If we vote for Brexit what happens

Herzlos

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Are you seriously trying to spin this as bad?

I'm correcting the spin that it's good :j

It may result in some boost to our economy (though most of their staff are already in London, so I'm not sure it'll add any value). More likely it'll be neutral or worse for the economy.

Herzlos

Masomnia wrote: »

There are plenty on the remain side who will dismiss any good news as bad now that we're leaving. Especially in a case like this where the move is explicitly due to burdensome EU regulation.

Just adding some balance to the spin that everything is a glaring sign that Brexit will be a roaring success.

I'll happily admit to things being a sign that Brexit is doing us some sort of benefit, when I see any indication that that's actually true.

From the article they paid $2.5bn in taxes in the EU over five years. I'm perfectly happy for them to pay a bit less and pay it here.

Very true. If it causes Mcdonalds to increase their UK tax bill, then it should be welcomed. However if they are just moving here to escape EU tax bills they'll want a significant reduction or they'll move somewhere else. It's hardly a roaring endorsement of Brexit, beyond the fact that we might turn into a tax haven.

CLAPTON

Herzlos wrote: »

But I actually addressed it. It doesn't pertain to solve the problem you state in the background. It's a diversion at best.



I wasn't equating it to the holocaust directly; I've no doubt that we won't start executing foreigners. A whole lot of nasty stuff happened long before that, starting with the idea that <some group> needs to be registered and needs special treatment.



I didn't dispute that it was dropped. I'm glad it did. The fact it was suggested by our Home Secretary alone is a damning enough indictment of her suitability for any job in public office, let alone that one. To someone manage to be a worse HS than May takes some doing.


"name and shame" were words used herself, in the proposal.
You may think the effect of that is to ensure equal opportunity for local workers, but you must realize the unintended consequences of such a shame list.

That's ignoring the fact that it's a terrible way to ensure equal rights, when there are a whole raft of existing laws which would do it in a more effective way. Nothing you think this may solve, isn't already illegal, and can't already be solved without creating a foreigner shame list.



If it applied to everyone, and provided some value, and allowed FoM, sure. They are all pretty much linked, anyway. If it was only compulsary for <specific group> to have them, then that'd be an issue.

the purpose was to correct a perceived wrong
now one can take the view that there is no wrong and so no action is necessary
and one can take the view there is a wrong but other methods should be used to resolve it
or one could take the view that the perceived wrong is only known anocdotally and we need more data to understand the problem

I assume that naming and shaming is acceptable to you in general but not in this specific case, even if a wrong were proven

setmefree2

Moby wrote: »

Setmefree.....doesn't it bother you that we've got years of this to look forward to? Our tariff model will depend on our negotiations with many countries. He's saying WTO rules are a morass if we change anything from what we have now in the EU. Politicians present it as a simple change.....he's saying it isn't!

It bothers me more that he doesn't seem to know what he's talking about....

TrickyTree83

Herzlos wrote: »

I'm correcting the spin that it's good :j

It may result in some boost to our economy (though most of their staff are already in London, so I'm not sure it'll add any value). More likely it'll be neutral or worse for the economy.

How will it be worse for the UK?

How will additional tax we weren't planning on getting, be worse? Can you explain the logic of that to me?

setmefree2

Moby wrote: »

Fits in with my post above. Stop nicking my points....I was there first;)

Except the post is incorrect - we don't have to rejoin the WTO. - which is why we will be on the same type of schedule as the EU.

You and Toxic need to keep up - we did all this way back in October.

Brexit will not cause UK trade 'disruption' - WTO boss

Roberto Azevedo dismisses fears Britain could suffer a sudden seizure of trade during or after its negotiations with the EU.

"I will be working hard - I will work very intensely to ensure that this transition is fast and is smooth," he said.
"The less turbulence the better. The global economy today is not in the best shape for us to be introducing turbulence."

http://news.sky.com/story/brexit-will-not-cause-uk-trade-disruption-wto-boss-10632803

Brexit will be fast and smooth says WTO boss Roberto Azevedo

http://www.cityam.com/252313/brexit-fast-and-smooth-says-wto-boss-roberto-azevedo-

Herzlos

CLAPTON wrote: »

the purpose was to correct a perceived wrong

Correct. In a dangerous and poorly considered way that would do nothing to prevent vigiliantiism. So to come up with this suggestion, our Home Secretary must either be xenophobic, cluess, or incompetent. Or all of the above.

What would have happened if the press outrage hadn't slapped her down? Why is someone who can get something like that so utterly wrong, still the Home Secretary?

You can cut off a foot to cure an ingrown toenail. It's purpose is to correct a wrong. Is it a good idea?

now one can take the view that there is no wrong and so no action is necessary

Correct.

and one can take the view there is a wrong but other methods should be used to resolve it

Correct

or one could take the view that the perceived wrong is only known anocdotally and we need more data to understand the problem

Correct.

I assume that naming and shaming is acceptable to you in general but not in this specific case, even if a wrong were proven

I'm a much bigger fan of innocent until proven guilty. I can't think of any name & shame policy that would have the intended effect.

Herzlos

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

How will it be worse for the UK?

How will additional tax we weren't planning on getting, be worse? Can you explain the logic of that to me?

I can see them going down the Apple route and going from paying 27% tax in the EU, to paying closer to 0.5% tax. Now, any tax would be a good thing, as long as the income from that tax is more than the admin cost of negotiating the tax rate. That's assuming they don't pull some double-Irish and send all the profits out to a real tax haven and leave us with nothing.

So I can't see it making a big deal to the UK economy; they aren't talking about hiring any more UK staff, just moving the legal entity.

I'll concede it may result in some increased tax take, but it's definitely not a sign of confidence in the UK economy.

TrickyTree83

Herzlos wrote: »

I can see them going down the Apple route and going from paying 27% tax in the EU, to paying closer to 0.5% tax. Now, any tax would be a good thing, as long as the income from that tax is more than the admin cost of negotiating the tax rate. That's assuming they don't pull some double-Irish and send all the profits out to a real tax haven and leave us with nothing.

So I can't see it making a big deal to the UK economy; they aren't talking about hiring any more UK staff, just moving the legal entity.

I'll concede it may result in some increased tax take, but it's definitely not a sign of confidence in the UK economy.

Simply by moving where they pay their corporation tax outside of the US to the UK is a benefit to the UK treasury. It really is as simple as that. It's money we were never going to see, coming into the coffers of the UK government to spend on me, you, whomever.

So whilst it may not be jobs, it may mean some extra hospital beds, or it may mean some extra infrastructure, or lower borrowing, or a myriad of other potentially beneficial policies.

It's quite simply impossible to spin this as anything other than good.

Even if the politicians pee all the additional money up the wall on a white elephant like HS2. It just means they're not peeing as much of our original money up the wall since clearly they're going to do so anyway!

Herzlos

You can spin it as good, in that it should result in some increase to the treasury (assuming we can make Mcdonalds pay tax when no-one else does).

You cannot spin it as having anything to do with Mcdonalds having any confidence in the strength of post-Brexit Britain, which was how the article was originally portrayed. I fear we've veered some way off topic.

So them paying more money here is good, let them do that. Any claim that it's due to anything other that tax reduction is nonsense unless it's proven otherwise.