Slashdot Mirror
After Brexit, More Than 100 Firms May Move To Ireland (mirror.co.uk)
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.
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.
Hey- you guys voted for Brexit. This is a consequence.
It's the free market. Allow it to sort things out. If you do not like the outcome- remember you voted for it.
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
Now we know where these traitors stand and where they will be.
Traitors? Who?
The major firms fleeing an alarming, and possibly catastrophic, regulatory landscape in solo Britain? You're being silly. CEOs and entire boards of directors can and have been dismissed -- and even sued -- for not doing their due diligence by mitigating exactly that kind of factor. It's their job.
The employees of said firms? Again, you're being silly. A paycheque is a paycheque. If I had a high-paying job that was relocating, especially if it was just to the other side of the Irish Sea, and even more especially if I could keep my EU passport after doing so, you'd better believe following them would be a strong option. Staying, unemployed, in a country with an uncertain future, might not.
Coming year, France too could pull a Frexit (or whatever the French translation of that is), should Marine Le Pen win.
They are not adults, but xenophobic troglodytes who don't bother to verify catchy but wrong claims by blowhard politicians.
Table-ized A.I.
"Alarming and catastrophic." And here I thought Microsoft was good at FUD. They have nothing on Liberals. Oppose any of their policies and the consequences are ALWAYS world-destroying. Even this article is a fucking joke. 100 people make an inquiry. The article assumes the worst case scenario: every single one of them will leave, and Britain won't do anything to convince them to stay.
Thank you illustrating his point so clearly.
See that "Preview" button?
Failing economy? Are you completely fucking retarded? The UK is doing better than most other economies in Europe even with Brexit priced in. And when it comes to broadband, something you seem to have a pea in your knickers about, I live in a small town and I've got BT Infinity. Yea - it's rolled out to most cities and towns in the UK these days. 1mb connections are mostly in rural areas.
Stop writing. You seem to know precisely FUCK ALL about the UK.
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.
Actually I have learned a lesson. I actually believed that when push came to shove I believed people would ebb mass be rational enough and not knowingly swallow lies that pandered to their belief. I thought better of my fellow humans. Turns out I was wrong.
Whatever though. Given my socioeconomic status I'll likely suffer a lot less than many of the brexiters.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
So the deficit is 25 billion. What is that as a percentage of total trade? I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the EU has a larger - by a factor of 5 - economy then the UK.
So unless the our imports from the EU are 500% of our exports - they're not - any trade war is likely to hit the UK harder than the EU (there are no winners, just losers).
Unless of course you believe that the UK will get whatever it wants without any consequences, which is quite popular at the moment.
Hint: they are neither idiots nor ill informed by and large,
Well you are just trying to piece yourself wrong aren't you? Brexit was a bunch of infighting between only the most elite of the Eton elite. If you think it has something to do with non elites making themselves felt, congratulations, you just just took a massive Johnson right up the Gove.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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
I can't really comment on Trump - not being American. With regards to Brexit I can confidently say that the Leave voters in my office did indeed ignore facts and believed what they wanted to hear.
* They were told the UK would have to make concessions to retain access to the single market, but "no, we've a bigger economy then Norway, so we'll get what we want".
* They were told it would devalue the sterling, but "no, that's project fear"
* They were told that Turkey joining the EU was highly unlikely - 1 out of 37 chapters in 10 years - but "no, Merkel will push it through" even though the UK was a bigger proponent than Germany.
* They were given the figures on immigrants being less likely to claim benefits then natives, but ignored them.
not wanting your children raped by welfare migrants,
Migrants from the EU are statistically less likely to be criminals, less likely to be claiming state benefits, and likely to be paying a higher tax rate. Now, if you're in a low-skilled job then you might have a convincing argument that you've suffered disproportionately from freedom of movement driving down wages.
not wanting to be controlled by distant unelected beauracrats
Which Bureaucrats are those? The European Commission employs around 30,000 civil servants. To put that in perspective, that's less than a tenth of the total number employed by the UK alone (and that's only counting ones employed centrally, not anyone employed by local governments). Or did you mean the European Parliament, elected via a party list system? You know, the one that Britain vetoed shifting power towards? Or the Council, composed of elected ministers from the member states? Or the Commission, comprised of one delegate for each country, nominated by their elected governments?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I lean the other way. Taxes should only be collected on corporate profits and sales.
There are many benefits for this. The govt has less entities to go after in taxing. They spend less on earning the revenue. It's no small feat to process and check so many individual tax submissions. Additionally, with less actors, there is less fraud, less investigations, better funded, and higher returns per case. The govt can more easily direct the general market by taxing one sector over another or internationally over domestic. They can't impact/benefit specific companies as the other well funded companies will interfere. Any major inefficiencies or wastage of monies will be investigated and identified by corps demanding they keep the funds rather than have the govt waste it. The system encourages savings at the individual level but investments at the corp level.
For corporations, they can properly invest in the right amount of resources in processing taxes, paying politicians, lawyers for defense, and finding loopholes. We don't know of a more efficient entity for paying the minimum amount necessary. They also don't need to worry about calculating and paying different amounts of taxes on behalf of their employees and various benefits. Technically we already use corps as tax collectors for the majority of the nation's end user income taxes. Why not remove that job and cost?
For us, normal ppl, we don't need to worry about filing taxes every year. We don't need to worry about paying someone to navigate the tax code. The code is extremely simple for us, it's a percent of the sale. It gives us day to day transparency into the amount the govt takes to keep running. Which makes us more interested in how our govt spends the monies and thus helps the population make better calls during elections. Our savings can be passed on to our children without a middleman taking another cut but the society still benefits when it is spent or invested (directly or indirectly via loans). They aren't out gunned and taken advantage of in the taxation arena by politicians and corporations because they aren't a player.
You are correct in saying taxes do not come out of a corps' pocket, but they are excellent tax collectors and payers. Why not give them the whole job instead of passing it onto the uneducated (tax wise) masses?
Citation needed on all of that. It's easy to spout random crap, harder to back it up with reality. Show us the evidence. Name the "70% muslim cities" in "your country" (which country is that, anyway?) When are where were these kids? Links to any evidence of any of it being true. Yeah, thought so, pure bullshit.
The South of England is doing OK. The UK, not so much.
The thing about Trump is he just lies about everything. In business that isn't a big deal as the contract will force all actions. But for government it is a problem. We have the perception of lying politicians however for the most part they are rather truthful they may be wrong or misinformed but they are truthful. When most presidents say I want to do x, y or z when the opportunity comes up to do it they will. Trump who lies about everything just because people want to hear it stands on both sides of the fences and we have no idea what he will do when facing two conflicts ideas.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
So let's see if I've got this straight: Three million MORE Americans voted for Clinton than Trump. But because of an arcane institution invented to protect slave-owners, a few old white men living in all-white, middle-American parasite states that take more money from the federal government than they give back get to determine who is president.
Yet you claim "PC bullshit" is the reason.
And Americans have the nerve to call their country "the greatest democracy in the world". ROFL!
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
The UK is doing better than most other economies in Europe even with Brexit priced in..
The pricing in of Brexit has just begun. That pricing in will continue for the next two years after art. 50 is triggered and it will continue for at least a decade after that. So far the Brexit process has proven to be so shambolic that it has had the effect of making people in other European countries take second look at the idea of staying in the EU which has led to significant improvements in EU approval ratings. The reason the UK is still doing fine is that you are still at the beginning of a long journey that has an uncertain destination and businesses don't like uncertainty. You can expect a whole bunch of businesses to just bail out rather than wait 10 years to find out exactly what the post Brexit world will look like, and then to have to wait another decade to find out if the Brexit experiment will pan out. The Brexit fun will only begin for real one or two years after art. 50 is triggered and after that Brexit will be a rollercoaster. If you want any indication of what that means Donald Trump's incoming trade secretary Wilbur Ross just called Brexit a "God-given opportunity” to steal business from the UK. That right there is a rational assessment of Brexit from an ice cold predatory capitalist. The sharks are in the water and they small blood.
Except vat tax raises the costs of goods on those who can least afford it. Making the poor pay a higher present age of the taxes.
A person earning $50k a year spends 99% of his income
A person earning $100k a year spends 97% of their income
A person earning $250k a year spends 90% of their income
Above that the percentage drops drastically.
Money not spent on new goods is wasted in a consumer society therefore the top brackets need to be taxed heavily to compensate for their lack of spending
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
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.