10 ms·

UK and tax havens have a long history. It is pretty sad and tells a lot about the quality of information in UK that most British people do not know about ATAD:

by se6 7y ago

UK and tax havens have a long history. It is pretty sad and tells a lot about the quality of information in UK that most British people do not know about ATAD: Anti Tax Avoidance Directive, a EU attempt to crack down on tax havens, which will come in effect on 1st of Jan 2020. Thanks to Brexit, UK will secure its tax havens, to the benefit of very few and to the detriment of many... See https://www.taxjustice.net/2019/01/23/brexit-and-the-future-of-tax-havens/ https://www.taxjustice.net/2019/01/23/brexit-and-the-future-... for some more info. [Edit: corrected the date]

tsukurimashou 7y ago
Do you mean 1st of Jan 2020?
- se6 7y ago
  Sorry, my mistake. Jan 2020 indeed!
growlist 7y ago
Whenever the voters vote the wrong way the EU subverts it with the result in effect being overturned in one way or another, so the UK will probably end up staying in and this ATAD will be implemented.
- tristanperry 7y ago
  For those downvoting, there is truth in this e.g.: * Ireland voting (twice) on the Nice Treaty - 2001 then 2002 * Denmark voting (twice) Maastricht Treaty - first 1992 then 1993 * Ireland (again) this time on the Lisbon Treaty - 2008 then 2009 There was also a case where the Labour government (in the UK) promised a referendum on a couple of EU treaty changes, before changing their mind after other countries' referendums voted them down, and just ratified it in parliament instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Constitution_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Consti...
  - feintruled 7y ago
    The treaties changed between the votes though. So a more sympathetic reading would be, the treaties were voted down so had to be changed - then the new treaties were acceptable and voted for. (I don't even necessarily think a second vote on an unchanged treaty would be unacceptable, if there was reason to believe people had changed their minds).
  - KSteffensen 7y ago
    Denmark still has 4 opt-outs from EU because of the Maastricht treaty vote. Abolishment of these is regularly discussed as part of Danish politics. https://english.eu.dk/en/denmark_eu/danishoptouts https://english.eu.dk/en/denmark_eu/danishoptouts
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Had Cameron taken this approach, things could have worked out OK for the UK. Every one of those involved renegotiation and change of treaties before a re-vote. The timeline could have been: Cameron attempts to renegotiate with EU, achieves little. Calls a referendum, leave achieves a very narrow margin. Cameron doesn't resign, but attempts to renegotiate with the EU, achieves some small but significant improvements. Second referendum, this time for remain. UK and Cameron would still have some reputation.
    - tristanperry 7y ago
      Good point - I agree, and I'm really disappointed it didn't play out like that. Instead the UK has had political stalemate for 3.5 years and even now it doesn't look like we're closer to 'a deal'.
      - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        No, we're stuck with a "government" that's lost every vote they called, and a no-deal crash out looks the only option. Realistically that was always the only option without moving some of those infamous "red lines", or accepting Theresa May's deal. I don't see room for anything else. So the no-deal that was explicitly ruled out during the referendum campaign. The Swiss invalidate referendums when the electorate haven't been given correct information. What a mess.
patchtopic 7y ago
this is possibly the real reason why the right wing press are/have been banging the brexit drum so hard.. tax havens...
- radicalbyte 7y ago
  That would certainly explain their position and also the kind of persons who are pushing for No Deal.
na85 7y ago
Are you sure it's not to the detriment of very few? How many UK citizens are able to take advantage of said tax havens? Edit: I misunderstood
- megablast 7y ago
  It is to detriment of all the people that miss out on those tax dollars that should be paid.

by se6 7y ago

tsukurimashou 7y ago

Do you mean 1st of Jan 2020?

se6 7y ago
Sorry, my mistake. Jan 2020 indeed!

growlist 7y ago

Whenever the voters vote the wrong way the EU subverts it with the result in effect being overturned in one way or another, so the UK will probably end up staying in and this ATAD will be implemented.

tristanperry 7y ago
For those downvoting, there is truth in this e.g.: * Ireland voting (twice) on the Nice Treaty - 2001 then 2002 * Denmark voting (twice) Maastricht Treaty - first 1992 then 1993 * Ireland (again) this time on the Lisbon Treaty - 2008 then 2009 There was also a case where the Labour government (in the UK) promised a referendum on a couple of EU treaty changes, before changing their mind after other countries' referendums voted them down, and just ratified it in parliament instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Constitution_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Consti...
- feintruled 7y ago
  The treaties changed between the votes though. So a more sympathetic reading would be, the treaties were voted down so had to be changed - then the new treaties were acceptable and voted for. (I don't even necessarily think a second vote on an unchanged treaty would be unacceptable, if there was reason to believe people had changed their minds).
- KSteffensen 7y ago
  Denmark still has 4 opt-outs from EU because of the Maastricht treaty vote. Abolishment of these is regularly discussed as part of Danish politics. https://english.eu.dk/en/denmark_eu/danishoptouts https://english.eu.dk/en/denmark_eu/danishoptouts
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Had Cameron taken this approach, things could have worked out OK for the UK. Every one of those involved renegotiation and change of treaties before a re-vote. The timeline could have been: Cameron attempts to renegotiate with EU, achieves little. Calls a referendum, leave achieves a very narrow margin. Cameron doesn't resign, but attempts to renegotiate with the EU, achieves some small but significant improvements. Second referendum, this time for remain. UK and Cameron would still have some reputation.
  - tristanperry 7y ago
    Good point - I agree, and I'm really disappointed it didn't play out like that. Instead the UK has had political stalemate for 3.5 years and even now it doesn't look like we're closer to 'a deal'.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      No, we're stuck with a "government" that's lost every vote they called, and a no-deal crash out looks the only option. Realistically that was always the only option without moving some of those infamous "red lines", or accepting Theresa May's deal. I don't see room for anything else. So the no-deal that was explicitly ruled out during the referendum campaign. The Swiss invalidate referendums when the electorate haven't been given correct information. What a mess.

patchtopic 7y ago

this is possibly the real reason why the right wing press are/have been banging the brexit drum so hard.. tax havens...

radicalbyte 7y ago
That would certainly explain their position and also the kind of persons who are pushing for No Deal.

na85 7y ago

Are you sure it's not to the detriment of very few? How many UK citizens are able to take advantage of said tax havens? Edit: I misunderstood

megablast 7y ago
It is to detriment of all the people that miss out on those tax dollars that should be paid.