Forum Topic

In fact, the 15% Dutch withholding tax / Shell move to the UK also has a lot to do with Brexit.And not just 15%. I understand that the Dutch plans to increase this to 40%.But it is a withholding tax, which comes with a tax credit.  A bit like the old ACT (advanced corporation tax) that companies in the UK had to pay on dividends.  So if you are a tax payer, it is neutral - the company pays it, and you claim it back again, or as a credit against your tax bill.But if you hold your shares in an off shore jurisdiction where you don't pay any tax , the withholding tax becomes a real tax, because you have no "mainstream" tax to set it off against.  Which was one of the main reasons for Brexit.  So that the UK could maintain its off shore tax haven protectorates, and the rich could continue to avoid tax by channelling profits off shore.  Whether dividends, or interest charges, or royalties, etc.If you believe in fair taxation withholding taxes work very well to make sure that people who channel their money off shore also pay their fair share.  I.e. the tax is deducted from the dividend / interest payment etc. before the money even gets to the tax haven.  (In fact there are UK tax rules in place to ensure this, such as the thin capitalisation rules, and transfer pricing, but they are not well enforced).Outside the EU, the UK can lead the "race to the bottom" in tax avoidance.  So at last - we have found an identifiable "Brexit Benefit"!  (Sarcasim intended).

T P Howell ● 862d

JP: "Let's put it in simple terms, [Intel] have invested in Ireland over many years, they have talked about a plant in Europe, the EU, and Germany more to the point is keen to get in on the act for many obvious reasonsThe simple matter is not, they are, or they will, but they want backing and considerable backing before making any decision."You really are all over the place on this. Intel clearly want/need to have a manufacturing facility in Europe, they've said so. They will choose the optimum location. This will cover a range of factors - an available/qualified/educated workforce being a major one; also a suitable economic and political environment in which to operate; helpful labour relations and employment regulatory environment etc.On all those grounds, the UK should be a reasonable contender, in or out of the EU.In addition, government incentives will play a part (eg training grants, tax exemptions etc). In your earlier posts, you implied that these would need to come to enormous sums, due to the huge costs of building a new plant. But if it cost eg TSMC $9.3bn to open a recent plant, that should be seen in the context of the fact that as a company, they are capitalised at a staggerin g $550bn themselves (I can google, too). Meaning they are no more dependant on any government building a new plant for them than eg Tesco are when they want to open their next out-of-town Superstore.In any case, if eg the Irish Republic can come up with a sufficiently attractive package to incentivise them to operate from there, then it is obvious that the UK should be able to at least match any package they can offer, especially now that Corporation Tax rates are being standardised globally.All of which leaves one more major factor which will bear heavily on Intel's decision: access to markets.And with the EU having a population of 445m versus the 67m of the UK, it's pretty obvious who's going to win that one...

Richard Cathcart ● 896d

I think SJ's post just nailed it:The disaster capitalists (represented for example by Rees-Mogg), the racists (represented by Farage), the outright personal opportunists (represented by Johnson, and quite a few of his cabinet) supported by the idiots (Davies), funded by Russian interests (and troll bots) and unsavoury individuals who want to sell us private medical insurance, but have to destroy the NHS before we will be forced buy it (Aaron Banks)  and supported by the tax exiles/megalomaniacs (Murdoch, Barclay Brothers, Rothermere) employed a team of dishonest manipulators (Cambridge Analytica), set up an organisation led by a man whose only life skill is lying (Cummings) to manipulate a nation (us) by a pack of lies into believing that we had a choice to make our lives better.And a sufficiently large number of us (but still only about a third of the nation as a whole) in that moment bought into it.I.e. were conned into doing something against their own best interests. A few, admittedly, truly supported the cause. The xenophobes, the irrational nationalists (who thought we could return to the days of Empire, when Britain ruled the waves), and those with a peculiar misunderstanding of the meaning of "sovereignty".And since then, many regret and resent the fact that they were conned.And others just cannot bring themselves to admit to themselves that they were conned, and double down and resort to confirmation bias (such as persuading themselves that we would have been forced into a European Army, or that the shelves of the supermarkets are bountifully stocked with everything they could possibly want, there is no petrol crises, etc).  Some gloat ("we won, get over it", but can never articulate what they won), and some just name call ("remoners" etc).Meanwhile, Rees-Mogg's bet against the UK economy made Somerset Capital billions (much of which he lost again by backing the Chinese economy as share prices fell), Farage struggles to stay "relevant" and searches out new groups of foreigners to demonise, the off shore press barons and private equity sat comfortably secure in the knowledge that their tax havens are safe, and we have a dishonest,  indolent idiot in Downing Street, surrounded by incompetent and corrupt acolytes.And a lot of people are understandably just fed up (which Johnson relied on to get his "just get Brexit done" supermajorhity at the last election, before serving up a Brexit which, far from being "oven ready" was not even half baked).Who's the mug?

T P Howell ● 912d

First, please stop the derogatory name calling. You can be better than that. And we can all have a better discussion without it.I think I can understand that to some people the notion of sovereignty is very important. It sounds like self-determination and feels like taking away external influence. I can understand that positioned in that way, sovereignty can be held to be critically important for a country. The chimera aspect to sovereignty is that it is not set in stone, it must be flexed and given away in some aspects (in things like international deals). It is also increasingly difficult to define in our inter-linked and internet driven world. Multi-nationals prove this regularly with pan-border tax deals. Sovereignty has been held up as a shiny critical thing - but it is not that.More, this shiny critical thing was merely a rallying call for Brexit support. It was an excellent flag to wave as it avoided showing the flag of not liking immigrants. So people flocked to the sovereignty flag - look, this is why I support Brexit, not that I am against Polish people living next door (although actually I am against that). That made people wave the sovereignty flag harder - even though they were not entirely sure what it meant or what it would mean in practical terms to 'have our own sovereignty back'. (Answer - not much, see above reasons.)Lastly it was an excellent flag for the Brexit funders who want the UK to de-regulate post Brexit. It was unpalatable to talk of de-regulating standards (sounds unsafe) or labour laws (sounds like a race to the bottom) or financial markets (sounds like risking another crash). So do not talk about de-regulation. Talk about regaining our own sovereignty to do as we like (which will be de-regulation). Talk about freeing the UK from the constraints of EU standards in terms of regaining sovereignty - thus obliging the UK to leave the customs union and single market. Thus allowing de-regulation.So sovereignty has become very important to many people. But unfortunately the flag of sovereignty has blocked their view of the con that has been pulled on them. Sovereignty is so vague and flexible and with only notional meaning in the modern world that its not really something to trash a country over. But that is what so many have been made to think.

Alan Clark ● 912d

You've posted before. You were ignorant and wrong then. And you are ignorant and wrong now.Who is in charge of the UK government? Never the EU. If its a tory government then its the rich donors, the newspaper owners and the rich from here and abroad. If its a Labour government then its the unions. Why did you ever think it was anything other than this?The 'race to the bottom' is precisely what the Brexit funders want. They want to de-regulate and diminish workers' rights and workers' pay. Why else did they push so hard to not be in the single market and not have to adhere to EU standards? Why else is it that in European countries there are higher standards and higher pay for ordinary workers? Your claim its the EU that drags down pay is ignorant. It is UK labour laws that drag down pay and conditions.And lastly, the EU was not originally about free trade. The EU's roots was in a steel and coal production community. The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) pooled the coal and steel resources of six European countries. Critically important was that pooling coal and steel resources greatly reduced the threat of war between France and West Germany. Not free trade but pooling resources and making war less likely. The ECSC developed into the EEC.  Through the 60's and 70's encouraging trade and removing customs duties within Europe was important. But more, it was about cooperation and presenting a single face to the threat from the Soviet bloc. Plus, it was about development of under-invested parts of Europe. The EEC regional policy starts to transfer huge sums of money to create jobs and infrastructure in poorer areas. So please get informed when you post - the EU was not originally "just about free trade". Try to get some basics right.

Alan Clark ● 912d

Why of course there are multiple factors that feature in any set of circumstances. The critical thing is the question - what tipped the balance from something being simply an issue into something becoming a major problem. The haulage industry in the UK has both a critical shortage of drivers and burden of less efficient use of vehicles. These are the primary factors of this road haulage problem.First, why are there insufficient drivers. One major contributor here has been non-UK drivers returning to their own country to work and European drivers being less willing to travel to the UK due to time lost at customs. There are other contributing factors but these would be manageable without the loss of non-UK drivers working in the UK (whether living here or simply travelling here).Your example of fewer UK people wanting to be drivers simply confirms the UK's dependency on European drivers. The loss of many of these drivers has therefore had a major impact in the UK. The trend of UK people not being so attracted to haulage work has been around for a long time - not just since Covid and Brexit. Two years ago haulage managers were predicting this issue would create a massive problem when Brexit came into being.Second, the reduction in the efficiency of the use of vehicles. This has had two primary contributing factors - the time lost in preparing for customs then going through customs and the trend this year of vehicles returning to Europe empty (to avoid time wasting at customs). This reduction in efficiency makes the issue of a shortage of drivers worse as it means drivers have to spend more time not driving (but still on the clock working). It is a double whammy. A Brexit created double whammy. It is likely that other factors have been contributing to the haulage crisis - but these would have been minor and manageable factors. It is only when the impact of Brexit became reality that the all these issues add up to became a major problem.Any news outlet (BBC or Mail) can cite lots of other factors. They can avoid using the B word to please the government. But that is ignoring reality that without Brexit there would be no road haulage crisis.

Alan Clark ● 915d