[se6]

UK and tax havens have a long history. It is pretty sad and tells a lot about the quality of information in UK that most British people do not know about ATAD: Anti Tax Avoidance Directive, a EU attempt to crack down on tax havens, which will come in effect on 1st of Jan 2020.

Thanks to Brexit, UK will secure its tax havens, to the benefit of very few and to the detriment of many...

See https://www.taxjustice.net/2019/01/23/brexit-and-the-future-... for some more info.

[Edit: corrected the date]

[growlist]

Whenever the voters vote the wrong way the EU subverts it with the result in effect being overturned in one way or another, so the UK will probably end up staying in and this ATAD will be implemented.

[tristanperry]

For those downvoting, there is truth in this e.g.:

* Ireland voting (twice) on the Nice Treaty - 2001 then 2002

* Denmark voting (twice) Maastricht Treaty - first 1992 then 1993

* Ireland (again) this time on the Lisbon Treaty - 2008 then 2009

There was also a case where the Labour government (in the UK) promised a referendum on a couple of EU treaty changes, before changing their mind after other countries' referendums voted them down, and just ratified it in parliament instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Consti...

[feintruled]

The treaties changed between the votes though. So a more sympathetic reading would be, the treaties were voted down so had to be changed - then the new treaties were acceptable and voted for.

(I don't even necessarily think a second vote on an unchanged treaty would be unacceptable, if there was reason to believe people had changed their minds).

[KSteffensen]

Denmark still has 4 opt-outs from EU because of the Maastricht treaty vote. Abolishment of these is regularly discussed as part of Danish politics.

https://english.eu.dk/en/denmark_eu/danishoptouts

[NeedMoreTea]

Had Cameron taken this approach, things could have worked out OK for the UK. Every one of those involved renegotiation and change of treaties before a re-vote.

The timeline could have been:

Cameron attempts to renegotiate with EU, achieves little.

Calls a referendum, leave achieves a very narrow margin.

Cameron doesn't resign, but attempts to renegotiate with the EU, achieves some small but significant improvements.

Second referendum, this time for remain.

UK and Cameron would still have some reputation.

[tristanperry]

Good point - I agree, and I'm really disappointed it didn't play out like that.

Instead the UK has had political stalemate for 3.5 years and even now it doesn't look like we're closer to 'a deal'.

[NeedMoreTea]

No, we're stuck with a "government" that's lost every vote they called, and a no-deal crash out looks the only option. Realistically that was always the only option without moving some of those infamous "red lines", or accepting Theresa May's deal. I don't see room for anything else.

So the no-deal that was explicitly ruled out during the referendum campaign. The Swiss invalidate referendums when the electorate haven't been given correct information.

What a mess.

[cgiles]

I have found the best source of information about Brexit, although it certainly has its own bias, to be eureferendum.com . They have long advocated for Efta/EEA membership as the first move for the UK before gradually disentangling from EU directives.

IMV (I'm not British) the only sane option was some form of soft Brexit. Which was the only way to avoid most of the economic damage and also prevent hordes of Leavers with pitchforks. But the damage was done at Lancaster House which made immigration a red line. Theresa May concluded that Leavers wouldn't consider anything without immigration control to be a real Brexit, thus implicitly agreeing with the idea that the referendum passed because of immigration.

And now you have a neverending shitshow as a result. So I mostly agree, but there was a window of opportunity for TM to sell a soft Brexit. She opted not to.

[pjc50]

I don't think a renegotiation after the referendum could possibly have achieved anything. Discourse about the EU in the UK is not based on facts. The EU would never have given compromises on freedom of movement, or the single market, and there wasn't anything else specific that people were asking for.

[NeedMoreTea]

It may not have achieved much at all, certainly nothing on freedom of movement, but like previous treaties he could have come back with something.

With a negotiating stance of "they just voted out, what can we give to avoid this?", I am sure some package that didn't compromise the aims of the EU too far, or cost billions, could have been worked out.

Now, whether a second referendum would have swung back to remain, now I'm clueless. :)

[growlist]

UK economy at least seems in rude health overall, so reputational damage doesn't seem to have affected business.

[stordoff]

> Ireland (again) this time on the Lisbon Treaty - 2008 then 2009

It wasn't just a straight re-vote through. Selected reasons for voting no, according to The Times (bearing in mind it was only 53:47 to no):

> Protect neutrality - 10%

> Keep commissioner - 10%

> Protect tax system - 8%

And according to Gallop (for the European Commission):

> To safeguard Irish neutrality in security and defence matters - 6%

> We will lose our right to have an Irish Commissioner in every Commission - 6%

> To protect our tax system - 6%

> It would allow the introduction of European legislation in Ireland, such as gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia - 2%

Consequently, The European Council agreed that:

> the necessary legal guarantees would be given that nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon made any change of any kind to the Union's competences on taxation for any member state;

> the necessary legal guarantees would be given that the Treaty of Lisbon did not prejudice the security and defence policy of any member state, including Ireland's traditional policy of neutrality;

> the necessary legal guarantees would be given that neither the Treaty of Lisbon (including the Justice and Home Affairs provisions), nor the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, affected the provisions of the Irish Constitution in relation to the right to life, education and the family in any way;

> in accordance with the necessary legal procedures, a Decision would be taken to retain Ireland's Commissioner, provided that the Treaty of Lisbon was ratified;

> the high importance attached to issues including workers' rights would be confirmed.

[tsukurimashou]

Do you mean 1st of Jan 2020?

[se6]

Sorry, my mistake. Jan 2020 indeed!

[patchtopic]

this is possibly the real reason why the right wing press are/have been banging the brexit drum so hard.. tax havens...

[radicalbyte]

That would certainly explain their position and also the kind of persons who are pushing for No Deal.

[na85]

Are you sure it's not to the detriment of very few? How many UK citizens are able to take advantage of said tax havens?

Edit: I misunderstood

[megablast]

It is to detriment of all the people that miss out on those tax dollars that should be paid.