Theresa May: UK must leave European single market

Post by mfukar » Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 5:39 PM UTC

taway_1212 wrote: post #288

mfukar wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"involve yourself" in this case is present the tax income declaration to the tax authority in the 2nd (3rd, etc.) country. Hardly a cumbersome experience.

In practice, you need to learn the tax code to find most suitable form of conducting business. For example, in the UK if you know what you're doing, you'll pay ~20% tax on your income as a contractor. If you don't, you can easily end up paying something like 30+%. Also, there are perpetual costs of having a company registered (such as monthly payments to an accounting company which handles paperwork, health care cont…

Post by raesene6 » Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 5:52 PM UTC

rusk wrote: post #284

raesene6 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah well any discussion of morals and politics (as practiced in most countries) is unlikely to go well ;o) The problem I see with reverting to a general election is that unless all parties campaign purely on an exact list of what they will and won't do with regards to the EU, the mandate provided would be no clearer than the one derived from the referendum. A general election would mess the EU issue in with things lik…

Indeed, such an election could not be seen as an interpretation of the will of the people purely on Brexit. But Brexit does represent such a seismic event in recent British history that the British people do deserve a say in the government that leads them on from it. You could for instance see a party campaigning on a platform of making government more democratic for instance, which wouldn't have anything directly to…

Post by ionised » Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 5:56 PM UTC

derrickdirge wrote: post #56

harryf wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I want my money back!" Margret Thatcher at the European Union summit in Dublin in 1980 "That such an unnecessary and irrational project as building a European superstate was ever embarked upon will seem in future years to be perhaps the greatest folly of the modern era. And that Britain, with her traditional strengths and global destiny, should ever have been part of it will appear a political error of historic magn…

> global destiny Does this mean what it sounds like it means?

Post by gpderetta » Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 6:03 PM UTC

raesene6 wrote: post #292

gpderetta wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soft brexit (i.e. EEA-like access) plus spend the next 10 years figuring out a better exit deal would have been an option. UK spent 40 year entangling with the EU, disentangling cleanly in 2 years is a pipe dream. It is still a possibility though; declaring for hard brexit could very well be a negotiating tactic (as in 'nothing left to lose') as May hinted to the possibility of a transitional agreement.

I entirely agree the 2 year timeline is massively unrealistic (downside to something being written in a treaty agreement with no intention of it ever being excercised) The challenge for me is that soft-brexit is basically no brexit 'cause EEA access == sign-up to the four fundamental freedoms and accept the primacy of EU law, which seems to cover most of the things that the leave campaign wanted to get rid of. As you…

Post by youngtaff » Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 6:53 PM UTC

gonvaled wrote: post #276

youngtaff wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure about that? Have we had no wars in Europe since WW2 because of the EU, or because the generations before us were sick of war? Also the EU didn't stop a war in the Balkans…

The Balkans were not in the EU. The EU gives economic incentives to its members not to go to war. It does not magically prevent wars all around the world.