After Brexit, More Than 100 Firms May Move To Ireland (mirror.co.uk) 442
An anonymous reader quotes The Daily Mirror:
Ireland has said it has received more than 100 inquiries from major firms looking to move from the UK because of Brexit. Martin Shanahan, the chief executive of the Industrial Development Agency, said the bulk of the interest came from banks and financial institutions based in the City of London. He told the Guardian newspaper that Dublin was looking to capitalize on Brexit by wooing firms with its low corporation tax rate and status as the only English speaking country in the EU after the UK leaves the trading bloc... A recent report by accountants PwC said up to 100,000 jobs in the UK financial services sector could be lost if the UK cannot strike a deal on passporting.
The New York Times also reports on the European Medicines Agency -- which oversees approval of drugs across Europe (like America's FDA) from London. The agency believes that relocating to a different country could mean losing up to half its employees, which would majorly impact the licensing and monitoring of prescription drugs for the entire European Union.
The New York Times also reports on the European Medicines Agency -- which oversees approval of drugs across Europe (like America's FDA) from London. The agency believes that relocating to a different country could mean losing up to half its employees, which would majorly impact the licensing and monitoring of prescription drugs for the entire European Union.
The days of high taxes on corps are numbered (Score:2, Interesting)
Else they just run to Ireland, or other low cost havens.
Brexit is just a nice excuse, they'd want to do this anyway.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"Actually, corporate income taxes tend to be regressive, since the main results are lower wages and higher prices."
Without any sort of "socialist" structure in place to ensure work is paid at the rate it earns for the company, yes, the REACTION by corporate boards is towards cost cutting and that occurs first and foremost at the employee's wallet.
Re:The days of high taxes on corps are numbered (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So people getting paid from non corporate entities means a full tax free economy subsection.
If you get paid for your work you are a business of one. So you need to pay taxes.
I think sales tax and having a value add tax would make more sense. Because it gives people more control of their income. If they make more money they can hold onto it but most likely they will spend more. People with less money can't buy as much so they spend less.
In some ways it is like a fixed tax. However our progressive tax sys
And taxing employess increases their wage needs (Score:2, Insightful)
So it's pointless to tax employees, since they'll only demand more pay or be unable to work there at that salary and leave.
But employees pay taxes for the army, police, fire brigade and legal system, all of which, if employers shouldn't be paying taxes for, should be unavailable to those employers. Nope, copyright doesn't exist for Disney, only their employees. Nope, trademark doesn't exist for Nike, only their employees. Nope, contracts are unenforcable by your employer, only employees, because the courts
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps have a national sales tax instead of corporate taxes. Tracking the flow of money in international corporations is very difficult. If we had a sales tax, it wouldn't matter where their headquarters is.
Re:The days of high taxes on corps are numbered (Score:5, Informative)
Except vat tax raises the costs of goods on those who can least afford it. Making the poor pay a higher present age of the taxes.
A person earning $50k a year spends 99% of his income
A person earning $100k a year spends 97% of their income
A person earning $250k a year spends 90% of their income
Above that the percentage drops drastically.
Money not spent on new goods is wasted in a consumer society therefore the top brackets need to be taxed heavily to compensate for their lack of spending
Re: The days of high taxes on corps are numbered (Score:5, Insightful)
I lean the other way. Taxes should only be collected on corporate profits and sales.
There are many benefits for this. The govt has less entities to go after in taxing. They spend less on earning the revenue. It's no small feat to process and check so many individual tax submissions. Additionally, with less actors, there is less fraud, less investigations, better funded, and higher returns per case. The govt can more easily direct the general market by taxing one sector over another or internationally over domestic. They can't impact/benefit specific companies as the other well funded companies will interfere. Any major inefficiencies or wastage of monies will be investigated and identified by corps demanding they keep the funds rather than have the govt waste it. The system encourages savings at the individual level but investments at the corp level.
For corporations, they can properly invest in the right amount of resources in processing taxes, paying politicians, lawyers for defense, and finding loopholes. We don't know of a more efficient entity for paying the minimum amount necessary. They also don't need to worry about calculating and paying different amounts of taxes on behalf of their employees and various benefits. Technically we already use corps as tax collectors for the majority of the nation's end user income taxes. Why not remove that job and cost?
For us, normal ppl, we don't need to worry about filing taxes every year. We don't need to worry about paying someone to navigate the tax code. The code is extremely simple for us, it's a percent of the sale. It gives us day to day transparency into the amount the govt takes to keep running. Which makes us more interested in how our govt spends the monies and thus helps the population make better calls during elections. Our savings can be passed on to our children without a middleman taking another cut but the society still benefits when it is spent or invested (directly or indirectly via loans). They aren't out gunned and taken advantage of in the taxation arena by politicians and corporations because they aren't a player.
You are correct in saying taxes do not come out of a corps' pocket, but they are excellent tax collectors and payers. Why not give them the whole job instead of passing it onto the uneducated (tax wise) masses?
Re:The days of high taxes on corps are numbered (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a common misconception among people who don't know shit and neoliberals who might know better but don't care.
Those "three places" you mention are all controlled by market conditions. As long as there is any competition, companies cannot just pass their tax bill along to customers, because they will lose them. Corporate tax is computed on profits at the end of the year, anyway, after the sale has taken place. The same goes for employees. If a corporation decides to cut salaries because of higher taxes (not to management of course) they won't get good employees.
Shareholders' value is also market-driven (naturally). Except for dividends, a corporation cannot pass it's tax bill on to shareholders.
Let's take Apple, for example. They have over $200 billion in cash. Give me a scenario where they're going to pass the bill for their Irish tax dodge on to customers, employees or shareholders.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it does not belong to the shareholders. I've been an Apple shareholder. If I called them up and asked them to send me my portion of that $200 billion, you think they'd send me a check? No. All I can do is sell my Apple stock. And that stock price is controlled by the market, not by the level of taxation in a given country.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, in a tight labor market, this does often go to employees. Also, if you tax executive bonuses at 90%, they pretty much go away. When combined with a healthy labor market (i.e. growing economy without the flood of illegal or imported workers) wages naturally go up.
What tight labor market? (Score:2)
Actually, in a tight labor market,
That hasn't really existed since the .com era.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, right, so all those productivity increases over the last few decades didn't just go to the already wealthy and those at the top...
The raises went to the better off, because that is where the productivity increases occurred. A ditch digger or tomato picker is no more productive today than they were 30 years ago. But because of faster computers and better software tools, programmers are worth far more today, as are accountants, engineers, bankers, and hedge fund managers.
Re: The days of high taxes on corps are numbered (Score:2, Insightful)
Depends on whether you think corporations or humans are the species you want to flourish.
Both are important (Score:3, Insightful)
You cannot have one without the other. Ideally corporations and human beings are a symbiotic relationship and not a parasitic one.
Re: (Score:3)
You cannot have one without the other. Ideally corporations and human beings are a symbiotic relationship and not a parasitic one.
Humans in one form or another predate corporations by a couple hundred thousand years. So you may not be able to have one without the other, but you can certainly have the other without the one.
Re:The days of high taxes on corps are numbered (Score:4, Informative)
Technically, Trump is isn't part of the Far Right Wingnuts, he's merely using those rubes. End result is the same though.
Re:The days of high taxes on corps are numbered (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing about Trump is he just lies about everything. In business that isn't a big deal as the contract will force all actions. But for government it is a problem. We have the perception of lying politicians however for the most part they are rather truthful they may be wrong or misinformed but they are truthful. When most presidents say I want to do x, y or z when the opportunity comes up to do it they will. Trump who lies about everything just because people want to hear it stands on both sides of the fences and we have no idea what he will do when facing two conflicts ideas.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
we have no idea what he will do when facing two conflicts ideas.
Yes we do. He'll choose the option that makes the most profit (for him).
Does anybody seriously believe that Trump cares about the common man? The common man is everything that Trump despises.
Re:The days of high taxes on corps are numbered (Score:4, Interesting)
I think your assessment is true, but it could stand a bit more nuance. Trump is a publicity junkie with a deep-seated fear that he's dumber than a box of rocks. You can see the junkie come out when there is a period of political stories that are not about him directly. He responds with a twitter-gasm saying something stupid because he knows that will get him on the radar of the new organizations again. It doesn't matter to him what he says, only that he get air time.
The constant references to himself as smart is a stupid Streisand move. If he'd never raised it, he'd be better off. Instead, the picture that comes out is that he's not very bright, has the attention span of gnat, and has no strategic vision. Well, he couldn't have the latter with the attention span of a gnat. He repeats whatever it was that he last talked about to an adviser.
The only measures that he can apply to himself with any sort of value that he's capable of understanding is publicity and money, and he's not all that good at the latter given his bankruptcies. He doesn't run a public company and has no investors, only debts. As a consequence, he's rarely held to account for his screwups, his lawyers protect him from his stupid money moves. He's also learned being a reality-show host all the time, on camera or off, pays off.
Re:The days of high taxes on corps are numbered (Score:4, Informative)
I guess those are words you live by.
$1 a year is to just get around taxes. And unlike the trump foundation the Clinton foundation had a mission to help people.
Re: The days of high taxes on corps are numbered (Score:4, Insightful)
Citation needed on all of that. It's easy to spout random crap, harder to back it up with reality. Show us the evidence. Name the "70% muslim cities" in "your country" (which country is that, anyway?) When are where were these kids? Links to any evidence of any of it being true. Yeah, thought so, pure bullshit.
Re:The days of high taxes on corps are numbered (Score:4, Insightful)
He writes a good point with reasons and you offer no justification whatsoever for your comment. It is you that sounds scared, not him.
brexit or tax? (Score:2)
I hope those in power learned (Score:4, Insightful)
That you should not try to force people into what you want.
Brexit, Trump, the shit will keep happening over and over and over again until you learn how to talk to people like adults.
Re:I hope those in power learned (Score:5, Insightful)
They are not adults, but xenophobic troglodytes who don't bother to verify catchy but wrong claims by blowhard politicians.
Re:I hope those in power learned (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you illustrating his point so clearly.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
The biggest mistake of the past decades was validating the opinion of 'the man in the street' as if it was authorative or equivalent to that of experts in the field. Everybody and his dog now somehow thinks that just because they can open their mouth and breathe they should be listened to in everything.
Re:I hope those in power learned (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I hope those in power learned (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually I have learned a lesson. I actually believed that when push came to shove I believed people would ebb mass be rational enough and not knowingly swallow lies that pandered to their belief. I thought better of my fellow humans. Turns out I was wrong.
Whatever though. Given my socioeconomic status I'll likely suffer a lot less than many of the brexiters.
Re:I hope those in power learned (Score:4, Informative)
We learned that lying is the best policy. Tell people what they want to hear, not the cold hard truth. Doesn't even matter if they know your are bullshitting.
Cameron should just have said that all immigration stops on January 1st 2017 and he could have won.
Re:I hope those in power learned (Score:5, Insightful)
Hint: they are neither idiots nor ill informed by and large,
Well you are just trying to piece yourself wrong aren't you? Brexit was a bunch of infighting between only the most elite of the Eton elite. If you think it has something to do with non elites making themselves felt, congratulations, you just just took a massive Johnson right up the Gove.
Re: (Score:2)
Hint: they are neither idiots nor ill informed by and large
What? Virtually everyone is ill-informed, and frankly, without useful idiots you can't maintain the two-party system ad infinitum. Most people are idiots, as defined as acting without thinking. Most people do very little thinking before speaking or acting. This is fucking obvious: just look around.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, it's unreasonable to force the 48% of people who voted to remain, and the unknown % of people who voted to leave but don't want a "hard" Brexit, to suffer the consequences of pulling out of the Single Market and European Human Rights and freedom of movement.
Scotland voted 62% in favour of remaining. Gibraltar voted 96% in favour of remaining. It's the end of the UK if they are ignored.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Such as? (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Trump provided position papers on immigration reform, the second amendment, supreme court nominations, veterans affairs, economics, and more. Each of these is detailed. I doubt that you read them. Perhaps take a moment to do so. Try coming t
Re: Such as? (Score:5, Informative)
I can't really comment on Trump - not being American. With regards to Brexit I can confidently say that the Leave voters in my office did indeed ignore facts and believed what they wanted to hear.
* They were told the UK would have to make concessions to retain access to the single market, but "no, we've a bigger economy then Norway, so we'll get what we want".
* They were told it would devalue the sterling, but "no, that's project fear"
* They were told that Turkey joining the EU was highly unlikely - 1 out of 37 chapters in 10 years - but "no, Merkel will push it through" even though the UK was a bigger proponent than Germany.
* They were given the figures on immigrants being less likely to claim benefits then natives, but ignored them.
Re: Such as? (Score:4, Informative)
They were given the figures on immigrants being less likely to claim benefits then natives, but ignored them.
Figures I've seen were largely based on Eastern European immigration. What you're ignoring is the relatively recent massive influx of Muslims, and any statistics I find on that group are appalling. The most unemployed, the most claiming disability, the most on public housing, the most in medical costs. And this is hardly unique to the UK.
Here's a recent left-wing source [huffingtonpost.co.uk]:
"The high proportion of the Muslim prison population (13%) and the proportion of Muslims in social housing (28%) is also a "cause for concern", the report's author said."
Here's an older source [telegraph.co.uk], and things have surely gotten worse since then:
"Muslims households were the least likely to be homeowners (52%) and are the most likely among all religious groups to be living in accommodation rented from the council or housing association (28%); 4% live rent-free. [..] 63% contained at least one dependent child, and 25% contained three or more dependent children. [..] Muslims between the ages of 16 and 24 had the highest unemployment rates at 28%; 11% of Muslims over the age of 25 were unemployed. [..] Muslims were most likely to be unavailable or not actively seeking work due to reasons such as disability, being a student, or looking after the family and home. 31% of working-age men were economically inactive, as were 69% of working-age women."
Not only is the massive Muslim immigration into the West a security risk, it's a massive failure economically.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You are misrepresenting reality. Trump does not speak like an adult, he speaks like someone who didn't graduate high school and generally fails to speak in complete sentences or finish thoughts. He literally cannot remain focused on a single coherent thought. He responds to criticism as a child does Whether he does this on purpose or has some low grade dementia, I am not sure. He used to sound like a well-educated and intelligent person....
I think what you mean is that you want to be treated like a child,
Re:I hope those in power learned (Score:5, Insightful)
So let's see if I've got this straight: Three million MORE Americans voted for Clinton than Trump. But because of an arcane institution invented to protect slave-owners, a few old white men living in all-white, middle-American parasite states that take more money from the federal government than they give back get to determine who is president.
Yet you claim "PC bullshit" is the reason.
And Americans have the nerve to call their country "the greatest democracy in the world". ROFL!
Re: (Score:3)
You can get this straight too: that's completely irrelevant.
Trump didn't bother to campaign in New York and California because he had no chance of winning those states - same reason that Hillary didn't bother campaigning in South Carolina. If the EC had been repealed by a constitutional amendment, it would have been a completely different race, so it is completely pointless to talk about the popular vote.
Then
Re: (Score:2)
Trump treated people like children. Told them what they wanted to hear, like daddy pretending Santa is real and yes you will grow up to be an astronaut.
It's the adult, cold hard realty people couldn't stand.
Lack of understanding (Score:2)
This sounds like 100+ (is that all? really) companies that really don't get Brexit. I'm guessing that they will get it soon enough in a sad way.
Re: (Score:3)
companies that really don't get Brexit
Trade conditions are going to change, companies look to mitigate. What's not to get?
Re: Lack of understanding (Score:3)
You're right, there is a lack of understanding. Some companies will benefit from Brexit, my employer for example and our neighbours. They export to the EU, so a weak pound is good. We earn off the back of used cars, so low new car sales are good for us because it means more prime are buying used.
We're not representative of the UK - the average income is about 3 times the UK median, and noone is below 150% of the median. So who cares if your fuel or holiday is 20% more expensive when you're earning a six fig
Those firms got it right (Score:5, Interesting)
Just for you I'll explain.
Those financial firms (many of them US banks) cater to the EU rather than Britain. While Britain was in the EU it made sense to set up shop in London. Good place to live, they speak English over there, good timezone, good communications, adequate and halfway familiar legal environment, sufficient critical mass of a raft of supporting firms, relatively liberal trading rules (for Europe), their customers just a phone call or a 1-3 hour flight away, and zero complications doing business with anyone else in the EU. That's what the EU was designed for. Life was good.
Various other EU countries might have preferred the seat of all that financial service to be in their own country instead of London. Financial firms provide high quality jobs and have a high (taxable) turnover. Only they couldn't do shit about it. EU guarantees free exchange of services and the most influential players (US banks) happened to prefer London. Not in the last place because London and the UK really listened to industry demands (knowing full well what they stood to lose if they didn't). So London it was. End of story.
Enter Brexit.
Brexit means the UK leaves the EU and has to negotiate terms on which to continue trading. The most basic terms of free trade (WTO--level) ensure free movement of goods but NOT free movement of services. Which EU membership guarantees, only that's what Britain is ending. So Britain is very much the asking party here.
Anyone prepared to bet that other EU countries (like Ireland) will be eager to let Britain keep all that yummy taxable business? And those jobs? When they can simply negotiate away London-based firms' comfy access to the EU, grab the jobs and (part of) the revenue? Really?
Those financial firms sure aren't. The incoming US commerce secretary Wilbur Ross (see http://www.npr.org/sections/th... [npr.org] ) isn't (see http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/u... [mirror.co.uk] ). I wouldn't either.
People who bet that Britain will keep providing financial services to Europe surely aren't picking the best odds here.
Only English speaking country? (Score:5, Interesting)
status as the only English speaking country in the EU after the UK leaves the trading bloc...
The Netherlands, Luxembourg, and basically half of Europe under the age of 30 would take issue with this statement. And I'll be damned if the Dutch aren't easier to understand than the Irish when speaking English ... or even when speaking Dutch.
Re: (Score:3)
I was in the Netherlands on business recently and everyone spoke perfect English, even the waitress in her mid 50s at the restaurant.
I'm thinking of moving there. There are a lot of good job offers with relocation packages at the moment. Definitely a bit of a brain-drain going on. There is some urgency too, as no-one knows when the cut-off date for exercising your EEA treaty rights (freedom of movement) will be.
Re:Only English speaking country? (Score:4, Informative)
I was in the Netherlands on business recently and everyone spoke perfect English, even the waitress in her mid 50s at the restaurant.
I had a retarded person (in the literal sense, mental and physical disability with a major speech impediment to boot which I even figured out listening to his Dutch) approach me in the street the other day and ask me to help him. I totally gave up. I wasn't even prepared to struggle through Dutch, it's hard enough to understand the people who can speek it properly. "Sorry, Ik spreek geen Nederlands". Then in perfect English (as perfect as anyone with a disability) he asked me if I knew how to get to the supermarket.
Unbelievable.
I'm thinking of moving there.
There are a lot of good job offers with relocation packages at the moment. Definitely a bit of a brain-drain going on. There is some urgency too, as no-one knows when the cut-off date for exercising your EEA treaty rights (freedom of movement) will be.
Tip for free: The Dutch have very high taxes 52% bracket kicks in at like 50000 EUR but are also very keen to snap up foreign talent. If you can find a job before moving over then the employer and a tax agent can ask for the 30% facility because you were brought in to the country for talent. This gives you a 30% tax free threshold on your income as well as simplifies some of the moving hassle (e.g. you can transfer a drivers license from almost any country if you get this facility, vs a list of like 20 countries if you don't)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, the tax breaks are very attractive at the moment. Norway seems to be really pushing to get UK talent in at the moment too.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of Europe are fucked in that regard. Some worse than others. Germany and Sweden would be poor choices. Sweden gets an extra bill of 59 (is that billions in US english?), the price of 10 new "super-hospitals" as they are called. :)
But that is what happens when your leaders all say. "come all in everybody, you are all welcome", that did they think would happen?
Re: (Score:2)
Who's leaders? I think there was really only one member nation that said that, and the entire EU is pissed at them.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that a good idea? According to Nigel Farage and Geert Wilders, the Netherlands is teetering on the edge of leaving the EU at which point it will deport all the foreigners and religious/ethnic minorities.
So according to some anti EU idiot in the UK, and some anti immigration idiot that few people like in the Netherlands, the country is about to leave the EU and deport all foreigners? What other words of wisdom do you have? The central bank thinks money is a good idea? The president likes the idea of government? The Queen thinks the monarchy should remain?
Support for Nexit is the lowest it has been in many years, and the Dutch are to foreign talent and immigration like the Irish are to tax paying companies.
Re:Only English speaking country? (Score:5, Insightful)
I should think Cyprus, Gibraltar, and Malta might take even more issue with it ...
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair those three aren't really the European economic powerhouses that attract major multinationals to build a European headquarters. Hell one of them is flat broke and I will wager another will be returned to Spain as part of the Brexit negotiations.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, sure, but the summary points explicitly at language as being the driver for the move :)
Re: (Score:2)
status as the only English speaking country in the EU after the UK leaves the trading bloc...
The Netherlands, Luxembourg, and basically half of Europe under the age of 30 would take issue with this statement. And I'll be damned if the Dutch aren't easier to understand than the Irish when speaking English ... or even when speaking Dutch.
The summary obviously means English as a dominant language. If you're a native English speaker there's a difference to living in a country where English is widely spoken compared to one where it's the dominant language.
Re:Only English speaking country? (Score:5, Insightful)
The summary obviously means English as a dominant language.
And I obviously mean the same. I hear more people speaking english at my bank then Dutch. If you speak with even a slight accent people answer you in English sometimes out of pure politeness. As an English speaker not only does *everyone* speak English, but they often reply in English when you speak Dutch, and I even had a special person with a learning disability speaking English to me. English is taught in schools from the same year they start teaching Dutch (i.e. the first year), and it's quite funny to actually see Dutch people correct Brits on their English because they are actually taught the language properly.
Yeah there is a difference between England and The Netherlands when it comes to language. The Dutch speak better English.
Re: (Score:3)
and it's quite funny to actually see Dutch people correct Brits on their English because they are actually taught the language properly.
I'm sure that goes over really well. Try it with a Texan sometime.
If (Score:3)
None of it has happened. None of what was predicted to happen has happened. The triggering of the article to leave hasn't happened. The negotiations haven't happened. The ratification of the negotiations haven't happened...
Pointless.
Re: If (Score:2)
As much as I don't want Brexit to happen, I do believe it will. It's sensible for companies who will suffer from Brexit - some know they will - to start making plans.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure! (Score:2)
And other hundreds are moving to France, others to Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands ...
Bankers and car manufacturers don't come into British homes.
But the important thing is that the lower classes don't see anymore Polish plumbers, then they are content, no matter if the economy goes down the drain, the British plumber can't fix that.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually that sounds like the kind of thing a plumber could fix.
Not as big a story as it may first appear (Score:5, Interesting)
Those who voted Remain have a vision of the big international banks in the City fleeing the nation, that is the image they were sold by Project Fear. The reality is that less than 10% of London City trading requires us to be in the EU. More than 90% of it is UK domestic and non-EU trade. EU passporting could be maintained merely by having a satellite office in Dublin with a couple of dozen staff.
In the meantime the Dutch bank ING is actually moving staff INTO the City from Belgium [telegraph.co.uk] in case Brexit stops it being able to trade in the UK.
10% of what ? (Score:2)
10% of British banks maybe ...
All the European banks (BNPP, DB, SG, DB, ING ...) moved to London City based trading HQ during the 90s for tax reason because they could also free trade to EU from there.
Now they anticipate that within a 3 year, this "opportunity" will be gone. They've already prepared plans to withdraw from the city. You know that banks don't like incertainties, do you.
So earlier those bank moved their activities from Amsterdam, Brussel, Frankfurt or Paris to the City ... but thanks to brexit
Re: (Score:2)
Now we know where these traitors stand and where they will be.
With their customers?
Nope, nice try though. (Score:2)
With their customers?
Nope, but nice try.
Re:Traitors. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey- you guys voted for Brexit. This is a consequence.
It's the free market. Allow it to sort things out. If you do not like the outcome- remember you voted for it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
If this is fake news then you should sell any shares and investments that you have in any companies based in the UK. Because any of them who are not looking to mitigate the impacts changes in trade barriers will have on their business would be completely stupid.
Heck I would go further to say if there was a piece that said no company was looking at leaving that it would be "fake news".
Re:Traitors. (Score:4, Interesting)
A company I work with is considering moving their manufacturing to China. At the moment they build products in the UK, but if tariffs come in then they might just as well build them in China where the labour is cheaper and pay those tariffs.
I'd love to know what deal the government did with Nissan. You can be sure that commitment will be big liability in any negotiations, as failure to get a good deal for them will presumably result in indefinite, unlimited financial support. Plus they need European charging networks to come to the UK if they want to meet their promise on supporting electric vehicles.
So they prefer slavery to freedom? (Score:2)
A company I work with is considering moving their manufacturing to China. At the moment they build products in the UK, but if tariffs come in then they might just as well build them in China where the labour is cheaper and pay those tariffs.
So that company wants pliant labor that has no leverage.
Re:Traitors. (Score:5, Informative)
Now we know where these traitors stand and where they will be.
Traitors? Who?
The major firms fleeing an alarming, and possibly catastrophic, regulatory landscape in solo Britain? You're being silly. CEOs and entire boards of directors can and have been dismissed -- and even sued -- for not doing their due diligence by mitigating exactly that kind of factor. It's their job.
The employees of said firms? Again, you're being silly. A paycheque is a paycheque. If I had a high-paying job that was relocating, especially if it was just to the other side of the Irish Sea, and even more especially if I could keep my EU passport after doing so, you'd better believe following them would be a strong option. Staying, unemployed, in a country with an uncertain future, might not.
Re:Traitors. (Score:4, Insightful)
What are you even babbling about. Like Britain was some kind of financial wasteland until the EU formed and saved everyone?
Re: (Score:2)
Like Britain was some kind of financial wasteland until the EU formed and saved everyone?
The formation of the EEC (which later morphed into the EC under the UE) was driven in a large part by Britain trying to regain the international status it lost after losing the Empire post second world war.
Re: (Score:2)
It was driven by the need to stop Germany invading France again. The UK wasn't even in it at the start.
Re:Traitors. (Score:5, Informative)
Stop writing. You seem to know precisely FUCK ALL about the UK.
Re:Traitors. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Traitors. (Score:4, Interesting)
The South is very dependent on financial services. Depending on how brexit goes a fair bit of that might be lost to Frankfurt or Paris.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a question of what we are willing to give up. The EU has all the cards, so everything has to bargained for. Do we give up Gibraltar for access to the common market? Give up passporting to preserve Nissan's tariff free exports?
Re:Traitors. (Score:5, Insightful)
The UK is doing better than most other economies in Europe even with Brexit priced in..
The pricing in of Brexit has just begun. That pricing in will continue for the next two years after art. 50 is triggered and it will continue for at least a decade after that. So far the Brexit process has proven to be so shambolic that it has had the effect of making people in other European countries take second look at the idea of staying in the EU which has led to significant improvements in EU approval ratings. The reason the UK is still doing fine is that you are still at the beginning of a long journey that has an uncertain destination and businesses don't like uncertainty. You can expect a whole bunch of businesses to just bail out rather than wait 10 years to find out exactly what the post Brexit world will look like, and then to have to wait another decade to find out if the Brexit experiment will pan out. The Brexit fun will only begin for real one or two years after art. 50 is triggered and after that Brexit will be a rollercoaster. If you want any indication of what that means Donald Trump's incoming trade secretary Wilbur Ross just called Brexit a "God-given opportunity” to steal business from the UK. That right there is a rational assessment of Brexit from an ice cold predatory capitalist. The sharks are in the water and they small blood.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have one choice for a sensible ISP in England in the form of BT, and they haven't really invested in anything beyond basic ADSL
In most urban areas, you have a choice between a BT Openreach reseller (including BT Retail) or Virgin Media. In a few places, you also have LLU operators. Virgin Media uses fibre to the curb and coaxial copper to the premises. Their cheapest offering is 50Mb/s and they go up to 200Mb/s. BT OpenReach has been laying fibre to the premises and fibre to the curb under the BT Infinity brand for a few years now. I have fibre to the premises (living in a city that isn't in the top 150 largest in Britain) and
Re: (Score:2)
This doesn't change the fact that by the second paragraph, it's obvious that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I'm guessing you formed your half-baked idea of the Uni
You chose globalism. They chose independence. (Score:2)
Not that I have much sympathy for them since they voted to cut their own throats. But Cornwall prosperous? Get a ******* clue.
Consider that the policies of the past 40 years might have given rise to what exists today.
Re:Traitors. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What do you want them to convince to stay, if they lose the european banking license by staying in Britain?
It is absolutely amazing in which reality disortion field the Brexit fans live. Half the world to trade with my ass. Getting full access to the european market without following its rules, good luck with that, ask Norway how that worked out.
Heck even India refuses to trade with the UK without getting full access to the uk labor market.
If you are lucky Scotland will stay with the UK, if you have bad luc
Re: (Score:3)
100 people make an inquiry. The article assumes the worst case scenario: every single one of them will leave, and Britain won't do anything to convince them to stay.
Your failure is one of imagination. The worst case scenario is that these 100 people represent thousands more, and what's more, since they're bothering to write a letter and not do absolutely nothing, there's a better-than-average chance that these people actually will leave.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No it's shining on you & and other globalists (Score:2)
the spotlight of ignorance shines brightly on all those that chose to remain in the EU.
FTFY.
Re: Traitors. (Score:5, Informative)
not wanting your children raped by welfare migrants,
Migrants from the EU are statistically less likely to be criminals, less likely to be claiming state benefits, and likely to be paying a higher tax rate. Now, if you're in a low-skilled job then you might have a convincing argument that you've suffered disproportionately from freedom of movement driving down wages.
not wanting to be controlled by distant unelected beauracrats
Which Bureaucrats are those? The European Commission employs around 30,000 civil servants. To put that in perspective, that's less than a tenth of the total number employed by the UK alone (and that's only counting ones employed centrally, not anyone employed by local governments). Or did you mean the European Parliament, elected via a party list system? You know, the one that Britain vetoed shifting power towards? Or the Council, composed of elected ministers from the member states? Or the Commission, comprised of one delegate for each country, nominated by their elected governments?
Nice claims, but no. (Score:2)
Migrants from the EU are statistically less likely to be criminals, less likely to be claiming state benefits, and likely to be paying a higher tax rate. Now, if you're in a low-skilled job then you might have a convincing argument that you've suffered disproportionately from freedom of movement driving down wages.
You've been under a rock for the last 40 years and must be quoting turn-of-the-20th-century claims. Replacement migration is a thing.
You hear of a major crime, it's likely not to be caused by a citizen. You hear of intimidation, it's likely to be caused by a non-citizen.
Re: Traitors. (Score:2)
But understanding thems numbers are hard...
Re:After Brexit, France may nuke England (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Froutre le camp?
Re: Lobbying by Goldmans Sachs (Score:5, Insightful)
So the deficit is 25 billion. What is that as a percentage of total trade? I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the EU has a larger - by a factor of 5 - economy then the UK.
So unless the our imports from the EU are 500% of our exports - they're not - any trade war is likely to hit the UK harder than the EU (there are no winners, just losers).
Unless of course you believe that the UK will get whatever it wants without any consequences, which is quite popular at the moment.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a funny fnord in that comment, just for you.
Re: Blah blah blah zZzZzZz. (Score:2)
Are we talking about the same U.K. that less than 70 years ago had more of the world's population under its control than most other countries combined? That controlled the world over, taxed them heavily, and gave no representation centrally? That made decisions centrally that mostly benefitted the elite few at the expense of the colonies?