EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Pannonian]

Why is that not acceptable?
To me it seems like potentially a good step towards limiting neoliberal dreams.

Let me guess: You consider the stuff found in the Panama and Paradise Papers a good thing?

The Anti Tax Avoidance Directive

On 28 January 2016 the Commission presented its proposal for an Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive as part of the Anti-Tax Avoidance Package. On 20 June 2016 the Council adopted the Directive (EU) 2016/1164 laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market.
In order to provide for a comprehensive framework of anti-abuse measures the Commission presented its proposalSearch for available translations of the preceding link••• on 25th October 2016, to complement the existing rule on hybrid mismatches. The rule on hybrid mismatches aims to prevent companies from exploiting national mismatches to avoid taxation.

In addition to the proposal the Commission also published its Staff Working DocumentSearch for available translations of the preceding link•••.

The Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive contains five legally-binding anti-abuse measures, which all Member States should apply against common forms of aggressive tax planning.

Member States should apply these measures as from 1 January 2019.

It creates a minimum level of protection against corporate tax avoidance throughout the EU, while ensuring a fairer and more stable environment for businesses.

One wonders how much money Furunculus has stashed in these tax havens or complicated Lewis Hamilton-style schemes.

[Husar]

One wonders how much money Furunculus has stashed in these tax havens or complicated Lewis Hamilton-style schemes.

I think quite a few poor and middle class people support these neoliberal schemes because they believe their hard work will inevitably get them there. And when they retire without ever having gotten there, they still support it because why should the lazy children have it any better?

[Furunculus]

Why is that not acceptable?
To me it seems like potentially a good step towards limiting neoliberal dreams.

Let me guess: You consider the stuff found in the Panama and Paradise Papers a good thing?

I believe I have already told you that I don't fear the word "neoliberal".
Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly happy to find a compromise with social democracy, but that is because I'm a reasonable man.

[Husar]

I believe I have already told you that I don't fear the word "neoliberal".
Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly happy to find a compromise with social democracy, but that is because I'm a reasonable man.

There's no reason to fear the word, it's just a morally reprehensible ideology.

[Furunculus]

Ideologues apart, and you certainly qualify as one, the vast majority of Leavers complained either about foreigners being here, or government spending being unable to cope with the foreigners here. The chief of the official Leave campaign admitted that the 350 million p/w was the tipping point that won the referendum for his side, which has since been disclaimed by the Brexiters via lawyer-speak about promises, manifestos, and how they're not responsible for what they've promised as it's not a proper election, etc.

ideaology - noun
a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
ideologue - noun
an adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic.

If you believe in a program of public policy to enhance social-democracy you are an ideologue following an ideology. If you believe in EU membership you are an idealogue following an ideology. If you are a german ordoliberal, or a french dirigiste, then guess what; you are an ideologue following an ideology.

Unless you are a pure utilitarian whose only thought on implementing public policy is technocratic managerialism, then you are an ideologue following an ideology!

If... you choose to focus on the second part of sentence defining an ideologue (something which I would separately class as "doctrinaire"), then I would refute any suggestion that that is something that would or should apply to me. What evidence have you for it? My chosen preferences in outcomes from the eu renegotiation? How so?

Vote Leave camp abandon £350m-a-week NHS vow in Change Britain plans

Is it democracy if you're allowed to lie and make promises that you have no intention of keeping in order to win elections? Is it democracy to not honour promises made during the campaign? When the enacted result no longer resembles the campaign promises, how valid is the result?

Remember this started with me answering your question as to why eurozone regulation matters to euro-outs:

"So how did that force us into the eurozone? If we were never required to join the eurozone, why would it matter to us what they did in it?"

There is a lot of detail there to be teased at, refuted, or otherwise disliked, why breeze past it.

How did you fail to address that answer, and slide so smoothly into this distraction? It feels.... kinda like evasion.

[Furunculus]

One wonders how much money Furunculus has stashed in these tax havens or complicated Lewis Hamilton-style schemes.

lol, i'm a basic rate taxpayer that works in the public sector in a poor part of the country.

[Furunculus]

There's no reason to fear the word, it's just a morally reprehensible ideology.

^ Perfect example of why Britain is leaving. ^

[Husar]

^ Perfect example of why Britain is leaving. ^

And the one reason I don't mind Britain leaving.
You can enjoy your trickle up economics without us.

[Montmorency]

Because that decision making encompasses far more than the mechanics of regulating a common currency, it bleeds across into the single market, and includes distinctly non-market social and fiscal regulation:

http://archive.openeurope.org.uk/Con...safeguards.pdf

Considering the vote power in isolation is pointless.

This isn’t about law, it’s about politics and power. Political integration isn’t a matter of pointy-headed constitutional tinkering, it’s Gladstone’s “power of the purse”: On whom do we tax and how punitively, and whom shall we deem the beneficiary of this largesse. A century after Gladstone I’d say we entered a new era where we live with the “power of the pettifogger”: Which activities to deem less moral and seek to regulate, and which behaviour do we choose to elevate above others. If you are harmonising taxation/spending, and social regulation, then you are engaging in political integration.

That is not acceptable.

Furunculus, I struggle to see your position if it doesn't demand that the UK either control or destroy the EU, not merely exist outside of it.

As the EU is more single economy than market (but not single political unit), and economies need central controls to manage them, you feel the UK's sovereignty is threatened by mere adjacency to the EU's supranational institutions - meaning the only options are for the EU to be dismantled, the UK to dominate Europe in or out of the EU, or for the UK to "surrender its sovereignty" to some other comity.

And the third option needs minding because, even if your position on the bigger picture of UK sovereignty with respect to the EU were correct, the old adage about both rich and poor being equally enjoined from sleeping under a bridge analogizes and makes a mockery of your sovereignty.

If this is where your beliefs must lead you (and I don't see how you can avoid it), then you should be extremely pessimistic about Brexit as it will not prove either restorative or protective of UK sovereignty.

[Pannonian]

ideaology - noun
a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
ideologue - noun
an adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic.

If you believe in a program of public policy to enhance social-democracy you are an ideologue following an ideology. If you believe in EU membership you are an idealogue following an ideology. If you are a german ordoliberal, or a french dirigiste, then guess what; you are an ideologue following an ideology.

Unless you are a pure utilitarian whose only thought on implementing public policy is technocratic managerialism, then you are an ideologue following an ideology!

If... you choose to focus on the second part of sentence defining an ideologue (something which I would separately class as "doctrinaire"), then I would refute any suggestion that that is something that would or should apply to me. What evidence have you for it? My chosen preferences in outcomes from the eu renegotiation? How so?

Remember this started with me answering your question as to why eurozone regulation matters to euro-outs:

"So how did that force us into the eurozone? If we were never required to join the eurozone, why would it matter to us what they did in it?"

There is a lot of detail there to be teased at, refuted, or otherwise disliked, why breeze past it.

How did you fail to address that answer, and slide so smoothly into this distraction? It feels.... kinda like evasion.

Me, I'm just someone without aspirations to higher political theory, who wants tomorrow to be largely like today, and thus dislike revolution of any kind, which Brexit is. I do my best for myself and my community, holding responsibilities to me more important than rights, and thus my old school socialism fits in well with pre-Thatcher conservatives and Tories. Nonetheless I'm happy for others to have rights even if I don't personally benefit from them, and resent having them taken away without a clear argument for what they'll be replaced with. Can you explain what my benefits within the EU are going to be replaced with?

[Furunculus]

Furunculus, I struggle to see your position if it doesn't demand that the UK either control or destroy the EU, not merely exist outside of it.

Why, I'm not talking about product standards, the thing the Single Market is actually supposed to be about? I talk only of tax-n-spend, and social legislation. I see no reason why such an antagonistic dualism must exist.

As the EU is more single economy than market (but not single political unit), and economies need central controls to manage them, you feel the UK's sovereignty is threatened by mere adjacency to the EU's supranational institutions - meaning the only options are for the EU to be dismantled, the UK to dominate Europe in or out of the EU, or for the UK to "surrender its sovereignty" to some other comity.

No, I clearly stated that the EU has within its power the ability to caucus consensus of eurozone nations, in matters decided by QMV. It has it its disposal tools including the EBU, and it is has never been shy of judicial activism in extending the reach of single market remit into areas of social policy (such as the working time directive), and tax policy (such as the financial transactions tax).
This is the heart of the matter; the EU view is that the single market is an emergent ‘gift’ of ever-closer-union, not a virtuous goal in its own right.

And the third option needs minding because, even if your position on the bigger picture of UK sovereignty with respect to the EU were correct, the old adage about both rich and poor being equally enjoined from sleeping under a bridge analogizes and makes a mockery of your sovereignty.

You'll have to expand on that one soemwhat further, as I'm failing to see your point vis-a-vis:
3. Ukraine DCFTA with compliance moved to efta, rather than direct ECJ jurisdiction. #notinterestedinfederalism

If this is where your beliefs must lead you (and I don't see how you can avoid it), then you should be extremely pessimistic about Brexit as it will not prove either restorative or protective of UK sovereignty.

As noted above, I think your reaching this dismal conclusion because you misunderstand my position. I make the point about tax-n-spend and social legislation/regulation as being innapropriate topics for the EU to deal with (for us).

[Furunculus]

Me, I'm just someone without aspirations to higher political theory, who wants tomorrow to be largely like today, and thus dislike revolution of any kind, which Brexit is. I do my best for myself and my community, holding responsibilities to me more important than rights, and thus my old school socialism fits in well with pre-Thatcher conservatives and Tories. Nonetheless I'm happy for others to have rights even if I don't personally benefit from them, and resent having them taken away without a clear argument for what they'll be replaced with. Can you explain what my benefits within the EU are going to be replaced with?

Guess what, I'm just a old-school classical liberal who was likewise happy to let sleeping dogs lie. But they didn't lie, eu integration has crept along pace by pace, until it was no longer possible to ignore it. Frankly, I blame Labour for this whole mess for signing up to the social chapter after Major got us an opt out.

Surely this is all a bit theoretical, Mr Furunculus? Isn’t it just fluff around the margins of society, not really amounting to much of real consequence? Well, it might seem that way. If you inhabit the end of the political spectrum that believes we need more social justice, more social democracy, and a more ‘modern’ FP, then the drift to the continental model seems both natural and virtuous. After all, we agree to compromise on our divergent aims and expectations all the time, notably every five years. However, if you inhabit the other end of the political spectrum that desires more individual autonomy, less collectivist governance, and to act abroad where we have the means to do good, then this quiet drift appears to be tacit gerrymandering to achieve an outcome that we would not mandate at the ballot box.

As to what you'll be getting as a Brexit bonus, that is rather in the hands of our neighbours over the channel.
If we can get a decent trade deal that includes both goods and services, then the quid-pro-quo will no doubt include Britain remaining a social democracy, spending ~40% of GDP on a significant welfare state.
If we can't get anything decent, well! Tighten your seatbelt, because we're going for a ride: We'll drift out of being a social democracy and into a market economy, with spending down to 35% of GDP and regulation similarly trimmed. That is how we'll compete in the face of limited access.

Hey, i'm happy for you to have that social democracy, after all I'm a reasonable chap who's willing to compromise to get along. Fingers crossed, eh?

[Husar]

No, I clearly stated that the EU has within its power the ability to caucus consensus of eurozone nations, in matters decided by QMV. It has it its disposal tools including the EBU, and it is has never been shy of judicial activism in extending the reach of single market remit into areas of social policy (such as the working time directive), and tax policy (such as the financial transactions tax).
This is the heart of the matter; the EU view is that the single market is an emergent ‘gift’ of ever-closer-union, not a virtuous goal in its own right.

I would say the single market is a virtuous goal in itself because it is much easier to control politically. The political control over the market requires some degree of political union however, so this follows the market quite naturally, or is inherent as I said before. If you leave the market entirely uncontrolled, there is no big gain in the single market for 99% of the constituents of the EU.

Freedom of movement is one part of the completely uncontrolled one market. And also the reason wages go down because people from low wage countries undercut the higher wages elsewhere. Without political union, this can be used as a competitive edge by some countries or others can try to lower the living standards of their own people in an attempt to compete. See "Agenda 2010" in Germany for example. All this has brought so far were poverty wars, resentment between different poor people and misery, but perhaps that's exactly what you find to be a noble goal?

[Pannonian]

Guess what, I'm just a old-school classical liberal who was likewise happy to let sleeping dogs lie. But they didn't lie, eu integration has crept along pace by pace, until it was no longer possible to ignore it. Frankly, I blame Labour for this whole mess for signing up to the social chapter after Major got us an opt out.

Surely this is all a bit theoretical, Mr Furunculus? Isn’t it just fluff around the margins of society, not really amounting to much of real consequence? Well, it might seem that way. If you inhabit the end of the political spectrum that believes we need more social justice, more social democracy, and a more ‘modern’ FP, then the drift to the continental model seems both natural and virtuous. After all, we agree to compromise on our divergent aims and expectations all the time, notably every five years. However, if you inhabit the other end of the political spectrum that desires more individual autonomy, less collectivist governance, and to act abroad where we have the means to do good, then this quiet drift appears to be tacit gerrymandering to achieve an outcome that we would not mandate at the ballot box.

As to what you'll be getting as a Brexit bonus, that is rather in the hands of our neighbours over the channel.
If we can get a decent trade deal that includes both goods and services, then the quid-pro-quo will no doubt include Britain remaining a social democracy, spending ~40% of GDP on a significant welfare state.
If we can't get anything decent, well! Tighten your seatbelt, because we're going for a ride: We'll drift out of being a social democracy and into a market economy, with spending down to 35% of GDP and regulation similarly trimmed. That is how we'll compete in the face of limited access.

Hey, i'm happy for you to have that social democracy, after all I'm a reasonable chap who's willing to compromise to get along. Fingers crossed, eh?

Will the NHS be getting the 350 million p/w that was promised by the Leave campaign?

[Furunculus]

Will the NHS be getting the 350 million p/w that was promised by the Leave campaign?

Who knows, who cares.
I didn't believe it, I didn't care for the idea anyway.
I voted for my own reasons, and remain quite content with them.
Remember my preferred option one - if anything i'm disappointed in the EU for making a hash of the renegotiation.
If anything, I consider [you] to be the extremeists in finding nothing objectionable in Belgium's actions during the renegotiation.
It tipped me from being someone who could vote to remain into being someone who could not.

[Furunculus]

I would say the single market is a virtuous goal in itself because it is much easier to control politically.

That is not an attitude that is apparent in my reading of EU politics in the last twenty years.

[Pannonian]

Who knows, who cares.
I didn't believe it, I didn't care for the idea anyway.
I voted for my own reasons, and remain quite content with them.
Remember my preferred option one - if anything i'm disappointed in the EU for making a hash of the renegotiation.
If anything, I consider [you] to be the extremeists in finding nothing objectionable in Belgium's actions during the renegotiation.
It tipped me from being someone who could vote to remain into being someone who could not.

So manifesto promises hold no water?

[Furunculus]

So manifesto promises hold no water?

Let us not pretend some false equivalence between a fptp. General election to elect a government, and a cross party referendum to ask a single non binding question.

[Pannonian]

Let us not pretend some false equivalence between a fptp. General election to elect a government, and a cross party referendum to ask a single non binding question.

And there is that lawyer-speak I talked about, relieving Brexit supporters from responsibility for promises made by their side.

2. ‘The official bill of EU membership is £350 million per week – let’s spend our money on our priorities like the NHS instead.’ (Sometimes we said ‘we send the EU £350m’ to provoke people into argument. This worked much better than I thought it would. There is no single definitive figure because there are different sets of official figures but the Treasury gross figure is slightly more than £350m of which we get back roughly half, though some of this is spent in absurd ways like subsidies for very rich landowners to do stupid things.)

Pundits and MPs kept saying ‘why isn’t Leave arguing about the economy and living standards’. They did not realise that for millions of people, £350m/NHS was about the economy and living standards – that’s why it was so effective. It was clearly the most effective argument not only with the crucial swing fifth but with almost every demographic. Even with UKIP voters it was level-pegging with immigration. Would we have won without immigration? No. Would we have won without £350m/NHS? All our research and the close result strongly suggests No. Would we have won by spending our time talking about trade and the Single Market? No way (see below).

NB. Dominic Cummings was director of the Leave campaign.

Immigration and the 350 million p/w for the NHS were the decisive factors. Are the implementers of Brexit going to deliver these promises? If they don't matter, does that mean all bets are off in future elections?

[Greyblades]

Let us not pretend some false equivalence between a fptp. General election to elect a government, and a cross party referendum to ask a single non binding question.

I wouldnt get your hopes up for an epiphany, he's been clinging to that equivalence for 16 months now.

[Furunculus]

And there is that lawyer-speak I talked about, relieving Brexit supporters from responsibility for promises made by their side.



NB. Dominic Cummings was director of the Leave campaign.

Immigration and the 350 million p/w for the NHS were the decisive factors. Are the implementers of Brexit going to deliver these promises? If they don't matter, does that mean all bets are off in future elections?

I know who Dominic Cummings is. I've read about him for eighteen months, ive read his blog for the last year, and I've just finished All Out War by shipman. I can only conclude that he is a singularly talented focused and driven individual, and I'm glad he was on the leave side.

I'm a right wing liberal, I don't care about immigration or labours secular religion, I'm not sure how many other ways I have got left to say I couldn't give a stuff about the £350m for the NHS. That didn't speak to me or my constituency, but as a labour voter I can understand you feel peeved he duped your constituency. It must hurt.

[Pannonian]

I know who Dominic Cummings is. I've read about him for eighteen months, ive read his blog for the last year, and I've just finished All Out War by shipman. I can only conclude that he is a singularly talented focused and driven individual, and I'm glad he was on the leave side.

I'm a right wing liberal, I don't care about immigration or labours secular religion, I'm not sure how many other ways I have got left to say I couldn't give a stuff about the £350m for the NHS. That didn't speak to me or my constituency, but as a left leaning voter I can understand you feel peeved he duped your constituency. It must hurt.

What about immigration, the other point he mentioned above? Are the implementers of Brexit going to keep that promise and bring down immigration? Surely that's a right wing issue, if ever anything is.

And what do you think of Cummings's view that Brexit as currently executed is going to be a disaster?

[Furunculus]

What about immigration, the other point he mentioned above? Are the implementers of Brexit going to keep that promise and bring down immigration? Surely that's a right wing issue, if ever anything is.

And what do you think of Cummings's view that Brexit as currently executed is going to be a disaster?

You have to decide whether right wing means florid ex colenels from the shires with questionable views about Brown people, or evil neoliberals who care for nothing but cheap labour to supply their 21st century satanic Mills...
Maybe that caricature helps you forget it was the Labour working class (and the non voting working class that Labour claims to speak on behalf of) that the immigration message was tailored for.

Cummings may be right, but which party is offering a better alternative?

[Husar]

That is not an attitude that is apparent in my understanding of EU politics in the last twenty years.

I didn't say it was, for the last nine years the EU was too busy fixing the wonderful effects of neoliberalism and related greed-based ideologies like an enormous market crash and people fleeing from poverty and war.

The idea to have an EU-wide tax on income rather than profit was such a step though. Only happened (could happen?) after Britain left though.
Well, the idea being discussed happened, it's not nowhere near a law AFAIK. Maybe they're just waiting for lobbyists to convince them not to do it, maybe it will actually happen.

[Pannonian]

You have to decide whether right wing means florid ex colenels from the shires with questionable views about Brown people, or evil neoliberals who care for nothing but cheap labour to supply their 21st century satanic Mills...

Maybe that caricature helps you forget it was the Labour working class (and the non voting working class that Labour claims to speak on behalf of) that the immigration message was tailored for.

And yet again avoiding responsibility for keeping campaign promises. Given that Cummings cites immigration and the NHS promise as the two main factors in winning the Leave campaign, and you push both as the domain of Labour voters, Labour must have one hell of a massive constituency. And yet we have a Tory government.

BTW, what do you think of this?

But such faith in the current administration’s ability to haggle effectively seems complacent. The far-sharper Cummings was not nearly so sanguine. On May and Davis, he predicts that “schoolchildren will shake their heads in disbelief that such characters could have had leading roles in government.” In the event of a total Brexit disaster, there could even be an investigation into why it occurred—and civil servants are already scurrying to cover themselves. Officials are drafting their emails with a half an eye on “the inevitable inquiry,” Cummings said—“and the history books.”

[Furunculus]

And yet again avoiding responsibility for keeping campaign promises. Given that Cummings cites immigration and the NHS promise as the two main factors in winning the Leave campaign, and you push both as the domain of Labour voters, Labour must have one hell of a massive constituency. And yet we have a Tory government.

BTW, what do you think of this?

I don't have to take responsibility for anything, all sides lied. Remain stated that Leave wanted MORE immigration (that is the right-wing-as-evil-neoliberals trope in case you missed it), they also invented glorious nonsense on the economic calamity pending a leave vote.
More importantly, the labour and non-voters were necessary to get Leave over the line. The Conservative/Liberal side was already in the bag. Again, Ashcroft polls, read them

Cummings may be right, but which party is offering a better alternative?

p.s. have you read All Out War? absolutely fascinating!

[Pannonian]

And a Tory MP currently advocating a no deal Brexit has advised his clients, in his second job as a financial adviser, that the UK's economy has gone downhill since the referendum result, and they should refrain from investing in the UK. What do the Brexit supporters think of this?

[Greyblades]

Professionalism combined with a lack of faith may will get a good deal? As said he's a no deal better than a bad deal man and I cant exactly fault him for expecting a bad deal considering the only reason Theresa may still has a job is entirely down to fear of the alternative.

I dont think he would have a job for long if he lied to his clients.

[Furunculus]

And a Tory MP currently advocating a no deal Brexit has advised his clients, in his second job as a financial adviser, that the UK's economy has gone downhill since the referendum result, and they should refrain from investing in the UK. What do the Brexit supporters think of this?

Is he offering good financial advice?

[Pannonian]

Is he offering good financial advice?

So no comments on the financial advice he's offering versus the job he's doing as an MP?