Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
The ultimate REFERENDUM thread
- Thread starter sir albion
- Start date
10% of all taxes. Yes the economy is imbalanced, Germany seems to have it right, but cutting your nose off to spite your face is not a good answer.
pastafarian
Well-known member
and yet a few people on here have been saying if we vote to leave,thats it,its final,game over,no looking back....... The EU will punish us and will not trade with us if we leave.
isnt that the ultimate in cutting your nose off to spite your face
pastafarian
Well-known member
luckily the Irish also believe in leprechauns,and we know any money trickling out can easily be found in a pot at the end of a rainbow
i presume thats whats in the link.....im not a paid up subscriber so im none the wiser what are in your ft links
Sorry. My sub actually ran out recently so I open it in a private browser quite often and it resets the cookies.
"
The Irish central bank has begun preparations for an influx of investment managers if the UK votes to leave the EU, amid fears that fund houses will no longer be able to sell their products from London.
Gareth Murphy, director of markets supervision at the Central Bank of Ireland, which oversees more than 6,000 funds, said fund companies will want to “establish a foothold” in the EU in the event of the UK voting to leave when it goes to the polls in June.
“The firms we regulate and their counterparts in the UK are faced with a considerable period of uncertainty if Brexit were to happen,” he said. “We are envisioning that there will be quite a few possible applications for authorisation in this jurisdiction.”
Mr Murphy added: “The transition [if the UK leaves the EU] could be very messy. I have pressed my staff to gather as much market intelligence [as possible] around this issue.”
International asset management companies are expected to be among the first financial services groups to shift operations to Ireland if Britain chooses to leave the EU.
Several asset managers, including M&G Investments, the £246.1bn UK-based asset manager, have already indicated they are either considering moving or are in the process of boosting their presence in Dublin ahead of the EU referendum.
This assumption is naive, they said. “The chances of a ‘friendly split’ in which the UK maintains full access to the single market are low.”
Rathbones, an investment manager with £29.2bn of assets, is looking to establish a European fund range. “We might have to put boots on the ground in Luxembourg and Dublin to a greater extent than we do at the moment,” said Mike Webb, chief executive of Rathbone Unit Trust Management.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,017
your link doesnt propose to do what you think it does, it will only prevent the most egregious avoidance where companies pay no tax anywhere by hiding the revenue source or keeping the cash offshore (and by that we mean relative to the companies global HQ, so we are offshore for a US company). it will not prevent companies booking revenue in a country with low tax, as they do currently. the EU isnt about to propose a system where all revenue in a country remains in that country for tax purposes, or are you suggesting the likes of VW and SocGen are about to start paying corporation tax in the UK for profits made there? that would be an interesting boon to us if it did...
the VAT issue you link to is also a different issue, it suggesting they "might" defer VAT setting power back to member states (how very big of them). it will not prevent the process of charging VAT at the local rate for where the company operates, unless they follow up with enforcing new rules that all companies must charge the rate where the sale is made, making every business into a EU wide tax collection agent with red tape attached. the EU giveth and the EU taketh away.
and finance is not going to move to Dublin or elsewhere, its fear mongering from those that support the remain campaign. many fund managers have said they'd stay in UK, some see it as inconsequential or a minor inconvience. only those that deal directly in EU based companies/funds/investments would have to even consider it, all those in UK or global market would see no difference in or out of the EU. this is the same story as we heard on the Euro, we must be in it to maintain the City jobs, we've seen that to be false. a few would setup offices in Dublin or elsewhere to carryout the back office functions while the main traders and mangers would remain in the UK - they aren't about to leave London and all the network and extra curricular activity available.
Last edited:
crookie
Well-known member
The City has ensured most of the real economic base of this country has been parceled up and flogged off long ago creaming off billions in consultancy fees, advisory fees and commission. The City spivs don't give a flying f**k about any proper businesses in this country, only how deep they can get their noses in the trough. After all, we'll bail them out if they get themselves in the s**t.
Lincoln Imp
Well-known member
- Feb 2, 2009
- 5,964
People saying the EU won't trade with us if we leave? Goodness. I haven't seen that. I've heard them say it will be harder but I haven't heard anyone say the EU would refuse to trade with us. If what you say is true it's really serious.
JC Footy Genius
Bringer of TRUTH
- Jun 9, 2015
- 10,568
A view from a big cheese in the British fund management sector ....
Star fund manager Neil Woodford, whose Woodford Equity Income fund has returned 14.7 per cent since launch 20 months ago compared to a 1.5 per cent loss for the average fund in the sector in the same time period, has revealed what he thinks the impacts of Brexit would be on the UK economy.
The veteran fund manager remarked that whether the UK electorate vote to remain or leave, ‘the fundamentals of the UK economy will be relatively unmoved’ either way.
Neil Woodford’s firm, Woodford Investment Management commissioned a research report from non-aligned firm Capital Economics, into the economic impacts.
The report concluded, amongst other things, that ‘It is highly probable that a favourable trade agreement would be reached after Brexit as there are advantages for both sides in continuing a close commercial arrangement. But the worst-case scenario, in which Britain faces tariffs under ‘most-favoured nation’ rules, is certainly no disaster. Exporters would face some additional costs, such as complying with the European Union’s rules of origin, if they were outside the single market. However, these factors would be an inconvenience rather than a major barrier to trade. In addition, fears that exporters would be left high and dry the day after the Brexit vote are unfounded. Under the Lisbon Treaty, a country leaving the European Union has 2 years in which to negotiate a withdrawal agreement.
In addition, falling tariffs, the decline in manufacturing and Europe’s diminishing importance in the global economy mean we doubt that even the absence of a trade deal with the European Union would hurt the United Kingdom’s overall exports materially. The benefits of being in the European Union are smaller than they were a few decades ago, when a Brexit would have been a far bigger deal. However, the effects will vary across sectors. Brexit would give Britain a crucial opportunity by allowing it to broker its own trade deals with non-European Union countries; indeed Britain could even have a unilateral free trade policy. Non-European Union countries may find negotiating with Britain easier and quicker than dealing with the European Union’s bureaucratic machine, as Switzerland has shown....
The report concludes, ‘Concerns about a drying up of foreign direct investment if Britain votes to leave the European Union are somewhat overblown. Access to the single market is not the only reason that firms invest in Britain. Other advantages to investing here should ensure that foreign firms continue to want a foothold in the country. It is likely Britain would remain a haven for foreign direct investment flows even if it was outside of the European Union..
http://www.whatinvestment.co.uk/fin...at-brexit-would-mean-for-the-uk-economy.thtml
This report was from a neutral source unlike the pro EU/Euro FT!
JC Footy Genius
Bringer of TRUTH
- Jun 9, 2015
- 10,568
Deal or No Deal ?
The independent and respected House of Commons Library yesterday published a report on the Government’s renegotiation.
The House of Commons Library agrees with the Justice Secretary Michael Gove that the deal will not bind the European Court and could be ‘reversed’ by it.
The deal ‘is not a binding EU treaty or EU law in itself.’ (p.3)
‘even if the Decision binds the parties under international law, it does not bind the EU institutions, and is not necessarily legally enforceable under either EU or domestic law. It could be very problematic if either the Court of Justice of the EU or a domestic court found an inconsistency between the Decision and the EU Treaties’. (p.3)
‘The Court of Justice of the EU could not enforce the Decision’. (p.7)
‘The UK’s domestic courts could not enforce the Decision itself unless it was given direct effect in the UK, and even then they would be still bound by the EU Treaties’. (p.7)
‘the fact that an agreement must be “taken into account”, and is therefore likely to carry considerable weight, is not the same thing as saying that it must be enforced.’ (p.13)
‘None of the EU institutions – the European Commission, European Parliament or Court of Justice of the EU – are parties to the Decision, so they are not bound by it as a matter of international law’. (p.15)
‘The Court of Justice is not bound by the Treaty under international law’. (p.15)
‘the uncertainties around potential inconsistencies between the Decision and the EU Treaties could in theory result in elements of the Decision effectively being reversed by the courts.’ (p.20)
The House of Commons Library notes that promised changes to the Treaties in the deal cannot be guaranteed, and could be rejected by other member states after the referendum.
The deal ‘cannot guarantee all of the outcomes envisaged in it. This is because some depend on factors outside the control of the parties to the Decision, such as national referendums on Treaty change.’ (p.3).
‘the Decision does not – cannot – give a legal guarantee that it will produce all the results envisaged. For example, where it envisages changes to the EU Treaties, it expressly recognises that these are subject to Member States’ constitutional requirements, such as approval or ratification and possibly in some cases a referendum.’ (p.20)
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org..._court_will_not_be_bound_by_the_renegotiation
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7524/CBP-7524.pdf
The independent and respected House of Commons Library yesterday published a report on the Government’s renegotiation.
The House of Commons Library agrees with the Justice Secretary Michael Gove that the deal will not bind the European Court and could be ‘reversed’ by it.
The deal ‘is not a binding EU treaty or EU law in itself.’ (p.3)
‘even if the Decision binds the parties under international law, it does not bind the EU institutions, and is not necessarily legally enforceable under either EU or domestic law. It could be very problematic if either the Court of Justice of the EU or a domestic court found an inconsistency between the Decision and the EU Treaties’. (p.3)
‘The Court of Justice of the EU could not enforce the Decision’. (p.7)
‘The UK’s domestic courts could not enforce the Decision itself unless it was given direct effect in the UK, and even then they would be still bound by the EU Treaties’. (p.7)
‘the fact that an agreement must be “taken into account”, and is therefore likely to carry considerable weight, is not the same thing as saying that it must be enforced.’ (p.13)
‘None of the EU institutions – the European Commission, European Parliament or Court of Justice of the EU – are parties to the Decision, so they are not bound by it as a matter of international law’. (p.15)
‘The Court of Justice is not bound by the Treaty under international law’. (p.15)
‘the uncertainties around potential inconsistencies between the Decision and the EU Treaties could in theory result in elements of the Decision effectively being reversed by the courts.’ (p.20)
The House of Commons Library notes that promised changes to the Treaties in the deal cannot be guaranteed, and could be rejected by other member states after the referendum.
The deal ‘cannot guarantee all of the outcomes envisaged in it. This is because some depend on factors outside the control of the parties to the Decision, such as national referendums on Treaty change.’ (p.3).
‘the Decision does not – cannot – give a legal guarantee that it will produce all the results envisaged. For example, where it envisages changes to the EU Treaties, it expressly recognises that these are subject to Member States’ constitutional requirements, such as approval or ratification and possibly in some cases a referendum.’ (p.20)
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org..._court_will_not_be_bound_by_the_renegotiation
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7524/CBP-7524.pdf
It is a bad thing - even the people trying to persuade us to stay in admit that it is undesirable, hence their risible claim that we'll be exempt from it, and that that exemption will stick. They know that if they just said, please vote for us to join a United States of Europe, they'd be blown out of the water, big time. That's why they're frantically to convince voters in Britain that it will never happen.
There is no good argument for sacrificing our sovereignty and identity to merge into a federal Europe. That's why the pro-politicians are keeping very quiet about it.
brighton fella
New member
- Mar 20, 2009
- 1,645
that women is a typical eurofreak rudely shouting him down before he get's chance to finish his sentence, truth be known she hates the thought of him spelling out the truth.
how can he be sincere in what he says whilst choosing to remain in. .let us wait and see where his loyalty lies.
Isn't all of this obvious and uncontroversial? Not being facetious.
Obvious, yes. Reason for voting 'Out' - definitely.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,017
no, except to those in the In camp claiming that the deal Cameron brought back is legally binding, countering the objections from the Leave camp that its a unconsummated agreement of convienence that can be diluted or dismissed entirely in the next round of treaty negotiations.
It's an agreement, not yet passed into law. It is not a matter of snapping your fingers. But it was negotiated in good faith with allies and partners - there is no problem here. I'll have to read the full parliament doc but this looks to be making this into a problem its not.
pastafarian
Well-known member
Good point,often forgotten, Greece has been a basket case for years, the whole of the EU knew it yet France and Germany still sold them billions worth of arms, submarines and tanks, knowing full well they couldn’t afford it. Doesn’t matter though, when they collapse make sure you give them enough money to pay off their commitments to their arms deals, and add to the mix millions in back handers and bribes on the deals, its just one big ponzi scheme that will eventually collapse The eventual admission of the Asian country Turkey to the European Union will be the final death nail…..we must be well shot of it and protect ourselves when it comes crashing down
pastafarian
Well-known member
What you have copied and pasted here is in essence speculation from Irish Bankers.
Lets not dwell on the pros and cons of banker speculation in recent years.
But considering the IN crowd want economic certainties surrounding a Brexit,yet you post speculation in favour of staying in, is it fair to say all speculation is now permitted or just from your side?
pastafarian
Well-known member
yes its true what i said,some people have indeed said the EU will punish us and not trade with us .but thankfully you don’t need to worry as it’s a lie and just another part of the fear agenda
you can stop being concerned that its serious or even real
pastafarian
Well-known member
Blimey.
Offensive comments like this are possibly why only a small subset of NSC users bother with posting on EU threads now.
When did you last comment on BHAFC, by the way ?
have a look at how many different people have posted comments,quite a lot isnt it
this is your second comment on this thread concerning the EU
by your accusation parameter is it fair to say you dont really care about the UK relationship with the EU?