Europe - The Official Thread

As I understand it there's a 3% margin of error. Surely 29.3% is still close enough to 30% that the PM will stand by his word?

Well, they're still politicians, so we will have to wait if they screw us over. But the signs all point to keeping the no.

Rutte does claim at the moment that he will not ignore the voters. The official numbers will be presented on April 12th, and it wouldn't surprise me if it turns out that we missed the 30% by 0.1 or something.
 
So we have to wait and see, or is there any new news from the homestead? I'm not going to go looking at U.S. western news for it 👍
 
So we have to wait and see, or is there any new news from the homestead? I'm not going to go looking at U.S. western news for it 👍

No news as of today.

Our PM was interviewed the day after, and he couldn't answer a single question as everything was difficult, this was new to them, blah blah.

Even on the remark that No means no for the Dutch, he couldn't give a decent answer.

So prepare for an "altered" agreement being released and signed within the month.
 
So prepare for an "altered" agreement being released and signed within the month.

I hope that's exactly what happens. This trade agreement bertween the EU countries and the Ukraine is much more important for the whole of Western and Central Europe than the possible consequences of a political crisis in The Netherlands.

This is a very good example on why a referendum is a very dangerous tool in democracy. Votes casted are (almost) never about what's asked, but about something else, and that something else is usually the oportunity to voice some protest against who is in office, without actually fearing the consequence of causing a crisis.
 
“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations...entangling alliances with none”

It's a broken record.
 
I doubt Putin did anything, he doesn't need to. I think this sums up perfectly what's happening everywhere in Europe, and possibly a bit in the US too.

Small minorities of angry people, when well organized, can out shout the divided, fearful, apathetic centrist majority in Western Europe.



This I didn't know ...

This time the stakes weren’t so high, but next time, they might be: The far-right is now the largest political force in the Netherlands.


I strongly recommend this book. Grimly funny, the sex bits weren't needed, but overall a very interesting read

1507-1.jpg
[/Quote]
 
This I didn't know ...

Because it isn't really true.

The sentiment might now be that people say they will vote for Wilders and friends, but for now it's still a center powered government, with perhaps a small hangover to the right.

But, the Dutch are complaining more about the EU than ever before. We still haven't forgotten that we were royally screwed when the Euro was introduced. Something the government eventually (3 years later) came clean about. That this no vote happens over the backs of the Ukrainians is a sad side effect.
Then again, the campaigns were all about how it would help Ukraine this, Ukraine that, and how our experience and expertise would bring Ukraine further to the west.

The shooting down of MH17 and all the stories revolving around it sure didn't help the case either.

The EU and all its side effects are a failure in the making with so many cultural differences on a small patch of Earth.
 
The EU have ruled that Apple must pay the Irish government 14 billion Euro in taxes.... but the Irish government are furious about the ruling and don't want the money - presumably because the reason Apple and other big companies have bases in Ireland at all is because of their preferential tax arrangements.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/30/technology/apple-tax-eu-us-ireland/index.html

It would appear that Apple's deal with Ireland is just one of many such 'sweetheart' deals where multinational companies essentially circumvent EU tax laws by gaining preferential deals with one member state - which is illegal under EU law. The net result could have massive implications, not just for Ireland but for the Eurozone as a whole.
 
I read a quote from an American government official which went along the lines of "These are US companies. Why should hard US work go towards the EU pot?"

I can sympathise with what s/he said but the fact is that these US companies which supposedly produce so much US hard work set up bases in Europe. Tough titties. Nobody forced Apple to set up in Dublin. Why is hard US work going to EU pots? I feel that that is a question that you should ask the US companies who are more than happy to be here.
 
It's a hard one. On one hand the EU has a point in that by not offering these deals to all businesses, Ireland is being biased, unfair and anti-competitive. This will also be viewed by the tax paying public in Ireland (and the EU) as just another billion dollar giant not paying their way - flames I'm sure the press will be more than willing to fan.

On the other, this highlights the argument that the EU shouldn't be able to meddle with individual states' laws, of any kind. This obviously plays into the hands of the Brexit supporters who'll use this as a perfect example of why the UK should/will leave and be able to craft it's own economic destiny without interference.

There's also another point (which I'm sure Apple will bring up) that there are other economic advantages to Ireland of having Apple (or any global company) operate there. There are jobs and infrastructures around their business which add to the economy and pay their staff's rents and mortgages.

So, we have an EU member state who wants to boost its economy and job market for its population by offering a deal with large corporations while being part of a collective group with its own rules/laws to prevent this from happening as it's anti-competitive.

Good luck everyone.
 
It's a hard one. On one hand the EU has a point in that by not offering these deals to all businesses, Ireland is being biased, unfair and anti-competitive. This will also be viewed by the tax paying public in Ireland (and the EU) as just another billion dollar giant not paying their way - flames I'm sure the press will be more than willing to fan.

On the other, this highlights the argument that the EU shouldn't be able to meddle with individual states' laws, of any kind. This obviously plays into the hands of the Brexit supporters who'll use this as a perfect example of why the UK should/will leave and be able to craft it's own economic destiny without interference.

There's also another point (which I'm sure Apple will bring up) that there are other economic advantages to Ireland of having Apple (or any global company) operate there. There are jobs and infrastructures around their business which add to the economy and pay their staff's rents and mortgages.

So, we have an EU member state who wants to boost its economy and job market for its population by offering a deal with large corporations while being part of a collective group with its own rules/laws to prevent this from happening as it's anti-competitive.

Good luck everyone.
Well that didn't take long... apparently 'Downing Street' has said that Apple would be welcome to set up shop here in the UK. I'm guessing that is not going to go down very well in Dublin.
 
Well that didn't take long... apparently 'Downing Street' has said that Apple would be welcome to set up shop here in the UK. I'm guessing that is not going to go down very well in Dublin.
At the moment I think the UK Gov will jump all over anything that appears to justify their break from the EU. At least it's a positive in that it shows the UK will be free to make any deals they feel work. Possibly.

Surely they can only discuss these deals, not actually make any. The UK is still signed up to the economic agreements of the EU until at least two years after Article 50 has been initiated. Although it didn't stop Ireland.
 
Yeah but it's not as though Britain hasn't already had these kind of dodgy deals. For many years there have been cases of large multinationals, both domestic and foreign, evading tax. Vodafone springs to mind. They have long had favourable deals with the Treasury; they owed HMRC about £8 billion, stumped up around £2 billion, asked the Treasury to write the rest off and the Treasury accepted it. They continue to write off their corporation tax against their capital expenditure.

Starbucks and Amazon are other firms who like to work around tax "avoidance".

So nothing about that screams "New Britain, new deals for Britain" or "Brexit allows us to cut our own deals" to me. More of the same tripe we've had for decades.
 
At the moment I think the UK Gov will jump all over anything that appears to justify their break from the EU.
Yeh, it was reported in The Telegraph who are also pretty keen on anything that paints Brexit in a positive light.

Yeah but it's not as though Britain hasn't already had these kind of dodgy deals.
This is true, but the difference being that Britain will be able to cut (or maintain) such deals in the future once it is out of the EU, but EU member states will no longer be able to get away with it.
 
Yeah but it's not as though Britain hasn't already had these kind of dodgy deals. For many years there have been cases of large multinationals, both domestic and foreign, evading tax. Vodafone springs to mind. They have long had favourable deals with the Treasury; they owed HMRC about £8 billion, stumped up around £2 billion, asked the Treasury to write the rest off and the Treasury accepted it. They continue to write off their corporation tax against their capital expenditure.

Starbucks and Amazon are other firms who like to work around tax "avoidance".

So nothing about that screams "New Britain, new deals for Britain" or "Brexit allows us to cut our own deals" to me. More of the same tripe we've had for decades.
Perhaps it needs some middle ground and a more open and enforced corporation tax. Take Jersey as an example. We all know that the banks here pay zero tax and most people don't agree with that. However, we also understand that brings a lot of well paid jobs and a strong pyramid of support industries with lots more jobs all paying tax back into the state. So without the banks being here the state and population would be considerably less well off even though the banks don't pay any tax themselves. The same would be true to a certain extent in the UK (or anywhere).

I'm not suggesting a zero level corporation tax, but having slightly lower rates and less red tape in the UK compared to EU states would be attractive to global industries. The knock-on for jobs, support industries and the additional tax back into the state from that would be financially positive. It just needs to be fair to any business, large or small.
 
This is true, but the difference being that Britain will be able to cut (or maintain) such deals in the future once it is out of the EU, but EU member states will no longer be able to get away with it.

But why has the UK been able to get away with it (allegedly) for so long? Why is Ireland and its deals under scrutiny but we and ours are not? After all, we have been in the EEC/EU for the same length of time as Ireland.
 
Because the UK was always able to pick and choose what EU rules they followed. Presumably came with being one of the biggest kids at the table.
 
But why has the UK been able to get away with it (allegedly) for so long? Why is Ireland and its deals under scrutiny but we and ours are not? After all, we have been in the EEC/EU for the same length of time as Ireland.
Because Ireland is a Eurozone country so it has to comply with the same rules as the other Eurozone countries.
 
On another forum I frequent, one poster brought up Spain's alleged disregard for the Fiscal Compact Treaty when they refused to pay a fine for breaching the terms of that treaty by having too big of a budget deficit, and also favourable tax deals for heavy manufacturing (e.g. the automotive industry) in the larger EU states.

Chances are, even if our government "begrudgingly" (because they're scared of outraging any other MNCs in Ireland who are paying a tax rate of feck-all) accepts the €13bn, it'd probably either:
  1. Go straight to paying off the national debt (personally I wouldn't mind that, at least the interest payments on it would go down),
  2. Be pissed away on failed infrastructure projects which go way over budget, or
  3. Be returned to the countries in which the taxes were collected.
 
Because Ireland is a Eurozone country so it has to comply with the same rules as the other Eurozone countries.
I don't think Ireland being in the Eurozone makes a difference - I think @Liquid's point is that the UK is also an EU member so why is the EU not also getting its knickers in a twist over the UK's dodgy tax dealings, but is when it comes to Ireland and Apple. One answer may be that the EU is in fact conducting similar investigations all over Europe, including in the UK... one reason that Apple stands out, however, is the sheer scale of the tax avoidance - Apple is the world's largest taxpayer, and 13 billion Euros is a lot of money!
 
It's terrifyingly hilarious how the Irish government doesn't want this money.
As I said, it's probably the pyramid of support industries around Apple, paying taxes etc. that earns money for the government making it worthwhile. Plus having the likes of Apple operating out of your country is seen as a lure to other businesses and, hopefully, further investment. It's not like Ireland hasn't had it's fair share of employment issues in recent years.
 
Hungary held a referendum yesterday on whether or not to accept a controversial EU plan to relocate refugees, asylum seekers and migrants that would see all EU member states being obliged to accept set numbers of migrants.

The result was that 98% of those who voted voted against the EU plan, but only 43% of the population voted, rendering the referendum 'invalid' according to the EU; however, the Hungarian PM (who campaigned vigorously in favour of rejecting the EU plan) has claimed that the result is valid and that the Hungarian parliament will reject the EU plan, putting Hungary on a collision course with the EU. Under the existing plans, Hungary would be obliged to accept less than 1,700 refugees...
 
Hungary is one of those countries which drifts further right with each passing month and likes to make 'friends' with its neighbours. It's no surprise that the outcome of the referendum was a rejection.
 
Hungary held a referendum yesterday on whether or not to accept a controversial EU plan to relocate refugees, asylum seekers and migrants that would see all EU member states being obliged to accept set numbers of migrants.

The result was that 98% of those who voted voted against the EU plan, but only 43% of the population voted, rendering the referendum 'invalid' according to the EU; however, the Hungarian PM (who campaigned vigorously in favour of rejecting the EU plan) has claimed that the result is valid and that the Hungarian parliament will reject the EU plan, putting Hungary on a collision course with the EU. Under the existing plans, Hungary would be obliged to accept less than 1,700 refugees...
It's clear there's a grand, overarching contest between sovereign national governments and the EU. Greater internationalization - globalization - of the world might seem inevitable given all the developments in human rights, democracy, commerce and technology that we've seen over the centuries. But I expect conservative (and reactionary) forces to put up a stiff fight.
 
It is interesting to note the disparity between the various newspaper headlines regarding this news story (in the UK), which show clear bias...

The Telegraph (right wing, pro-Brexit/anti-EU): "Hungary votes 98% in favour to reject EU migrant plan"
Guardian (liberal, anti-Brexit/pro-EU): "Hungary migrant referendum invalid as only 43% voter turnout"

Both are correct, but the Guardian is keen to tow the pro-EU line, while the Telegraph is always quick to adopt the opposite.
 
It's clear there's a grand, overarching contest between sovereign national governments and the EU. Greater internationalization - globalization - of the world might seem inevitable given all the developments in human rights, democracy, commerce and technology that we've seen over the centuries. But I expect conservative (and reactionary) forces to put up a stiff fight.

Hungary's Viktor Orban is probably the EU leader with the strongest belief in, and will to fight over, national sovereignty. Whether it's to advance his Greater Hungary fantasies or not, national sovereignty has always been a big part of his political machine.
 
We will probably have to fight something like the French Revolution all over again. And not just once, but many times. Centralization vs decentralization. Instinctively humans organize into families, clans, and tribes. Money, technology and kingship forges disparate people into nations, empires and ultimately global organizations. The King, his clergy, aristocrats and bankers inevitably get the nation/empire/supranational organization into war, debt and onerous taxation. Then the shopkeepers, craftsmen, artists and junior military officers go into rebellion and bring things down to ashes and earth again.
 
Back