If we vote for Brexit what happens

Rinoa

gfplux wrote: »

In other news.
http://delano.lu/d/detail/news/brexit-12-companies-relocate-lux/143870

Nicolas Mackel, the head of Luxembourg for Finance, has said that so far, a dozen companies have confirmed to him that they will relocate to the grand duchy in the wake of Brexit.
In an interview with public radio 100,7 on Friday 28 April, Mackel confirmed only the names of companies who have made their decision to come to Luxembourg public:


Please try to refrain from personal attacks on me or Luxembourg. It does not strengthen your argument. (Don't blame the messenger)

Were Luxembourg ever punished for the illegal sweetheart deals arranged whilst Juncker was in charge.

WengerIn

Wasn't the accusation that he tried to block the EU from implementing tax avoidance policies? I don't recall Luxembourg breaking any rules although happy to be corrected.

Herzlos

vivatifosi wrote: »

Something I'm finding baffling though. If Juncker went to the dinner meeting with an open mind, why would he have taken copies of two unrelated deals with him?

Because it's been public knowledge for a long time that Mays team don't seem to understand the scale of things. You can go in with an open mind, as well as bringing along some evidence that things aren't the way your counterparts seem to think it is.

I mean, should be just bumble about as unprepared as May is?

vivatifosi

Herzlos wrote: »

Because it's been public knowledge for a long time that Mays team don't seem to understand the scale of things. You can go in with an open mind, as well as bringing along some evidence that things aren't the way your counterparts seem to think it is.

I mean, should be just bumble about as unprepared as May is?

OK... But if the scale is that impossible, why did the EU put a two year timescale on leaving?

Herzlos

vivatifosi wrote: »

OK... But if the scale is that impossible, why did the EU put a two year timescale on leaving?

1. The scale isn't impossible, it's likely doable but May is giving off the impression she can bang an agreement out in a couple of months.
2. There's no precedent; they had to go with something and 2 years seems reasonable.
3. There's a clause to extend it if agreed by both parties.

Filo25

The UK's best hope is that EU unity starts to crumble as we get into the nitty gritty of negotiating a deal, and we start to see clearer divisions between the various nations in how they approach the deal.

If that doesn't happen though people can talk about the trade surplus for the EU with the UK as much as they like, but in terms of size of economies the boot is very much on the EU's foot (we are more exposed to the EU economy than they are to the UK one) and due to the red lines we have drawn, it may come down to a choice between a bad deal and no deal, and I haven't seen much sign of realism from anyone on how disruptive no deal would be to the UK economy (and to a lesser extent parts of the EU economy as well).

Nobody is saying we won't continue to trade with the EU in the absence of a deal, but that trade will become more expensive and more bureaucratic, and current supply chains will be disrupted, Ireland is the obvious EU country which will suffer major negative consequences as well.

Just to reiterate, like pretty much everyone else here I am hoping we achieve a good deal, I have just never shared the optimism that it is likely to be achieved given the red lines we have seemingly drawn in negotiations.

mrginge

I don't know whether it's doable in two years, because it's a very complicated process with many different issues to be addressed.

I do know though that deciding to throw away your principles because the other side has a cry before we've even sat down and got into any serious discussions isn't really the best way to demonstrate a position of strength.

vivatifosi

Herzlos wrote: »

1. The scale isn't impossible, it's likely doable but May is giving off the impression she can bang an agreement out in a couple of months.
2. There's no precedent; they had to go with something and 2 years seems reasonable.
3. There's a clause to extend it if agreed by both parties.

I didn't get the impression (rightly or wrongly on my part) from reading the notes from FAZ and Forbes that she was saying that she could get a deal in a couple of months, more that she would have liked to have solved one particular part: ie the rights of emigrants and immigrants, in June.

Given that there is supposedly willingness on both sides for this and comments by both that they would like it resolved sooner rather than later, I don't see why that is an unreasonable timescale

IveSeenTheLight

mrginge wrote: »

I don't know whether it's doable in two years, because it's a very complicated process with many different issues to be addressed.

I'm sure it is, but on the same hand, I do wonder specifically how complicated it is?

For all UK laws, its seems very simple, we retain the same position as we currently have and have the freedom to adjust / change the laws going forward.

For commercial markets, The UK for example, would be free to increase the power of hoovers (other brands available), but if they wanted to sell into the Eurpoean community, the specifications would need to meet the market you are selling to. I don't see how this has to be linked with the freedom of movement.

Freedom of movement, I believe the majority voted for Brexit to regain control of immigration, so this should be a strong stance position. For me, agreeing that all Europeans currently in Britain, can retain that flexibility as a balance for all Britains currrently abroad to get the same flexibility. Maybe include a timeline (say 10 years) for this agreement to exist, after which the respective people would have needed to apply for and obtain citizenship.

All payments / benefits should be paid up for agreements in place and self funded moving forward.

I'm interested to know what areas others believe need to be negotiated

Rinoa

WengerIn wrote: »

Wasn't the accusation that he tried to block the EU from implementing tax avoidance policies? I don't recall Luxembourg breaking any rules although happy to be corrected.

The EU said the deals were certainly illegal.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/21/starbucks-and-fiat-tax-deals-with-eu-nations-ruled-unlawful

I just wondered if Luxembourg were ever punished.

Just thinking about it. Those deals helped numerous multinationals pay all their taxable profits in Luxembourg, who secretly only asked for a very small % in tax, thus depriving the UK exchequer of what should have been rightfully paid to us. Maybe we should deduct that sum from the final Brexit Bill.