A democratic referendum can be rigged by the emotions ruling at the moment of said referendum. You'd think if it would be repeated it would get the same outcome?
I know democracy is bullshit and I'm against it. I'm just tired of those who support it when they get the results they want and then they say it's meaningless and flawed when they get the results they don't want. This is something I've seen too much regarding Brexit or Trump or the minaret ban in Switzerland a long time ago.
Well, in my opinion the "people who know our best interests" are the ones who sold Brexit as the new solution for everything, skipping the true nature of it.
If there was another vote to reverse the Brexit-decision and people voted for that in majority, you could stop the madness and accept the results. Things change. Being stubborn is rarely the best option.
Nobody thinks otherwise, but “the country will continue to exist” is a pretty low bar to achieve. I’m much more concerned about a massive spike in prices, people leaving the country, and difficulty importing and exporting goods.
But there's no referendum on that. My main point is that the referendum wasn't very sensible and should probably always have had two stages. X = "What kind of Brexit do we want" then "remain vs. X". I expect "hard Brexit" vs. remain would have gone the other way, for example.
And the way to rectify this is to have a referendum on the reality of the eventual deal vs. the reality of the status quo.
... a referendum in which none of the outcomes were properly understood by anyone voting leave. running it again when the exit deal has been qualified is the only democratic way to do this.
Britain held a referendum - one which probably shouldn’t have been held as it was, but it’s too late to hand-wring about that now. But the way in which the outcome is being executed is absolutey shameful and there are a number of things which could be done:
- the referendum outcome could be fulfilled by formally withdrawing from the EU while retaining most of the machinery involved - single market membership in particular.
- The UK government could make a clear and achievable proposal for what a post-Brexit relationship with the EU might look like. They had a stab at this, but the outcome failed to be either clear or achievable.
- The UK government could pledge to hold a second referendum once the end state of UK-EU relations is more clearly known. This fulfills any objections over democratic representation.
Any of these would be far better and far less cliff-edge than the current policy.
Interesting viewpoint. I had considered a second referendum politically impossible in the sense of acceptance by the polity. Not in the sense of democratically existentially impossible.
But it seems (maybe this is some sort of positivity bias on my part) a second referendum is becoming more politically acceptable in both aforementioned senses. Though it'd be nice, if that never happens, if "someone" would fall on their sword for a second referendum, as really I think that's the only really democratic way forward.
> I had considered a second referendum politically impossible in the sense of acceptance by the polity.
I agree in principle. That is what should be.
I believe that we live in dangerous times. The political centre (e.g. labour & tories in the UK) is in dire straits in Europe and the US. Any action that puts strain into the democratic process, I'm afraid will be in advantage of the misanthropic, xenophobic warmongering groups. I'm afraid a new referendum might catapult the UKIP from ~2% to 5% or 10% turning it, much like the AfD, the third political power in the UK. Might sound a bit out of touch now, but historically, will not be the first time something like that happens in a country. What fuels these changes is the delegitimisation of existing democratic processes and organisations by those in position of power.
Democracy is a fragile flower. Takes months, sometimes years to grow but seconds to destroy.
This is important enough that you want to get it right, which means you want most voters absolutely sure they want the outcome. Take three votes over five years to be sure. A one-off referendum with an issue of this magnitude is like voting for a party once and then having it stay in power forever.
It’s strange how a referendum on a totally unknown outcome is considered democracy, whereas another referendum once the terms of the deal become known would be a “gross mockery of democracy” to quote May.
Is the will of the people only applicable when people can’t even know what they’re asked?
The people most vocal before the referendum (such as Nigel Farage) resigned after they "won" and admitted most of the pro-brexit campaign was bullshit (such as NHS funding). This was very much a con many people would like to reverse.
You can't stop it. Even if Brexit was reversed - which I doubt even possible - Britain has been shown to be a source of political risk. That isn't going away.
Of course you can stop it. UK Parliament would just need to annul the Article 50 withdrawal bill. But the question is whether there is the political will to do so.
It's very tricky because Brexiteers/Remainers cut across both Labour and the Tories and yet the party members are expected to toe the party line. Which results in an impasse.
The complete agreement of every EU nation is required to un-invoke article 50, because there are no provisions for it. Now, they'd likely do it, but that isn't a certainty, especially as the UK arguably gets a lot more out of the EU than most other member states relative to investment.
>Britain has been shown to be a source of political risk
Compared to e.g. the rest of Europe, which initiated 2 major world wars, 3 dictatorships, and major unrests in the last century, and managed to get into a deep systemic crisis in the last 10 years?
the question isn't if the EU still wants the UK (but that it's unlikely that in the current local political internal climate and the opposition it isn't likely. Though certainly legally possible.
“In the case of Panasonic, it’s concerned that if the U.K. gets designated a tax-haven by Japan it could be saddled with back taxes back home. So moving to stay regionally headquartered within the European Union removes that risk.”
.
Eh? Obama called he Netherlands a tax haven as well. Wikipedia: “The Netherlands has been known internationally, since at least the 1970s, as a tax haven”. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_Netherl...
This would bury the UK alive. It's a tax haven. Designate it as such, refuse to trade with them unless they kill off The City, which is a parasite feeding off the world.
Companies are opportunistic and will go wherever makes them more money, has less tax, and laxer laws. That why tons of factories, support, and even development jobs moved out of Europe and US and into third world countries with el cheapo wages and laws accommodating sweatshop practices.
In this case, it's because of easier import/export procedures and bureaucracy for selling to the rest of the EU.
When the UK is able to set its own lower tax rates and cuts special deals for such matters (which they'll do), lots of companies will flock back there too (same as they did with Ireland).
>> When the UK is able to set its own lower tax rates and cuts special deals for such matters (which they'll do), lots of companies will flock back there too (same as they did with Ireland).
It really depends by what kind of deal they get from EU. Even if UK becomes a tax heaven it won't help Panasonic if it has to pay higher import taxes in EU along with supply chain issues.
It's better being there with "less tax" than not being there at all. Many countries have benefited strongly from being tax havens, either for companies to having their accounting HQs there, or for black money to sit safely and clean itself -- including countries like Singapore, Switzerland and Luxembourg.
Or we could have stayed in the EU rather than just aiming to try and lead a race to the bottom where the public gains nothing from companies that use our infrastructure, market and people.
Companies are unlikely to flock back to the UK is it has expensive trade barriers with the rest of the European market, regardless of the “tax deals” which are cut.
Precisely, companies want free access to eu market, not just geographical presence in Europe, therefore UK will only make sense for UK market once brexit is complete.
So this company does real work in another country, where it should pay all it's taxes to help with the infra they consume there, and instead they pay less via the UK. All that extra is captured by a small elite in the UK. Everybody loses because the UK has totally lost control of the finance criminals.
Techcrunch reported on most of the article from Nikkei, except this part:
> Of the 20 to 30 people employed at the London office, the 10 to 20 who handle auditing and financial operations will be moved to the Netherlands, with only investor relations staff staying.
Is the headquarters nominal, or does it pay signicifant tax where it is located?
49 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 81.6 ms ] threadNew voting requirement-- before entering the booth, must provide proof you are entirely devoid of all emotions whatsoever.
1. The status quo.
2. Imagine how things could be better. Don't constrain your imagination with realism.
It's a wonder option 2 only won by 2 percent. The only democratic way forward is to have a referendum on the final "deal".
Let's check back in 1-2 years if the sky has fallen...
And the way to rectify this is to have a referendum on the reality of the eventual deal vs. the reality of the status quo.
Britain held a referendum - one which probably shouldn’t have been held as it was, but it’s too late to hand-wring about that now. But the way in which the outcome is being executed is absolutey shameful and there are a number of things which could be done:
- the referendum outcome could be fulfilled by formally withdrawing from the EU while retaining most of the machinery involved - single market membership in particular.
- The UK government could make a clear and achievable proposal for what a post-Brexit relationship with the EU might look like. They had a stab at this, but the outcome failed to be either clear or achievable.
- The UK government could pledge to hold a second referendum once the end state of UK-EU relations is more clearly known. This fulfills any objections over democratic representation.
Any of these would be far better and far less cliff-edge than the current policy.
The moment you put into question the foundation of the democratic process, the situation will become completely unmanageable by the establishment.
But it seems (maybe this is some sort of positivity bias on my part) a second referendum is becoming more politically acceptable in both aforementioned senses. Though it'd be nice, if that never happens, if "someone" would fall on their sword for a second referendum, as really I think that's the only really democratic way forward.
I agree in principle. That is what should be.
I believe that we live in dangerous times. The political centre (e.g. labour & tories in the UK) is in dire straits in Europe and the US. Any action that puts strain into the democratic process, I'm afraid will be in advantage of the misanthropic, xenophobic warmongering groups. I'm afraid a new referendum might catapult the UKIP from ~2% to 5% or 10% turning it, much like the AfD, the third political power in the UK. Might sound a bit out of touch now, but historically, will not be the first time something like that happens in a country. What fuels these changes is the delegitimisation of existing democratic processes and organisations by those in position of power.
Democracy is a fragile flower. Takes months, sometimes years to grow but seconds to destroy.
Is the will of the people only applicable when people can’t even know what they’re asked?
It's very tricky because Brexiteers/Remainers cut across both Labour and the Tories and yet the party members are expected to toe the party line. Which results in an impasse.
The complete agreement of every EU nation is required to un-invoke article 50, because there are no provisions for it. Now, they'd likely do it, but that isn't a certainty, especially as the UK arguably gets a lot more out of the EU than most other member states relative to investment.
Compared to e.g. the rest of Europe, which initiated 2 major world wars, 3 dictatorships, and major unrests in the last century, and managed to get into a deep systemic crisis in the last 10 years?
England is lagging behind. They still seem to think they're an empire.
the question isn't if the EU still wants the UK (but that it's unlikely that in the current local political internal climate and the opposition it isn't likely. Though certainly legally possible.
the danger to the UK automotive sector: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pq2Z9uHzsGM
edge cases such as aviation (not a fan of Ryan air CEO but still worth watching): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Inr1KEoJqJ0
and here a longer one about the effects of Brexit - it is worth every minute IMO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcIkIz98zXU&
Companies are opportunistic and will go wherever makes them more money, has less tax, and laxer laws. That why tons of factories, support, and even development jobs moved out of Europe and US and into third world countries with el cheapo wages and laws accommodating sweatshop practices.
In this case, it's because of easier import/export procedures and bureaucracy for selling to the rest of the EU.
When the UK is able to set its own lower tax rates and cuts special deals for such matters (which they'll do), lots of companies will flock back there too (same as they did with Ireland).
It really depends by what kind of deal they get from EU. Even if UK becomes a tax heaven it won't help Panasonic if it has to pay higher import taxes in EU along with supply chain issues.
Heck, Britain itself has a lot of that already:
https://www.politico.eu/article/britain-as-a-tax-haven-it-al...
>Up to 20 people could be affected out of a staff of 30
So it's just a ghost office for tax purposes.
So this company does real work in another country, where it should pay all it's taxes to help with the infra they consume there, and instead they pay less via the UK. All that extra is captured by a small elite in the UK. Everybody loses because the UK has totally lost control of the finance criminals.
> Of the 20 to 30 people employed at the London office, the 10 to 20 who handle auditing and financial operations will be moved to the Netherlands, with only investor relations staff staying.
Is the headquarters nominal, or does it pay signicifant tax where it is located?