Brexit discussion thread II

Junkyard Tom · 23-11-2017 04:55PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

EU cancels Britain's hosting of European capital of culture. It's nice to see the EU treating Brexit as Brexit.

Unionist MEP and fervent Brexiter Dianne Dodds was on Talk Back this afternoon crying foul about the fact that Derry and Belfast are no longer eligible for ECC. It's really bizarre - like they're living in alternate universe where they get keep every EU benefit while simultaneously moaning about being in it and eagerly wanting out.

Professor Moriarty · 23-11-2017 05:07PM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Unionist MEP and fervent Brexiter Dianne Dodds was on Talk Back this afternoon crying foul about the fact that Derry and Belfast are no longer eligible for ECC. It's really bizarre - like they're living in alternate universe where they get keep every EU benefit while simultaneously moaning about being in it and eagerly wanting out.

The EU could still have awarded the ECC to a British city after Brexit. It doesn't have to be awarded to a member of the EU. Which makes the decision all the more pointed.

Junkyard Tom · 23-11-2017 05:14PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The EU could still have awarded the ECC to a British city after Brexit.

Depending on the what the final arrangements were or because it's not dependent on politics, rather geography?

Professor Moriarty · 23-11-2017 05:22PM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Depending on the what the final arrangements were or because it's not dependent on politics, rather geography?

Dunno TBH. I read the report in the Independent this morning and it said this:

Britain will not be allowed to host the European Capital of Culture as planned in 2023 after Brexit, despite the scheme being open to countries that aren’t in the EU, Brussels has said.

But the Guardian now says this:

The European commission said it would not be possible because only countries that were in the EU, the European Economic Area or in the process of becoming members were eligible for inclusion.

So it looks like politics disguised as protocol.

ambro25 · 23-11-2017 05:28PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The EU could still have awarded the ECC to a British city after Brexit. It doesn't have to be awarded to a member of the EU. Which makes the decision all the more pointed.

It could?

That's not my reading of Article 3 of Decision No 445/2014/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 establishing a Union action for the European Capitals of Culture for the years 2020 to 2033 and repealing Decision No 1622/2006/EC

What you are seeing with this, is the EU applying EU law, very simply so (and, accessorily, demonstrating with a practical example how Brexit works as a legal process, and why the UK won't ever "have its cake and eating it" by reason of same).

EU regulation 445/2014/EU: only Member States (-of the EEA) and candidates to accession, can participate in hosting city of culture events.

Brexit is scheduled to occur on 29 March 2019, at the latest by end 2021 in case of extension-transition (which still looks as doubtful as ever).

By 2023, the year in which the UK hosting was to take place according to the Schedule, the UK will be neither a 'Member State', nor a 'candidate'. The inevitability of the above dates notwithstanding, so says the UK's Prime Minister and her government.

So by 2023, the UK will not meet not the legal requirements of EU regulation 445/2014/EU, and so be unable to do that hosting irrespective.

It therefore makes sense to exclude the UK from the bidding process now, to avoid redundant administration of its bids until 2019/2021 (at which time they'd be binned anyway - because the above).

This is the exact same reason why UK bidders are increasingly finding themselves kicked out of EU bidding processes for this, that and the other EU and EU27 market, research, grant <etc.>

Naturally, should the UK change its mind about the EEA, I'm confident enough that the situation could be reversed.

Professor Moriarty · 23-11-2017 05:30PM

ambro25 wrote: »

It could?

That's not my reading of Article 3 of Decision No 445/2014/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 establishing a Union action for the European Capitals of Culture for the years 2020 to 2033 and repealing Decision No 1622/2006/EC

What you are seeing with this, is the EU applying EU law, very simply so (and, accessorily, demonstrating with a practical example how Brexit works as a legal process, and why the UK won't ever "have its cake and eating it" by reason of same).

EU regulation 445/2014/EU: only Member States (-of the EEA) and candidates can participate in hosting city of culture events.

Brexit is scheduled to occur on 29 March 2019, at the latest by end 2021 in case of extension-transition (which still looks as doubtful as ever).

By 2023, the year in which the UK hosting was to take place according to the Schedule, the UK will be neither a 'Member State', nor a 'candidate'. The inevitability of the above dates notwithstanding, so says the UK's Prime Minster and her government.

So by 2023, the UK will not meet not the legal requirements of EU regulation 445/2014/EU, and so be unable to do that hosting irrespective.

It therefore makes sense to exclude the UK from the bidding process now, to avoid redundant administration of its bids until 2019/2021 (at which time they'd be binned anyway - because the above).

This is the exact same reason why UK bidders are increasingly finding themselves kicked out of EU bidding processes for this, that and the other EU and EU27 market, research, grant <etc.>

Naturally, should the UK change its mind about the EEA, I'm confident enough that the situation could be reversed.

^^^ That's exactly what I meant to say.

ancapailldorcha · 23-11-2017 05:41PM

kowtow wrote: »

I don't think it's wrong to try and understand the role that conflicting views of the role of the nation state have in terms of Brexit - actually I think it's central to making objective decisions about our own place in the world and that of our children. What disturbs me is the slightly nervous shrill tone of debate in Ireland over Brexit - it would pay us perhaps to be more thoughtful and even handed in our assessment. But that's only my view, apparently.

But there's the thing. Not nearly enough people tried to understand Brexit. This isn't something unique to the British or Brexit voters by any stretch of course but people just found something that resonated with them on sovereignty, wages, immigration, more NHS money and then started shouting "Liberal Elite!" upon hearing any criticism.

As Europhilic as I am, I think it is a pretty terrible idea for the EU to not be closely scrutinised. Sovereignty is important but the manner in which it was presented in the debate was at best skewed and at worst disingenuous. The EU was made out to be some sort of tyrant barking orders at poor, little England over such important things as vacuum cleaner power and the shapes of bananas when a partnership is what exists in real life between 28, soon to be 27 nations. Most people are aware of this but it's always been something of a hangup here. That twinned with economic stagnation and an abysmal remain campaign sadly made Brexit all but unavoidable.

blanch152 · 23-11-2017 05:49PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

But there's the thing. Not nearly enough people tried to understand Brexit. This isn't something unique to the British or Brexit voters by any stretch of course but people just found something that resonated with them on sovereignty, wages, immigration, more NHS money and then started shouting "Liberal Elite!" upon hearing any criticism.

As Europhilic as I am, I think it is a pretty terrible idea for the EU to not be closely scrutinised. Sovereignty is important but the manner in which it was presented in the debate was at best skewed and at worst disingenuous. The EU was made out to be some sort of tyrant barking orders at poor, little England over such important things as vacuum cleaner power and the shapes of bananas when a partnership is what exists in real life between 28, soon to be 27 nations. Most people are aware of this but it's always been something of a hangup here. That twinned with economic stagnation and an abysmal remain campaign sadly made Brexit all but unavoidable.

It isn't a new thing that people failed to understand a significant EU issue.

We had it here with the Nice Treaty etc. People didn't understand the implications and voted no. Once the full implications were explained and understood rather than just explained, people changed their mind and voted yes.

The UK population still doesn't understand what Brexit means. The anti-EU sentiment is so deeply engrained (see Solo's posts) that it may well take an economic shock to make then understand.

ambro25 · 23-11-2017 05:55PM

blanch152 wrote: »

<...>

The UK population still doesn't understand what Brexit means. The anti-EU sentiment is so deeply engrained (see Solo's posts) that it may well take an economic shock to make then understand.

Not too early with the socking paddles, please: I have a house and a couple cars to sell first

TBH, after the ONS' growth forecast revision and Hammond's budget yesterday (all solely hinged upon the effect of a vote and its management to do date, not Brexit...about the eventual colour of which there is still no inkling), I've never been more certain that an economic shock is already under way, but is still only building up.

If negotiations do not proceed onto Stage 2 in December, then it's only going to stay a slow burner until around mid-2018.

After that period, I'd expect the mass implementation of contingency plans by the private sector begun in late December 17/Jan 18 to catch-up with quarterly stats and the media, with capital flight running and amplifying in parallel.

Let's hope not (I'd get murdered when repatriating the £ house sales proceeds into €s :pac:). But them's my tea leaves.

flaneur · 23-11-2017 06:24PM

If there's this much of a kerfuffle over the the European Capital of Culture, I can't imagine how much of a fuss there's going to be when the rural communities realise that there will suddenly be no CAP payments.

The anti-EU sentiment in the UK (and really more so in England) has been largely created by an endless barrage of tabloid stories that blame the EU on absolutely everything and used it as object to poke fun at for the last 30+ years.

I have tried on several occasions to have a rational discussion with friends of mine in England about the EU and really there's just no point. It all boils down to just an irrational, emotional and totally illogical dislike of the idea of being 'told what to do'.

They don't seem to comprehend that the UK played a fairly pivotal role in shaping many EU policies. Why do you think it's so pro-market and trade? Many of those ideals came from the UK in the 70s and 80s. Had it followed a more French model, it would be quite heavily protectionist.

Also, had the UK media, public and political world engaged more heavily with the EU, they could have had a far more influential role in its direction. Instead, they sat on the sidelines hurling abuse like a bunch of football hooligans and now they're storming off in a huff.

Sadly, I don't think the situation is resolvable without the UK leaving the EU and staying out of it for a long time. Maybe they could seek membership again in 20 or 30 years, when they've climbed down off their high horse. However, until then I think they're just going to risk destabilising the entire EU.

If Brexit gets derailed now, what happens?
They stay in as a begrudging member?

You'd just have Brexit 2.0 in a few years.

Zubeneschamali · 23-11-2017 06:26PM

blanch152 wrote: »

The UK population still doesn't understand what Brexit means. The anti-EU sentiment is so deeply engrained (see Solo's posts) that it may well take an economic shock to make then understand.

Sadly, as the disaster unfolds, Brexiteers and the entire British press up to and including the BBC will blame the EU, and the anti-EU sentiment will turn to outright hatred and paranoia.

Bigus · 23-11-2017 06:32PM

ambro25 wrote: »

Not too early with the socking paddles, please: I have a house and a couple cars to sell first

TBH, after the ONS' growth forecast revision and Hammond's budget yesterday (all solely hinged upon the effect of a vote and its management to do date, not Brexit...about the eventual colour of which there is still no inkling), I've never been more certain that an economic shock is already under way, but is still only building up.

If negotiations do not proceed onto Stage 2 in December, then it's only going to stay a slow burner until around mid-2018.

After that period, I'd expect the mass implementation of contingency plans by the private sector begun in late December 17/Jan 18 to catch-up with quarterly stats and the media, with capital flight running and amplifying in parallel.

Let's hope not (I'd get murdered when repatriating the £ house sales proceeds into €s :pac:). But them's my tea leaves.

I'd fire sale those cars and houses asap, ambro, I have an interest in both industries and I can see the parallels to before our crash already in the uk, first denial in the market then slow down , then a slight fall , and then the collapse in values when it's too late to sell .
Afterwards everyone says I should've sold sooner .

For moderation purposes the above comments are directly and totally about the effects of Brexit , in the real market.

flaneur · 23-11-2017 06:40PM

I am just wondering about the implications for the Republic of Ireland on a few technical areas.

1. Cars: What happens if the UK deviates significantly from EU safety or emissions standards on cars? We are the only other market in the EU of any significant scale that uses right-hand-drive vehicles. Would we end up having a huge spike in car prices, or having a situation where we had to get a derogation from EU laws on these things or how would it work?

There's a potential problem where we might not be able to source right-hand-drive cars that are built to EU technical specifications.

2. Electrical standards. We have a minor issue with appliances here being required to be sold with a UK plug.

I know there's no technical difference between EU appliances, but if the UK were to go off into its own standards and start say importing a lot of things from China that didn't comply with CE regulations, or something like that, how would we deal with it? I assume we'd be back to the days of appliances arriving with continental plugs and having to snip them off?

There are similar issues with other UK-centric standards here.

Or, would we just adopt continental CEE standards for this and switch back to the German-type sockets we used in the 60s?

It would seem to make sense to do so and just perhaps implement a strict Irish standard on the quality of adaptors as we'll be needing them for a while.

We have adopted a few very odd British standards that are far from international / EU norms in a few areas like this.

It just strikes me as a risk of big price inflation if distributors just continue to treat us as a subset of the UK market for these kinds of things.
Are retailers and distribution chains really going to switch to the continent, or will we just get shafted with the tariffs and they'll just keep treating us as "UK and Ireland"

Also, a lot of British suppliers have rights to distribute for "UK and Ireland" markets. Will that be scrapped because of a change to tariff barriers? Or, will we end up being shafted on that too and having to pay import tariffs on goods that should be tariff free?

I just see a lot of potential problems with companies just seeing Ireland as an 'extra cost' and not really modifying distribution chains. Also a lot of Irish consumers are likely to be very slow to switch to alternative products if they do become available. Familiar brands from the UK may just end up more expensive. We're fairly uniquely exposed tbh.

flaneur · 23-11-2017 06:49PM

Bigus wrote: »

I'd fire sale those cars and houses asap, ambro, I have an interest in both industries and I can see the parallels to before our crash already in the uk, first denial in the market then slow down , then a slight fall , and then the collapse in values when it's too late to sell .
Afterwards everyone says I should've sold sooner .

For moderation purposes the above comments are directly and totally about the effects of Brexit , in the real market.

The other issue would be with getting capital out of the UK after Brexit.
If you sell a property there post 2019, we have no idea what taxes and tariffs might apply on movement of a large amount of capital out of the UK and back into the Irish / EU system. While they currently don't use the Euro, there's still a free-flow of capital and straight-forward taxation arrangements.

You could go from a situation where it's very easy, to one that's more like selling a house in the US and repatriating the proceeds to Ireland.

There are just so many unknowns and unknown unknowns that it's making the whole thing incredibly unpredictable and difficult / impossible to plan for.

solodeogloria · 23-11-2017 07:07PM

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The Spectator respond by thinking Varadkar has bitten off more than he can chew, and that the proposal goes against Tory principles:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/11/the-irish-stance-against-brexit-is-a-dangerous-gamble/

Good evening!

This sounds like a fair assessment to me. Also fairly pointing to the risks ahead for May.

Panrich wrote: »

Thanks for the link to that vile publication. It led me, via seeing a link to another of their 'articles' to this website

https://stopfundinghate.org.uk/

Loved the John Lewis video on there.

Admittedly I like The Spectator - that might tell you everything I need to know about my personal political views. But I've found it a great little magazine for common sense politics, robust defences of the free market and civil liberties (including freedom of speech). It's a relatively thoughtful magazine.

I find it amazing that professed liberal types think that gagging the media of its funding and preventing the freedom of the press is actually a progressive aim. There was once upon a time when liberals defended the right of others to express opinion but it seems that it is all about restricting opinion. Irrespective of how disagreeable I find a publication I won't participate in a gagging campaign. It simply won't get anywhere.

blanch152 wrote: »

It isn't a new thing that people failed to understand a significant EU issue.

We had it here with the Nice Treaty etc. People didn't understand the implications and voted no. Once the full implications were explained and understood rather than just explained, people changed their mind and voted yes.

The UK population still doesn't understand what Brexit means. The anti-EU sentiment is so deeply engrained (see Solo's posts) that it may well take an economic shock to make then understand.

Goodness me. I don't think I'm anti-EU per se. I'm anti-Britain-being-in-the-EU. The continued success of the EU is something I desire. I feel that the political culture of the UK is at loggerheads with the European project and that the UK is better off out. Now, I think Ireland probably should stay in provided the EU doesn't ravage its position on corporation tax. Remaining in with a sceptical eye rather than blind enthusiasm.

The fact is all we see in the UK is a subdued period of economic growth. This is the price of uncertainty. There's been no apocalypse and I suspect there won't be one.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Calina · 23-11-2017 07:31PM

kowtow wrote: »

I suppose I'm thinking of the Swiss model which clearly satisfies WTO requirements. There are plenty of swiss crossing points without manned infrastructure. Britain already has facilities at the sea ports, and those combined with electronic declarations, trusted traders etc ought to be able to provide a workable solution from the UK side or at least one which satisfies WTO needs?

Is there any objective commentary which suggests this isn't the case?

So your answer is I'm confident the British can implement some sort of solution because the Swiss have some solution which I don't actually understand.

Fine.

That is not good enough as an answer. Particularly when you cast aspersions on the ability of the EU to do something similar.

J Mysterio · 23-11-2017 07:34PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The EU could still have awarded the ECC to a British city after Brexit. It doesn't have to be awarded to a member of the EU. Which makes the decision all the more pointed.

I feel like the idea was to give a little jolt. Like: 'we are taking this from you. This is just the first of many priviliges you are no longer entitled to'. i.e. get real - please.

Calina · 23-11-2017 07:38PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Goodness me. I don't think I'm anti-EU per se. I'm anti-Britain-being-in-the-EU.

This intrigues me on so many fronts. It sounds very English for one thing. And yet, you're Irish, and you are very emotionally attached to Britain's position or not in the EU.

What's your view on Ireland's membership of the EU?

solodeogloria · 23-11-2017 07:43PM

Calina wrote: »

This intrigues me on so many fronts. It sounds very English for one thing. And yet, you're Irish, and you are very emotionally attached to Britain's position or not in the EU.

What's your view on Ireland's membership of the EU?

Good evening!

Stay in with a sceptical eye. Tell the other countries they aren't willing to give up more control - on taxation in particular.

The narrative that exists in Ireland that the EU is all benevolent needs to end. It isn't anything of the sort. It's a bloc of vying interests. A lot of cooperation is useful for Ireland in particular. Ireland has a good reason to stay in whereas the UK doesn't.

Ensure the right types of control are kept is key. Telling the EU no to more integration is also key.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

flaneur · 23-11-2017 07:46PM

J Mysterio wrote: »

I feel like the idea was to give a little jolt. Like: 'we are taking this from you. This is just the first of many priviliges you are no longer entitled to'. i.e. get real - please.

I don’t think so.

European Law is basically a civil code system and many of those kinds of programmes are firmly based in legislation. They’re not in the gift of some individual politician.

If the UK can’t comply with the T&Cs required to do something, it just won’t be done.

There’s nothing particularly political about it. It’s just the cogs of a bureaucracy turning.

Calina · 23-11-2017 07:47PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Stay in with a sceptical eye. Tell the other countries they aren't willing to give up more control - on taxation in particular.

The narrative that exists in Ireland that the EU is all benevolent needs to end. It isn't anything of the sort. It's a bloc of vying interests. A lot of cooperation is useful for Ireland in particular. Ireland has a good reason to stay in whereas the UK doesn't.

Ensure the right types of control are kept is key.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You don't "tell" people what to do and if that's your attitude, and if that's Britain's attitude, it's not a surprise that there are problems. Cooperation doesn't get built on telling people what to do.

The narrative that exists in Ireland is not that the EU is all benevolent by the way but you'd know that if you lived here. The narrative that exists here is that being in the EU is better than not being in the EU and that it is very much a process of give and take.

Diplomacy is the art of persuasion. The UK would do well to relearn that. Ireland has punched well above its weight in diplomatic terms within the EU. And the UK is learning that the hard way. Why do you think the border is in phase 1?

J Mysterio · 23-11-2017 07:54PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Stay in with a sceptical eye. Tell the other countries they aren't willing to give up more control - on taxation in particular.

The narrative that exists in Ireland that the EU is all benevolent needs to end. It isn't anything of the sort. It's a bloc of vying interests. A lot of cooperation is useful for Ireland in particular. Ireland has a good reason to stay in whereas the UK doesn't.

Ensure the right types of control are kept is key. Telling the EU no to more integration is also key.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You are overestimating what Britain can achieve. On its own.

J Mysterio · 23-11-2017 07:56PM

flaneur wrote: »

I don’t think so.

European Law is basically a civil code system and many of those kinds of programmes are firmly based in legislation. They’re not in the gift of some individual politician.

If the UK can’t comply with the T&Cs required to do something, it just won’t be done.

There’s nothing particularly political about it. It’s just the cogs of a bureaucracy turning.

Have to agree on second thought. Still, it's a timely development!

flaneur · 23-11-2017 07:58PM

What I’m noticing is that countries used to PR democracies get on well in the EU. They’re used to the idea of trade offs, compromises and making deals.

British politics is quite absolutist because of first past the post and the all powerful executive within the parliament.

If the Tories get in, you get absolutely Tory politics. If Labour are in you get absolute Labour politics.

Most of the EU countries are either PR parliamentary democracies or have at the very least, more potential for forcing national political debate and compromise most of the time. France, Spain and a few others aren’t particularly good this either but many are.

I think the issue in the UK is not going to ever be resolved in the current form of narrow technical winner takes all democracy they use.

flutered · 23-11-2017 07:59PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Stay in with a sceptical eye. Tell the other countries they aren't willing to give up more control - on taxation in particular.

The narrative that exists in Ireland that the EU is all benevolent needs to end. It isn't anything of the sort. It's a bloc of vying interests. A lot of cooperation is useful for Ireland in particular. Ireland has a good reason to stay in whereas the UK doesn't.

Ensure the right types of control are kept is key. Telling the EU no to more integration is also key.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

does not the lisbon treaty cover the taxation issue

solodeogloria · 23-11-2017 08:01PM

Good evening!

Calina:
I initially misread your post. Apologies.

You do have the right and the responsibility to tell others no in a bloc which has rights to supersede the laws of member states.

I'm thankful that Ireland has a referendum for every treaty change and that the people have the right to say "No, sod off!".

Ireland needs to have the guts to say "No, sod off!" When something is not in the interests of its citizens. Ireland first, EU second.

If the EU were not a political union I would agree with the softer approach on taxation. But the EU is a political union where they have the fundamental right to determine what must be law in a country.

Therefore Ireland needs to say "No, sod off!" if something threatens the welfare of its citizens.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha · 23-11-2017 08:01PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I find it amazing that professed liberal types think that gagging the media of its funding and preventing the freedom of the press is actually a progressive aim. There was once upon a time when liberals defended the right of others to express opinion but it seems that it is all about restricting opinion. Irrespective of how disagreeable I find a publication I won't participate in a gagging campaign. It simply won't get anywhere.

Except that it isn't a gagging campaign though it's interesting you see it as such. It's an attempt to persuade companies to advertise ethically.

Calina · 23-11-2017 08:02PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

You asked my opinion on Ireland being in the EU. That's my opinion.

If you don't want to hear it please don't reply to my posts.

I'm entitled to have an opinion about my home country. I'm also entitled to answer your questions properly.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Solo,

this is an extremely snarky response. But I too have the right to reply. I don't believe you answer my questions properly in general by the way. I don't believe I am alone in this.

However, I did not state that I did not want your reply to that question. I responded to your response. You didn't like it; fine. But I think you misrepresent the Irish position on the EU and I have made that clear and how.

You are very emotionally bound up in Brexit in my opinion. I am interested to see that someone could get so bound up in a British political matter when they are not British. I know a few people who are relocated to London and who are not as bound up in supporting Brexit as you appear to be and yet who are under no illusions about how Ireland sees the EU.

I am concerned about the UK for a lot of reasons. I suspect that it is an extremely divided society at present and Brexit is not necessarily going to change that. I suspect it may exacerbate it. I also don't think that a reversal of Brexit will change that.

But I especially don't think that the EU has to give into every demand that the UK makes. So the UK does not get to dictate what its relationship with the UK will be. It does not get to dictate how the Irish border will be. Its media can only mislead its population for so long before there are serious issues.

I suspect that the UK population may need Brexit to force local change. It seems to me that many people who support Brexit - you included - are unable to see the issues which are intrinsic to Britain as you argue that the EU should this, or the EU should that. Ambro25 has highlighted issues with education and while I might not agree with how he expresses them, I think there are questions to be answered about what sort of a future Britain wants for itself, that when answered, will lead to issues in how they organisation education for example.

Brexit addresses none of this.

flaneur · 23-11-2017 08:02PM

flutered wrote: »

does not the lisbon treaty cover the taxation issue

Ireland has specific, written guarantees in the protocols to the Lisbon Treaty that it does NOT in anyway impact taxation.

The ECJ EU vs Apple & Ireland case is about whether Ireland granted a unique deal to Apple, giving it unfair competitive advantage over other companies. If the Irish deal is available to all companies, the Commission has no case.

The discussion about the unfairness of Irish corporate tax levels, is purely political and outside the scope of the judgement or the commissioner’s remit.

oscarBravo · 23-11-2017 08:04PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

The narrative that exists in Ireland that the EU is all benevolent...

...is a Euroskeptic myth. There is no such narrative.

It isn't anything of the sort. It's a bloc of vying interests.

Sure, but more importantly it's a framework for resolving those competing interests in a more mutually acceptable way than having the same competing interests operate in, so to speak, a "free market".

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments