Chat Forum
It is currently Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:59 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81943 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1632, 1633, 1634, 1635, 1636, 1637, 1638 ... 2049  Next

Whether you can or can't actually vote IRL, In, or Out
In 60%  60%  [ 246 ]
Out 40%  40%  [ 164 ]
Total votes : 410
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:43 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 52254
c69 wrote:
One can only worry about posters of very low intelligence who time and time again call others stupid or dim randomly.



I'll ask you the same question what was Ireland's corporation tax in let's say 1998 ? 12.5% or much much higher ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:51 pm
Posts: 1276
camroc1 wrote:
Chips wrote:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htm

Quote:
"Member States cannot give tax benefits to selected companies – this is illegal under EU state aid rules. The Commission's investigation concluded that Ireland granted illegal tax benefits to Apple, which enabled it to pay substantially less tax than other businesses over many years. In fact, this selective treatment allowed Apple to pay an effective corporate tax rate of 1 per cent on its European profits in 2003 down to 0.005 per cent in 2014."



:shock:

Incorrect.

See my post on 07.03.18 at 17.15 on page 1629.



Here's the brass plates...

Quote:
Following an in-depth state aid investigation launched in June 2014, the European Commission has concluded that two tax rulings issued by Ireland to Apple have substantially and artificially lowered the tax paid by Apple in Ireland since 1991. The rulings endorsed a way to establish the taxable profits for two Irish incorporated companies of the Apple group (Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe), which did not correspond to economic reality: almost all sales profits recorded by the two companies were internally attributed to a "head office". The Commission's assessment showed that these "head offices" existed only on paper and could not have generated such profits. These profits allocated to the "head offices" were not subject to tax in any country under specific provisions of the Irish tax law, which are no longer in force. As a result of the allocation method endorsed in the tax rulings, Apple only paid an effective corporate tax rate that declined from 1% in 2003 to 0.005% in 2014 on the profits of Apple Sales International.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 40584
Location: Dublin
c69 wrote:
iarmhiman wrote:
c69 wrote:
One can only worry about posters of very low intelligence who time and time again call others stupid or dim randomly.


He calls people "thick" or "fick" as pronounced in Essex.

It's a tactic to denigrate people's intellect and make them less than they are.
Nasty deliberate and time and time again done deliberately to make posters feel worthless.
He knows what he is doing :(


It's bullying.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:45 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 52254
Quote:
I'm an engineer. This is not my place to make any comments on finance.


No you and fat c unt were laughing about my posts to Cammy, was my point right or wrong, you can f ucking read , I've posted lots of links.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 40584
Location: Dublin
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
I'm an engineer. This is not my place to make any comments on finance.


No you and fat c unt were laughing about my posts to Cammy, was my point right or wrong, you can f ucking read , I've posted lots of links.


Bigot :shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:46 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 52254
iarmhiman wrote:
c69 wrote:
iarmhiman wrote:
c69 wrote:
One can only worry about posters of very low intelligence who time and time again call others stupid or dim randomly.


He calls people "thick" or "fick" as pronounced in Essex.

It's a tactic to denigrate people's intellect and make them less than they are.
Nasty deliberate and time and time again done deliberately to make posters feel worthless.
He knows what he is doing :(


It's bullying.


C69's just trying to stay away from the fridge, what's your down fall ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:47 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 52254
iarmhiman wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
I'm an engineer. This is not my place to make any comments on finance.


No you and fat c unt were laughing about my posts to Cammy, was my point right or wrong, you can f ucking read , I've posted lots of links.


Bigot :shock:



He's a great big fat c unt.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 40584
Location: Dublin
bimboman wrote:
iarmhiman wrote:
c69 wrote:
iarmhiman wrote:
c69 wrote:
One can only worry about posters of very low intelligence who time and time again call others stupid or dim randomly.


He calls people "thick" or "fick" as pronounced in Essex.

It's a tactic to denigrate people's intellect and make them less than they are.
Nasty deliberate and time and time again done deliberately to make posters feel worthless.
He knows what he is doing :(


It's bullying.


C69's just trying to stay away from the fridge, what's your down fall ?


You're well in negative equity of moral high ground now Bimbo:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:49 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 52254
camroc1 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/corporate-tax-rate

Quote:
The tax rate (which we've had since 1958 btw, it is no Johnny come lately) may be what initially attracts some, but it's not why they


2002 is the new 1958.


Bimbo showing yet again that Google is the limit of his knowledge of Ireland and its history.



Quote:
In the 1998 Budget (in December 1997) Finance Minister, Charlie McCreevy[5] introduced the legislation for a new regime of corporation tax that led to the introduction of the 12.5% rate of corporation tax for trading income from 1 January 2003. The legislation was contained in section 71 of the Finance Act 1999 and provided for a phased introduction of the 12.5% rate from 32% for the financial year 1998 to 12.5% commencing from 1 January 2003. A higher rate of corporation tax of 25% was introduced for passive income, income from a foreign trade and some development and mining activities. Manufacturing relief, effectively a 10% rate of corporation tax, was ended on 31 December 2002. For companies that were claiming this relief before 23 July 1998 it would still be available until 31 January 2010. The 10% rate for IFSC activiites ended on 31 December 2005 and after this date these companies moved to the 12.5% rate provided their trade qualified as an Irish trading activity


Is this wrong then ?

Here's an article from 1998 Irish times predicting the cut:

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/cor ... 3-1.150440

As ever Bimbo, you can't see the wood for the trees.

Have a read :

https://www.independent.ie/business/iri ... 56641.html


Now Cammy, does this just state the tax was introduced in 1958 ? It certainly doesn't say anything about the rate does it ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 42468
Bimbo, the truth is that Ireland has used low Corporate taxation as an aid to attract FDIs/MNCs to Ireland since the mid 1950's. This is a fact. The rate charged has moved around the 10% - 12.5% rate, and the activities covered, have depended on tweaks caused by politics, eg the anglo Irish FTA of 1965, joining the EEC in 1973, various treaty amendments to the EU, growth in financial instruments etc.etc.

But none of that changes the basic fact that low corporation tax rates have been used as a policy by Ireland to attract FDI since the mid fifties.

I'd retire as gracefully as you can at this stage, you are disputing the actual economic history of Ireland.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:51 pm
Posts: 1276
This really is shocking...

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htm

Quote:
Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe are two Irish incorporated companies that are fully-owned by the Apple group, ultimately controlled by the US parent, Apple Inc...

...The taxable profits of Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe in Ireland are determined by a tax ruling granted by Ireland in 1991, which in 2007 was replaced by a similar second tax ruling...

...The two tax rulings issued by Ireland concerned the internal allocation of these profits within Apple Sales International (rather than the wider set-up of Apple's sales operations in Europe). Specifically, they endorsed a split of the profits for tax purposes in Ireland: Under the agreed method, most profits were internally allocated away from Ireland to a "head office" within Apple Sales International. This "head office" was not based in any country and did not have any employees or own premises. Its activities consisted solely of occasional board meetings. Only a fraction of the profits of Apple Sales International were allocated to its Irish branch and subject to tax in Ireland. The remaining vast majority of profits were allocated to the "head office", where they remained untaxed.

Therefore, only a small percentage of Apple Sales International's profits were taxed in Ireland, and the rest was taxed nowhere. In 2011, for example (according to figures released at US Senate public hearings), Apple Sales International recorded profits of US$ 22 billion (c.a. €16 billion[1]) but under the terms of the tax ruling only around €50 million were considered taxable in Ireland, leaving €15.95 billion of profits untaxed. As a result, Apple Sales International paid less than €10 million of corporate tax in Ireland in 2011 – an effective tax rate of about 0.05% on its overall annual profits. In subsequent years, Apple Sales International's recorded profits continued to increase but the profits considered taxable in Ireland under the terms of the tax ruling did not. Thus this effective tax rate decreased further to only 0.005% in 2014.




Well worth a read, especially if you take your worldview from Camroc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:59 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 52254
camroc1 wrote:
Bimbo, the truth is that Ireland has used low Corporate taxation as an aid to attract FDIs/MNCs to Ireland since the mid 1950's. This is a fact. The rate charged has moved around the 10% - 12.5% rate, and the activities covered, have depended on tweaks caused by politics, eg the anglo Irish FTA of 1965, joining the EEC in 1973, various treaty amendments to the EU, growth in financial instruments etc.etc.

But none of that changes the basic fact that low corporation tax rates have been used as a policy by Ireland to attract FDI since the mid fifties.

I'd retire as gracefully as you can at this stage, you are disputing the actual economic history of Ireland.



The rate charged has moved around the 10% - 12.5% , you're claiming 50% is moving around 10-12.5% ? :lol:


I posted the f ucking history link you liar, the corpration tax rate has been up at 50% , the tax in the 1960's was in addition to income tax for companies and had clauses on foreign earnings, nothing like. 12.5% was "since" 1958'as you claimed you are a liar and having been caught you scuddle away as retiring "gracefully" .


You genuinly stand alone even in this mad place as someone who just makes up their own versions of things, the article you posted defending your claim on "rate" didn't even support your views.

This is why when you post about Irish / British history you're laughed at.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 42468
With all due respect Bimbo, all you've shown is a complete lack of knowledge of how the Irish economy has progressed since the second inter-party government in the mid 50s more or less kicked FFs nationalistic "Ourselves Alone" economic policy to touch. No amount of playing with Uncle Google can hide your basic ignorance.

I'm actually not sure what point you're trying to make ?

It's a historical fact that Ireland has used low corporate tax rates to attract FDI to Ireland since the mid 50's.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 5129
Robbed from reddit

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16050
c69 wrote:
iarmhiman wrote:
c69 wrote:
One can only worry about posters of very low intelligence who time and time again call others stupid or dim randomly.


He calls people "thick" or "fick" as pronounced in Essex.

It's a tactic to denigrate people's intellect and make them less than they are.
Nasty deliberate and time and time again done deliberately to make posters feel worthless.
He knows what he is doing :(

I'll say!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 8:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11301
ID2 wrote:
Robbed from reddit

Image



They should look at education. It appears to be over funded for the results they are achieving.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25661
Cant wait to spend my £36 on a new blue passport.

Screw you Juncker!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25661
The Daily Mail and Express hate foreign aid too.

Could we not just pay Brexiters an £80 a year supplement to keep quiet?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5775
Location: Still at the end of the world
ID2 wrote:
Robbed from reddit

Image


The question is; how much return does that £36 give us?

Not sure about the figures for England, but Wales receive an average EU contribution of 680m per year. The population of Wales is 3m. So £36 x 3m = 108m. No brainer why Wales is better off in. And those figures don't include our trade with the EU which is estimated at 8.62b per year.

But what do facts and figures mean when you can have blue passports and a sovereignty that was never lost back.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:10 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 52254
camroc1 wrote:
With all due respect Bimbo, all you've shown is a complete lack of knowledge of how the Irish economy has progressed since the second inter-party government in the mid 50s more or less kicked FFs nationalistic "Ourselves Alone" economic policy to touch. No amount of playing with Uncle Google can hide your basic ignorance.

I'm actually not sure what point you're trying to make ?

It's a historical fact that Ireland has used low corporate tax rates to attract FDI to Ireland since the mid 50's.



You stated ireland had that "rate" since 1958, you even double down with the always around 10-12.5%, this is clearly total f ucking nonsense, I posted a decent link right at the start showing it at 50% for decades, instead of going oh yes "I was wrong" (like I did on the Google dates for example) you. Made a lpost about googling n all that.

Now you are still saying its only "lack of understanding" that I don't view either the statement "same rate" or "around 10-12.5% as atoll being accurate when the rate was for decades 50%. There's no arguing that 50%'and 12,5% would have the same economic effect, nor that the policies are in any way similar you're WRONG.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25507
Location: Gypsy Jack Nowell
bimboman wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
With all due respect Bimbo, all you've shown is a complete lack of knowledge of how the Irish economy has progressed since the second inter-party government in the mid 50s more or less kicked FFs nationalistic "Ourselves Alone" economic policy to touch. No amount of playing with Uncle Google can hide your basic ignorance.

I'm actually not sure what point you're trying to make ?

It's a historical fact that Ireland has used low corporate tax rates to attract FDI to Ireland since the mid 50's.



You stated ireland had that "rate" since 1958, you even double down with the always around 10-12.5%, this is clearly total f ucking nonsense, I posted a decent link right at the start showing it at 50% for decades, instead of going oh yes "I was wrong" (like I did on the Google dates for example) you. Made a lpost about googling n all that.

Now you are still saying its only "lack of understanding" that I don't view either the statement "same rate" or "around 10-12.5% as atoll being accurate when the rate was for decades 50%. There's no arguing that 50%'and 12,5% would have the same economic effect, nor that the policies are in any way similar you're WRONG.


When you can’t see that you’re being baited it’s time to step back, yes you are correct- no they don’t care.

Guess who gets the stomach ulcer? Let it go. Save your breath (fingers).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:23 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 52254
easyray wrote:
ID2 wrote:
Robbed from reddit

Image


The question is; how much return does that £36 give us?

Not sure about the figures for England, but Wales receive an average EU contribution of 680m per year. The population of Wales is 3m. So £36 x 3m = 108m. No brainer why Wales is better off in. And those figures don't include our trade with the EU which is estimated at 8.62b per year.

But what do facts and figures mean when you can have blue passports and a sovereignty that was never lost back.



Doesn't stop lefties banging on about "austerity" with our historical,low rates still meaning we pay £280 quid already in debt interest.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:25 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 52254
DragsterDriver wrote:
bimboman wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
With all due respect Bimbo, all you've shown is a complete lack of knowledge of how the Irish economy has progressed since the second inter-party government in the mid 50s more or less kicked FFs nationalistic "Ourselves Alone" economic policy to touch. No amount of playing with Uncle Google can hide your basic ignorance.

I'm actually not sure what point you're trying to make ?

It's a historical fact that Ireland has used low corporate tax rates to attract FDI to Ireland since the mid 50's.



You stated ireland had that "rate" since 1958, you even double down with the always around 10-12.5%, this is clearly total f ucking nonsense, I posted a decent link right at the start showing it at 50% for decades, instead of going oh yes "I was wrong" (like I did on the Google dates for example) you. Made a lpost about googling n all that.

Now you are still saying its only "lack of understanding" that I don't view either the statement "same rate" or "around 10-12.5% as atoll being accurate when the rate was for decades 50%. There's no arguing that 50%'and 12,5% would have the same economic effect, nor that the policies are in any way similar you're WRONG.


When you can’t see that you’re being baited it’s time to step back, yes you are correct- no they don’t care.

Guess who gets the stomach ulcer? Let it go. Save your breath (fingers).



He will, I'm as fit as a fiddle and not in the slightest bit annoyed. And while I know there some baiting I also know he's so warped he actually believes that the rate was the same since 1958 and it's worth holding up the mirror.

See it as a form of CBT for him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:51 pm
Posts: 1276
Better still, just keep posting this link...

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 12:59 pm
Posts: 550
Quote:
Not sure about the figures for England, but Wales receive an average EU contribution of 680m per year. The population of Wales is 3m. So £36 x 3m = 108m. No brainer why Wales is better off in. And those figures don't include our trade with the EU which is estimated at 8.62b per year.


But where is the money actually going? No where tangible, it's being spent on "monorails" and nothing actually get's any better for the working class people.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1459
Using the Reddit summary, how about using the EU membership fee of 0.5% to top up the benefits burden to 25% exactly? That should help the working classes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:43 am
Posts: 13210
Chips wrote:
Mullet 2 wrote:
Nice to see Toga still vigorously defending the European Commission.




Ironic that an honest Brexiteer is of greater value to the EU than a dishonest Remainer.



FTW :thumbup:



Ode to Joy


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:33 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 52254
Mullet 2 wrote:
Chips wrote:
Mullet 2 wrote:
Nice to see Toga still vigorously defending the European Commission.




Ironic that an honest Brexiteer is of greater value to the EU than a dishonest Remainer.



FTW :thumbup:



Ode to Joy



Playing at the Aviva tomorrow ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:43 am
Posts: 13210
At full time


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11301
100MileDad wrote:
Quote:
Not sure about the figures for England, but Wales receive an average EU contribution of 680m per year. The population of Wales is 3m. So £36 x 3m = 108m. No brainer why Wales is better off in. And those figures don't include our trade with the EU which is estimated at 8.62b per year.


But where is the money actually going? No where tangible, it's being spent on "monorails" and nothing actually get's any better for the working class people.


How that money is used is a matter for the British government to decide.

Not much to do with the EU.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:46 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 52254
La soule wrote:
100MileDad wrote:
Quote:
Not sure about the figures for England, but Wales receive an average EU contribution of 680m per year. The population of Wales is 3m. So £36 x 3m = 108m. No brainer why Wales is better off in. And those figures don't include our trade with the EU which is estimated at 8.62b per year.


But where is the money actually going? No where tangible, it's being spent on "monorails" and nothing actually get's any better for the working class people.


How that money is used is a matter for the British government to decide.

Not much to do with the EU.



Yeah, I'm not sure you understand how the EU works.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11301
bimboman wrote:
La soule wrote:
100MileDad wrote:
Quote:
Not sure about the figures for England, but Wales receive an average EU contribution of 680m per year. The population of Wales is 3m. So £36 x 3m = 108m. No brainer why Wales is better off in. And those figures don't include our trade with the EU which is estimated at 8.62b per year.


But where is the money actually going? No where tangible, it's being spent on "monorails" and nothing actually get's any better for the working class people.


How that money is used is a matter for the British government to decide.

Not much to do with the EU.



Yeah, I'm not sure you understand how the EU works.


Of course not.

Only you understand it you fucjing genius.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 12:59 pm
Posts: 550
It's Friday, I can't be arsed with La Soule, off you go onto ignore, see you Monday.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11301
This is devastating news.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11301
May's speech has at least enabled her to rally businesses in the UK behind her with Carolyn Fairbairn asking the EU for a more flexible approach to the negotiations.

http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/ ... _3234.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:43 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 52254
La soule wrote:
May's speech has at least enabled her to rally businesses in the UK behind her with Carolyn Fairbairn asking the EU for a more flexible approach to the negotiations.

http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/ ... _3234.html




Who voted for her ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11301
bimboman wrote:
La soule wrote:
May's speech has at least enabled her to rally businesses in the UK behind her with Carolyn Fairbairn asking the EU for a more flexible approach to the negotiations.

http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/ ... _3234.html




Who voted for her ?


I dont know.

Point of your question please?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:54 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 52254
La soule wrote:
bimboman wrote:
La soule wrote:
May's speech has at least enabled her to rally businesses in the UK behind her with Carolyn Fairbairn asking the EU for a more flexible approach to the negotiations.

http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/ ... _3234.html




Who voted for her ?


I dont know.

Point of your question please?



She has no mandate to ask for anything from the EU. Anyway the EU will be flexible and a deal is on its way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11301
bimboman wrote:
La soule wrote:
bimboman wrote:
La soule wrote:
May's speech has at least enabled her to rally businesses in the UK behind her with Carolyn Fairbairn asking the EU for a more flexible approach to the negotiations.

http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/ ... _3234.html




Who voted for her ?


I dont know.

Point of your question please?



She has no mandate to ask for anything from the EU. Anyway the EU will be flexible and a deal is on its way.


OK. I was not implying this at all. I was just mentioning that Businesses appear to be backing May more than before that speech.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:58 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 52254
Everybody is backing May a little bit more post the speech.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81943 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1632, 1633, 1634, 1635, 1636, 1637, 1638 ... 2049  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: backrow, BBC 2, bessantj, bimboman, Bing [Bot], Conspicuous, Gazzamonster, Google Adsense [Bot], Gospel, Hong Kong, inactionman, LandOTurk, Lenny, Lobby, Monk Zombie, penguin, P in VG, Podge, Santa, Short Man Syndrome, unseenwork, willmac, ZappaMan and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group