EU Inc.: A new harmonised corporate legal regime

It imagines new registry so OBVIOUSLY any company in existence will need to do additional work to re-register itself and plaster that number on all invoice issued. You will see.

So all that years of meetings and documents and laws are just to instruct clerks how to handle additional work to workers ?

How about "destroing barriers" for doing business ? For example WHY THE FUCK EVERY COW NEED TO HAVE A FUCKING eu PASSPORT YOU MORONS ????????? Do milk is cheaper that way ? Do hard working agriculture peoples asked for this ? Or you just trying to get rid of agriculture businesses ? And now more stupidity to send in "digit" form ??

So more "digital services" bureaucrats can juggle all months and years and push into workers throats ? How wasting a time helps EU ?? In which reality things bureaucrats do helps small business peoples ? How new register number helps in anything ???

You aware that only way to re-industrialization is to have a lot of WORKING small businesses ? You know difference between "created" startups and existing businesses ? Startups often do not know when they are doing and giving money to "starting business" just ups statistics in temporal number of paper preparing "businesses". 20 years of doing that practice didn't improve anything.

> "attract private investment through common fast, digital and cost- effective procedures"

Do you even know how that thing "business" works ? peoples do things that business domain requires. Now you know. And _ANY_PAPER_WORK_FOR_GOVERMENT_AND_CONTROLING_INSTITUTIONS_OR_JUST_TO_PUT_IT_INTO_PAPER_STACK_BECOUSE_SOME_MORON_IMAGINED_MORE_PAPER_FORMS_END_PROCEDURES_NOW_ALSO_IN_DIGITAL

... is wasting time that can be used for business domain. or research and innovation.

So more perfect procedures for whom exactly ????????? To consume by time wasters , right ?

After the referendum, the EU and Bremainers made the 2 following nation-wide elections into single-issue elections. And they burned themselves justifiably from it.

You know that is the problem with the pro EU camp, they tout their opposition as science deniers and worse, yet conveniently pretend hard numbers (ie. election results) don't exist or didn't happen - if it hurts their feelings. It's just intellectual dishonesty through and through.

It seems like you haven't, why else would you deny the facts?

The EU tried to bully the Brits multiple times into staying [1] while its politicians made many thinly veiled threats [2], hoping they were veiled enough so that Bremain could make use of them. Luckily they overstepped with their arrogance.

The Brits noticed and the results were clear:

- The Torys won the UK parliament in a historic landslide in 2019, they broke "red wall" with their main campaign slogan being "Get Brexit done"

- in the European Parliament election in the United Kingdom prior to that the Brexit Party won almost half of all seats, >30% of the vote, the highest percentage of any party for the last 20 years

The EU could have handled this differently, but their behavior made Bremain so toxic that even Labour essentially gave up on it. As indicated by the breach of the "red wall"

Get over it

------

[1] The EU threats:

- The EU insisted on a strict sequencing of talks: citizens' rights, financial settlement ("divorce bill"), and the Irish border before any discussion of a future trade relationship. This was a deliberate pressure tactic

- The "Divorce Bill" – The EU demanded roughly €39-100 billion (estimates varied wildly) as a financial settlement – "leaving has a price." Michel Barnier (EU Chief Negotiator) insisted that this was non-negotiable.

- Irish Border / Backstop – designed to be a near-inescapable commitment if no trade deal was reached. This killed Theresa May's deal in Parliament three times.

- Granting Article 50 Extensions: Each extension (April 2019, October 2019) came with conditions and public EU reluctance — framed as a favor to the UK. This had a soft public opinion effect domestically in the UK

- No "Cherry Picking" Doctrine: Designed to make voters understand that a "soft Brexit" was not actually on offer, pressuring the Remain camp's argument.

[2] Key EU officials made pointed public statements:

- Jean-Claude Juncker (Commission President): Repeatedly warned the UK was underestimating the complexity. Said the negotiations would be "very, very, very difficult." Also warned in 2016 that there would be no informal negotiations before Article 50 was triggered — a rebuff to UK hopes for a soft start.

- Guy Verhofstadt (EU Parliament Brexit coordinator): Was openly confrontational, frequently stating the UK was living in "a fantasy world" regarding what Brexit could deliver.

- Donald Tusk (European Council President): Made the famous 2019 comment about a "special place in hell" for those who promoted Brexit without a plan — widely seen as a deliberate provocation to harden British public debate.

- Emmanuel Macron: Repeatedly said the UK could reverse Brexit at any time, keeping "Remain" psychologically alive as an option.

- Michel Barnier: "I am not hearing any whistling, just the clock ticking." July 2017 — A sharp comeback after Boris Johnson told the EU to "go whistle" over the divorce bill.