You may not have noticed but the Government is trying hard to ensure that no one gets a say on it any more (least of all random people on message boards).
Besides, why is your immediate reaction that the EU is an unfeeling greedy monolith that cannot be compromised with?
However if the European Commission simply want a blank cheque so that they get as much money as before and do not have to cut their budget to reflect the downsizing of the EU consequent to the UK's exit, I say No.
Please tell me how the second quote is supposed to be interpreted if you are not suggesting that their decision-making processes are prompted by greed.
Please tell me how the second quote is supposed to be interpreted if you are not suggesting that their decision-making processes are prompted by greed.
I suggest that the EU Commission had already drawn up estimates of future income from member states and expenditure
on various EU projects, and now realise that the departure of the UK leaves a small black hole in their spreadsheets.
This is not about "greed", it is about forward accountancy.
And obviously they would prefer a Norway like solution where they still get the money, rather than face the
dilemma of having to ask their remaining member states to pay more and/or to plan the EU budget cuts.
But perhaps they will merely adopt the UK and US government approach, and run a deficit.
There's more than three years left. It took Drumpf a mere five years to happen, and many of the seemingly innocuous actors of today have been playing for quite a time. Yes, many types of disasters can still happen. Poor Britain.
Sources in the Labour Party are indicating that Brexiteer Zac Goldsmith may have lost the Richmond Park by-election to Sarah Olney of the Libdems with a 2000 projected majority.
It was finally announced at 2.09 that the Lib Dems won with said majority, despite Goldsmith's previous majority of over 23,000 votes. The Labour candidate entered the hall to dead silence and promptly lost his deposit, netting a measly 1,500 votes. Even the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg admitted that this result was a reaction to Brexit in a strongly pro-EU constituency more than anything else.
It would be interesting now to see a map of Conservative (and, now that Labour have promised to vote for Article 50, Labour ones as well) constituencies coloured by the ratio between the MP's majority in 2015 and the Remain vote in 2016. That would shows us the MPs who read the paper today and felt a bit nervous.
Well yes, in the end what matters is if brexit reflects the majority still or not. It isn't about one constituency, although such results obviously serve fine to prop up a position
Well, that is the question, isn't it? Time will tell whether this is just a single occurence or not, but that is "the will of the people" emphatically rejecting the Government's vision (or probable lack thereof) for Brexit.
I never thought that Zac Goldsmith stood a ghostly chance.
However I note that the pro Remain Liberal Democrat Sarah Olney, in very much a 1:1 against the Leaver Zac,
did not secure the 69.3% of the vote that voted Remain so that is no evidence of a swing to remaining in the EU.
25,000 voters who swept him to power last year suddenly changed their minds and elected a Lib Dem because... It wasn't over Heathrow and it can't simply have been due to Goldsmith alone.
Besides, I don't think anyone said that this was evidence of public opinion turning against Brexit, rather that after all those dire threats of MPs being voted out if they dared to defy "the will of the people", maybe that amorphous, ill-defined will is actually saying something else.
Is it really a "boost" if a corporation moves it's headquarters to your country because f-ing Luxembourg isn't a safe enough tax haven for them anymore ?
I guess 19% tax rate in the UK is better then 20% tax rate in Brussels ????
the company avoided more than 1 billion euros ($1.1 billion) in taxes in Europe between 2009 and 2013. An EU official said earlier this year that the McDonald's case shows "just how far some companies push tax authorities to avoid paying any taxes." The European Commission said last year that one McDonald's unit has paid no tax in Luxembourg since 2009 despite recording large profits
No, the thing is that McDonald's are getting scared of the European system cracking down on them. The UK doesn't need to hide behind the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man to be a tax haven anymore.
Is it really a "boost" if a corporation moves it's headquarters to your country because f-ing Luxembourg isn't a safe enough tax haven for them anymore ?
The traditional answer is that the HQ's senior executives will spend the money in the UK; but let us consider on what?
Housing (which merely pushes up house prices and worsens the shortage, Food for the home (the marginal balance of
which is imported) Eating Out (most central London chefs have mainly foreign chefs and waiters), Clothes and other
consumables (imported from China etc), Child Minding (not that they will pay a UK national living wage if they can get
a Bulgarian or Romanian to exploit) and UK income tax on their incomes (that is if they actually bother to pay any).
I dare say some British Black Cab (or Uber) drivers may get a pittance but half of that will be paid out for diesel or petrol.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.