Jump to content

The Consequences of Brexit [part 5] Read 1st post before posting


Recommended Posts

So we want to leave the EU, stop paying any money into it but still have the benefits of being in it.

 

Even worse, since the entire system is underpinned by the ECJ, how could any deal possibly be agreed in light of the UK's "red lines". Simply, it can't.

 

Using the security aspect as some weird bargaining chip with respect to a trade deal makes no sense. The EU want a deal with regards security it's the UK that refuses the abide the rules that underpin the system, so in reality it's the UK putting the security of both the UK and EU at risk!

 

No wonder the EU negotiators are rapidly starting to regard May, Davis and co as a bunch of utter clowns! :mad:

 

Agree entirely, it's the stupidest speech imaginable! Utterly counterproductive.

 

---------- Post added 29-06-2018 at 21:40 ----------

 

And when they do turn up they act like crazies :hihi:

 

It's been going that way for a while, let's have it right what else can they say ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

He's got a point, Cameron forced an unnecessary referendum due to a backbench Tory disciplinary matter. It's now a massive economic and constitutional crisis and Dodgy Dave is sat with his trotters up in Nice without a care in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it’s important now that they experience the full force of this disaster. It’s the only way they will learn.

 

Nah, it'll be everyone else's fault rather than they got played and treated for fools... sadly :(

 

There's a very real chance they'll be labelled as such for the rest of their lives though so I can see why they're getting shrill :hihi:

Edited by Magilla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, it'll be everyone else's fault rather than they got played and treated for fools... sadly :(

 

There's a very real chance they'll be labelled as such for the rest of their lives though so I can see why they're getting shrill :hihi:

 

Nissan, BAE, BMW, countless financial sector companies (I work with some of em), the CBI, the TUC etc... etc... all warning of the consequences.

 

Some of them have already paused investment, many of them have advanced plans to move operations.

 

Even leading Brexiteers are advising clients to move assets offshore to protect them.

 

We’ve seen this week what it is all about: profit for traders and disaster capitalists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nissan, BAE, BMW, countless financial sector companies (I work with some of em), the CBI, the TUC etc... etc... all warning of the consequences.

 

Some of them have already paused investment, many of them have advanced plans to move operations.

 

Even leading Brexiteers are advising clients to move assets offshore to protect them.

 

We’ve seen this week what it is all about: profit for traders and disaster capitalists.

 

They'll get away with it and the usual suspects like the unemployed, single mums and foreigners etc will get blamed for all our problems.

Edited by Mister Gee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the fundamental problem with your objective and that particular BAE story, is that it’s only “positive” for BAE shareholders, not for “the U.K.”: the ship-building and -fitting jobs, the ecosystem of services and consumption which these jobs support, and the income and indirect taxes borne by the lot, are all going to “Australia”.

 

At best, all that “the U.K.” will see from this, is whatever corporate tax BAE ends up paying on the profits of that contract, that it’s accountants can’t manage to hide away. Given that this is the armaments industry we’re talking about, I wouldn’t bank on a windfall in that respect just yet.

 

It’s a good example of ‘globalisation’ of trade (which has always existed, really; only it was called “international trade” then), and a good illustration of BAE’s global competitiveness amongst arms manufacturers. But it’s got sod all relevance to ‘Brexit’, even from afar.

 

I disagree, the jobs created from this contract off-set well against the investment in R&D by the government. These are high-end engineering jobs being funded by that 'discount' and that is good for the country. But then I believe in no corporate taxation because I am one of the few remaining market-liberals out there.

 

I do agree wholeheartedly that this is nothing to do with Brexit though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

From the link=

 

Lord Ashcroft, a prominent Brexiter who donated £500,000 to Theresa May’s election campaign last year, has said that British firms need to base themselves in Malta after Brexit, highlighting its “advantageous tax system”.

 

my bold=

Nothing wrong with that, it’s called being business savvy. Basing your head office in another country for tax reasons has been going on for donkey years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.