Brexit - Post Match Reaction

This extract from KPMG is a hoot:

The EU blacklist of non-cooperative jurisdictions recently adopted by the Council (see ETF 345) was also heavily debated and an amendment to the Recommendation which suggested that Malta, Netherlands, Ireland, and Luxembourg be blacklisted alongside the 17 jurisdictions currently considered as non-cooperative was rejected. A statement was nevertheless included in the final text, expressing the European Parliament’s regrets that the EU blacklist focuses solely on jurisdictions outside the EU and emphasizing that, based on a simulation carried out by Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO), at least four Member States should be included.

No surprise that the Jean-Claude Juncker led EU failed to blacklist Luxembourg. From 1995 to 2013 he was the 23rd Prime Minister of Luxembourg, and from 1989 to 2009 he was the Minister for Finances. Still, at least the EU expressed regret.

What a corrupt bunch...

Fair play to the Irish, if their tax rates encourage business to base themselves there, what’s wrong with that? We should be doing exactly the same thing. Although I can’t help thinking the lefties defending the Irish, would be up in arms if we did so.

What's wrong with it is that the Irish are effectively stealing tax dollars from the US, whilst benefiting from the effective protection afforded to them under NATO. They spend the lowest on defence in the EU as a percentage of GDP, lower than their fellow tax dodgers, Luxembourg. Still, the Germans are equally bad at shirking common defence spending, while the UK is the highest. No wonder Trump is going to pull out of NATO with these EU free loaders around.

If Putin ever wanted to invade Europe, he'd just have send a couple hundred Russian commando's over to Cork and march to Dublin in about a day. How Trump would laugh at the tax Apple HQ being overrun...

Fair play to the Irish, if their tax rates encourage business to base themselves there, what’s wrong with that? We should be doing exactly the same thing. Although I can’t help thinking the lefties defending the Irish, would be up in arms if we did so

The primary issue isn't taxation rates per se - its the fact that many companies repatriate profits earned in one country, like Britain to a third country where tax rates are lower. There should be fewer loopholes in tax law so that companies pay tax in the same country where the revenue was earned.

Again the jihadist understanding of the world leaves a lot to be desired - not to mention being downright hypocritical. The ECJ has previously ruled that Apple's tax arrangements in Ireland were illegal. The European Commission is now proposing a 3% levy on the revenue of big tech firms in Europe to limit regulatory arbitrage; but it wont fly unless it's accepted by member states. Something about respecting national sovereignty. Odd that when the EU's supposed to be an all powerful leviathan.

We've been here before: in 2015, the EU tried to introduce a common consolidated corporate tax base, or CCCTB that would have seen countries adopt a common set of rules on where company profits arose - removing many of the national differences that multinationals had exploited to lower their tax bill. The UK led efforts to kill the scheme.

Again the usual thickos are trying to have their cake and eat it. You either agree that something has to be done about tax avoidance and accept limits on national sovereignty. Or you believe that national sovereignty trumps international cooperation which means countries will continue to compete on tax as they've always done, leading to all manner of perverse behaviour and outcomes.

What's wrong with it is that the Irish are effectively stealing tax dollars from the US, whilst benefiting from the effective protection afforded to them under NATO. They spend the lowest on defence in the EU as a percentage of GDP, lower than their fellow tax dodgers, Luxembourg. Still, the Germans are equally bad at shirking common defence spending, while the UK is the highest. No wonder Trump is going to pull out of NATO with these EU free loaders around.

If Putin ever wanted to invade Europe, he'd just have send a couple hundred Russian commando's over to Cork and march to Dublin in about a day. How Trump would laugh at the tax Apple HQ being overrun...

This is an absolutely poetically beautiful level of mental. Starts with comments on tax, progresses to talk of a western country diverting funds from the military they don't need being used elsewhere and ends in a crescendo of WELL PUTIN SHOULD INVADE IRELAND.

Truly a thing of mental brilliance, fit for any satire

This is an absolutely poetically beautiful level of mental. Starts with comments on tax, progresses to talk of a western country diverting funds from the military they don't need being used elsewhere and ends in a crescendo of WELL PUTIN SHOULD INVADE IRELAND.

 

Truly a thing of mental brilliance, fit for any satire

He doesn’t seem well to be fair

Don't those meddling EU pen-pushers realise that we Brits enjoy being ripped off. Stiff upper lip and Dunkirk spirit and all that cobblers.

http://newsthump.com/2018/07/02/loathsome-eu-bastards-insist-on-giving-british-holidaymakers-even-more-protection/

Don't those meddling EU pen-pushers realise that we Brits enjoy being ripped off. Stiff upper lip and Dunkirk spirit and all that cobblers.

 

http://newsthump.com/2018/07/02/loathsome-eu-bastards-insist-on-giving-british-holidaymakers-even-more-protection/

Maybe have a look at article 11 and 13 of the new Internet censorship regulations and the link tax, legislation possibly being debated in secret and opposed by a host of people including Tim berners Lee.

Nothing like a bit of drama to sex up a story. Reality is that the proposal is actually about copyright and and intellectual property protection. You wouldn't be able to steal someone else's work, like a Pepe avatar, without paying a usage fee. In secret? erm no, its in committee stage where it will get heavily amended, and if it isnt it stands no chance of getting through the European Parliament.

Maybe have a look at article 11 and 13 of the new Internet censorship regulations and the link tax, legislation possibly being debated in secret and opposed by a host of people including Tim berners Lee.

Either you've deliberately thrown a dead cat at ecuk's post or you don't know the basic differences between consumer protection and copyright - which is a bit like comparing goats and trumpets.

Nothing like a bit of drama to sex up a story. Reality is that the proposal is actually about copyright and and intellectual property protection. You wouldn't be able to steal someone else's work, like a Pepe avatar, without paying a usage fee. In secret? erm no, its in committee stage where it will get heavily amended, and if it isnt it stands no chance of getting through the European Parliament.

We will see if it goes through the "opaque and undemocratic" trilogue process behind closed doors between EU legislators and member states. There's a vote against it tomorrow so lets hope for everyone's sake that they are forced to conduct these "discussions" in public. And there's a bit more to it than simply not being able to use an avatar. On the one hand we have buctootim assuring us there's nothing to worry about and on the other we have a letter signed by over 70 luminaries including the father of the internet. Personally I'd prefer to listen to them when they say that the implications of this sort of legislation are a lot more than simply copyright protection.

Either you've deliberately thrown a dead cat at ecuk's post or you don't know the basic differences between consumer protection and copyright - which is a bit like comparing goats and trumpets.

The point- which you missed- is that the cuddly EU are not confined to decisions which protect consumers- which was the implication of the post. If that was all they did then no one would have voted to leave.

The point- which you missed- is that the cuddly EU are not confined to decisions which protect consumers- which was the implication of the post. If that was all they did then no one would have voted to leave.

So would you like to point out exactly where anything in ecuk's post suggested that the EU is confined to making decisions about consumer protection?

If you want to make a point about copyright, make it. Don't confuse the issue by playing false-equivalence whataboutery.

So would you like to point out exactly where anything in ecuk's post suggested that the EU is confined to making decisions about consumer protection?

 

If you want to make a point about copyright, make it. Don't confuse the issue by playing false-equivalence whataboutery.

The sarcastic post suggested that the reason we don't want the EU to increase our consumer protections was because we "enjoy being ripped off." The implication is that stupid English people have voted against the EU despite the good legislation it passes to increase consumer protection. The point I was making was that regulations like this are not why people voted to leave and if the EU confined itself to these sorts of things then they wouldn't be nearly as unpopular as they are.

Where do I sign up?

Forgot to add f**k the Electoral Commission

The sarcastic post suggested that the reason we don't want the EU to increase our consumer protections was because we "enjoy being ripped off." The implication is that stupid English people have voted against the EU despite the good legislation it passes to increase consumer protection. The point I was making was that regulations like this are not why people voted to leave and if the EU confined itself to these sorts of things then they wouldn't be nearly as unpopular as they are.

I'm going to give this one go, and if it doesn't work I'll leave you to play duelling dullards with SOG.

The point about consumer protection is apposite because of the context. That includes the fact that Trump appointees (Mulvaney, mostly) have been busily gutting consumer protection in the US in order to suck up to big business/donors. By contrast, the EU has been a bastion of consumer protections. An American citizen and a European citizen now have radically different levels of protection.

Copyright is another area where the EU has far exceeded the US in protected intellectual property against big business. Since 2001, when the EU essentially defined authorship in terms of who created a work over and above who paid for it, actual copyright holders have been able to gain some redress from the rampant theft of the big players on the internet, like Google (Youtube). To give an example from my own experience, I now receive royalty payments through three collecting agencies which would not have happened but for the EU insisting that those who exploit my work actually pay for it.

Now it may well be that in attempting to firm up copyright law (it's a deeply difficult and complex business) it may have gone too far. Just as many are complaining that GDPR has gone too far. But even those like Berners Lee, who have the moral and intellectual heft to make these arguments, understand full well why the EU is tackling this.

To reiterate, to roll copyright law into an argument about consumer protection is nonsensical. If you have a distinct point to make about copyright law - and nothing you've written suggests you understand a word of it - then make it. It in no way diminishes the point about EU consumer protections being far stronger than US protections. If you doubt that, ask the people of Flint, Michigan. It doesn't diminish it because it has nothing to do with it.

You didn't understand my point then and went off on a rant about consumer protections that I didn't talk about. Never mind...

You didn't understand my point then and went off on a rant about consumer protections that I didn't talk about. Never mind...

What is your point other than getting triggered by a tongue-in-cheek article and tediously wanting to rehearse all the reasons, informed or uninformed, why people voted leave?

What is your point other than getting triggered by a tongue-in-cheek article and tediously wanting to rehearse all the reasons, informed or uninformed, why people voted leave?

... tried to clarify what I assumed was an easily understood point.

What part of Articles 11 and 13 amount to 'Internet Censorship' ? And given the amount of public discussion, where is the evidence for secret debates ?

I'm going to give this one go, and if it doesn't work I'll leave you to play duelling dullards with SOG.

 

The point about consumer protection is apposite because of the context. That includes the fact that Trump appointees (Mulvaney, mostly) have been busily gutting consumer protection in the US in order to suck up to big business/donors. By contrast, the EU has been a bastion of consumer protections. An American citizen and a European citizen now have radically different levels of protection.

 

Copyright is another area where the EU has far exceeded the US in protected intellectual property against big business. Since 2001, when the EU essentially defined authorship in terms of who created a work over and above who paid for it, actual copyright holders have been able to gain some redress from the rampant theft of the big players on the internet, like Google (Youtube). To give an example from my own experience, I now receive royalty payments through three collecting agencies which would not have happened but for the EU insisting that those who exploit my work actually pay for it.

 

Now it may well be that in attempting to firm up copyright law (it's a deeply difficult and complex business) it may have gone too far. Just as many are complaining that GDPR has gone too far. But even those like Berners Lee, who have the moral and intellectual heft to make these arguments, understand full well why the EU is tackling this.

 

To reiterate, to roll copyright law into an argument about consumer protection is nonsensical. If you have a distinct point to make about copyright law - and nothing you've written suggests you understand a word of it - then make it. It in no way diminishes the point about EU consumer protections being far stronger than US protections. If you doubt that, ask the people of Flint, Michigan. It doesn't diminish it because it has nothing to do with it.

Did you do the one with the funny cat?

What part of Articles 11 and 13 amount to 'Internet Censorship' ? And given the amount of public discussion, where is the evidence for secret debates ?

https://gizmodo.com/the-end-of-all-thats-good-and-pure-about-the-internet-1826963763

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/eu-article-11-13-latest-gdpr-link-tax-internet-juri-censorship-a8407566.html

"We support the consideration of measures that would improve the ability for creators to receive fair remuneration for the use of their works online," the letter reads.*"But we cannot support Article 13, which would mandate Internet platforms to embed an automated infrastructure for monitoring and censorship deep into their networks."

There's plenty more articles explaining it if you need them.

With regards to the secret debate, see post 6144 on the trillogue process.

There's plenty of articles but here are a couple. Also the letter from the 70 luminaries themselves mention censorship.

 

https://gizmodo.com/the-end-of-all-thats-good-and-pure-about-the-internet-1826963763

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/eu-article-11-13-latest-gdpr-link-tax-internet-juri-censorship-a8407566.html

 

"We support the consideration of measures that would improve the ability for creators to receive fair remuneration for the use of their works online," the letter reads.*"But we cannot support Article 13, which would mandate Internet platforms to embed an automated infrastructure for monitoring and censorship deep into their networks."

But is calling this 'censorship' a bit disingenuous, or even alarmist ? It appear that the principal objections in this regard are that the proposals effectively prohibit some models for delivering Internet content from operating, as the implicit costs of reconfiguring and monitoring the backend IT systems can realistically only be met and justified by the Global players. Censorship would imply a deliberate policy of denying access to content following a political or legal mandate.

I made one reply- not sure why that equates to being "triggered" and verbal wilfully misinterpreted me as an excuse to prove his vast knowledge of consumer protections for some reason. All my posts since then have tried to clarify what I assumed was an easily understood point. Not by verbal it seems but then he has been shouting about jihadists all over the place so he does appear slightly unhinged.

His last post addressed your point about IP and Tim Berners Lee -namely that there is an inherent tension between supporting and rewarding creatives for their labour on the one hand and ensuring that creative content can be accessed as easily as possible on the other. And that the EU is attempting to correct a situation where the big tech giants have cynically appropriated the language of openness which genuinely motivates the likes of Tim Berner Lee (sometimes naively and idealistically I might add) quite simply because their business model as a platform depends on being able to get as much creative content for as cheaply as possible.

None of this should be controversial, least of all to those who believe in capitalist enterprise or just rewards. Franklin Foer and Jaron Lanier are very good on this.

Don’t get me wrong: we can argue about the implementation of the proposals and whether the right balance has been struck. But they are second-order arguments and don't mean that the EU is wrong to take action. It is equally important to recognise that whatever regulation is passed will never be perfect or please everyone because the trade-offs at the heart of IP are irreconcilable. Indeed I’d argue that people themselves are genuinely torn on the issue not least because they may be simultaneously creators and users of content.

And ultimately, not sure what all this has to do with support or opposition to the EU. Tim Berners Lee opposition to Article 13 won’t stop him being a remainer or thinking that zealots are sleepwalking this country into Brexit if unchallenged.

Jaguar Landrover now suggesting up to 40k jobs could be at risk in the event of a ‘bad brexit’. They export 80% of their cars, which generates £18bn annually.

They apparently also have a UK supply chain consisting of circa 260k jobs.

"bad Brexit": ask different people to define it, they'd all come up with a different answer...

"bad Brexit": ask different people to define it, they'd all come up with a different answer...

Completely irrelevant in this context. JLR’s definition of a bad brexit is crystal-clear. Then again for a fanatic like you, that might be the definition of a good Brexit, so, indeed, you may have a point pal.

"bad Brexit": ask different people to define it, they'd all come up with a different answer...

Jaguar Landrover now suggesting up to 40k jobs could be at risk in the event of a ‘bad brexit’. They export 80% of their cars, which generates £18bn annually.

They apparently also have a UK supply chain consisting of circa 260k jobs.

Yep, nearly 1 million UK jobs in total rely on the car industry. f*ck em.

Yep, nearly 1 million UK jobs in total rely on the car industry. f*ck em.

Does that figure just include those employed by JLR and its supply chain or all the jobs that rely on the purchasing power of its employees -everything from the local hairdresser to the shopkeeper on the high street?

Does that figure just include those employed by JLR and its supply chain or all the jobs that rely on the purchasing power of its employees -everything from the local hairdresser to the shopkeeper on the high street?

Its just over 900,000 employed directly in the factories and supply chain - but doesn't include all the truck drivers, restaurants, shops, taxis, retailers etc who depend on the money that the 1m relatively highly paid workers spend.

Its just over 900,000 employed directly in the factories and supply chain - but doesn't include all the truck drivers, restaurants, shops, taxis, retailers etc who depend on the money that the 1m relatively highly paid workers spend.

Thanks for clarifying. Interesting work by Enrico Moretti has found that each additional skilled job in the manufacturing or tradable sector generates 2.5 additional jobs in precisely the jobs you describe. The multiplier is even higher for the more high tech jobs at JLR. So the 1m figure is likely to be a significant underestimate.

F**k business.

Thanks for clarifying. Interesting work by Enrico Moretti has found that each additional skilled job in the manufacturing or tradable sector generates 2.5 additional jobs in precisely the jobs you describe. The multiplier is even higher for the more high tech jobs at JLR. So the 1m figure is likely to be a significant underestimate.

 

F**k business.

I wonder what kind of hole that would put into the tax take and public finances, which are already precarious. Might be a tinsy bit bigger and more real than the Brexit fairy dividend

I wonder what kind of hole that would put into the tax take and public finances, which are already precarious. Might be a tinsy bit bigger and more real than the Brexit fairy dividend

Interesting question. Don't know the answer. PWC has done some work on the tax contribution of so-called 100 Group, the UK's most important companies, albeit in a different context.

https://www.pwc.co.uk/services/tax/total-tax-contribution-100-group.html

The UK services sector reported its fastest rise in activity since last October, increasing expectations of an imminent interest rate rise. The purchasing managers' index (PMI) from IHS Markit/CIPS showed activity rose to 55.1 in June, up from 54. IHS chief business economist Chris Williamson said the reading added to signs that the economy rebounded in the second quarter. He said it "opens the door for an August rate hike". Any reading above 50 indicates an expansion rather than a contraction.

 

 

IHS Markit estimated that UK gross domestic product (GDP) rose by 0.4% in the three months to June, compared with a 0.2% rise in the first three months of the year.

 

Activity in the UK services sector makes up nearly 80% of the UK's GDP.

...and if you can't laugh at yourself, Whitey, who can you laugh at?

How long will this take' date=' how many people go bust in the meantime and will I still be alive when it's all settled?[/quote']

 

 

Are you serious? This is far worse than 2008. The fall in the world's stockmarkets on Friday was $2,000,000,000,000 .

 

 

As i just said to Wes, you have no idea of the damage that you have caused.

 

"As i just said to Wes, you have no idea of the damage that you have caused."

IHS Markit estimated that UK gross domestic product (GDP) rose by 0.4% in the three months to June, compared with a 0.2% rise in the first three months of the year.

 

Activity in the UK services sector makes up nearly 80% of the UK's GDP.

Thats 1.2% on an annualised basis you fruitloop. By far the worst of any major (and most minor) economies.

Thats 1.2% on an annualised basis you fruitloop. By far the worst of any major (and most minor) economies.

Meanwhile, in Germany:

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) on Thursday cut its 2018 forecast for German GDP growth to 2.2 percent, saying rising protectionism and the threat of a hard Brexit had exposed Europe's biggest economy to significant short-term risks.

Meanwhile, in Germany:

So... what's the point... Brexit is hurting everyone, not just the UK? Or that Germany is still growing faster than us despite this?

France:

France's economic growth will fall from 2.3 percent to 1.7 percent in 2018, the national statistics agency forecasted on Tuesday, adding to the budgetary strains on President Emmanuel Macron's cost-cutting government.

Italy:

Italy will face the ill-effects of a global slowdown most acutely. After abysmal performance through much of the last decade, Italian GDP growth had picked up to annual rate of 1.8 percent in the second half of 2017. But that did not last. Already, Italian GDP growth is slowing and forecasts for the 2018 have are down to just above a 1 percent annual growth rate.

The EU, a land of milk and honey....

So... what's the point... Brexit is hurting everyone, not just the UK? Or that Germany is still growing faster than us despite this?

Once Brexit is over big business can start on their next project, stopping Corbyn getting into number 10. They’ll be threats of job loses, predictions regarding a run on the pound and threats of high wage earners moving abroad. I’m sure big business leaders will be writing letters to The Times and urging us vote Tory. Looking forward to the lefties trying to square the circle, do we ignore these warnings or vote accordingly. For consistency I’m sure the Remainers will be taking these as gospel ,and all voting Tory.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Once Brexit is over big business can start on their next project, stopping Corbyn getting into number 10. They’ll be threats of job loses, predictions regarding a run on the pound and threats of high wage earners moving abroad. I’m sure big business leaders will be writing letters to The Times and urging us vote Tory. Looking forward to the lefties trying to square the circle, do we ignore these warnings or vote accordingly. For consistency I’m sure the Remainers will be taking these as gospel ,and all voting Tory.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

F**k business.

News flash - Brexit hasn't happened yet...

So why do you keep trying to prove how great the UK economy is doing?

Theresa May’s Brexit paper could mean no US trade deal

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/theresa-mays-brexit-paper-could-mean-no-us-trade-deal/

So why do you keep trying to prove how great the UK economy is doing?

Basically because of this pile of dog sh!t that the Treasury provided before the vote to leave, nearly two years ago:

A vote to leave would cause a profound economic shock creating instability and uncertainty which would be compounded by the complex and interdependent negotiations that would follow. The central conclusion of the analysis is that the effect of this profound shock would be to push the UK into recession and lead to a sharp rise in unemployment. Two scenarios have been modelled to provide analysis of the adverse impact on the economy: a ‘shock’ to the economy, and a ‘severe shock’.

In the ‘shock’ scenario, a vote to leave would result in a recession, a spike in inflation and a rise in unemployment. After two years, the analysis shows that GDP would be around 3.6% lower in the shock scenario compared with a vote to remain. In this scenario, the fall in the value of the pound would be around 12%, and unemployment would increase by around 500,000, with all regions experiencing a rise in the number of people out of work.

Still, the traitors on here would prefer to talk the country down and continue to ignore the democratic will of the people.

As Rudolph Churchill said in his famous speech over 120 years ago:

I was much struck the other day in the House of Commons by a sentence which fell from the prime minister, when, leaning over the table and addressing directly the Tory party, he said to them, “Trust the people.”

The jihadists are getting their knickers in a twist...

Where's one of guido's fluffers to provide a timely link when you need it

Maybe have a look at article 11 and 13 of the new Internet censorship regulations and the link tax, legislation possibly being debated in secret and opposed by a host of people including Tim berners Lee.

And so we come full circle within 24 hours. The supposedly undemocratic EU cabal, "debating in secret" (your phrase) were clearly going to ram this through.

Or not.

In actual fact, after two years of open debate in the European parliament - and two years of relentless lobbying, not least from the big internet players - the proposed changes to European copyright law were voted down yesterday.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/05/youtube-could-escape-billions-in-copyright-payouts-after-eu-vote

Got any more stories from the great Brexit jihad to tell us?

And so we come full circle within 24 hours. The supposedly undemocratic EU cabal, "debating in secret" (your phrase) were clearly going to ram this through.

 

Or not.

 

In actual fact, after two years of open debate in the European parliament - and two years of relentless lobbying, not least from the big internet players - the proposed changes to European copyright law were voted down yesterday.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/05/youtube-could-escape-billions-in-copyright-payouts-after-eu-vote

 

Got any more stories from the great Brexit jihad to tell us?