If we vote for Brexit what happens

TrickyTree83

Herzlos wrote: »

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.

I wasn't trying to spin it any way at all, I was waiting for someone to try to spin it as bad, since it's clearly and obviously a benefit to the UK treasury.

mrginge

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?

Tricky it's quite simple.

1. When companies move out of the UK it's bad.
2. When companies move into the UK it's not good.

CLAPTON

Herzlos wrote: »

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.

if a significant employer in an area of ethnic diversity was perceived to have a policy of only employing people of his own ethnicity then you would

a. think it wrong if the government gathered data on the matter
b. if so should they make it available to the public or keep it secret
even if no actual proof of discrimination or wrong doing had been proved

c. what if the issue was pay equality between men and women
-should such data be made available even if no actaul conviction had been obtained

d. there seems to be some demand for companies clearly show in annual reports, how many women work in senior positions : should this be allowed unless criminal wrong doing has been proven.

e. what about poor but not illegal working practices : should such info be made public?

Moby

setmefree2 wrote: »

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.

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

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

In that link Azavedo says the terms will have to be re-negotiated...granted he says it shouldn't be a problem but how can he predict that? We are in new territory and Fox is dealing with it by keeping the same terms as now to avoid the turbulence.....so why did we vote to leave! Also our new terms of membership are far more likely to be challenged if we are negotiating alone than as part of a bigger block. Why go there at all....I'm happy as we are...as where you as a fellow remainer!

TrickyTree83

Moby wrote: »

In that link Azavedo says the terms will have to be re-negotiated...granted he says it shouldn't be a problem but how can he predict that? We are in new territory and Fox is dealing with it by keeping the same terms as now to avoid the turbulence.....so why did we vote to leave! Also our new terms of membership are far more likely to be challenged if we are negotiating alone than as part of a bigger block. Why go there at all....I'm happy as we are...as where you as a fellow remainer!

Keeping the arrangements the same to avoid turbulence is not the same as being completely unable to negotiate the terms deal by deal as time, resource and priority dictates.

You may be right in that deals as a larger bloc could be better, they could also be worse as we have to compromise more to get agreement between the EU 28 and the 3rd party, the deals may also never happen at all. With vested interests in other EU states lobbying and voting down a deal that's good for us because it's not good for them.

Assuming you're correct about the lesser deal as a smaller bloc, if there's a choice between a near certainty of getting a slightly lesser deal, or an equal chance of no deal, an equally lesser deal, or a better deal. I'll take the deal that we're more likely to actually get, that we can negotiate in our own interests for me, you and everyone else who lives in this great country.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Herzlos wrote: »

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.

Tell us how exactly it could be proven - since you would reject any attempt just as you have rubbished how much tax is paid as I show below.

But here you go:
Bloomemberg suggests that McDonalds has confidence in post-Brexit Britain.
Very clearly in fact.

“The reasons for changing the location of the corporate structure to the U.K. were sound before Brexit and remain so beyond it,” the company said. “These strengths are unlikely to change as the U.K. negotiates leaving the European Union.”

As for why:

ditching tiny Luxembourg where its fiscal arrangements are under attack from European Union regulators

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-08/mcdonald-s-moves-tax-base-to-u-k-amid-eu-attack-on-burger-giant

Wriggle though you may, you cannot deny that the EU have influenced the decision to move by probing the company and suggesting large fines are imminent.
Which they are also doing with Apple and Amazon amongst others, as I have posted before.
Also today with news of investigations surrounding VW following the emissions scandal.

So Amazon are the first to move due to EU greed; who will be next?
And will you still deny that the EU themselves are a major cause of these companies seeking to move?

At least you don't deny that the UK will benefit - though as for your fatuous comment "assuming we can make Mcdonalds pay tax when no-one else does" you ignore the following:

From 2011 to 2015, “we paid more than $2.5 billion in corporate taxes in the EU, with an average tax rate approaching 27 percent

Oh and as for your "0.5% " tax comment and from the same article:

The U.K. taxes 20 percent of company profits, a rate that will fall to 19 percent in April. Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond last month reaffirmed a commitment to cut it to 17 percent in 2020

Again kindly note that these are mostly the words of Bloomberg in the aricle linked-to.
Not personal "spin" unlike yours, as I have proven.

Moby

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Keeping the arrangements the same to avoid turbulence is not the same as being completely unable to negotiate the terms deal by deal as time, resource and priority dictates.

You may be right in that deals as a larger bloc could be better, they could also be worse as we have to compromise more to get agreement between the EU 28 and the 3rd party, the deals may also never happen at all. With vested interests in other EU states lobbying and voting down a deal that's good for us because it's not good for them.

Assuming you're correct about the lesser deal as a smaller bloc, if there's a choice between a near certainty of getting a slightly lesser deal, or an equal chance of no deal, an equally lesser deal, or a better deal. I'll take the deal that we're more likely to actually get, that we can negotiate in our own interests for me, you and everyone else who lives in this great country.

The general consensus among those that know these things is that you get a better deal when part of a bigger block. No need for it to be any more complicated than that.....that is why bigger trading blocks developed....we are striking out alone in an uncertain, volatile world and lets be frank people have voted for that because of xenophobia and immigration. Do you seriously think the brexiteers of Sunderland et al give a flying ** about WTO rules! Posts about how wonderful it is that MacDonalds, (loathsome company they are by the way), are choosing to move here are a sign of desperate hope over reality I'm afraid!

TrickyTree83

Moby wrote: »

The general consensus among those that know these things is that you get a better deal when part of a bigger block. No need for it to be any more complicated than that.....that is why bigger trading blocks developed....we are striking out alone in an uncertain, volatile world and lets be frank people have voted for that because of xenophobia and immigration. Do you seriously think the brexiteers of Sunderland et al give a flying ** about WTO rules! Posts about how wonderful it is that MacDonalds, (loathsome company they are by the way), are choosing to move here are a sign of desperate hope over reality I'm afraid!

Amazing, I called you out for being a bigot and you've still refused to engage in any introspection to stop being a bigot. How do you know why the people of Sunderland voted the way they did? You can't, so stop saying they voted because of xenophobia and that they don't care about things like trade rules and deals, implying they're somehow too stupid or that they just don't care. Just stop it, people will be laughing at you. Honestly, you need to stop it.

It is good that McDonalds have decided to pay their tax in the UK. It cannot be argued so you've tried to say it's desperate of people to say that it's a good thing. None of that is based in logic, reason or evidence.

I agreed with you that larger trading blocs can generally get a better deal (when they all agree). The EU is no longer reminiscent of such a trading bloc, it is a federal construct. They control so many areas of government policy that is not required to be a member of a trading bloc, it's quite clear that whilst it started as a trading bloc it no longer has aspirations to remain as one, and hasn't for a long time. Which is a problem for many leave voters.

So larger trading blocs having the potential to get better deals isn't something I am disputing. However I will dispute the EU being that which you describe, when all members of the bloc are required to agree to the terms in order to ratify a trade deal and the UK having to compromise things we may not want to compromise in order to ratify a trade deal making it no longer good for us. In such a scenario it's entirely plausible that our own bi-lateral deal would actually be better than a deal ratified through the EU because of how the EU works. The EEA/EFTA arrangement works much better, in that you can trade with the European nations and run your own trade arrangements elsewhere. That's what the EU should be.

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

The general consensus among those that know these things is that you get a better deal when part of a bigger block. No need for it to be any more complicated than that.....that is why bigger trading blocks developed....we are striking out alone in an uncertain, volatile world and lets be frank people have voted for that because of xenophobia and immigration. Do you seriously think the brexiteers of Sunderland et al give a flying ** about WTO rules! Posts about how wonderful it is that MacDonalds, (loathsome company they are by the way), are choosing to move here are a sign of desperate hope over reality I'm afraid!

Surely the matter of whether big blocks get better deals that smaller blocks or countries or not etc must be a matter of fact.
Surely there is objective evidence (tariff levels, scope of products included etc. ) and not just a 'general consensus'.

Thrugelmir

Herzlos wrote: »

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.

If MacDonalds wanted a tax haven within the EU them there's Eire and Hungary. Given the change in legislation that requires Companies to publish country by country data. McDonalds do appear to be making a longer term decision to address the issue once and for all.