Is it just me or have SF vanished?

Shefwedfan · 03-04-2020 10:42am

Runaways wrote: »

Hold up there.

The covoid payment IS NOT open to the self employed. I’ve too many family members and friends stuck with this one to let that go.

Self employed are currently only entitled to Jobseeker’s Allowance. That’s all.

Once again the self starters and small business owners get screwed

My mate is self employed, he is getting the €350

So I would check your facts

Not that a quick google would back up facts

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/eca524-covid-19-information-for-employees/

Shefwedfan · 03-04-2020 10:42am

Deleted User wrote: »

Really? Have a read of this https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/unemployed_people/covid19_pandemic_unemployment_payment.html

“ To qualify for the new COVID-19 Pandemic Unemployment Payment, you must:

Be aged between 18 and 66
Live in the Republic of Ireland
Have been in employment or self-employment immediately before Friday 13 March 2020. If you work shifts, short time or other atypical work patterns you must have been in employment on or after 6 March 2020.
Have lost your job or be temporarily laid off from work or asked to stay at home from work due to the pandemic
Have taken time off work to mind your child because of school or childcare closures and your employer is no longer paying you
Stopped trading as self-employed due to the pandemic”

Not the first and certainly not the last that poster will be found to be talking BS

I do like that "person" like the other one on here thinks using capital letter is clever......must be part of SF media training!!!

aido79 · 03-04-2020 10:45am

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Not the first and certainly not the last that poster will be found to be talking BS

I do like that "person" like the other one on here thinks using capital letter is clever......must be part of SF media training!!!

Even davycc has stopped thanking their posts at this stage.

Shefwedfan · 03-04-2020 10:46am

Runaways wrote: »

Ehhh all the pubs are closed.

But thanks for at least being honest about your thoughts on everyone that isn’t you.

Not everyone....just the wasters!!!

Shefwedfan · 03-04-2020 10:48am

aido79 wrote: »

Even davycc has stopped thanking their posts at this stage.

Well if you check the "Thank" on each post, they are just thanking each other.....Must be on a bonus or something. The more they get the better mini SF fans they are!!!

Similar to the clowns on facebook, every FF video posted, its the same SF gobsh**ts posting responses and the same people thanking.

It is also the same story as here, check video last night, first post, SF person, going on about getting the 14 billion Apple money!!!! :P:P:P:P:P:P:P

FrancieBrady · 03-04-2020 10:48am

Sultan_of_Ping wrote: »

It's a legal deed - how can a business-person not understand escrow?

The legally binding deed gives a share control over the funds until the appeal is finalised. Control is shared between the Minister for Finance, Apple Sales International (ASI) and Apple Operations Europe (AOE).

I see how this works now - you pronounce on something, get called out, then either deflect, ignore or respond with "I'm not an expert"

I have not disputed this agreement exists. But it was our Minister Of Finance who set it up because the money, once paid, was Ireland's. Are you disputing the bolded bit?
I have also said this is an agreement between Apple and Ireland...entered into to facilitate an appeal.
There was no onus on us to do this. As I linked to, the EU advised us on how to disperse/spend the money when it was paid. Are you disputing that?

I also said...no deflection or lies or excuses, that I don't know how legally binding this arrangement is. And I, like others (IT article linked earlier) said that getting out of this should be looked at as an option.

FrancieBrady · 03-04-2020 10:50am

blackwhite wrote: »

Maybe try the actual report, instead of a press release

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/253200/253200_1851004_674_2.pdf

Paragraphs 54 and 55

Not direct sales to consumers - but sales to related parties (i.e. the in-country Apply entities) and to third party customers (i.e. other Apple-approved distributors).

And again, they fulfil the orders from local entites.

A big part of the confusion is probably coming from the fact that the full cash from sales flowed up into ASI, before the minimal profit "share" went back into the local sales entities.

If you really want to bore yourself to sleep, have a read of the OECD rules on transfer pricing (which Apple were notionally trying to follow, they just deviated on structuring the Irish entities, which is where the EU case found them in breach). Having an in-country entity that owns the end-customer sale, but make next to nil profit, whilst you've a sister company in a more tax-friendly jurisdiction which ultimately takes the majority of the profit is the core principle of how these schemes work.

Sorry, can you too be clear here...are you saying that the EU are lying in their press release?

Shefwedfan · 03-04-2020 10:50am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have not disputed this agreement exists. But it was our Minister Of Finance who set it up because the money, once paid, was Ireland's. Are you disputing the bolded bit?
I have also said this is an agreement between Apple and Ireland...entered into to facilitate an appeal.
There was no onus on us to do this. As I linked to, the EU advised us on how to disperse/spend the money when it was paid. Are you disputing that?

I also said...no deflection or lies or excuses, that I don't know how legally binding this arrangement is. And I, like others (IT article linked earlier) said that getting out of this should be looked at as an option.

Oh, you found the bold button. Better tell the rest of the SF media team that using capitals is rude.....

P.S. using bold is also stupid as well :P

Sultan_of_Ping · 03-04-2020 10:52am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have not disputed this agreement exists. But it was our Minister Of Finance who set it up because the money, once paid, was Ireland's. Are you disputing the bolded bit?
I have also said this is an agreement between Apple and Ireland...entered into to facilitate an appeal.
There was no onus on us to do this. As I linked to, the EU advised us on how to disperse/spend the money when it was paid. Are you disputing that?

I also said...no deflection or lies or excuses, that I don't know how legally binding this arrangement is. And I, like others (IT article linked earlier) said that getting out of this should be looked at as an option.

Oh dear, you really don't get escrow......

The money is not Ireland's - the Escrow Framework Deed includes the agreement that all claims of ownership and access to this money is suspended until the European Courts have concluded the proceedings that the Government and Apple have brought.

We can't claim it's ours, andd even if we drop our appeal, Apple can sustain theirs and then the matter of ownership will be settled.

Sultan_of_Ping · 03-04-2020 10:56am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have not disputed this agreement exists. But it was our Minister Of Finance who set it up because the money, once paid, was Ireland's. Are you disputing the bolded bit?
I have also said this is an agreement between Apple and Ireland...entered into to facilitate an appeal.
There was no onus on us to do this. As I linked to, the EU advised us on how to disperse/spend the money when it was paid. Are you disputing that?

I also said...no deflection or lies or excuses, that I don't know how legally binding this arrangement is. And I, like others (IT article linked earlier) said that getting out of this should be looked at as an option.

As for how legally binding is it - it is legally binding - the Escrow Framework Deed, was signed by the Minister for Finance, Apple Services International (ASI), and Apple Operations Europe (AOE) on 24th April 2018.

It's a deed that sets out the detailed legal agreement regarding the recovery of the alleged State aid and the framework for oversight, safekeeping and management of the Fund.

If you think deeds aren't legally binding then you must be renting

Tokyo · 03-04-2020 10:56am

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Not the first and certainly not the last that poster will be found to be talking BS

I do like that "person" like the other one on here thinks using capital letter is clever......must be part of SF media training!!!

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Not everyone....just the wasters!!!

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Well if you check the "Thank" on each post, they are just thanking each other.....Must be on a bonus or something. The more they get the better mini SF fans they are!!!

Similar to the clowns on facebook, every FF video posted, its the same SF gobsh**ts posting responses and the same people thanking.

It is also the same story as here, check video last night, first post, SF person, going on about getting the 14 billion Apple money!!!! :P:P:P:P:P:P:P

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Oh, you found the bold button. Better tell the rest of the SF media team that using capitals is rude.....

P.S. using bold is also stupid as well :P

Mod: Are you done yet?

Discuss the actual topic, or please don't post.

FrancieBrady · 03-04-2020 10:59am

Sultan_of_Ping wrote: »

Oh dear, you really don't get escrow......

The money is not Ireland's - the Escrow Framework Deed includes the agreement that all claims of ownership and access to this money is suspended until the European Courts have concluded the proceedings that the Government and Apple have brought.

We can't claim it's ours, andd even if we drop our appeal, Apple can sustain theirs and then the matter of ownership will be settled.

Once it went into Escrow it is not ours to use.

Please stop being disingenuous here.

I am discussing WHY it went into escrow and if it is possible to get it out of Escrow.

I.E. The money is in Escrow to facilitate an appeal, IF WE DROP our appeal, what happens?
Is it legally possible to get out of the agreement with Apple...what penalties would accrue etc.
What are the exit clauses in the agreement with Apple. Those were the questions being asked on the discussion I was listening to and if you know the answers please tell us and please back them up with your sources.

Runaways · 03-04-2020 11:01am

Pretty much This

‘ love leo varadkar being like “let me take a minute of your time during this global pandemic to remind you that we still hate people on welfare”’

Runaways · 03-04-2020 11:03am

aido79 wrote: »

I was talking about pre or post coronavirus. How much do you think a person working 20 hours a week should earn under a SF government?
These are the people Leo was talking about, not people who have already been laid off.

It really wasn’t who he was talking about. He has form. Let’s not pretend he doesn’t.
The ‘welfare cheats cheat us all’ stunt if you’re in doubt.

Sultan_of_Ping · 03-04-2020 11:04am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Once it went into Escrow it is not ours to use.

Please stop being disingenuous here.

I am discussing WHY it went into escrow and if it is possible to get it out of Escrow.

I.E. The money is in Escrow to facilitate an appeal, IF WE DROP our appeal, what happens?
Is it legally possible to get out of the agreement with Apple...what penalties would accrue etc.
What are the exit clauses in the agreement with Apple. Those were the questions being asked on the discussion I was listening to and if you know the answers please tell us and please back them up with your sources.

Ok, that's been explained - all the docs you need are on the DoF's website and the C&AG's website, including the audit of the fund, documents relating to the Framework Deed and descriptions of the governance structures.

There are also various questions have been asked about it in the Dail and are on the record there.

Runaways · 03-04-2020 11:04am

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Not the first and certainly not the last that poster will be found to be talking BS

I do like that "person" like the other one on here thinks using capital letter is clever......must be part of SF media training!!!

That’s laughably rich coming from you.
By all means continue though.
We need laughs in this difficult time

Shefwedfan · 03-04-2020 11:05am

Runaways wrote: »

Pretty much This

‘ love leo varadkar being like “let me take a minute of your time during this global pandemic to remind you that we still hate people on welfare”’

Do you agree the payment is open to self employed?

Mortelaro · 03-04-2020 11:05am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Once it went into Escrow it is not ours to use.

Please stop being disingenuous here.

I am discussing WHY it went into escrow and if it is possible to get it out of Escrow.

I.E. The money is in Escrow to facilitate an appeal, IF WE DROP our appeal, what happens?
Is it legally possible to get out of the agreement with Apple...what penalties would accrue etc.
What are the exit clauses in the agreement with Apple. Those were the questions being asked on the discussion I was listening to and if you know the answers please tell us and please back them up with your sources.

You know the whys of both
Ireland is ok as long as they bring loads of jobs
Apple will not donate the money to Ireland and if its possible the US and other countries will take more than Ireland currently gets anyway

Legally possible to get funds out of the Escrow without Apple?
No

That's all been explained

FrancieBrady · 03-04-2020 11:08am

Mortelaro wrote: »

You know the whys of both
Ireland is ok as long as they bring loads of jobs
Apple will not donate the money to Ireland and if its possible the US and other countries will take more than Ireland currently gets anyway

Legally possible to get funds out of the Escrow without Apple?
No

That's all been explained

I asked what the out clauses were. they exist in any legal agreement. Do you know?
Don't assume, if you know can you link to the source?

I have said honestly that I don't know.

Ballso · 03-04-2020 11:08am

Mortelaro wrote: »

You know the whys of both
Ireland is ok as long as they bring loads of jobs
Apple will not donate the money to Ireland and if its possible the US and other countries will take more than Ireland currently gets anyway

Legally possible to get funds out of the Escrow without Apple?
No

That's all been explained

Dunno why you's continue to engage on this, it's utterly irrelevant

blackwhite · 03-04-2020 11:09am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sorry, can you too be clear here...are you saying that the EU are lying in their press release?

The Commissioner grossly oversimplified

Keep up the deflection though - yet again you're showing people exactly how much credibility to attach to your posts

Sultan_of_Ping · 03-04-2020 11:10am

Mortelaro wrote: »

You know the whys of both
Ireland is ok as long as they bring loads of jobs
Apple will not donate the money to Ireland and if its possible the US and other countries will take more than Ireland currently gets anyway

Legally possible to get funds out of the Escrow without Apple?
No

That's all been explained repeatedly

FYP for you

I'm not sure why, in some areas, there's an unwillingness to engage with the sources. I presume certain parties peddling there own notions about the monies in escrow don't want their narrative disturbed by something as caustic as the truth.

On one level, it would be fantastic if everything was as simple as they suggest, but unfortunately that's not the real world.

FrancieBrady · 03-04-2020 11:10am

Ballso wrote: »

Dunno why you's continue to engage on this, it's utterly irrelevant

Why engage then? Why coach others, just scroll past. I am doing it to the posts that hold no interest for me.

Runaways · 03-04-2020 11:10am

No mention of this. Cos there’s no spinning it is there? 4 residents died.

Sobering stuff from @DonnellyStephen in Dáil - mentions a nursing home with 100 residents and 200 staff. 70 staff have tested positive for #covid19ireland (many of them not replaced in kitchen and cleaning jobs) while 19 residents have also tested positive, 4 of them passing away

He also says home care workers have been asked to work without PPE, but one worker – who sees 10 clients each day, and different ones on different days – has tested positive for #covid19ireland. She also lives with eight other home care workers with similar caseloads…

blanch152 · 03-04-2020 11:11am

blackwhite wrote: »

Revenue accepted that Apples legal structure met their thresholds - that’s not “striking a deal”

There’s currently 3 parties disputing the case before the European Court of Justice - Ireland, Apple and the European Commission.
If Ireland drop our appeal then there still remains a dispute between Apple and the European Commission. Until that appeal is resolved then the escrow doesn’t get released. That’s the legal situation - the “whatever propaganda is in Frances head” situation doesn’t have any legal standing.

Althugh I have to admit - it’s been very amusing to see you of all posters getting indigent spouting about “morals” on this one - given the knots you’ve tied yourself in previously trying to defend some of the most henious acts imaginable :pac:

(1) All good republicans are completely innocent until convicted beyond a reasonable doubt before a court of their peers.

(2) Everyone else can be taken out and shot, kneecapped and disappeared on the basis of reasonable suspicion on the part of good republicans.

Apple falls into the second category.

Shefwedfan · 03-04-2020 11:14am

Runaways wrote: »

No mention of this. Cos there’s no spinning it is there? 4 residents died.

Sobering stuff from @DonnellyStephen in Dáil - mentions a nursing home with 100 residents and 200 staff. 70 staff have tested positive for #covid19ireland (many of them not replaced in kitchen and cleaning jobs) while 19 residents have also tested positive, 4 of them passing away

He also says home care workers have been asked to work without PPE, but one worker – who sees 10 clients each day, and different ones on different days – has tested positive for #covid19ireland. She also lives with eight other home care workers with similar caseloads…

Maybe you can confirm if the covid payment is open to self employed?

FrancieBrady · 03-04-2020 11:16am

blackwhite wrote: »

The Commissioner grossly oversimplified

Keep up the deflection though - yet again you're showing people exactly how much credibility to attach to your posts

Over simplified but not a lie about what Apple were doing?

Mortelaro · 03-04-2020 11:18am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I asked what the out clauses were. they exist in any legal agreement. Do you know?
Don't assume, if you know can you link to the source?

I have said honestly that I don't know.

Yeah but your assumption It appears is Apple will want to drop the case
As the case would go on even if the Irish government dropped it
That's just stupid

Runaways · 03-04-2020 11:21am

The narrative already shifting from

‘how SF would have made a balls of this if they’d been in charge’

To

‘Defending FG actually making a balls of this while actually in charge.’

It would be funny if it weren’t so serious and predictable

blackwhite · 03-04-2020 11:21am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Over simplified but not a lie about what Apple were doing?

Oversimplified to the point of giving the impression that there was no in-country entities, which was incorrect.

You've been linked to the actual EU findings, with the paragraph references.
Are you really so childish that you refuse to read the actual source material because it doesn't support the falsehoods you've been promoting?

Runaways · 03-04-2020 11:28am

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Maybe you can confirm if the covid payment is open to self employed?

My brother, two cousins and two mates all self employed and applied and told they weren’t eligible. I can give you their numbers maybe you can advise them what they did wrong on the form perhaps?

FrancieBrady · 03-04-2020 11:30am

blackwhite wrote: »

Oversimplified to the point of giving the impression that there was no in-country entities, which was incorrect.

So you are saying that what the EU said in a published document is 'incorrect'

That's all I asked.

I have absolutely no problem deffering to source material. I also have no problem saying I don't understand the detail of the source material.

So, I have to take what you say in good faith. You are saying you are right and the EU is incorrect in it's press release.

Until somebody more knowledgeable than you disputes this, I withdraw my view. That ok?

FrancieBrady · 03-04-2020 11:32am

Mortelaro wrote: »

Yeah but your assumption It appears is Apple will want to drop the case
As the case would go on even if the Irish government dropped it
That's just stupid

Where did I say 'Apple would want to withdraw the case'?

I did ask would Apple continue if Ireland dropped it's appeal? I don't know if they would or not.

mariaalice · 03-04-2020 11:33am

Anyone hear Pearse Doherty say on RTE radio he wishes Simon Harris well and that he is doing a good job.

blackwhite · 03-04-2020 11:33am

Runaways wrote: »

My brother, two cousins and two mates all self employed and applied and told they weren’t eligible. I can give you their numbers maybe you can advise them what they did wrong on the form perhaps?

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/eca524-covid-19-information-for-employees/

If you have lost your job due to COVID-19 you can apply for the COVID-19 Pandemic Unemployment Payment. You can apply for this whether you are an employee or if you are self-employed.

Did they apply for the correct thing? Details, and the link to apply, are all on the Govt websites.

The €350 enhanced welfare payment applies to self-employed people.

The Temporary COVID-19 Wage Subsidy Scheme - paid by employers - is only available to employees. If you work for yourself then you'd need to be set as a limited company and paid a regular wage to be able to use the subsidy scheme.

BarryD2 · 03-04-2020 11:37am

mariaalice wrote: »

Anyone hear Pearse Doherty say on RTE radio he wishes Simon Harris well and that he is doing a good job.

That'd be putting a spin on it. At best, whatever he had to say on Simon Harris had to be dragged from his mealy mouth!

Another generic SF interview - don't forget us!!!!!!!!

aido79 · 03-04-2020 11:40am

Runaways wrote: »

It really wasn’t who he was talking about. He has form. Let’s not pretend he doesn’t.
The ‘welfare cheats cheat us all’ stunt if you’re in doubt.

Nicely dodged.

Ballso · 03-04-2020 11:40am

Runaways wrote: »

My brother, two cousins and two mates all self employed and applied and told they weren’t eligible. I can give you their numbers maybe you can advise them what they did wrong on the form perhaps?

I hope they are not taking advice from the likes of you on this, you are more interested in being outraged on the internet than engaging with reality.

Self employed people are eligible.

blackwhite · 03-04-2020 11:42am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So you are saying that what the EU said in a published document is 'incorrect'

That's all I asked.

I have absolutely no problem deffering to source material. I also have no problem saying I don't understand the detail of the source material.

So, I have to take what you say in good faith. You are saying you are right and the EU is incorrect in it's press release.

Until somebody more knowledgeable than you disputes this, I withdraw my view. That ok?

The EU report is correct - the press release by an individual EU Commissioner - who is trying to push a wider agenda on Corporation Tax reform and BEPS - is grossly simplified to try and get the general public to jump to incorrect conclusions (just like you have done). The cash flows to ASI, so they ultimately benefit form each individual sale. But it leaves out the fact that there's in-country sales companies (whether Apple subsidiaries or 3rd party) that actually have the legal sale to the end-user.

We can see again that you try to deflect away from the source material to muddy the waters. I'm not saying that "I" am right - I'm saying that the actual EU report is correct (you know - given that it's the official report and all :rolleyes:) and that your uninformed interpretation of the press statement by an EU Commissioner is incorrect.

Repeatedly trying the "appeal to authority" fallacy falls over when the actual source material is there for all to see

Runaways · 03-04-2020 11:42am

blackwhite wrote: »

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/eca524-covid-19-information-for-employees/

Did they apply for the correct thing? Details, and the link to apply, are all on the Govt websites.

The €350 enhanced welfare payment applies to self-employed people.

The Temporary COVID-19 Wage Subsidy Scheme - paid by employers - is only available to employees. If you work for yourself then you'd need to be set as a limited company and paid a regular wage to be able to use the subsidy scheme.

I will send this on thanks. There’s despair in the ranks right now

NIMAN · 03-04-2020 11:42am

I see SF are just like the other parties in getting their folk new jobs when the electorate have rejected them.

In last election, Derrys Elisha McCallion 2as roundly rejected by the people.

But she was a bright new prospect for the party, often seen outside No10 and front and centre in photo ops, so she couldn't be lost.

So into the Seanad you go.

blanch152 · 03-04-2020 11:43am

Runaways wrote: »

My brother, two cousins and two mates all self employed and applied and told they weren’t eligible. I can give you their numbers maybe you can advise them what they did wrong on the form perhaps?

Presumably because they haven't ceased trading.

https://www.gov.ie/en/service/be74d3-covid-19-pandemic-unemployment-payment/#how-to-qualify

"You can apply for the new COVID-19 Pandemic Unemployment Payment if you:

are aged between 18 and 66 years old and
live in the Republic of Ireland and
have lost your job due to the COVID-19 pandemic or
if you are self-employed and have ceased trading due to the pandemic"

Of course there may be other cases where people were self-employed and not declaring any or little income to revenue for the last few years - they wouldn't qualify.

Runaways · 03-04-2020 11:44am

aido79 wrote: »

Nicely dodged.

Sooo Leo didn’t run a misleading campaign about welfare cheats. We imagined it all.
A cunning shinner smear campaign so it was

Those Wiley republicans out to besmirch our dear leader. How dare they

Runaways · 03-04-2020 11:45am

Ballso wrote: »

I hope they are not taking advice from the likes of you on this, you are more interested in being outraged on the internet than engaging with reality.

Self employed people are eligible.

‘The likes of you’ ?

Gas

Ballso · 03-04-2020 11:48am

Runaways wrote: »

‘The likes of you’ ?

Gas

Yeah, the likes of you. People who offer nothing but endless mouthy empty-headed criticism at everyone who don't fit squarely into your simplistic political agenda. Your stupid assumptions on this point nicely illustrate your inability to actually engage with facts instead of wailing about how terrible everything is. You are the Sinn Fein archetype

FrancieBrady · 03-04-2020 11:49am

blackwhite wrote: »

The EU report is correct - the press release by an individual EU Commissioner - who is trying to push a wider agenda on Corporation Tax reform and BEPS - is grossly simplified to try and get the general public to jump to incorrect conclusions (just like you have done). The cash flows to ASI, so they ultimately benefit form each individual sale. But it leaves out the fact that there's in-country sales companies (whether Apple subsidiaries or 3rd party) that actually have the legal sale to the end-user.

We can see again that you try to deflect away from the source material to muddy the waters. I'm not saying that "I" am right - I'm saying that the actual EU report is correct (you know - given that it's the official report and all :rolleyes:) and that your uninformed interpretation of the press statement by an EU Commissioner is incorrect.

Repeatedly trying the "appeal to authority" fallacy falls over when the actual source material is there for all to see

I didn't try to deflect away from it. I have freely said that I don't understand the detail of it, not being an expert in that field.

So in your opinion is it a cut and dried case - the appeal?

aido79 · 03-04-2020 11:51am

Runaways wrote: »

Sooo Leo didn’t run a misleading campaign about welfare cheats. We imagined it all.
A cunning shinner smear campaign so it was

Those Wiley republicans out to besmirch our dear leader. How dare they

I don't really know what campaign you're talking about to be honest. Can you elaborate?

I was referring to your rant where you said this "he doesn’t even realize he’s admitting people aren’t being paid enough never mind the minimum wage bracket."

What do you think the minimum wage under a SF government woul be for someone who only works 20 hours a week?

Mortelaro · 03-04-2020 11:53am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where did I say 'Apple would want to withdraw the case'?

I did ask would Apple continue if Ireland dropped it's appeal? I don't know if they would or not.

Yours and Sinn Féins earlier ignorance that Ireland dropping the case would mean Ireland gets the money implied it...

FrancieBrady · 03-04-2020 11:55am

Mortelaro wrote: »

Yours and Sinn Féins earlier ignorance that Ireland dropping the case would mean Ireland gets the money implied it...

I don't think anyone has addressed what happens if Ireland drops it's appeal.

Nor what the get-out clauses of the Escrow agreement say.

We have established that the EU is not a party to that agreement, it is between Apple and Ireland.

The EU were advising Ireland on how to spend/disperse the money when it was paid, so I presume they were ok with before it went into Escrow. Open to correction on this too.

Shefwedfan · 03-04-2020 12:07pm

Runaways wrote: »

My brother, two cousins and two mates all self employed and applied and told they weren’t eligible. I can give you their numbers maybe you can advise them what they did wrong on the form perhaps?

Well then you have some great information for them today

You must pass it on

Is it just me or have SF vanished?

Comments