INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

In or out?

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Post Reply
Message
Author
Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#281 Post by Nick » July 11th, 2016, 11:16 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

It means that UK employment law will be decided by the UK government. Which seems fair enough to me.

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#282 Post by Nick » July 11th, 2016, 11:17 pm

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:My fear is now that because there is no protracted Tory leadership campaign (all hail Prime Minister May), Cameron may re-resign, this time with immediate effect rather than in a few months time, having presumably expected a membership ballot. We need the dealy in case may feels obliged to press the Article 50 button before the legal challenges have been heard and the full horror of Brexit dawns on the brexiteers.
So when are we going to hear a legal challenge against "the end to austerity" as promised by the fairy-tale Left?
:hilarity:
Indeed.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#283 Post by Alan H » July 11th, 2016, 11:45 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote: So when are we going to hear a legal challenge against "the end to austerity" as promised by the fairy-tale Left?
:hilarity:
Indeed.
Glad you seem to agree.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#284 Post by Alan H » July 12th, 2016, 11:46 pm

Economists oppose George Osborne's corporation tax cuts crusade
Economists have labelled George Osborne’s crusade to slash the UK’s corporation tax rate in the wake of the traumatic Brexit vote a “mistake”, the “wrong thing” and likely to “backfire”.

The Chancellor said last week he wants to push the levy on company profits down below 15 per cent in order to demonstrate that Britain is “open for business” to international investment in the wake of the shock vote by the electorate to leave the European Union.
2016-07-12_23h49_17.png
2016-07-12_23h49_17.png (114.42 KiB) Viewed 1240 times
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#285 Post by Alan H » July 13th, 2016, 12:45 am

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#286 Post by Alan H » July 13th, 2016, 9:54 am

Theresa May’s husband is a senior executive at a $1.4tn investment fund that profits from tax avoiding companies
The relatively unknown investment fund where Theresa May’s husband Philip works as a senior executive is one of the world’s largest and most powerful financial institutions, controlling $1.4 trillion in assets.

Its portfolio also includes $20 billion of shares in Amazon and Starbucks, both of which were cited by the Prime Minister-designate in her pledge to crack down on tax avoidance yesterday.

Latest filings to US authorities show that Los Angeles based Capital Group owns huge stakes in a variety of companies, including investment bank JP Morgan Chase, defence giant Lockheed Martin, tobacco company Philip Morris International, the pharmaceutical sector’s Merck & Co, and also Ryanair.
However, the company he works for has benefited from its investments in the likes of Amazon and Starbucks, both of which have been criticised for tax avoidance structures and which were mentioned by Ms May as she outlined her manifesto for Downing Street yesterday.

She said: “We need to talk about tax. It doesn’t matter to me whether you’re Amazon, Google or Starbucks: you have a duty to put something back, you have a debt to your fellow citizens, you have a responsibility to pay your taxes. So as Prime Minister, I will crack down on individual and corporate tax avoidance and evasion.”
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#287 Post by Alan H » July 13th, 2016, 10:05 am

On the bright side, this is the last day that Theresa 'clueless' May is in charge of the Home Office...
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Gottard
Posts: 1306
Joined: October 3rd, 2008, 3:11 pm

Re: In or out?

#288 Post by Gottard » July 13th, 2016, 10:24 am

Alan H wrote:Economists oppose George Osborne's corporation tax cuts crusade
Economists have labelled George Osborne’s crusade to slash the UK’s corporation tax rate in the wake of the traumatic Brexit vote a “mistake”, the “wrong thing” and likely to “backfire”.

The Chancellor said last week he wants to push the levy on company profits down below 15 per cent in order to demonstrate that Britain is “open for business” to international investment in the wake of the shock vote by the electorate to leave the European Union.
2016-07-12_23h49_17.png
It is an essential mistake and Mr. Osborne is constrained into a timid lowering of the corporation tax at the beginning to then go down toward 15% after the art 50 declaration. GB is now bound to act sort of ... as the Swiss do to woo enterprises. Managers' compensations might also rise.
The only thing I fear of death is regret if I couldn’t complete my learning experience

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#289 Post by Alan H » July 13th, 2016, 1:20 pm

All Your Internet Are Belong to Theresa May and the IP Bill
The old cliché is that a week is a long time in politics. In the case of the three weeks since the referendum, there has been enough shocking news to last a geological epoch. But now we have a new prime minister, Theresa May, who will be installed in Downing Street on Wednesday evening. All of the Brexit chaos aside, it also means that almost inevitably the first casualty of her prime ministry is our digital freedoms as we’re just weeks away from granting the state even more legal powers to spy on every single one of us. With May as PM, we’re now in a world where NSA-style bulk surveillance – the type that Edward Snowden warned us about – is inevitable.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#290 Post by Alan H » July 13th, 2016, 7:42 pm

So, Osborne resigns from the Government and May appoints Philip Hammond as Chancellor.

In other news, Boris Johnson has been seen entering Number 10... be afraid. Be very afraid.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#291 Post by Alan H » July 13th, 2016, 10:42 pm

So far we have:

Prime Minister - Theresa May
Campaigned to Remain in the European Union

Chancellor of the Exchequer - Philip Hammond
Campaigned to Remain in the EU

Foreign Secretary - Boris Johnson
Campaigned to Leave the EU

Home Secretary - Amber Rudd
Remain campaigner

Defence Secretary - Michael Fallon
Remain campaigner

Secretary of State for Exiting the EU - David Davis
Leave campaigner

Secretary of State for International Trade - Liam Fox
Leave campaigner
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#292 Post by Alan H » July 13th, 2016, 11:43 pm

So, David Davis, the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU is currently suing the UK government (specifically Theresa May at the time) at the European Court of Justice in respect of UK's non-compliance with EU law...

:popcorn:
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#293 Post by Alan H » July 14th, 2016, 10:01 am

Who is David Davis? The Brexit minister taking legal action against the Government – in an EU court
Theresa May's decision to put him in her top team comes despite Mr Davis pursuing legal action in the European courts against surveillance laws she introduced.

The Tory MP joined forces with Labour deputy leader Tom Watson to jointly challenge the legality of the Government's Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#294 Post by Alan H » July 14th, 2016, 10:24 am

Good riddance to Michael Gove. Sacked.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#295 Post by Alan H » July 14th, 2016, 11:16 am

And Hunt has gone. He will not be missed.

ETA: It looks like the rumours of his demise were as reliable as Hunt himself.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

stevenw888
Posts: 694
Joined: July 16th, 2010, 12:48 pm

Re: In or out?

#296 Post by stevenw888 » July 14th, 2016, 2:22 pm

I was impressed by Theresa May's speech. Let's hope she can successfully deliver some of the liberal strategies that she outlined. She seems a "safe pair of hands" in these troubled brexit times.
I'd rather have her running the country than Jeremy Corbyn.
"There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots." - From the film "Top Gun"

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#297 Post by Alan H » July 14th, 2016, 3:54 pm

stevenw888 wrote:I was impressed by Theresa May's speech. Let's hope she can successfully deliver some of the liberal strategies that she outlined. She seems a "safe pair of hands" in these troubled brexit times.
I'd rather have her running the country than Jeremy Corbyn.
David 'call me Dave' Cameron talked about 'One Nation Conservatism' and look at the damage that happened under his leadership. She wasn't exactly liberal pushing through the IP Bill and the psychoactive substances Bill. Why believe May?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#298 Post by Nick » July 14th, 2016, 10:27 pm

stevenw888 wrote:I was impressed by Theresa May's speech. Let's hope she can successfully deliver some of the liberal strategies that she outlined. She seems a "safe pair of hands" in these troubled brexit times.
I'd rather have her running the country than Jeremy Corbyn.
Never mind running the country! I don't think he could run a bath!

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#299 Post by Alan H » July 14th, 2016, 10:30 pm

We're governed by idiots (in case you hadn't realised): Minister for Brexit Davis Davis appeared unaware of how EU trade deals actually work
The newly appointed minister in charge of negotiating Britain’s exit from the European Union appears unaware of how EU trade deals work, it has emerged.

David Davis was appointed as Theresa May’s Secretary of State for Leaving the European Union on Wednesday evening immediately after she arrived at Number 10.

The staunch Leave backer, a former Europe Minister, however said during the referendum campaign that Britain would negotiate individual trade deals with other EU countries.

However one of the main basic features of the European Union is that EU countries cannot negotiate individual trade deals without side countries and instead do so as a bloc of 28.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#300 Post by Alan H » July 14th, 2016, 10:58 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#301 Post by Alan H » July 15th, 2016, 9:45 am

George Osborne’s austerity choked off the recovery: Brexit is his legacy
By March 2015, George Osborne was pulling together his final budget before the general election. The austerity chancellor had already hacked billions from health, education and social security; now he planned to slash billions more. But he had prepared one massive give-away: the complete abolition of taxes on savings, worth well over £1bn in lost revenue.

It was costly, at a time when the government was cutting to the bone. It was unjust, throwing millions at the richest, who needed it least. And it was a kick in the teeth to all those whose lives had been turned upside down in the past five years. The idea was blocked by Nick Clegg and his Liberal Democrat coalition partners.

Osborne’s response is recorded by David Laws, Clegg’s ally in government negotiations. It ranks as among the most revealing things ever said about the Conservatives’ austerity strategy.

The multi-million-pound spending spree wasn’t justifiable, admitted Osborne, according to Laws’ recent memoir, Coalition. “It will only really be of help to stupid, affluent and lazy people, who can’t be bothered to put their savings away into tax-efficient vehicles!” said Osborne. “But it will still be very popular – we have polled it.”

Disabled people could kill themselves to put an end to the government’s reign of terror, and the chancellor would shrug. Working-class kids could live on foodbank lunches and ministers would claim they had no alternative. But shovelling cash at the people seen as undeserving by their very own benefactor? That, Mr Austerity would happily do. Anything to buy votes.

Remember that exchange as the moist-eyed tributes to Osborne come in over the next few days from his friends in the Conservative party and press. “A great chancellor,” says his former aide. The man himself has kept it uncharacteristically modest: “I hope I’ve left the economy in a better state than I found it.”

If only, George. While at Oxford, Osborne was a member of the Bullingdon Club and during his six years at Number 11, he trashed the economy as thoroughly as the Bullingdon boys trashed their restaurants.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Post Reply