It's not over yet - EU

[ukbf0001]

I dont think that this is the end of the story - by a long way.

We have a Parliament of which over 75% of them wanted Remain.
The referendum result is not legally binding so in light of this - this is what I think will happen.

Cameron Gone - Corbyn will be next. After new leaders have been elected - I think there HAS to be a General Election - I believe the SNP, Labour, Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru etc - will stand together on a 1 policy ticket - vote for them if you want to return to the EU - that will be used as a mandate to cancel the referendum result.

In the mean time the EU will HAVE to change its path - which clearly people do NOT want - thats why given the choice of IN (with greater integration, Turkey, immigration etc) or OUT , people choose out.

An elected Parliament (if) elected on that 1 policy ticket would win. If achieved (and its a big if) , we can then back to 'normal' - Ive forgotten what Normal is any more.

Speaking to lots of people - they have said the same - they dont want more EU, more members, more money going into the EU - what everyone wants is a restriction on total free movement - with the individual member states getting their borders back.

If was a very simple question that was asked - the answers and variables were very very complicated and the outcomes uncertain. The EU needs to listen rather than dictate.

 

[john1989]

Cancelling the referendum results or holding a second referendum would lead to anarchy in the streets.

The people have spoken and we just need to get on with it now.

 

[ukbf0001]

I thought I would be the last person to ever say this - but I think there are people out there that now genuinely would vote different - and only wanted to give the current Govt a bit of a kick. The opinions polls were all saying Remain anything from 3 - 8 % in the lead.

The fact that this does have to be ratified by Parliament , and with a General Election where people can vote the parties that want to Remain or Otherwise again - that would give a final and legal mandate to the Govt to carry it out.

The EU has to change as they know full well they will now face Referendum calls in Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands and probably Greece, France and Italy

(Personally I would vote differently now - if the EU put a stop to its expansion plans)

The Mrs is from Swansea - People in Swansea (a massive massive NET gainer from the EU) voted to Leave - Swansea has no issues with immigration or anything else - they just wanted to give the EU and Govt a kick.

Who knows - maybe in 3 years time - Us, the Danes, Dutch, Greeks and French will all be out of it.

The EU needs to hold referendum in all member states before it continues it's expansion and federalisation

 

[KM-Tiger]

The EU needs to listen rather than dictate.

It doesn't. It isn't constituted in a way that encourages it to do so.

That's why Cameron was unable to get new terms and we are leaving.

With luck followed by France, Holland, Italy ... until it's gone.

 

[john1989]

It doesn't. It isn't constituted in a way that encourages it to do so.

That why Cameron was unable to get new terms and we are leaving.

With luck followed by France, Holland, Italy ... until it's gone.

The way it's going, I could see there been nothing left for us to leave!
If a company was in such dire straights, it would have been dissolved by now.

 

[Mark T Jones]

My vote was based far more around the state of the EU as an organisation than immigration or party politics. Stay won my vote by a tiny margin on the basis that there is a tiny chance that we could be part of positive change in its structure. As it stands, I absolutely believe it will implode within a decade.

Ironically our departure will force change - though I suspect it will just be window dressing

A decision has been made. Other than the unlikely event of fundamental change in the EU to go against that vote will be a make a complete joke of democratic process

 

[billmccallum1957]

The UK HAS to leave the EU !!!!

If people thought riots in the street were limited to "a few extremists" a failure of parliament to ratify the leave vote would result in something akin to a civil war.

We are supposed to be democratic, so having the referendum is meant to allow everyone to have a voice, failure to ratify will mean our own government (who are supposed to represent us) saying "F*** O**, we'll decide what we want"

Things have been bad enough with the total failure of successive governments to deal with banking excesses and multinational tax dodging, to continue to support this EU gravy train will be the beginning of the end of the "party" system in the UK.

 

[Pish_Pash]

 

[threenine]

Cancelling the referendum results or holding a second referendum would lead to anarchy in the streets.

The people have spoken and we just need to get on with it now.

On the contrary. I believe a second referendum is vital. I don't think the people have spoken. What is happening now, is that our so called government is dismantling on its own.

We need to have another general election, because I think it is obvious that the our view and direction of the world has fundamentally changed.

All political parties now need to rework their manifesto's and we now need to make our choice based on what they propose on how we deal with this outcome.

 

[Christine Hough]

I don't think the people have spoken.

How do you work that out? Highest numbers coming out to vote than in any recent election and nearly 4 % difference.
It is close but not close enough to be dubious.

Maybe some would vote differently today, but the date was set for the referendum and everyone knew the date and had had the economic warnings.

We cannot go back to where we were beforehand, even with another referendum. I think Boris would like another referendum and to be seen to get what David Cameron didn't get from Europe. But I am not sure th Eu will play ball.

 

[threenine]

Well the political landscape has shifted overnite. Which has brought with it more change.

This wasn't a general election, which effectively signifies a choice of leadership. We've had a prime minister resign, basically we've had all political parties torn in two . I do think we need a referendum or at least a general election to provide a consensus of what exactly this change entails.

It was completely apparent during the campaigns for this referendum that both sides blatantly lied. We now need some way to gauge public opinion on what exactly this path to change needs to look like and how it's implemented.

it's completely wrong to assume that people we've elected previously, who have campaigned for what they firmly believed to go ahead and put their hearts into implementing the opposite.

If anything I would expect to see more resignations and changes to the political landscape going forward.

So we either need at a minimum another referendum, but essentially another general election based on new manifesto's from all political parties and how they intend to proceed on this new path.

 

[ShirleyM]

The EU will never survive long term. There is insufficient democracy, and they cannot withhold their perpetual bad news forever in order to fool people into staying. The people in many EU countries are realising what has been taken away from them, without their agreement.The UK isn't the only country who is deeply resentful.

It doesn't help the weaker economies if the stronger economies are bankrupted in the process of maintaining the Euro, and the Euro will never be abandoned because it is the cornerstone of a federal EU. The EU has failed both economically and politicially, and we can't do a damn thing about it because there is no alternative government in the EU.

It's their way or the highway, so we chose the highway.

 

[john1989]

Why do we need another referendum? We've had one and the people have spoken.

We should now be focusing on getting the country back on track.

 

[boring-friday]

There won't be another referendum. There would be riots everywhere, remember its all us scummy types who voted out

 

[threenine]

There won't be another referendum. There would be riots everywhere, remember its all us scummy types who voted out

You've voted out, but yet you haven't voted for what that out looks like.

You've made a partial decision, but what you're saying, and this is what I fear, you have no real idea what out looks like other than notions of sovereignty and democracy. and if most public opinion is to be believed immigration control

 

[john1989]

You've voted out, but yet you haven't voted for what that out looks like.

You've made a partial decision, but what you're saying, and this is what I fear, you have no real idea what out looks like other than notions of sovereignty and democracy.

I think most people that voted out knew that there would be no guarantees after leaving.

But taking that chance was much better than remaining in the cesspit.

 

[Clinton]

Things have been bad enough with the total failure of successive governments to deal with banking excesses and multinational tax dodging...

We've come a long way on multinational tax dodging and that's because of the work the government's done in the OECD with the EU's support.

Being out of the EU, ironically, makes it more difficult for the UK to lead, as it has been doing, with respect clamping down on corporate tax dodging. Whatever other nonsense has been spouted elsewhere (from both sides of the campaign), I have zero doubt we're seriously disadvantaged now on tax dodgers. The EU will still cooperate on tax dodging, of course, but we can't lead the EU on this as we used to and demand, for example, the "beneficial owners" register at tax havens.

 

[boring-friday]

You've voted out, but yet you haven't voted for what that out looks like.

You've made a partial decision, but what you're saying, and this is what I fear, you have no real idea what out looks like other than notions of sovereignty and democracy. and if most public opinion is to be believed immigration control

Rule Britannia

 

[threenine]

Rule Britannia

OMG! Welcome to 1816!

 

[ShirleyM]

we can't lead the EU

You should have stopped there! The EU have a path, and will stick to it resolutely, regardless of the damage caused.

 

[boring-friday]

OMG! Welcome to 1816!

I'll be singing it loudly on Monday in France with lots of my 'scummy' mates who also voted out

I've got a flat for sale in Scotland if you want it, heard they like the EU?

 

[Clinton]

You should have stopped there! The EU have a path, and will stick to it resolutely, regardless of the damage caused.

You confusing two different issues. Yes, the EU has a path and sticks resolutely to it.

But when it comes to corporate tax dodging we were leading the EU because the path suited us as well. Which returns us to the original assumption by @billmccallum1957 which was incorrect. When it comes to tackling corporate tax evasion, a cross-border affair, we'll do less well outside of the EU as we are only talking for ourselves now and not talking for the entire block.

 

[billmccallum1957]

We've come a long way on multinational tax dodging and that's because of the work the government's done in the OECD with the EU's support.

Being out of the EU, ironically, makes it more difficult for the UK to lead, as it has been doing, with respect clamping down on corporate tax dodging. Whatever other nonsense has been spouted elsewhere (from both sides of the campaign), I have zero doubt we're seriously disadvantaged now on tax dodgers. The EU will still cooperate on tax dodging, of course, but we can't lead the EU on this as we used to and demand, for example, the "beneficial owners" register at tax havens.

Google's arrangement with HMRC works out at around 3%, that's not what I call "coming a long way", it's taken 15 years to get Starbucks any where near paying a fair rate of tax.

Successive governments having turned a blind eye to corporate tax avoidance, if a company makes £43million profit it should be paying the same 20%, not shifting cash around it's tax haven companies to avoid it.

 

[Clinton]

Google's arrangement with HMRC works out at around 3%, that's not what I call "coming a long way", it's taken 15 years to get Starbucks any where near paying a fair rate of tax.

Successive governments having turned a blind eye to corporate tax avoidance, if a company makes £43million profit it should be paying the same 20%, not shifting cash around it's tax haven companies to avoid it.

I don't believe you understand the intricacies.

HMRC's capitulation with Google has nothing to do with the OECD drive on reducing the options for firms to organise their structures in the way they do now. And working towards disclosure of beneficial owners. These are wider issues that will frustrate Google & Starbuck type tax "avoidance" in the first place. Because bear in mind that what we see as tax avoidance by these multinationals is actually not illegal - it's just a clever / crafty organising of their corporate affairs. All completely legal (usually).

To make it illegal is not as simple as you think given the ease with which capital can cross borders. It takes a concerted effort from a lot of countries to pressure all the tax havens into cooperating with disclosures, information sharing and beneficial owner registers. The UK was doing sterling work there with the backing of the EU.

Not any more

 

[Clinton]

PS: You really should read this about "beneficial ownership" . It's just a small sample of the amazing work done by the UK in this area.

 

[threenine]

I'll be singing it loudly on Monday in France with lots of my 'scummy' mates who also voted out

Dare I say, you'll also throw some plastic chairs about, and give us ever more reason to be "proud"

 

[KM-Tiger]

The UK was doing sterling work there with the backing of the EU.

Not any more

That's not an area I know anything about, but in principle us leaving the EU does not preclude cooperation in an area such as that. Likewise in matters of security.

 

[boring-friday]

Dare I say, you'll also throw some plastic chairs about, and give us ever more reason to be "proud"

Haha not me mate, will be if we have another referendum though

 

[Christine Hough]

You've voted out, but yet you haven't voted for what that out looks like.

You've made a partial decision

For me,
I knew I didn't know what out looked like in detail, but I knew the financial markets would not be happy and the EU would make an example of us.

Nor did I know what in looked like in detail. It's definitely not as things are now with a dicey Euro currency, trouble on the borders, an EU army on the horizon and an undemocratic and expensive governance.

I expected trouble either way but generally do not regret voting out. I don't want another referendum. You can only take the best decision at the time, hindsight might be great but you have to move on, not keep running in circles. I think it is the better option to leave. And I am not against migrants and I was not swayed by far right policies.

 

[Clinton]

That's not an area I know anything about, but in principle us leaving the EU does not preclude cooperation in an area such as that. Likewise in matters of security.

Yes, but we can't lead them or represent them, and when talking hard ball with tax havens, the UK representing the EU is pretty powerful stuff. The EU is (was) happy to be led by the UK on this but that has ended and set us back several years on corporate tax transparency.

 

[Newchodge]

Well the political landscape has shifted overnite. Which has brought with it more change.

This wasn't a general election, which effectively signifies a choice of leadership. We've had a prime minister resign, basically we've had all political parties torn in two . I do think we need a referendum or at least a general election to provide a consensus of what exactly this change entails.

It was completely apparent during the campaigns for this referendum that both sides blatantly lied. We now need some way to gauge public opinion on what exactly this path to change needs to look like and how it's implemented.

it's completely wrong to assume that people we've elected previously, who have campaigned for what they firmly believed to go ahead and put their hearts into implementing the opposite.

If anything I would expect to see more resignations and changes to the political landscape going forward.

So we either need at a minimum another referendum, but essentially another general election based on new manifesto's from all political parties and how they intend to proceed on this new path.

The political landscape has not shifted overnight.

A referendum was held on a single issue. There is a clear decision on that issue and the elected politicians should (SHOULD) start the process to put into place the wishes of the people.

Cameron has gone, in my view, quite rightly, because he does not believe in what needs to be done and should not, therefore be the one to carry it out. leaving those who pushed leaving the EU to negotiate what they want.

Personally I believe that they will achieve a complete disaster. I hope I am wrong.

 

[threenine]

75% of the politicians were in the remain camp,.

I think you're asking for a half a$$ed effort asking them to do something they don't believe in.
It's best to have a new election and get people who fundamentally believe in what they're doing.

 

[billmccallum1957]

I don't believe you understand the intricacies.

HMRC's capitulation with Google has nothing to do with the OECD drive on reducing the options for firms to organise their structures in the way they do now. And working towards disclosure of beneficial owners. These are wider issues that will frustrate Google & Starbuck type tax "avoidance" in the first place. Because bear in mind that what we see as tax avoidance by these multinationals is actually not illegal - it's just a clever / crafty organising of their corporate affairs. All completely legal (usually).

To make it illegal is not as simple as you think given the ease with which capital can cross borders. It takes a concerted effort from a lot of countries to pressure all the tax havens into cooperating with disclosures, information sharing and beneficial owner registers. The UK was doing sterling work there with the backing of the EU.

Not any more

I'm a good old fashioned realist, "intricacies" is just another way of saying "loophole".

A company (of any size) makes a profit and pays 20% tax, it's not rocket science, Google UK paying Google Ireland (Sweden, BVI, or whoever else they cream it off too) "licence fees" for using the google name is bull***t, and everyone else knows it.

We don't need European or International co-operation, we just have to enforce the same rules on the big boys that HMRC are happy to throw at the little guys like us.

 

[threenine]

The political landscape has not shifted overnight.

I would argue it has. The budget, strategies & manifestos were based on circumstances as per 2015.

We are now 2016, and we now have a drastically different outlook. I want a clearer picture of what our political parties view the world going forward.

Have we learned nothing from the Gordon Brown fiasco??

 

[Clinton]

A company (of any size) makes a profit and pays 20% tax, it's not rocket science, Google UK paying Google Ireland (Sweden, BVI, or whoever else they cream it off too) "licence fees" for using the google name is bull***t, and everyone else knows it.

I know they're pulling a fast one, but there's no easy way of telling what's a fair price and what isn't a fair price for a company to pay a (related) subsidiary elsewhere in the world for supplies of goods and services and even more difficult to legislate for what's a fair payment to licence intellectual property, including deciding "value" for commercial use of patents. Without benefial owner registers you often don't even know if that company they're paying is actually a subsidiary or an independent company in which they own no shares!

I do know that it's not rocket science, it's a lot more complicated. Google wins against HMRC et al because they pay millions of pounds to accountants to find legal loopholes through the complex tax systems across jurisdictions. You don't pay millions if it's easy, you pay millions because you need top talent. You need top talent because it's very complicated stuff.

The simpler and more effective way is to get other countries on board. Imagine a world where every country charged businesses one simple flat rate of corporation tax (and the same rate of CGT as well because it's easy to transfer trading profits to capital accounts) ... there'll be nowhere for the giants to hide. Such a system is far away, but the cooperation the UK was leading was in that general direction ... and we've lost it now.

Thanks to Brexit, there'll be less transparency and more corporates will get away with paying even less tax. Unfortunately, points like these involve nuances and are not easy to get across to the general public in TV debates. Even here, it appears, intelligent business people are unable to see that it's a lot trickier than simply stamping your feet and demanding 20%.

 

[MBE1]

You've voted out, but yet you haven't voted for what that out looks like.

You've made a partial decision, but what you're saying, and this is what I fear, you have no real idea what out looks like other than notions of sovereignty and democracy. and if most public opinion is to be believed immigration control

This attitude from the remainers is exactly why the EU and politicians in general have lost all sense of reality, since they also suffer from the same delusions of superiority.

How demeaning to the voters for exit to tell them what you believe what they are saying, they voted to leave the EU, end of the argument, get over it.

A new general election might happen earlier than planned, but not because some cry babies want it to happen to change the result. If you think the EU referendum has caused problems, throwing away the whole democratic system this country has grown up with and the vast majority wish to honor would truly destroy the country, and no politician is going to risk everything on that risky call.

We had a referendum, a huge turn out voted democratically, we voted out, guess what, you lost, get over it.

 

[ShirleyM]

There are lots of issues like tax avoidance, environmental schemes, etc., but I think these are world wide concerns, not just European concerns, and I think the UK could achieve far more taking it's own place in these discussions, rather than handing over it's power to the EU.

There will still be cooperation and support for each other where there are common goals and it will add one extra voice.

 

[Vectis]

There's been numerous elections in the UK over the years where many people haven't liked the outcome but I've never heard of anyone calling for a rerun of an election because the outcome wasn't what they personally wanted or expected. So, why now with this referendum?

It's called democracy and the premise is that you accept the result of that democratic decision - whether you, personally, like it or not.

Yes, there will be big repercussions from this and massive changes but - and you can't deny this - we were all warned in very explicit (and some would say apocalyptic) detail by Osborne and Cameron as to what would happen if we voted Leave. And yet people did vote Leave, pretty decisively in the circumstances it has to be said.

Clearly you don't like the result, and you're entitled to that opinion as we all are, but to suggest that we ignore the democratic wish of the people would be stupid in the extreme. Unless, of course, you don't wish to live in a democracy?

 

[threenine]

Clearly you don't like the result, and you're entitled to that opinion as we all are, but to suggest that we ignore the democratic wish of the people would be stupid in the extreme. Unless, of course, you don't wish to live in a democracy?

Sorry that did make me laugh. I am in neither camp! Always said I'm an inbetweener, and have never swallowed garbage either side spouted out.

Not saying ignoring the democratic wish, all I'm saying is if this is really about democracy, then obviously we should exercise more elements of the democracy. How else do we progress?

In business, when faced with change, you take step back, analyse, formulate a strategy, plan and implement.

All I am saying, is that we need to do exactly that. There are so many questions and issues to deal with. We will need to elect leaders to do so.

 

[threenine]

In my opinion, one of the fundamental flaws of the leave campaign, other than hot hair and passion and rumblings of democracy. There was no clear plan.

They have had years, nay decades to come up with a plan, even a contingency plan. As of yet, there is no plan and no strategy.