Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

After Brexit, More Than 100 Firms May Move To Ireland (mirror.co.uk)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the London-to-Dublin dept.

An anonymous reader quotes The Daily Mirror: Ireland has said it has received more than 100 inquiries from major firms looking to move from the UK because of Brexit. Martin Shanahan, the chief executive of the Industrial Development Agency, said the bulk of the interest came from banks and financial institutions based in the City of London. He told the Guardian newspaper that Dublin was looking to capitalize on Brexit by wooing firms with its low corporation tax rate and status as the only English speaking country in the EU after the UK leaves the trading bloc... A recent report by accountants PwC said up to 100,000 jobs in the UK financial services sector could be lost if the UK cannot strike a deal on passporting.
The New York Times also reports on the European Medicines Agency -- which oversees approval of drugs across Europe (like America's FDA) from London. The agency believes that relocating to a different country could mean losing up to half its employees, which would majorly impact the licensing and monitoring of prescription drugs for the entire European Union.

11 of 442 comments (clear)

  1. The days of high taxes on corps are numbered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Else they just run to Ireland, or other low cost havens.

    Brexit is just a nice excuse, they'd want to do this anyway.

    1. Re:The days of high taxes on corps are numbered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Actually, corporate income taxes tend to be regressive, since the main results are lower wages and higher prices."

      Without any sort of "socialist" structure in place to ensure work is paid at the rate it earns for the company, yes, the REACTION by corporate boards is towards cost cutting and that occurs first and foremost at the employee's wallet.

    2. Re:The days of high taxes on corps are numbered by bkmoore · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Taxes on individuals don't make any sense anyway. The tax can come from three places: employers (in form of higher wages), shareholders, or customers. So you can get the same result by directly taxing... The thing with taxes is the other guy should pay.

    3. Re:The days of high taxes on corps are numbered by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, right, so all those productivity increases over the last few decades didn't just go to the already wealthy and those at the top...

      The raises went to the better off, because that is where the productivity increases occurred. A ditch digger or tomato picker is no more productive today than they were 30 years ago. But because of faster computers and better software tools, programmers are worth far more today, as are accountants, engineers, bankers, and hedge fund managers.

    4. Re:The days of high taxes on corps are numbered by gtall · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think your assessment is true, but it could stand a bit more nuance. Trump is a publicity junkie with a deep-seated fear that he's dumber than a box of rocks. You can see the junkie come out when there is a period of political stories that are not about him directly. He responds with a twitter-gasm saying something stupid because he knows that will get him on the radar of the new organizations again. It doesn't matter to him what he says, only that he get air time.

      The constant references to himself as smart is a stupid Streisand move. If he'd never raised it, he'd be better off. Instead, the picture that comes out is that he's not very bright, has the attention span of gnat, and has no strategic vision. Well, he couldn't have the latter with the attention span of a gnat. He repeats whatever it was that he last talked about to an adviser.

      The only measures that he can apply to himself with any sort of value that he's capable of understanding is publicity and money, and he's not all that good at the latter given his bankruptcies. He doesn't run a public company and has no investors, only debts. As a consequence, he's rarely held to account for his screwups, his lawyers protect him from his stupid money moves. He's also learned being a reality-show host all the time, on camera or off, pays off.

  2. Only English speaking country? by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    status as the only English speaking country in the EU after the UK leaves the trading bloc...

    The Netherlands, Luxembourg, and basically half of Europe under the age of 30 would take issue with this statement. And I'll be damned if the Dutch aren't easier to understand than the Irish when speaking English ... or even when speaking Dutch.

  3. Re:Traitors. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A company I work with is considering moving their manufacturing to China. At the moment they build products in the UK, but if tariffs come in then they might just as well build them in China where the labour is cheaper and pay those tariffs.

    I'd love to know what deal the government did with Nissan. You can be sure that commitment will be big liability in any negotiations, as failure to get a good deal for them will presumably result in indefinite, unlimited financial support. Plus they need European charging networks to come to the UK if they want to meet their promise on supporting electric vehicles.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  4. Re:Traitors. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What do you want them to convince to stay, if they lose the european banking license by staying in Britain?

    It is absolutely amazing in which reality disortion field the Brexit fans live. Half the world to trade with my ass. Getting full access to the european market without following its rules, good luck with that, ask Norway how that worked out.
    Heck even India refuses to trade with the UK without getting full access to the uk labor market.
    If you are lucky Scotland will stay with the UK, if you have bad luck you guys will end up as little britain.
    Sorry that is the harsh reality.

  5. Not as big a story as it may first appear by Computershack · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Those who voted Remain have a vision of the big international banks in the City fleeing the nation, that is the image they were sold by Project Fear. The reality is that less than 10% of London City trading requires us to be in the EU. More than 90% of it is UK domestic and non-EU trade. EU passporting could be maintained merely by having a satellite office in Dublin with a couple of dozen staff.

    In the meantime the Dutch bank ING is actually moving staff INTO the City from Belgium in case Brexit stops it being able to trade in the UK.

    --
    I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
  6. Re:Traitors. by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The South is very dependent on financial services. Depending on how brexit goes a fair bit of that might be lost to Frankfurt or Paris.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  7. Those firms got it right by golodh · · Score: 4, Interesting
    @zoid.com

    Just for you I'll explain.

    Those financial firms (many of them US banks) cater to the EU rather than Britain. While Britain was in the EU it made sense to set up shop in London. Good place to live, they speak English over there, good timezone, good communications, adequate and halfway familiar legal environment, sufficient critical mass of a raft of supporting firms, relatively liberal trading rules (for Europe), their customers just a phone call or a 1-3 hour flight away, and zero complications doing business with anyone else in the EU. That's what the EU was designed for. Life was good.

    Various other EU countries might have preferred the seat of all that financial service to be in their own country instead of London. Financial firms provide high quality jobs and have a high (taxable) turnover. Only they couldn't do shit about it. EU guarantees free exchange of services and the most influential players (US banks) happened to prefer London. Not in the last place because London and the UK really listened to industry demands (knowing full well what they stood to lose if they didn't). So London it was. End of story.

    Enter Brexit.

    Brexit means the UK leaves the EU and has to negotiate terms on which to continue trading. The most basic terms of free trade (WTO--level) ensure free movement of goods but NOT free movement of services. Which EU membership guarantees, only that's what Britain is ending. So Britain is very much the asking party here.

    Anyone prepared to bet that other EU countries (like Ireland) will be eager to let Britain keep all that yummy taxable business? And those jobs? When they can simply negotiate away London-based firms' comfy access to the EU, grab the jobs and (part of) the revenue? Really?

    Those financial firms sure aren't. The incoming US commerce secretary Wilbur Ross (see http://www.npr.org/sections/th... ) isn't (see http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/u... ). I wouldn't either.

    People who bet that Britain will keep providing financial services to Europe surely aren't picking the best odds here.