Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

Zxcv_Bnm

melanzana wrote: »

UK could always set its own corporate tax rates. Why didn't they reduce them when they could, and attract more business in like Ireland did?

not for much longer
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-hungary-ireland-taxation/hungary-ireland-oppose-eu-wide-tax-harmonization-efforts-idUKKBN1ET1ZY

Hungary has a CT rate of 9%

see link, not for much longer

ROI CT rate is 12.5%. Malta is 35%. Two ends of the spectrum.

Soon they'll all be the same

The trend worldwide is for CT rates to come down, for obvious reasons. Competitiveness in attracting business being one of them.

harmonisation prevents competitiveness, its the whole idea

SouthLondonUser

Zxcv_Bnm wrote: »

Which part of that is factually incorrect ?

Do you know what organisation the EU is based on? Go on have a guess

You have accused the EU of being undemocratic and have even said there are no elections (a lie).

I have explained what the key institutions of the EU are, who their members are, how they are appointed and why those appointments, and therefore those institutions, are a clear example of indirect democracy, but democracy nonetheless.

You have ignored all of that and quoted a rant that criticises the EU but doesn't address my points. What is undemocratic in the EU institutions where we are represented by people either chosen directly by us (MEPs) or by our government?

Your failure to answer is a deafening silence.

melanzana

Zxcv_Bnm wrote: »

not for much longer
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-hungary-ireland-taxation/hungary-ireland-oppose-eu-wide-tax-harmonization-efforts-idUKKBN1ET1ZY


see link, not for much longer



Soon they'll all be the same



harmonisation prevents competitiveness, its the whole idea

Until I get my head together to respond to all those quotes, perhaps you might comment on the fact the UK decided to keep high CT rates, instead of lowering them, as they could have.

Brexit was never required for that. Was it?

SouthLondonUser

Zxcv_Bnm wrote: »

Booker, Christopher. The Great Deception

Is this the same Booker who denied global warming and denied any link between smoke and cancer? Do you happen to have a more credible source to back up your theories?

Zxcv_Bnm

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Care to back this up with a modicum of facts and evidence?

sure

It seems to me you are quite unfamiliar with the key EU insitutions and the EU law-making process.

no, you are

The 4 key institutions of the EU are (yes, there are also the ECB, the Court of Justice, etc etc):

do you know why it is strutured like that?

I'll tell you. it is because it is based exactly on the league of nations, which failed to prevent WW2, despite which the EU thinks it has prevented wars in Europe

The league of nations had a a Secretariat, a Council of Ministers, a parliamentary Assembly and a Court of Justice. Same organisation exactly.

the EU is a retread of something that failed pre war. it was thought up by Monnet and Arthur Salter in the 1920s and 1930s - Monnet even tried to get Churchill to merge France and Britain in 1940

The problem with the LoN as Monnet saw it was that it was just an intra govt body with pesky governments that had a veto - the USE was to be supranational (look it up) with all power given up to a higher government, no vetoes, otherwise like the LoN it would fail again

you didn't know that

no power taken into the acquis has ever been repatriated to any country ever

So the Secretariat became the Commission and that's where all the power lies - its loyal to the EU not the member countries - thats the difference vs the LoN

The European Parliament, with MEPs elected directly from EU electors.

which cannot initiate legislation so it's not a parliament at all

I’d also add that the proportional system with which they are elected is not distortive the way the British First-past-the-post system can be

so what, its completely powerless.

suppose the euro parliament voted to disband the union or return sovereignty. does it have the power to make that happen? er no

give me an example of anything the EU parliament has ever done except rubber stamp stuff thought up by the Commission. thats all its for

The European Council, ie the group of heads of state or government of each member state.

does it have the power to repatriate sovereignty? er no

The Council of the EU, or Council of Ministers, with ministers from the government of each country.

which like the European parliament can't propsoe legilstion, it just rubber stamps it

The Commission, which can be thought of as a cabinet government – the key executive body of the Union, with one member appointed by each member state. The President of the Commission is appointed by the European Council and approved by the European Parliament.

exactly, the actual executive is appointed not elected and those who make the appointments are states who act independently of what MEPs might vote for

it's not cabinet, cabinets are accountable to parliaments. the EU commission is accountable to nobody

the British PM can change because of power plots internal to the ruling party, with no input whatsoever from the electorate.

whereas the commission can't change at all. you cannot vote them out and replace them with a commission that will reverse union

you do not understand what you think you support

Zxcv_Bnm

melanzana wrote: »

Until I get my head together to respond to all those quotes, perhaps you might comment on the fact the UK decided to keep high CT rates, instead of lowering them, as they could have.

Brexit was never required for that. Was it?

who said it was?

the point is that soon corp tax rates will be an EU power and will nevr come back

Zxcv_Bnm

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Is this the same Booker who denied global warming and denied any link between smoke and cancer? Do you happen to have a more credible source to back up your theories?

state which part of the quote is factually incorrect please

Power can only be handed by individual states to the supranational entity; never the other way round. Once those powers or ‘competences’ are ceded, either by treaty or by passing laws over a particular area of policy, they constitute the Community’s most sacred treasure, the ‘acquis communautaire’.

is that true or untrue

if untrue give an example of when power has been handed by the eu

for bonus points when edward heath said that joining the EEC meant ‘no essential loss of sovereignty’, was that true or a lie

SouthLondonUser

You seem to have a loooot of confusion in that head of yours.

I'll tell you. it is because it is based exactly on the league of nations, which failed to prevent WW2,

Multiple books could be, and have in fact been, written on why WW2 wasn’t prevented. But that is hardly relevant to the discussion of the supposed lack of democracy in the EU. The Ventotene Manifesto, which I am sure you know about, also played a role in inspiring what is now the EU, but I don’t see the relevance of discussing the influence of Monnet vs that of the Italians of Ventotene etc for the discussion at hand.

despite which the EU thinks it has prevented wars in Europe

What on earth are you alluding to? How many wars have there been on Western European soil over the last decades? Maybe I forgot the great Anglo-Danish war of 1980? Or the German vs France conflict of 1990?

exactly, the actual executive is appointed not elected

Ehm, and how is this different from what happens in the UK? The British PM is the leader of the majority party. The British electorate has no direct say in who gets to be minister of what, nor does it have any say in what happens when party members decide to challenge their leader.
In how many countries is the entire executive branch elected directly by voters?

and those who make the appointments are states who act independently of what MEPs might vote for

just like UK ministers can and do act independently of MPs!

It is true that the European Parliament cannot directly initiate legislation, but it’s also true that its powers have increased substantially over the years. The Parliament can invite the commission to present legislative proposals, and whether the Parliament could challenge the Commission in the court of Justice if the Commission fails to do so or to justify its refusal is a matter of debate among legal scholars, AFAIK.

suppose the euro parliament voted to disband the union

What a totally non-sensical example…

whereas the commission can't change at all. you cannot vote them out and replace them with a commission that will reverse union

Please explain how British voters can vote out the British government before the next elections?

you do not understand what you think you support

Since you are so obsessed with sovereignty and accountability, let me also remind you that the British PM wanted to make extensive use of the so-called Henry VIII clauses, didn’t want parliament to have a say on whether we should have exited the EU (surely you remember Gina Miller?), didn’t want to disclose the legal advice it received on the draft deal and the Irish backstop, etc etc etc.

SouthLondonUser

Zxcv_Bnm wrote: »

state which part of the quote is factually incorrect please

Power can only be handed by individual states to the supranational entity; never the other way round. Once those powers or ‘competences’ are ceded, either by treaty or by passing laws over a particular area of policy, they constitute the Community’s most sacred treasure, the ‘acquis communautaire’.

is that true or untrue

if untrue give an example of when power has been handed by the eu

for bonus points when edward heath said that joining the EEC meant ‘no essential loss of sovereignty’, was that true or a lie

OK, let's ignore the fact that the guy you quoted notoriously holds anti-scientific views which have been clearly debunked. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that even total nutters might have something sensible to say. Let's get into the specifics.

The examples you make are totally unreasonable. The EU is about integration. You keep talking about 'returning power', voting to disband the Union, etc. It's like saying: can the British Parliament vote to disband itself? It's a totally non-sensical example!!!

The real crux of the matter is: what powers does a member country have to block a legislation it does not like? Let me remind you that the UK had a rebate, didn't join the euro, opted out of the Schenghen area etc etc etc - it seems to me it managed to have its way in quite a few key areas.

Since you are so obsessed with sovereignty etc etc, let me ask you: what are the EU laws that you despise the most and why? What did the UK try to to block them? Do you see a pattern of the EU constantly going against UK interests? If so, please elaborate.

Foaming-at-the-mouth Brexiters love to describe the EU as this undemocratic beast going against our interests, yet fail to provide clear examples! Shouldn't Brexiters have a very long and clear list of the most hated EU laws they can't wait to get rid of? Why is that not the case? Why is that not being shouted from the rooftops?

One key reason why most Brits fail to understand the EU is that the EU is about compromise, which is something British politicians are not used to. The UK is typically ruled by one party, not by coalitions (you don't need to remind me about the Lib Dems, I said 'typically'), and party members are regularly whipped to bring them in line with the PM. Many other European countries are ran by coalitions and do not even have an equivalent of the whip. A union of almost 30 countries can only be run by a coalition. Have you eve tried to get 3 people to agree on anything? Try that with 28 states!

melanzana

Zxcv_Bnm wrote: »

who said it was?

the point is that soon corp tax rates will be an EU power and will nevr come back

Tax is a national, sovereign competence and many countries are determined to keep it that way. Rightly so; tax is a critical part of economic policy and every country is entitled to design the policy that meets its situation.

There are advocates in the Commission for tax standardisation but it would need unanimity and there is no chance of that. There have also been moves to put tax policy under qualified majority voting but that decision would itself need unanimity so you can forget that too.