So the Good Friday Agreement? How do LEAVE propose to sort? (on Brexit and Northern Ireland - title amended by MNHQ)

[RedToothBrush]

Go on. Lets have some answers.
Can we have a proper talk about how we can stop this affront to democracy and ripping up of a peace plan?

the UK is a net contributor to the EU

Yes. In terms of the money that we pay to the EU versus the money that the EU pays to us.

In terms of the economic boost to our economy that we get as a result of being in the EU (for example, from companies choosing to have their EU headquarters in London so they can do all their business in English, and the fact that London gets to be the financial capital of Europe due to passporting rights), the economic benefit that we get from being in the EU far outweighs the cost.

This is why the decision shouldn't have been left in the hands of Joe Public.

.....and assuming that our Government Conservative for the foreseeable future doesn't choose to use the "savings" from its net contribution to the EU for tax cuts/breaks to the rich/pet Conservative funder large corporations in the basis that "trickle down" economics will help the poorest in society.

After all, the rich need more money to incentivise them to do more as they have so much already and the poor need to be sanctioned less in order to incentivise them to work

"The point up for debate is whether there would be lower GDP growth for the UK outside of the EU and whether this would result in any net gain from leaving being wiped out, therefore resulting in no new funds for the NHS etc."

I don't think that is a moot point at all, growth will be lower outside of the EU, the current economic situation is a result of Brexit being kicked into the long grass by the government and BOE funding. If you look at the serious economic indicators, business optimisim, consumer confidence ( not spending its summer spending is always higher, but its lower than expected without Brexit), the level of the pound which indicates international business optimism etc etc, we can see that growth is likely to be lower.

A 0.6 % change in economic growth wipes the entire surplus (which makes up less than 1% of Government spending) out of the take.

Also the Government have only agreed to give funds to projects that have current approval, these things would get funding anyway from the EU as we are still part of it till exit is complete. The current round of funding only lasts till 2020 anyway, when it is likely that we will have left the EU. So the "guarantee" probably only counts for about a year or 6 months worth of funding. It was a nothing statement.

Oh and this only counts for farmers and research etc, it doesn't include the money for economic development.

Guess those areas that voted out in droves are going to feel the pinch next year when this round of funding doesn't kick in.

*.....the economic benefit that we get from being in the EU far outweighs the cost.

This is why the decision shouldn't have been left in the hands of Joe Public.*

It's not just a decision about the effect of EU membership on the economy though. There are many other issues.

Sorry, last post from me going off topic again - please ignore.

order-order.com/2016/08/30/corbyns-digital-democracy-guru-supports-continuity-iras-armed-struggle/

Well this is reassuring...

I must admit I thought that the report about the IRA digital democracy guru was just the usual media spin - "let's see how we can undermine Corbyn".

But it is worrying - as we have repeatedly said, those tensions have not fully gone away, and do not need to be given any encouragement.

Always worth remembering who it is saying what!

Richard Barbrook
‏@richardbarbrook
I'm being trolled as a terrorist sympathiser by some who named himself after a terrorist! @TechnoGuido

"howabout, this "preferential relationship with Ireland" only works because both NI and RoI are in the EU."
Loveintokyo - You state this as fact, but as howabout has pointed out, you are wrong. There was freedom of movement and ability to live and work between RoI, N I and UK long before they joined the EU.
Why did you think otherwise?

You're rather missing the point that Ireland is in the EU and will continue to be in the EU.

So either we will need to reinstate border controls between RoI and NI, or this stuff about Brexit enabling us to control our borders is total bollocks.

(By the way, the only reason Ireland opted out of the Schengen agreement is because we wouldn't join and the success of the peace process depended on being able to preserve the Common Travel Area with us.)

Anyway... RTFT. People have explained ad nauseam why Brexit could put the peace process at risk.

There was freedom of movement and ability to live and work between RoI, N I and UK long before they joined the EU. Because we both joined the EEC at the same time and have been walking in step with each other in the same direction. Now we are proposing to go off elsewhere, so can't keep in step with each other.

The Irish are very displeased about the Apple judgement and are talking about infringement on their sovereignty. They took more than one attempt to accept Lisbon. Maybe the solution is for them to exit the EU as well?

Perhaps some wealthy demagogue will come along and promise them the earth if they have a Referendum to exit?

I do believe though, that the Irish are used to having referenda, so have a better idea of how to run them. Unlike the shower called Gove and Johnson.

If you think Ireland are leaving the EU any time soon, you are living on another planet.

The Irish government infringed EU state aid laws by offering Apple a special tax deal which wasn't available to its competitors. They were investigated, found to have broken the law, and are now being told to make Apple pay their taxes.

Apple, at some point in the past, were shopping around for a home to base their EU HQ and were seduced by the low tax regime on offer in Ireland. If that hadn't been available, they might have decided to set up shop here, or in the Netherlands, or anywhere.

What is certain is that if Ireland hadn't been in the EU, Apple wouldn't have even considered it as a potential location.

Loveintokyo To be exact, the EU commissioners have concluded that Ireland broke state aid rules. This has not been challenged and will be.
My understanding is that Apple had a transfer pricing arrangement in Ireland about taxing related party transactions prior to 2010. At this point, Ireland had no transfer pricing rules. When TP rules were introduced in 2010, old arrangements were 'grandfathered'.
These arrangements were available to all Irish companies.

The EU commission has concluded that:

The role of EU state aid control is to ensure Member States do not give selected companies a better tax treatment than others, via tax rulings or otherwise. More specifically, profits must be allocated between companies in a corporate group, and between different parts of the same company, in a way that reflects economic reality. This means that the allocation should be in line with arrangements that take place under commercial conditions between independent businesses (so-called "arm's length principle").

Effectively, the EU is writing transfer pricing legislation into the Irish tax code where none existed. Any company could have used the same allocation system used by Apple.

The legal decision will need to wait until it is heard in court, but I suspect the EU will lose.

carol, honey, I advise people on state aid law for a living.

EU state aid laws have never been used as a means to attack an individual member State's tax laws before. Jurisdiction for taxation, outside of VAT, does not rest with the EU. The US and Irish are also pointing out that the judgement impinges on International member State tax agreements, which are again outside EU jurisdiction. The model of the Irish economy for financial services, IT and the Arts is based on differential tax deals of this nature. The UK is by far the largest trading partner within the EU for Ireland in these sectors and also agriculture.

The status quo has moved and the effect could be profound. (I am not saying it will be but I do think the potential is there).

Nope, "fiscal aid" is a thing and there is a whole body of case law about it, It's just that Apple is a company everyone has heard of, which is why people think this is a new development.

In a nutshell, member states are entitled to set their own tax rules. What they are not allowed to do is disapply their own tax rules to certain companies or sectors in a way that could distort competition by giving those companies or sectors an economic advantage.

If a member state voluntarily forgoes revenue it would otherwise be entitled to receive according to its own tax rules by, for example, granting a special exemption to a particular company or a particular product, that can be classed as state aid.

In truth, it is a lot more complicated than that but I'm trying to explain it quickly in layman's terms.

"The status quo has moved and the effect could be profound"

Howabout, could you expand on this? In what respect has the status quo moved and what do you think might be the effects?

"The status quo has moved and the effect could be profound"

I don't quite understand this - when we say that the status quo between UK and RoI will inevitably have to change, we get told, no problem, things will go back to how they were before.

A bit more background for you

www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-30/apple-s-14-5-billion-eu-tax-ruling-what-you-need-to-know

If legal matters were as clear cut as LoveinTokyo suggests there would be no need for lawyers.

Loveintokyo , darling, I also have experience in this area.

I agree tax rules can be within state aid rules. I am uncomfortable with the EU writing an 'arm's length rule' into Irish tax legislation when it did not have one - for any company.
I am unaware of any other company trying this process and being refused, which would imply a sweetheart deal. but as the legislation stood, this was available to any company.
Tax rules on profit allocation do not have to be written on OECD guidelines and for the EU to insist they do seems incorrect.
This is not only my opinion, but also that of Irish and Apple tax specialists.

I seriously doubt that...

Oh, and if you think Apple's lawyers and the Irish government's lawyers are going to say, "oh yes, well, we agree with the Commission's assessment, actually", then you clearly don't have the faintest clue how legal proceedings work.