Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Leroy42 wrote: »

The sting will be taken out of Brexit when they leave. You won't have people outside parliament, it won't be on every news bulletin. Nobody is interested in trade deals.

The actual details of any trade deal will be glossed over, there certainly will not beca running commentary about it.

When it comes to accepting chlorinated chicken to feed their kids school lunches, we will be reminded of the TV shows Jamie Oliver did on their school lunches, all while the Daily Express publishes photos showing how much bigger the chicken portions are instead of the days under the slavery of the EU.

20silkcut wrote: »

At the risk of running foul of the mods what should Francois hypothetically change his name to??

He has already changed his name. He was born Mark François, but from his adolescence he has spelt it "Francois", and reportedly he gets very upset if anybody spells his name "François".

listermint wrote:

None of this is factual and there is no evidence that small side deals will be done. Which is basically what you've been Hocking for about ten pages now.

Well if you havent grasped that it won't be a side deal after ten pages I think we should just wait and see, will we?

Let's all drive the wrong way down a dual carriageway at top speed.

I know what the experts will say: that there's a very high probability of having a head-on collision, but we don't KNOW that this will happen. I, for one, am a better driver than most, and you really have to think that even if a crash did happen, it would be because of the intransigence and negativity of the other road users. So, let's just get on with it. Think of the thrill. Think of the notoriety, if we're successful.

Let's do any old mad thing. Hey, if we can't be certain what the results might be, it's got to be OK to have a go, right?

... right?

briany wrote: »

Let's all drive the wrong way down a dual carriageway at top speed.

I know what the experts will say: that there's a very high probability of having a head-on collision, but we don't KNOW that this will happen. I, for one, am a better driver than most, and you really have to think that even if a crash did happen, it would be because of the intransigence and negativity of the other road users. So, let's just get on with it. Think of the thrill. Think of the notoriety, if we're successful.

Let's do any old mad thing. Hey, if we can't be certain what the results might be, it's got to be OK to have a go, right?

... right?

But we are only driving like that because some people in the back seat are calling you chicken. Proving them wrong is all that matters.

Probably 2 of the best analogies of Brexit that I've read.

DOCARCH wrote: »

Whatever his name, he makes my blood boil! He can't be that thick so I often wonder what personal gains he stands to make out of Brexit?

Why can't he be that thick?

VinLieger wrote: »

No he's 100% that thick, the likes of Mogg and Boris who do stand to gain a hell of a lot personally from Brexit are absolutely using him and other less intelligent emotional members of the ERG and Tories. They may have promised them rewards but these people aren't anywhere near the top of the chain in regards to why brexit is really happening and that quite simply is EU tax laws.

Not doubting you or having a go, more a genuine wondering, do you think it really comes down to that ? I can fully get on board with the notion that a few ultra rich tories don't want to pay tax, but what has changed for them to bring Brexit to a head now ?

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well it all started coming to a head back when the new tax avoidance directive was agreed. The UK would have been due to ratify it around the time of B-day 1.

Much as I hate to say it, this is a bit of a conspiracy theory. The directive concerned, the Anti Tax Avoidance Directive, was adopted on 12 July 2016. It's aimed at EU companies who seek to shift profits to non-EU countries where they will be taxed at a lower rate. Basically, it combats this by allowing (not requiring) EU member states to tax companies on the profits they have shifted out to non-EU countries, as if they hadn't shifted them out.

The thing is, SFAIK it doesn't require the UK government to do anything. It allows UK to tax UK companies on profits that they have shifted out of the UK to a non-EU country. But if the UK government doesn't want to do that, it won't have to. And Brexit will change nothing. Obviously the Anti Tax Avoidance Directive will no longer apply in the UK after Brexit, but the situation on the ground will be unchanged; if the UK government wants to tax UK companies on profits that they have shifted abroad, it can; if it doesn't want to, it doesn't have to.

And the other thing is that the Directive is already in force. It entered into force on the date that it was always going to, 1 January 2019. Back in 2016, when the Brexit referendum was called, you could make the case that the idea was to get the UK out within 2 years, before the ATAD entered into force. But once UK hadn't served A50 notice by the end of 2016, there was no possibility of leaving the EU before the ATAD came into force.

But the story won't die. People will assure you with their hands on their hearts that the whole thing is tax-driven, an attempt to avoid EU anti-avoidance legislation. But press them for details, and it's sadly lacking. Ask them to explain in a concrete way how Brexit faciliates tax avoidance by wealthy UK residents, and you'll be sadly disappointed at the incoherent responses.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Much as I hate to say it, this is a bit of a conspiracy theory.

It may be a bit of a theory, but to me it makes more sense than any other reason or logic that has been put forward as to why Brexit is a good idea, I find it hard to find many other reasons that aren't either just plain stupid, or directly contradictory - like the: closing-the-borders-but-leaving-the-only-actual-border-wide-open, reason.


The only other reason I can think of is that a couple of bored rich lads decided to have a bet to see if they could convince a country to top itself - kinda like trading places but instead of making a fella rich, they're throwing an entire country down the jacks...

Good video explaining the tax issue from Stephen Fry





Key part of the tax and financial secrecy is around minute 5

Watching that Mark Francois clip, I notice that his debating rival mentioned the mistakes made by generals who “believed in Britain” in the past.

This is something that should probably be mentioned more often. Every time a Brexiter invokes the Blitz spirit of WWII, they should be reminded that there as a war before that in which huge swathes of the ordinary youth of Britain were sacrificed because of the arrogant and imperialistic follies of the upper classes and political elites ... WWI is a much better metaphor for this sh*tshow

Nothing that a bit of boosterism won't fix.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Much as I hate to say it, this is a bit of a conspiracy theory. The directive concerned, the Anti Tax Avoidance Directive, was adopted on 12 July 2016. It's aimed at EU companies who seek to shift profits to non-EU countries where they will be taxed at a lower rate. Basically, it combats this by allowing (not requiring) EU member states to tax companies on the profits they have shifted out to non-EU countries, as if they hadn't shifted them out.

The thing is, SFAIK it doesn't require the UK government to do anything. It allows UK to tax UK companies on profits that they have shifted out of the UK to a non-EU country. But if the UK government doesn't want to do that, it won't have to. And Brexit will change nothing. Obviously the Anti Tax Avoidance Directive will no longer apply in the UK after Brexit, but the situation on the ground will be unchanged; if the UK government wants to tax UK companies on profits that they have shifted abroad, it can; if it doesn't want to, it doesn't have to.

And the other thing is that the Directive is already in force. It entered into force on the date that it was always going to, 1 January 2019. Back in 2016, when the Brexit referendum was called, you could make the case that the idea was to get the UK out within 2 years, before the ATAD entered into force. But once UK hadn't served A50 notice by the end of 2016, there was no possibility of leaving the EU before the ATAD came into force.

But the story won't die. People will assure you with their hands on their hearts that the whole thing is tax-driven, an attempt to avoid EU anti-avoidance legislation. But press them for details, and it's sadly lacking. Ask them to explain in a concrete way how Brexit faciliates tax avoidance by wealthy UK residents, and you'll be sadly disappointed at the incoherent responses.

I don't disagree with your take on the role and relevance of the EU's tax directive, in and of its own, amongst all other interests pushing Brexit...

...but the story deserves not to die, if it will help ever more people realise how London (and remote dependencies) has long already been a ("the") tax & money laundering centre, a situation under which the Singapore-on-Thames direction of travel facilitated by a very hard or 'no deal' Brexit can best be appreciated.

Useful reference material/summary here

If I hadn't already recorded hundreds of IP rights' transfers from bona fide UK innovating and trading entities to VI or Bermuda-based IP holdings throughout my career, then I was reminded of all this again last night, during an event with guided tour at Luxembourg's Freeport, whose CEO did not waste an opportunity to remind us that Johnson's recent noises about Brexit allowing the UK to create dozens of such Freeports was as accurate as his kipper-ice pocket discourse: nothing to stop the UK creating such zones, since before joining the EEC, after joining it, and ever since.

Having well understood the operating principle of such zones, but also the high disparity of standards about ATA/AML processes and procedures amongst Freeports across the world (some, like the Lux Freeport, handling very high value goods, practice stronger due diligence than even tax offices, to achieve and retain a 'whiter than white' rating; others, particularly in Latin America, handle much lower value consignments and are significantly laxer, permitting large-scale TA/ML acts), it made me realise that these "UK Freeports" noises by Johnson is actually bizdev for the hard-Brexited UK, with expectedly very low standards of customs involvement (in sync with the City's opacity of practices involving Brit tax havens): you can bet relevant oppotunists heard Johnson's pitch just right, and are busy tax-&-logistics pre-planning right now, just in case.

Robert McGrath wrote: »

Watching that Mark Francois clip, I notice that his debating rival mentioned the mistakes made by generals who “believed in Britain” in the past.

This is something that should probably be mentioned more often. Every time a Brexiter invokes the Blitz spirit of WWII, they should be reminded that there as a war before that in which huge swathes of the ordinary youth of Britain were sacrificed because of the arrogant and imperialistic follies of the upper classes and political elites ... WWI is a much better metaphor for this sh*tshow

Great point