The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

[st2lemans]

Tom

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	The EU have a history of not accepting referenda: Denmark - Maastricht Treaty, second vote Ireland - Nice Treaty, second vote France, Netherlands - EU Constitution, ignored Ireland - Lisbon Treaty, second vote

Ya repeat it often enough and may be just may you’ll find someone as ignorant of the facts as yourself.

“aithnionn ciarog ciarog eile”

[marton]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Because this is like asking for a football match to be replayed or an exam retaken because you don't like the outcome. You can have a second vote, but then don't complain when people call for a third one if they don't get the result they want. The EU do this all the time btw.

	Quote:	Loz1983
	The EU have a history of not accepting referenda: Denmark - Maastricht Treaty, second vote Ireland - Nice Treaty, second vote France, Netherlands - EU Constitution, ignored Ireland - Lisbon Treaty, second vote

So no third time then

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	marton
	So no third time then

There have already been 2 UK Referendums on the EU, the next would be a third.

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	There have already been 2 UK Referendums on the EU, the next would be a third.

I thought the Brexit vote was the first? Which was it?

73- on joining the EU- but don't worry, he is just being a ..... FMF.

[bowlie]

First was in 1975. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit...ferendum,_1975

Some 17 million voted to stay in the European Community, about two thirds majority.

	Quote:
	The United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum, also known as the Referendum on the European Community (Common Market), the Common Market referendum and EEC membership referendum took place on 5 June 1975 in the United Kingdom to gauge support for the country's continued membership of the European Communities (EC)—often known at the time as the "European Community” and the "Common Market" which it had entered on 1 January 1973 under the Conservative government of Edward Heath under the provisions of the Referendum Act 1975. Labour's manifesto for the October 1974 general election had promised that the people would decide "through the ballot box" whether to remain in the EC.

[J2488]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	The EU have a history of not accepting referenda: Denmark - Maastricht Treaty, second vote Ireland - Nice Treaty, second vote France, Netherlands - EU Constitution, ignored Ireland - Lisbon Treaty, second vote

In each of those cases, people voted with the EU when presented with the opportunity to do so, albeit just not on the first attempt. That is a pole apart from 'not accepting referenda'.

In fact, it can quite easily be used a evidence that the EU evolves. Denmark 1 didnt pass, but the changes that followed allowed Denmark 2 to pass and so on.

Are you just pissy because the EU have got the hang of this democracy business?

	Quote:	J2488
	Are you just pissy because the EU have got the hang of this democracy business?

Lol

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	What it's saying is peoples minds have probably not changed on average. A second referendum will give the same result.

I guess you didn't bother looking at the Skydata poll then. On first preferences, the government's option got a massive 13% support. 27% favouring a no-deal exit. On second preferences 59:41 in favour of remaining in the EU compared to a no deal exit.

https://interactive.news.sky.com/brexitshifttabs.pdf.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	Urs Max
	I thought the Brexit vote was the first? Which was it?

Incorrect, the first vote was on 5th June 1975.

	Quote:
	73- on joining the EU- but don't worry, he is just being a ..... FMF.

Incorrect as usual, the UK joined in 1973 without a referendum, the referendum was 2 years later.

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Incorrect, the first vote was on 5th June 1975. Incorrect as usual, the UK joined in 1973 without a referendum, the referendum was 2 years later.

Also, it wasn't the EU, but the EEC. The UK joined with a promise to hold a referendum on membership, which they did two years after joining. Seems to make sense, suck it and see.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:
	Also, it wasn't the EU, but the EEC. The UK joined with a promise to hold a referendum on membership, which they did two years after joining. Seems to make sense, suck it and see.

Thats not true, it took a campaign to get the referendum, there was no promise from Ted Heath to hold a referendum after the event, which if you think about it would be absurd.

From the New European today- of course we all know, and most of us have been aware from the start- that this is the real reason why Rees-Mogg, Farage and co, want a quick and hard Brexit. Time is running out for tax avoiders:

'The directive seeks to tackle the thriving culture of corporate tax avoidance. For example, consider the scenario in which an EU company shifts profits to a related company in a low-tax country reducing the tax paid on these profits: under ATAD, a company could still do this, but the profits will be taxable at EU rates.

Another situation is where EU businesses developing a new product move it to a low tax country to avoid paying larger taxes on the profits once it is developed. Thanks to ATAD this tactic won’t work as member states can levy tax on the product before it is moved.

Even with ATAD, you might argue companies – through their nifty lawyers – will find new loopholes to avoid tax, right? The EU thought of that: ATAD provides a general anti-abuse rule to counteract these regimes where national laws have failed to address them.

There are many other measures in ATAD which you will no doubt be inspired to research. But before you do that, you will hear people air grievances that this Directive is another example of how the EU hates business or that it is another instance of Brussels encroaching on our sovereignty.

Dealing with the first allegation, anti-tax avoidance laws are not developed to harm businesses. Their objective is to ensure companies play ball in a competitive market which means paying their fair share of tax. Flowing from this, in a globalised market, agreeing a set of rules to encourage fair trade is hardly an encroachment upon sovereignty. It is an acceptance that the world today sometimes requires countries to come together and agree on things for mutual benefit.'

[Jim2007]

I'm surprised no one mentioned:

Theresa May announces UK has secured its first post-Brexit trade deal during trip to Africa

Same as the old one and it only cost £4b!!!

Those blokes in a pub, part 3, not talking bollocks:

https://www.facebook.com/thatgingers...3425042/?t=600

[lewton]

	Quote:	bowlie
	That would be the fourth GPS system. After the US, EU and Russia.

It's not a GPS system, GPS is one of the four.

[lewton]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	No, I was referring to the Swiss culture of moving on and accepting a referendum result. They don't howl here for two years and demand a second vote because they didn't like the outcome of the first. If we take the example of Swiss entering EU, there have been a number of votes, but there have been breaks of several years between them with the last being in 2001. Perhaps it's high time all you EU luvvies demand Switzerland has another chance to enter into Elysium .

	Quote:	Loz1983
	The EU have a history of not accepting referenda: Denmark - Maastricht Treaty, second vote Ireland - Nice Treaty, second vote France, Netherlands - EU Constitution, ignored Ireland - Lisbon Treaty, second vote

By the way, did the Swiss government implement the decision on quotas for EU expats?

	Quote:	lewton
	It's not a GPS system, GPS is one of the four.

Love the pedantry, very Partridge...

"It's like people who say Tannoy when they mean "public address system". Tannoy is a brand name."

[fatmanfilms]

I can't think of any British companies doing this on any major scale, Mainly US companies such as Apple, Amazon & Google. As Mr Trump has fixed the problem by reducing US tax rates, it's old news & not very relevant as Ireland & Luxembourg benefited the most & will remain in the EU.

	Quote:
	From the New European today- of course we all know, and most of us have been aware from the start- that this is the real reason why Rees-Mogg, Farage and co, want a quick and hard Brexit. Time is running out for tax avoiders: 'The directive seeks to tackle the thriving culture of corporate tax avoidance. For example, consider the scenario in which an EU company shifts profits to a related company in a low-tax country reducing the tax paid on these profits: under ATAD, a company could still do this, but the profits will be taxable at EU rates. Another situation is where EU businesses developing a new product move it to a low tax country to avoid paying larger taxes on the profits once it is developed. Thanks to ATAD this tactic won’t work as member states can levy tax on the product before it is moved. Even with ATAD, you might argue companies – through their nifty lawyers – will find new loopholes to avoid tax, right? The EU thought of that: ATAD provides a general anti-abuse rule to counteract these regimes where national laws have failed to address them. There are many other measures in ATAD which you will no doubt be inspired to research. But before you do that, you will hear people air grievances that this Directive is another example of how the EU hates business or that it is another instance of Brussels encroaching on our sovereignty. Dealing with the first allegation, anti-tax avoidance laws are not developed to harm businesses. Their objective is to ensure companies play ball in a competitive market which means paying their fair share of tax. Flowing from this, in a globalised market, agreeing a set of rules to encourage fair trade is hardly an encroachment upon sovereignty. It is an acceptance that the world today sometimes requires countries to come together and agree on things for mutual benefit.'