Irexit party yay or nay?

Imreoir2

RandomName2 wrote: »

That was off the top of my head because people were saying 'what threats in relation to the multinationals', but I should know by now that pro-EU heads will try to trip you up on everything, even on the definition of the word threat.

I don't care enough about the topic at the moment to research it at all. All the information I've posted in this thread has taken less than a minute of research on my part each time. There's literally hundreds of articles about the dangers posed in relation to multinationals in proposed changes within the EU, but if you want to be a lone voice in the wilderness, that's up to yourself.

Better yet, if you would like to refute these articles that could actually be productive. I mean, chances are you'll be wrong, but people are rarely 100% wrong, and rebuttals can often shed new light on things.

So much talk of threats and dangers. What exactly can the EU do if we choose not to allow them to implement their proposals? Where is the danger, what is the threat? What are they threathning us with? As far as I can see the only danger is if we ourselves choose to go along with suggested changes. It only happens if we agree to it, we would have to do it to ourselves, much as would be the case if we were not a member of the EU at all.

Seth Brundle

RandomName2 wrote: »

That was off the top of my head because people were saying 'what threats in relation to the multinationals', but I should know by now that pro-EU heads will try to trip you up on everything, even on the definition of the word threat.

It's called debate. You made incredible points and you were challengednon them. So far you've failed to stand up to the challenge.

RandomName2 wrote: »

don't care enough about the topic at the moment to research it at all.

And yet here you are not convincing anyone :rolleyes:

RandomName2 wrote: »

All the information I've posted in this thread has taken less than a minute of research on my part each time. There's literally hundreds of articles about the dangers posed in relation to multinationals in proposed changes within the EU, but if you want to be a lone voice in the wilderness, that's up to yourself.

Hmmm less than a minute of research you say?
As for the hundreds of articles, please provide a link to one that can withstand scrutiny?

RandomName2 wrote: »

Better yet, if you would like to refute these articles that could actually be productive. I mean, chances are you'll be wrong, but people are rarely 100% wrong, and rebuttals can often shed new light on things.

Go on, let us prove ourselves wrong. Provide a link.

RandomName2

Seth Brundle wrote: »

It's called debate.

It's called being a pedant. All you EUites know what I was referring to, but are pretending not to have heard any international politics for the last year.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

You made incredible points

Me, the state, and the media, so.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So far you've failed to stand up to the challenge.

You've got good gusto, I'll give you that, but you're misapplying it here.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

And yet here you are not convincing anyone :rolleyes:

Takes virtually no time to post a comment, it would take hours of my time to research the implications of CCCP- I forget the rest of the acronym, or other aspects relating to EU criticism of Irish policy. Doing that research would be pointless anyway as people like yourself would brush it all away, pretend not to see it, and get hung up on a word like 'threat'.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Hmmm less than a minute of research you say?
As for the hundreds of articles, please provide a link to one that can withstand scrutiny?

Google it. Or look at the ones I've already posted and you've ignored. I mean, I know you don't actually care about the subject, and you want to profess your undying love to all things EU, but Fine Gael are the biggest Europhiles in Ireland and even they can bring themselves level some criticism its way.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Go on, let us prove ourselves wrong. Provide a link.

I've provided several. Knock yourself out, as they say. I don't really see how you'd be any more convinced by dozens more.

Rhineshark

RandomName2 wrote: »

It's called being a pedant. All you EUites know what I was referring to, but are pretending not to have heard any international politics for the last year.

Tbh, it's very difficult to take your argument at all seriously when you're one step off "meanie poopoo pants" in your rhetoric when people don't agree with you. But gratz on finally coming up with a new one after the interminable multiple-times-within-same-post use of EUheads.

"You have a head on ya like 27 countries in a trade union and one that doesn't know how to leave" is never going to take off.

RandomName2

Rhineshark wrote: »

Tbh, it's very difficult to take your argument at all seriously when you're one step off "meanie poopoo pants" in your rhetoric when people don't agree with you.

I don't know why people who consider themselves pro-EU to have a higher level of discourse than Euroskeptics. Maybe it is that they only compare themselves with COIR.

Few people have disagreed with me. They've waffled. You are waffling. You're not disagreeing with me, you are liking the sound of your own voice. OscarBravo, An Ciarraioch, and FreudianSlippers actually produced half-decent posts whilst actually disagreeing with me. Well, OB's posts were mixed quality, but there's still some degree of genuine rigor there. Besides which I empathize with his all-too-evident exasperation with people with agenda driven posting who don't actually care about the matter that's being debated, but merely attempt to lazily obstruct, and straw-man people they consider to be on a different side to themselves.

My point was that there's basically only two recent political events that in any way lend succor to an Irexit stance, namely Brexit and Ireland's policy in relation to multinationals coming under attack. Nobody's got an issue with the Brexit part of that sentence, even though we have no idea what form that Brexit may eventually take.

You're not a poopiepants, but you are ****posting.

Quin_Dub

Here's the thing though..

Let's imagine the EU did magically change the rules and each and every member state , including us ratified those changes and all of a sudden we had full tax harmonisation etc.

Hows does being outside the EU help us then?

We'd have removed ourselves from direct access to the World's largest trading block and made it so that the primary reasons for a massive % of our employment in this country no longer apply.

I'm going to quote myself from the early stages of this thread back in February which was a reply to this post following Farages appearance in the RDS

Arthur Daley wrote: »

Again EU=loads a money
Outside EU = black hole of Calcutta.

Rinse and repeat this dogma every time since 1972. I wasn't at this RDS meeting but I believe arguments were put forward by Farage and co. around Ireland's fisheries, possible gas and oil fields and agriculture exports outside the confines of the EU. It would be interesting to tease these out further if a party got up and running.

A majority in Britain don't buy this argument anymore. It's time some of us questioned it also. Unless and until this thinking is broken we are just going to go on supposing.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Totally agree , but Farage and his ilk are not saying that , they are saying "Leave first , tease out later" which is what has happened in the UK.

As many here have said , happy to have a reasoned debate on the merits of leaving the EU , backed up with facts and plans etc. etc.

But anyone that believes that following the UK and leaving without a plan is a good idea is not someone I'm even interested in starting a conversation with.

The Problem statement is "The EU is not delivering the right level of benefits to all of it's member states and population"

The solution does not start with "Leave" - It might END with leave , which is fine if that's where we all end up after fully vetting the options , but that's not what any of Pro-Exit groups are saying..

That's the issue here.

The EU isn't perfect by any means and we'll always benefit from critical analysis of it to drive improvements , but anyone suggesting that Ireland should leave the EU should be treated with the utmost sceptisim.

Hurrache

RandomName2 wrote: »

All you EUites

How's that pronounced, wiites, weets or something like that?

RandomName2

Hurrache wrote: »

How's that pronounced, wiites, weets or something like that?

Tbh anything with EU is awkward as you're by default working with two syllables that don't gel well together. Not as awkward as Irexit though, right?

meta

FreudianSlippers

RandomName2 wrote: »

The point is self-evident.

You may wish to develop a point yourself, instead of writing single-line nitpicks.



Irish examiner


Threats and Opportunities Facing
Ireland's Corporation Tax Regime



Hibernia forum

I can get dozens more, within a minute, from people more knowledgeable than myself.

Ah, there's no point in arguing with EU-heads, flat-Earthers, pro-lifers, or 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

Oh I'd also say that Trump's position in relation to multi-nationals is a threat. I'm sure you'd get behind that, pro-EU heads are pretty predictable and all.

This post does absolutely nothing to further your point - the issue of "tax harmonisation" insofar is it has been contained in your quotes (which alarmingly you don't seem to have read) has also already been addressed earlier in this thread.

FreudianSlippers

RandomName2 wrote: »

That was off the top of my head because people were saying 'what threats in relation to the multinationals', but I should know by now that pro-EU heads will try to trip you up on everything, even on the definition of the word threat.

I don't care enough about the topic at the moment to research it at all. All the information I've posted in this thread has taken less than a minute of research on my part each time. There's literally hundreds of articles about the dangers posed in relation to multinationals in proposed changes within the EU, but if you want to be a lone voice in the wilderness, that's up to yourself.

Better yet, if you would like to refute these articles that could actually be productive. I mean, chances are you'll be wrong, but people are rarely 100% wrong, and rebuttals can often shed new light on things.

That much is clear, but what is unclear is why you'd be here putting forward disinformation and arguing with a few people who clearly understand the issue and care about it?

What was option (b) again?

RandomName2

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

CCCTB. HAS. NOTHING. TO. DO. WITH. CT. RATES.


Am I in some kind of crazy-land here or do people just not read threads anymore?!

What does the CT bit of CCCTB stand for?

Ah in all seriousness it seems to have clear implications in relation to the effective costs owned by multinationals, even if member states' CT rates remain their own business.

It is important to remember that the proposal does not affect a country’s corporate tax rates, and therefore, Ireland’s 12.5 per cent corporate tax regime is not affected by these proposals. Leaving aside the consolidation element, certain aspects of the proposal are already contained in Irish law, but where there are differences they are substantial (e.g. treatment of R&D expenditure and tax depreciation on certain assets). Such differences serve to decrease Ireland’s competiveness vis-à-vis other Member States and the proposal as currently written attempts a one-size-fits-all approach that does not recognise the needs of a small, open economy like Ireland.

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ie/Documents/Tax/ie-Tax-EU-Developments-ccctb-and-corporate-tax-reformV3.pdf

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That much is clear, but what is unclear is why you'd be here putting forward disinformation

What part of Brexit and Irish multinational practices do you disagree with? You don't believe Brexit is a threat? You think neither of these things can be potentially used by an Irexit organisation to bolster their arguments? Care to back any of that up, if so?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This post does absolutely nothing to further your point - the issue of "tax harmonisation" insofar is it has been contained in your quotes (which alarmingly you don't seem to have read) has also already been addressed earlier in this thread.

The response was to the word 'threat'. You may kindly notice that the word threat is used in each of these sources. I cannot respond to every single request simultaneously. The definition of 'threat' was a particularly silly tangent, which thankfully ended up in a few posts being deleted.

You may struggle to find me using the term tax-harmonisation, as I have not done so in this thread.

My point was that Brexit and the attacks on Irish practices in relation to multinationals are both aspects, and indeed possibly the sole aspects, of recent political events that could potentially be used by a euroskeptic party. This is so patently, obviously true it has been an embarrassment to see people on this thread attempting to argue otherwise.

'The sky is blue.' Define blue. It's not blue if it's cloudy is it? Why are you denying global warming?

prawnsambo

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Here's the thing though..

Let's imagine the EU did magically change the rules and each and every member state , including us ratified those changes and all of a sudden we had full tax harmonisation etc.

Hows does being outside the EU help us then?

We'd have removed ourselves from direct access to the World's largest trading block and made it so that the primary reasons for a massive % of our employment in this country no longer apply.

I'm going to quote myself from the early stages of this thread back in February which was a reply to this post following Farages appearance in the RDS

The EU isn't perfect by any means and we'll always benefit from critical analysis of it to drive improvements , but anyone suggesting that Ireland should leave the EU should be treated with the utmost sceptisim.

This is the crux of brexit which the UK are only now getting to grips with. There is no flavour that doesn't come with a price. In most cases, and particularly in the case of the UK, a high price. A country that depends on the service industry for a huge proportion of its GDP, has made it a slam dunk decision for that industry (which is very mobile) to relocate to where its market and income are strongest.

If anyone is still in any doubt, have a look at the FDI figures for the UK between 2016 and 2017. And outward FDI in the same period. It couldn't be more convincing of why we are in the EU and why it's important to stay there.

Wanderer78

We have to find workable ways of getting large corporations to pay more tax though, as we have an over reliance of labour doing so

FreudianSlippers

RandomName2 wrote: »

What does the CT bit of CCCTB stand for?

CTB = Corporate Tax Base

Where a company pays corporation tax.

Ah in all seriousness it seems to have clear implications in relation to the effective costs owned by multinationals, even if member states' CT rates remain their own business.


https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ie/Documents/Tax/ie-Tax-EU-Developments-ccctb-and-corporate-tax-reformV3.pdf

CCCTB isn't exactly the same as it was when that was written 2 years ago, but the headline issue doesn't change. CCCTB now excludes intra-group profits which effectively solves some of the issues raised in the quoted segment.

But none of that actually matters - Ireland is "profiting" from a manifestly unfair tax code at the moment. CCCTB will ensure that this ends to minor disadvantage to Ireland in tax intake; I honestly think that's fine. It will have no impact on Ireland as a base for multinationals.

FreudianSlippers

RandomName2 wrote: »

The response was to the word 'threat'. You may kindly notice that the word threat is used in each of these sources. I cannot respond to every single request simultaneously. The definition of 'threat' was a particularly silly tangent, which thankfully ended up in a few posts being deleted.

You may struggle to find me using the term tax-harmonisation, as I have not done so in this thread.

There is no threat to Ireland's CT rate.

FreudianSlippers

Wanderer78 wrote: »

We have to find workable ways of getting large corporations to pay more tax though, as we have an over reliance of labour doing so

CCCTB is that solution in fairness. So long as we don't continue to provide illegal state aid to companies that is.

RandomName2

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There is no threat to Ireland's CT rate.

Okay, so you don't believe that Ireland's practices in relation to multinationals has come under attack, or you are being willfully obtuse.

It's the latter isn't it? Yes, it's the latter.

FreudianSlippers wrote:

Ireland is "profiting" from a manifestly unfair tax code at the moment.

I never, once, said it was not unfair. Again with the obtuseness, FS.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

CTB = Corporate Tax Base

Where a company pays corporation tax.

That is kind of a big deal. Are you genuinely pretending it isn't?

Wanderer78

FreudianSlippers wrote:

CCCTB is that solution in fairness. So long as we don't continue to provide illegal state aid to companies that is.

I ll have to read back over your posts to figure out that, but I'd be interested to find out ways of doing this, my own personal favourite is the use of sovereign wealth funds, but that probably has limitations like anything

FreudianSlippers

RandomName2 wrote: »

Okay, so you don't believe that Ireland's practices in relation to multinationals has come under attack, or you are being willfully obtuse.

It's the latter isn't it? Yes, it's the latter.

Ireland potentially provided illegal state aid to Apple (I'll await the ECJ's decision on that) and potentially other companies that we don't know about. As I said, it has nothing to do with the 12.5% rate of CT. No amount of calling people obtuse is going to change that fact.

I'm honestly not sure what part of this you don't understand?

I never, once, said it was not unfair. Again with the obtuseness, FS.

What point exactly are you making then - because nobody on this thread seems to understand what you're on about.

Hotblack Desiato

I'd love to know why some people think that staying in or leaving the EU has any effect whatsoever on any future oil or gas discoveries in Irish waters.

FreudianSlippers

RandomName2 wrote: »

That is kind of a big deal. Are you genuinely pretending it isn't?

It's very obvious that you don't understand a lot about CCCTB or corporation tax. What would you like for me to explain to you?

Ireland will probably lose 5% of its CT intake due to CCCTB (at worst) but theoretically this could be offset by reduction of loss outside of the EU. It's also clearly wrong that digital profits are not taxed in the Member State in which they are accrued.

FreudianSlippers

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I'd love to know why some people think that staying in or leaving the EU has any effect whatsoever on any future oil or gas discoveries in Irish waters.

I think the "logic" is that we can just invent lots of money to build endless social housing for everyone and, because of this socialist utopia, everyone will be free to invent new and cheap ways to extract oil from the seas (which is currently deemed too expensive and impossible by companies who, like, actually do this for a living).

RandomName2

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Ireland potentially provided illegal state aid to Apple (I'll await the ECJ's decision on that) and potentially other companies that we don't know about. As I said, it has nothing to do with the 12.5% rate of CT. No amount of calling people obtuse is going to change that fact.

Okay so you grudgingly half concede that Ireland's practices in relation to multinationals have come under attack.

You have done nothing to counter the argument that the attacks on Ireland's practices would not bolster an Irexit party's potential popularity. I mean, it would be unwise to do so, because it is pretty obviously the case, but you are still keeping up the argument while battering the straw man of sovereignty over national CT rate to death.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What point exactly are you making then - because nobody on this thread seems to understand what you're on about.

Everyone on this thread is pro-EU, which for some reason means that most of them abandon reason. I mean, they are so bad, that they'll take a sentence which is obviously meant ironically, because it has a smiley face at the end, use that as the central point being made by the poster, and ignore most of the rest of the post. Wait, that was you.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's also clearly wrong that digital profits are not taxed in the Member State in which they are accrued.

Yes, but measures to enforce that are unlikely to sit well with people who have to date been profiting from exactly that. You seem not to understand this, shall I explain it to you?

FreudianSlippers

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I ll have to read back over your posts to figure out that, but I'd be interested to find out ways of doing this, my own personal favourite is the use of sovereign wealth funds, but that probably has limitations like anything

It's a little more complicated than this, but in essence the CCCTB consolidates taxation on profits into the group's parent company (say for example based in Ireland). It prevents an overall profit/loss between subsidiaries within the EU but doesn't tax intra-group profits... what does this mean in reality? It stops companies from unfairly moving profits into one MS whilst moving losses into another; so to fix that it looks at the group parent (in this case based in Ireland) as the beneficial owner of all profits/losses and calculates CT owed based on a calculation that considers capital, labour and sales (equally weighted) in each MS.

The second thing it does is it says that a company (again based in Ireland) who makes profit in, say Germany, on digital content should have to pay CT in Germany on that profit instead of Ireland.

Both of these have an immediate potential negative impact on Ireland's CT intake (estimated 5% loss of CT and 1% job losses) but they are inherently more fair across the EU.

However, this could be offset by a key provision that deals with international (i.e. outside EU) subsidiaries of companies based in Ireland (read: the EU, but for the purposes of this let's be selfish). Due to the consolidation in the group parent, removal of transfer pricing and an unlimited loss carry-forward, theoretically it benefits companies to consolidate their international group in Ireland and to (attempt to) pay most of their tax at Ireland's 12.5% rate. So by closing some tax loopholes companies will be less likely to get away with paying no tax and should, in theory, then move on to paying as little tax as possible (i.e. Ireland).

This is a gross over-simplification, but I think it hits most of the main points.

FreudianSlippers

RandomName2 wrote: »

Okay so you grudgingly half concede that Ireland's practices in relation to multinationals have come under attack.

You have done nothing to counter the argument that the attacks on Ireland's practices would not bolster an Irexit party's potential popularity. I mean, it would be unwise to do so, because it is pretty obviously the case, but you are still keeping up the argument while battering the straw man of sovereignty over national CT rate to death.

This is a total shift of goalposts because you've waded in beyond your depth.

CT rates is not a strawman (I'm not sure you know what that is).

Ireland's CT practices have not come under attack/threat/whatever. You seem to be confusing state aid with CT.

Everyone on this thread is pro-EU, which for some reason means that most of them abandon reason. I mean, they are so bad, that they'll take a sentence which is obviously meant ironically, because it has a smiley face at the end, use that as the central point being made by the poster, and ignore most of the rest of the post. Wait, that was you.

It's still patently unclear that you're even aware yourself of what point you're failing to make.

Yes, but measures to enforce that are unlikely to sit well with people who have to date been profiting from exactly that. You seem not to understand this, shall I explain it to you?

I honestly would love for you to explain anything to me, because most of what you've written is nonsensical. I'm a bit baffled that anyone would be claiming that clamping down on tax-avoidance by large corporations is a good logical reason for considering Irexit.

ELM327

RandomName2 wrote: »

Okay so you grudgingly half concede that Ireland's practices in relation to multinationals have come under attack.

You have done nothing to counter the argument that the attacks on Ireland's practices would not bolster an Irexit party's potential popularity. I mean, it would be unwise to do so, because it is pretty obviously the case, but you are still keeping up the argument while battering the straw man of sovereignty over national CT rate to death.



Everyone on this thread is pro-EU, which for some reason means that most of them abandon reason. I mean, they are so bad, that they'll take a sentence which is obviously meant ironically, because it has a smiley face at the end, use that as the central point being made by the poster, and ignore most of the rest of the post. Wait, that was you.



Yes, but measures to enforce that are unlikely to sit well with people who have to date been profiting from exactly that. You seem not to understand this, shall I explain it to you?

You can't possibly have a rationale behind that thought stream so you are either trolling for a reaction, or you are in the irexit party.
Either case there is no rationale or logic that can defend the indefensible.

RandomName2

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This is a total shift of goalposts because you've waded in beyond your depth.

CT rates is not a strawman (I'm not sure you know what that is).

It means that you consistently ignore my point, made many, many posts ago

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Ireland's CT practices have not come under attack/threat/whatever. You seem to be confusing state aid with CT.

Not just state aid, but the effective location that multinationals pay tax. That's the reason why the issue is in relation to multinationals, and not exclusively domestic companies.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's still patently unclear that you're even aware yourself of what point you're failing to make.

You have finally conceded defeat on something which I am unsure why you were arguing in the first place. Reminds me of the time when you said that Ireland couldn't be called the republic of Ireland or some such.

So.. the question 'would an Irexit party use Brexit and also the threats of political and legal action in relation to Irish policies in relation to multinationals to further their agenda'

I think we can all guess the answer. But before you jump down another rabbit hole, FreudianSlippers, I did a quick search of Irexit 'freedom party?' page and.. well there's not much there in general at the moment in fairness. The online paper Motley agrees with me, but you'd have to be a bit dense not to assume that this 'freedom party' (is that really what they call themselves? Wait, I don't care) wouldn't use that as part of their platform, provided that they make any platform at all.

Oh FS, you could argue that Brexit has no impact on our taxation laws. That'll keep you going for ages.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm a bit baffled that anyone would be claiming that clamping down on tax-avoidance by large corporations is a good logical reason for considering Irexit.

No you wouldn't. You've seen people make claims in relation to minimum wage as grounds for how to vote in referenda that were virtually unrelated to such matters. As the presence of these multinationals are largely due to Ireland being in the EU, and the consolidation of tax within Ireland is largely a manipulation of the multinational's presence within the entire EU being considered, this argument doesn't hold much water. Their use of it could theoretically affect the overton window, however.

I'm going to assume the argument is concluded, as you've consistently avoided actually debating the claim that an Irexit party would use attacks on multinationals to bolster their image, instead focusing exclusively on tax-harmonisation.

Is tax-harmonisation the equivalent of the race-card for pro-EU posters, who retreat behind it because that's where they feel safe? I'll keep an eye out for it going forward.

Seth Brundle

Quick question for those that would like to to pair up with the UK and leave the EU: if the UK leaves the EU and we follow suit, what do we do when the UK realises that leaving wasn't their best ever idea and they rejoin the EU?
Would the Irish pro-leave supporters be happy being alone outside and what would the benefits of that be?

RandomName2

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Quick question for those that would like to to pair up with the UK and leave the EU: if the UK leaves the EU and we follow suit, what do we do when the UK realises that leaving wasn't their best ever idea and they rejoin the EU?
Would the Irish pro-leave supporters be happy being alone outside and what would the benefits of that be?

You're not going to get much of an answer because this thread is one of the worst echo chambers I've seen in a while, but I'd guess that the most ardent Irexiters would also be against surrendering sovereignty to the UK (in any form). Then there would be those who would be more pragmatic, and would have their minds changed by the economic consequences of Irexit in the first place.

It's a fairly academic question as it won't happen, given the current state of affairs.

Imreoir2

RandomName2 wrote: »

You're not going to get much of an answer because this thread is one of the worst echo chambers I've seen in a while, but I'd guess that the most ardent Irexiters would also be against surrendering sovereignty to the UK (in any form). Then there would be those who would be more pragmatic, and would have their minds changed by the economic consequences of Irexit in the first place.

It's a fairly academic question as it won't happen, given the current state of affairs.

Most ardent Irexiteers are members of UKIP in my experiance, so would have no problem with Ireland surrendering sovereignty to the UK.