relatively painless, so is an easy option. On our own it will make no difference to anything. But if you add all the businesses together that will do the same or similar then you have an issue. And what does the UK gain to counter-balance this?
Of course. The biggest damage will not be the big headline problems. It will be a constant underperformance in UK-PLC. Ther will only be a few companies giving up on the UK totally but many companies will doing significanlty less in the UK or less trade with UK businesses. A few jobs in Amsterdam rather than Manchester this year, a couple more jobs in Frankfurt rather than London the next year. Sourcing components from Antwerp rather than Rochester. A French expert in aeronautics not applying for a Job in Hampshire because he can get a job in Stuttgart with no need to apply for a work visa. Students chosing Ireland or Australia over the UK for a study abroad year...
Yep, the slow drip-drip of fewer opportunities and lower investment. Unless, of course, the politicians can get us to an EFTA/EEA departure. Then there will be no reason to relocate or set up an office in the Single Market. I always thought this is where we would end up, so was not that bothered by the referendum result initially. But I put to much faith in the Tories' claims to be pro-business.
Not to mention the high-end jobs in research, and the erosion of collaboration/input into cutting edge knowledge/tech jobs.
Can you show me where in the 2017 Lib Dem manifesto there's "a promise to enact the referendum result"?
'Tis rather implied Liberal Democrats campaigned for the UK to remain in the EU. However, we acknowledge the result of the 2016 referendum, which gave the government a mandate to start negotiations to leave. The decision Britain took, though, was simply whether to remain in or to leave the European Union. There was no option on the ballot paper to choose the shape of our future relationship with the EU on vital issues including trade, travel or security.
While much remains uncertain about Theresa May’s approach, it is now clear that the Conservatives are campaigning for a hard Brexit. This means leaving the single market, ending freedom of movement and abandoning the customs union – even though these choices will make the UK poorer and disappoint many leave voters who wanted a different outcome.
...
A hard Brexit will make all these problems worse. It is the wrong choice for the country. Liberal Democrats will fight to prevent a hard Brexit.
At the end of negotiations there will be a decision on the deal. The Conservatives want the decision to be taken by politicians. Liberal Democrats believe the British people should have the final say.
...
That’s why, when the terms of our future relationship with the EU have been negotiated (over the next two years on the Government’s timetable), we will put that deal to a vote of the British people in a referendum, with the alternative option of staying in the EU on the ballot paper. We continue to believe that there is no deal as good for the UK outside the EU as the one it already has as a member.
Every vote for the Liberal Democrats in this election is a vote to give the final say to the British people.
That was interpreted as a pledge to fight for the softest Brexit possible and put it to a confirmatory referendum.
However, in the Indicative Votes, numbers 1,3, and 4 were in the direction of being compatible with this* (Customs Union, Close Economic Relationship, Common Market 2.0), and only one LD MP (Norman Lamb) voted in favour of 1 and 4. Stephen Lloyd, who resigned the Lib Dem whip over his pledge to vote for a Deal, voted for all three.
All others abstained for all votes except Cable voted against 3, and Hobhouse voted against all three.
Had the abstainers voted for the Customs Union option, it would have passed.
*(To be fair, none of these were combined Customs Union-plus-Single Market, which is what the manifesto pledged to support)
To be fair, though, given that May's Deal was far harder than it could have been (given her red lines), voting against it was completely compatible with their manifesto
He managed extremely well for a decade. We can now see exactly how remarkable that achievement was.
He indulged the headbangers. We can see now how big a mistake that was
Quite. In the 1930s Chamberlains's refusal to acknowledge the need to challenge fascism led ultimately to the disaster of Munich. And in the past decade Cameron's refusal to acknowledge the need to challenge Euroscepticism in his party ultimately led to the disaster that is Brexit.
err wasnt the referendum called to do just that ?
The referendum was called in order to avoid resolving the issue within the Tory and instead force the electorate to take sides over an issue that until 2016 had not been a huge concern to most people. It was an abdication of leadership on Cameron's part - he risked destroying his country in a futile attempt to deal with an internal party division.
He managed extremely well for a decade. We can now see exactly how remarkable that achievement was.
He indulged the headbangers. We can see now how big a mistake that was
Quite. In the 1930s Chamberlains's refusal to acknowledge the need to challenge fascism led ultimately to the disaster of Munich. And in the past decade Cameron's refusal to acknowledge the need to challenge Euroscepticism in his party ultimately led to the disaster that is Brexit.
err wasnt the referendum called to do just that ?
The referendum was called in order to avoid resolving the issue within the Tory and instead force the electorate to take sides over an issue that until 2016 had not been a huge concern to most people. It was an abdication of leadership on Cameron's part - he risked destroying his country in a futile attempt to deal with an internal party division.
UKIP campaigned for a referendum. They made it clear that their votes would go to whomever promised one. They comprised 4m/12% of the electorate and had until that point been effectively disenfranchised. David Cameron promised a referendum in order to attract those votes and form the next government.
Pressure group exerts pressure on political party for political ends.
It's precisely how democracy is supposed to work.
As we have seen, a referendum is not an end in itself.
UKIP should have been challenged to campaign for what they wanted - leaving the EU - rather than on having a vote about it.
Had they got more than one seat for 12% of the vote, we would have heard what they had to say loud and clear. It suited people who didn’t want to hear what they had to say to ignore that injustice.
While as I stated earlier I have tremendous sympathy for the first part of this, the second part of your post implies that there is some great conspiracy against UKIP whereas as we know it is simply the good old British electoral system that we know and love and that the UK decided against changing when asked.
AV, of course, would have made it harder for small parties to be represented.
Small parties on the radical fringes that is. Small parties of the centre would benefit by being transfer friendly. No surprise then the LDs wanted it.
More than somewhat misleading by Mr Jukes. Horribly cherrypicked.
He has conflated "relocate from UK" with "set up operations outside UK". The actual number planning substantial relocation is 5%. Full relocation will be even smaller.
Fuller context supplied by Faisal Islam. And this is a survey amongst members of IOD.
There wil be relatively few complete relocations, but a lot of busnesses will set up operations inside the single market so they can carry on doing what they used to do from the UK. As an example, we are looking at running our events business out of an office in Amsterdam or Barcelona. Money we would have invested in the UK to run that business will now be spent in the Netherlands or Spain. That will mean we'll create fewer jobs in the UK and pay less Corporation Tax. It adds more paperwork to our operaiton, but is relatively painless, so is an easy option. On our own it will make no difference to anything. But if you add all the businesses together that will do the same or similar then you have an issue. And what does the UK gain to counter-balance this?
Of course. The biggest damag abroad year...
Yep, the slow drip-drip of fewer opportunities and lower investment. Unless, of course, the politicians can get us to an EFTA/EEA departure. Then there will be no reason to relocate or set up an office in the Single Market. I always thought this is where we would end up, so was not that bothered by the referendum result initially. But I put to much faith in the Tories' claims to be pro-business.
Not to mention the high-end jobs in research, and the erosion of collaboration/input into cutting edge knowledge/tech jobs.
and yet when all these things moved off shore over the last two decades you didnt give a shit.
UKIP campaigned for a referendum. They made it clear that their votes would go to whomever promised one. They comprised 4m/12% of the electorate and had until that point been effectively disenfranchised. David Cameron promised a referendum in order to attract those votes and form the next government.
Pressure group exerts pressure on political party for political ends.
It's precisely how democracy is supposed to work.
As we have seen, a referendum is not an end in itself.
UKIP should have been challenged to campaign for what they wanted - leaving the EU - rather than on having a vote about it.
Had they got more than one seat for 12% of the vote, we would have heard what they had to say loud and clear. It suited people who didn’t want to hear what they had to say to ignore that injustice.
While as I stated earlier I have tremendous sympathy for the first part of this, the second part of your post implies that there is some great conspiracy against UKIP whereas as we know it is simply the good old British electoral system that we know and love and that the UK decided against changing when asked.
AV, of course, would have made it harder for small parties to be represented.
Please show me your working. I can't see that it would be worse than under FPTP system. At the moment many people would like to vote Ind, Brexit or Green etc. but feel forced to vote for one of the big two.
More than somewhat misleading by Mr Jukes. Horribly cherrypicked.
He has conflated "relocate from UK" with "set up operations outside UK". The actual number planning substantial relocation is 5%. Full relocation will be even smaller.
Fuller context supplied by Faisal Islam. And this is a survey amongst members of IOD.
There wil be relatively few complete relocations, but a lot of busnesses will set up operations inside the single market so they can carry on doing what they used to do from the UK. As an example, we are looking at running our events business out of an office in Amsterdam or Barcelona. Money we would have invested in the UK to run that business will now be spent in the Netherlands or Spain. That will mean we'll create fewer jobs in the UK and pay less Corporation Tax. It adds more paperwork to our operaiton, but is relatively painless, so is an easy option. On our own it will make no difference to anything. But if you add all the businesses together that will do the same or similar then you have an issue. And what does the UK gain to counter-balance this?
Of course. The biggest damage will not be the big headline problems. It will be a constant underperformance in UK-PLC. Ther will only be a few companies giving up on the UK totally but many companies will doing significanlty less in the UK or less trade with UK businesses. A few jobs in Amsterdam rather than Manchester this year, a couple more jobs in Frankfurt rather than London the next year. Sourcing components from Antwerp rather than Rochester. A French expert in aeronautics not applying for a Job in Hampshire because he can get a job in Stuttgart with no need to apply for a work visa. Students chosing Ireland or Australia over the UK for a study abroad year...
If we'd had the promised referendum on Lisbon then things would be very different. But Brown and the Lib Dems determined that manifesto pledges should be tossed overboard and the electorate shouldn't have a say.
The seeds of discontent were planted by such duplicitous acts as this.
He managed extremely well for a decade. We can now see exactly how remarkable that achievement was.
He indulged the headbangers. We can see now how big a mistake that was
Quite. In the 1930s Chamberlains's refusal to acknowledge the need to challenge fascism led ultimately to the disaster of Munich. And in the past decade Cameron's refusal to acknowledge the need to challenge Euroscepticism in his party ultimately led to the disaster that is Brexit.
err wasnt the referendum called to do just that ?
The referendum was called in order to avoid resolving the issue within the Tory and instead force the electorate to take sides over an issue that until 2016 had not been a huge concern to most people. It was an abdication of leadership on Cameron's part - he risked destroying his country in a futile attempt to deal with an internal party division.
There were 4m people who wanted him to agree to a referendum. They were not members of the Conservative Party.
Whilst I have not heard every word that Pannick has been saying, there has been very little talk of the law, precedent or anything else that I would recognise as legal argument and a huge amount of supposition based on inferences being drawn from interviews and appeals based on not liking what someone else is doing.
That is not what I would expect from a leading barrister at the top of his career.
A Dud, no wonder they threw him out in lower court.
More than somm. And this is a survey amongst members of IOD.
There wil be relatively few complete relocations, but a lot of busnesses will set up op
Of course. The biggest damage will not be the big headline problems. It will be a constant underperformance in UK-PLC. Ther will only be a few companies giving up on the UK totally but many companies will doing significanlty less in the UK or less trade with UK businesses. A few jobs in Amsterdam rather than Manchester this year, a couple more jobs in Frankfurt rather than London the next year. Sourcing components from Antwerp rather than Rochester. A French expert in aeronautics not applying for a Job in Hampshire because he can get a job in Stuttgart with no need to apply for a work visa. Students chosing Ireland or Australia over the UK for a study abroad year...
Yep, the slow drip-drip of fewer opportunities and lower investment. Unless, of course, the politicians can get us to an EFTA/EEA departure. Then there will be no reason to relocate or set up an office in the Single Market. I always thought this is where we would end up, so was not that bothered by the referendum result initially. But I put to much faith in the Tories' claims to be pro-business.
Not to mention the high-end jobs in research, and the erosion of collaboration/input into cutting edge knowledge/tech jobs.
All these futurities presume only the bad things happen, post Brexit. And nothing good. They also suggest the EU is always beneficial for industry, trade, etc.
Is that plausible? Maybe not. After Brexit, and unprotected by the EU, Britain will eventually be forced to confront harsh realities: ageing, inequality, poor productivity, debt. We will, sooner or later, be obliged to take the free trading, deregulated route: the UK will aim to be Singapore, albeit with a rust belt. It will be painful. Ultimately it will surely be good for us.
Whether the pain is worth it, we will only know in 10-20 years. And of course it depends whether Corbyn can be excluded from power interim.
I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint press conference with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.
Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.
Cameron was my MP for 15 years. Even when PM, he actively sought dissent in the constituency (which in this year's Euros pushed the Tories into fourth place), and happily canvassed the (surprisingly common) estates where he was almost universally loathed. I've seen him booed by an entire pub - and still stay, buy his round (outside election time, of course) and take the hecklers on.
In his day, the constituency was the classic Donkey (as in "you'd get a donkey in if you put a blue rosette on it"). Johnsonism has probably now lost the Tories the seat forever.
More than somewhat misleading by Mr Jukes. Horribly cherrypicked.
He has conflated "relocate from UK" with "set up operations outside UK". The actual number planning substantial relocation is 5%. Full relocation will be even smaller.
Fuller context supplied by Faisal Islam. And this is a survey amongst members of IOD.
There wil be relatively few complete relocations, but a lot of busnesses will set up operations inside the single market so they can carry on doing what they used to do from the UK. As an example, we are looking at running our events business out of an office in Amsterdam or Barcelona. Money we would have invested in the UK to run that business will now be spent in the Netherlands or Spain. That will mean we'll create fewer jobs in the UK and pay less Corporation Tax. It adds more paperwork to our operaiton, but is relatively painless, so is an easy option. On our own it will make no difference to anything. But if you add all the businesses together that will do the same or similar then you have an issue. And what does the UK gain to counter-balance this?
Of course. The biggest damag abroad year...
Yep, the slow drip-drip of fewer opportunities and lower investment. Unless, of course, the politicians can get us to an EFTA/EEA departure. Then there will be no reason to relocate or set up an office in the Single Market. I always thought this is where we would end up, so was not that bothered by the referendum result initially. But I put to much faith in the Tories' claims to be pro-business.
Not to mention the high-end jobs in research, and the erosion of collaboration/input into cutting edge knowledge/tech jobs.
and yet when all these things moved off shore over the last two decades you didnt give a shit.
why the sudden change of mind ?
Which Universities have moved offshore in the last two decades?
Not to mention the high-end jobs in research, and the erosion of collaboration/input into cutting edge knowledge/tech jobs.
and yet when all these things moved off shore over the last two decades you didnt give a shit.
why the sudden change of mind ?
The UK was doing very well in high-end Research Jobs.
I remember New Scientist had an editorial in the early nineties, saying that: if there is a brain drain to the USA, UK scientists should not complain too loud about it, as the UK does very well from other "brains" coming into the UK. Since then the number of people willing to move overseas has substantially increased and in this employment sector the UK is certainly a net winner.
If we'd had the promised referendum on Lisbon then things would be very different. But Brown and the Lib Dems determined that manifesto pledges should be tossed overboard and the electorate shouldn't have a say.
The seeds of discontent were planted by such duplicitous acts as this.
Except polling evidence from then shows it barely moved the dial. Europe was not an issue amongst the population; just the Tory right.
He managed extremely well for a decade. We can now see exactly how remarkable that achievement was.
He indulged the headbangers. We can see now how big a mistake that was
Quite. In the 1930s Chamberlains's refusal to acknowledge the need to challenge fascism led ultimately to the disaster of Munich. And in the past decade Cameron's refusal to acknowledge the need to challenge Euroscepticism in his party ultimately led to the disaster that is Brexit.
Nope. It was the idiocy of previous PMs from Heath onwards* ignoring public opinion on ever increasing integration that led to Brexit. If nothing else at least Cameron faced up to that and gave the public a chance to have their say.
UKIP campaigned for a referendum. They made it clear that their votes would go to whomever promised one. They comprised 4m/12% of the electorate and had until that point been effectively disenfranchised. David Cameron promised a referendum in order to attract those votes and form the next government.
Pressure group exerts pressure on political party for political ends.
It's precisely how democracy is supposed to work.
As we have seen, a referendum is not an end in itself.
UKIP should have been challenged to campaign for what they wanted - leaving the EU - rather than on having a vote about it.
Had they got more than one seat for 12% of the vote, we would have heard what they had to say loud and clear. It suited people who didn’t want to hear what they had to say to ignore that injustice.
While as I stated earlier I have tremendous sympathy for the first part of this, the second part of your post implies that there is some great conspiracy against UKIP whereas as we know it is simply the good old British electoral system that we know and love and that the UK decided against changing when asked.
AV, of course, would have made it harder for small parties to be represented.
Small parties on the radical fringes that is. Small parties of the centre would benefit by being transfer friendly. No surprise then the LDs wanted it.
The Lib Dems wanted STV. The Tories vetoed that. AV was the only method they could agree on.
Comments
Older PBs might like also to contemplate the question: 'What would Lord Denning have decided?'
1. I expect the court to rule unambiguously that the decision to prorogue parliament is in principle justiciable, since no executive power can be completely unfettered and it is easy to come up with examples where that power could be exercised in a completely egregious and unreasonable way (for example, proroguing parliament for two years, or in order to evade losing a VONC).
2. However, I expect the court to rule that the PM's discretion is very wide, and to set a very high bar for anyone seeking to challenge a prorogation. The mere fact that political considerations or party advantage have been factors in a PM's decision won't be sufficient, the prorogation would have to be clearly egregious and unreasonable.
3. As to whether this particular prorogation meets that test, I agree with you that it's hard to say but that the government will probably win it (very likely with a dissenting judgement). It seems to me that this is just on the borderline of being unreasonable.
4. I expect there will be some pretty scathing criticism of the government's approach to the case.
And politically, it suits the EU if the UK crashes out. SM integrity and political cooperation, plus a good example case of someone committing economic suicide, is more valuable in the end.
Negotiations are between people, and people are emotional as well as rational beings.
If the end point is to stymie parliament then regardless of motive could that still be unlawful .
Though it rests on the edge of a pin
Because Sumption lacks Gumption
He makes the assumption that
The law’s why we’re in the mess that we’re in
There's every chance of a surge in nationalism and bitterness towards the EU. That would not be a good thing.
The domestic and international political scene could yet become far more poisonous.
No doubt Denning would have reflected on his 1977 pronouncement...
To every subject of this land, however powerful, I would use Thomas Fuller's words over three hundred years ago, ‘Be ye never so high, the law is above you.’
Though surely it would be the point of a pin ?
Thought perhaps DC is considering Pork and China in the other direction.
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1173905958382252037?s=20
The issue with Luxembourg is that an equivalent to the troika has not had the freedom to have a very close look at what has been going on including the government documents.
Pannick didn’t know
On the above basis, they ought, I think, to uphold the Scottish judgment, but the essential conservatism of the judiciary might go against that.
I think the fact that the government has essentially refused to make a case on motive for prorogation, despite the rather damning evidence of their own words against them on the matter, ought not to impress the court.
That is not what I would expect from a leading barrister at the top of his career.
Genoa?
Obviously not, it's a blind date
Though to be quite frank, anyone who voted for Lammy in 2017 really shouldn't be surprised by his subsequent behaviour in the Commons. Vote for someone who refused to vote for Article 50; get someone who refuses to enact Brexit.
If it's easier for smaller parties to be represented then the views they represent will be aired in Commons debate.
Suprisingly appropriate analogy for the EU... :-)
@Tabman - still need evidence that this would be "economic suicide".
Remember the extra half million unemployed just by holding a vote, which turned out to be 250,000 fewer unemployed...
Liberal Democrats campaigned for the UK to remain in the EU. However, we
acknowledge the result of the 2016 referendum, which gave the government a
mandate to start negotiations to leave. The decision Britain took, though, was
simply whether to remain in or to leave the European Union. There was no option
on the ballot paper to choose the shape of our future relationship with the EU on
vital issues including trade, travel or security.
While much remains uncertain about Theresa May’s approach, it is now clear that
the Conservatives are campaigning for a hard Brexit. This means leaving the single
market, ending freedom of movement and abandoning the customs union – even
though these choices will make the UK poorer and disappoint many leave voters
who wanted a different outcome.
...
A hard Brexit will make all these problems worse. It is the wrong choice for the
country. Liberal Democrats will fight to prevent a hard Brexit.
At the end of negotiations there will be a decision on the deal. The Conservatives
want the decision to be taken by politicians. Liberal Democrats believe the British
people should have the final say.
...
That’s why, when the terms of our future relationship with the EU have been
negotiated (over the next two years on the Government’s timetable), we will
put that deal to a vote of the British people in a referendum, with the alternative
option of staying in the EU on the ballot paper. We continue to believe that
there is no deal as good for the UK outside the EU as the one it already has
as a member.
Every vote for the Liberal Democrats in this election is a vote to give the final say to
the British people.
That was interpreted as a pledge to fight for the softest Brexit possible and put it to a confirmatory referendum.
However, in the Indicative Votes, numbers 1,3, and 4 were in the direction of being compatible with this* (Customs Union, Close Economic Relationship, Common Market 2.0), and only one LD MP (Norman Lamb) voted in favour of 1 and 4. Stephen Lloyd, who resigned the Lib Dem whip over his pledge to vote for a Deal, voted for all three.
All others abstained for all votes except Cable voted against 3, and Hobhouse voted against all three.
Had the abstainers voted for the Customs Union option, it would have passed.
*(To be fair, none of these were combined Customs Union-plus-Single Market, which is what the manifesto pledged to support)
Huge blow for farmers in bull semen explosion.
https://metro.co.uk/2019/09/17/bull-semen-explosion-yarram-herd-services-fire-rips-building-10757047/
Editorial?!?
Rome? No, we're not going far.
Pisa? No, we'll have a curry.
Marsala? No, something spicier
Florence? Oh, you know her!
I'm thinking more restauranty
The working man drinks knock-off Lambrini.
https://order-order.com/2019/09/17/ukip-leader-boycotting-party-conference/
No surprise then the LDs wanted it.
why the sudden change of mind ?
Which doesn't seem quite the right way round.
I can't see that it would be worse than under FPTP system. At the moment many people would like to vote Ind, Brexit or Green etc. but feel forced to vote for one of the big two.
But they won’t.
The U.K. or the EU, or both could screw up.
We’ll never know.
Ironically, some of those who criticised Cameron in the past for not holding a referendum have since defected to the yellows:
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1173872755982426112
If we'd had the promised referendum on Lisbon then things would be very different. But Brown and the Lib Dems determined that manifesto pledges should be tossed overboard and the electorate shouldn't have a say.
The seeds of discontent were planted by such duplicitous acts as this.
Is that plausible? Maybe not. After Brexit, and unprotected by the EU, Britain will eventually be forced to confront harsh realities: ageing, inequality, poor productivity, debt. We will, sooner or later, be obliged to take the free trading, deregulated route: the UK will aim to be Singapore, albeit with a rust belt. It will be painful. Ultimately it will surely be good for us.
Whether the pain is worth it, we will only know in 10-20 years. And of course it depends whether Corbyn can be excluded from power interim.
Cameron was my MP for 15 years. Even when PM, he actively sought dissent in the constituency (which in this year's Euros pushed the Tories into fourth place), and happily canvassed the (surprisingly common) estates where he was almost universally loathed. I've seen him booed by an entire pub - and still stay, buy his round (outside election time, of course) and take the hecklers on.
In his day, the constituency was the classic Donkey (as in "you'd get a donkey in if you put a blue rosette on it"). Johnsonism has probably now lost the Tories the seat forever.
Brexiteers will be cheering him on, no doubt...
I remember New Scientist had an editorial in the early nineties, saying that: if there is a brain drain to the USA, UK scientists should not complain too loud about it, as the UK does very well from other "brains" coming into the UK. Since then the number of people willing to move overseas has substantially increased and in this employment sector the UK is certainly a net winner.
*Edit excepting Wilson.