Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 649 posts

Re: UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU

#581

Post by 27182818284 »

CPLX wrote: post #347
enraged_camel wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America, as well as all empires in history, were created and then kept together via military force. In contrast, the EU started out peacefully as a trade organization. Membership in it is purely voluntary. This makes it quite unique.

The original decision by the various states to join together was not at all accomplished by armed conquest.

>The original decision

That's true but blatantly ignores things like, oh, you know the Civil War that tore the US apart

Re: UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU

#582

Post by falsedan »

ownagefool wrote: post #551
falsedan wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but if your company makes all the money, then you only get the dividend tax rate: 38.1% vs 40-45%, for higher-rate tax payers. Mind, your company has to be paying a pretty low corporate rate for this to make a difference (like if it's incorporated in the Channel Isles).

I think you missed my point, which is you are legally unable to do this. Small businesses operating in the UK are required to pay tax within the UK, as is the case with much of Europe. Further, unless the countries have a tax treaty, you might incur double tax and an arrest warrant may be issued if you fail to comply with the rules. Sure, I'm well aware that big companies play games with this sort of thing, but the r…

> I think you missed my point, which is you are legally unable to do this

You missed my point, which is it's 100% legal to do this, it's not unreasonably difficult to do this, and people do this right now.

> Small businesses operating in the UK are required to pay tax within the UK

So, incorporated in the Netherlands (or elsewhere) and do business there, but subcontract the work to yourself through a UK company that is paid stuff-all (to avoid income/corporate tax). Then take the profits as dividends.

> your SMB cannot take afvantage of the same complex legal structures

Individuals can take advantage of these loopholes; e.g. most media celebrities do work as an employee of an off-shore incorporated business. Heck, you can get them with a UK business and UK employee (sole trading/contracting), if you can show non-habitual employment (i.e. more than one employer).

Re: UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU

#583

Post by orbifold »

realityking wrote: post #578
orbifold wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it is oppression, it is antidemocratic, was forced on the people and pushed heavily by propaganda. It is a project of the elites and industry, any benefits to ordinary people are far outweighed by the benefits of industry. For the longest time it was simply that: A number of economic treaties, the political stuff was added later on because people realised that it would be far easier to push through their ag…

I don't see how that is the Eu being anti-democratic. Note that I oppose the regulation on the merits as well but procedurally: - all member countries except for Ireland and Slovakia voted for it in the council. That includes the German I have no illusions it wouldn't have passed in the German Bundestag - the EU parliament voted for it - the ECJ struck it down for violating the Charter of Fundamental Rights It basica…

Well that is the problem: There is no good way for people to organise effectively on an European level, or at least it is much harder. By comparison is very easy for a determined few to organise at this level, which is why you have tons and tons of lobbyists in Brussels. You can partially observe this when "Wutbürger" protest against local changes like building a new railway station (months of protest, sitins, general disorder), but you barely get two days worth of protests against the ECB on the occasion of the opening of their new head quarters in Frankfurt.

Note it was not the ECJ which struck down the law first, they did it after the BGB did strike it down, partially because they did not want to get into a fight about who has primacy in decision making I believe (the BGB still claims to have the last word, changing this would be unconstitutional in Germany).

I don't think politicians "hiding behind the EU" is what is actually happening, what actually happens is collusion to shift away power from the people by obfuscation and misdirection. People like Schäuble have active contempt for democracy (According to Varoufakis he told him "Elections can't change economic policy"). See for example this discussion of ECB policies (https://www.yanisvaroufakis.eu/2017/03/14/19258/).

I truly believe the EU has to go, in order for Europe to not further slide into a corporatist neo-liberal nightmare. It is very unfortunate that this push is lead by right-wing nationalists.

Re: UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU

#584

Post by drewmol »

thomasahle wrote: post #415
Chaebixi wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the EU does have a directly elected parliament? So where's the lack of democracy in the EU? I'm not a European, but could it be that the bloc has gotten so large that an individual's vote is so diluted that it feels like it's not a democracy? Especially considering the number of different nationalities and language-groups of various sizes that are supposed to be represented by that one body. I think federalism…

> I think federalism is a good idea because, at the end of the day, I want to be ruled by a government that represents my community, not some abstract mass of people. What size do you think is the best for a democracy then? 10,000 people? 1000,000? The US is as big as the EU and certainly has a lot more centralized legislation. So many issues today (taxes, trade, environmental protection, immigration, etc.) involve v…

>What size do you think is the best for a democracy then? 10,000 people? 1000,000? The US is as big as the EU and certainly has a lot more centralized legislation.

The following is in the context of a representative democracy/republic:

Interesting question, as far as elected representatives and their number of constituents, I certainly support a maximum threshold, in the range of 10's of thousands at most. When groups larger than this are directly represented by single elected officials, it seems to increase the likelihood of the represented feeling removed or effectively excluded from the political process, which results in the sentiment (I suppose it's a leaning toward anti-globalist ideals) towards abstract, large centralized governance we see in many Brexit supporters as well as a portion of the supporters for Donald Trump in my home country the USA.

Interesting notes regarding American law on this topic:

"The U.S. Constitution called for at least one Representative per state and that no more than one for every 30,000 persons." [1]

The Appointment Act of 1911 and subsequent Permanent Appointment Act of 1929 capped the total number of House congressional representatives at 435 [2], so the degree of seperation between an individual elector and their representative in any given congressional district continues to grow as population increases. This also has an effect on the Electoral College, as it's membership numbers are based on the number of congress persons. Furthermore, I will assume this limit, combined with a growing population will increase the chances of a Presidential Candidate winning election without also winning the national popular vote, as we have seen on multiple occasions in recent decades.

[1] http://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The...

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929

Re: UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU

#585

Post by tommorris »

djmobley wrote: post #369
Chaebixi wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the EU does have a directly elected parliament? So where's the lack of democracy in the EU? I'm not a European, but could it be that the bloc has gotten so large that an individual's vote is so diluted that it feels like it's not a democracy? Especially considering the number of different nationalities and language-groups of various sizes that are supposed to be represented by that one body. I think federalism…

Also note that EU bureaucracy is utterly bewildering to anyone who does not spend their whole life following it. The average British person has no idea how the EU works. They don't know what the different bodies are. They don't know who their representative(s) are. They don't know how to make their voices heard. Maybe a third of people vote in the elections, and they don't really know what they're voting for. What ki…

> What kind of democracy is that?

A poorly educated one. But still a democracy.

Re: UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU

#586

Post by Nursie »

rbehrends wrote: post #512
Nursie wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry it's not false, and in fact you've more or less confirmed what I said, the Commission is put in place by the Council and they originate all legislation. This byzantine system, so thoroughly removed from the populace, is one of the reasons I'm not sad we're leaving.

> the Commission is put in place by the Council It is not. Even if you want to dispute the fact that the Commission President is de facto chosen by the voters and elected by the EP, the European Council has zero role in the selection of the remaining commissioners, who are nominated by the member states in consultation with the Commission President. I'm not sure how you can live with the British system, though, if th…

Member states, indeed, Comissioners are generally put in place by the leaders of the member states, the Council. (I should stop arguing this point, the technicality is not really relevant, it's that they are several steps removed from any vote)

Where did I say I can live with the British system?

It reeks worse than the EU. I'll vote out of Westminster when I get the chance (which will never come for Hampshire, I'm not a fantasist)

Re: UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU

#587

Post by Nursie »

gpderetta wrote: post #555
Nursie wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The human rights act, IIRC, is bound up with ECHR membership - a non-EU institution. I agree the EU was a lock on this but it's a bit more complex than just changing the legislation.

Yes, but being a EU member requires treating ECHR [1] rulings​ as binding. Afer leaving UK will be free to disregard them (and it has already manifested intention to do so) [1] which is distinct from ECJ, and not an EU organisation.

I'm not sure we'll be free to disregard, but we would be free to pull out, which would be a damn shame.

Re: UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU

#588

Post by Nursie »

genericpseudo wrote: post #459
Piskvorrr wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, there's the Troubles on the horizon again, as various Irish factions start talking about a united Ireland.

Britain is over within ten years, that's what today means. Scottish independence, some kind of enormous fudge in Northern Ireland, and Wales beginning to look towards the door. Sic transit gloria mundi.

Welsh independence has generally been supported by less than 10% of the population.

Re: UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU

#589

Post by Nursie »

jwdunne wrote: post #469
zigzigzag wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, Britain organised a full blown referendum for Scotland after Scots voted a separatist party into their own local Parliament ... a referendum the nationalists then lost. Now perhaps there'll even be a second, despite said nationalists saying it would be a "once in a generation" event. How is that being dragged, kicking and screaming?

When the majority of Scotland wanted to remain part of the EU, the terms changed. The fact is Scotland, NI and Wales largely wanted to remain whilst England drags the rest along with. They have no choice. That's a pretty big change in the game and wasn't really on people's minds in 2014. I certainly wasn't thinking about the EU exit in 2014. In fact, in 2015, a 2016 EU referendum wasn't widespread knowledge. In fact,…

Wales didn't largely want to remain.

Efforts to paint this as purely an English problem are bizare, even in Scotland around a.third of voters voted to leave the EU. Surely that pojnts to huge dissatisfaction even without a majority for leaving?

Re: UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU

#590

Post by logicallee »

mattmanser wrote: post #519
logicallee wrote: post #402

The EU should treat this like America treated secessionist states - the UK should be compelled to stay by force. Obviously there should not be any actual war, since the Brtis should just say, "well, all right." Afterward they should be full, normal participants, just as every state is a normal participant in the United States and has equal and fair votes in the Senate and House of Representatives. Why should this be…

Putting aside the lack of knowledge of the situation or what the EU actually is, the UK has nuclear weapons, the highest EU defence spending and a permanent UN security council seat. The EU has no army. What you propose would mean the end of the UN, the end of NATO, the end of the EU and a possible WW3. And Russia would probably 'liberate' a few border countries from the 'imperialistic EU' while that's all happening.

Its request should still be denied. I notice you have not in any way attacked my historical foundation, secessionist states. The implication that the UK would detonate a nuclear bomb over this is laughable on its face.

Its request should be denied.

Post reply on HN