This seems like a good tax measure and other countries should consider it. Why??
The problem is that the big five tech firms and other multinational play tax and accounting games at a global level to get around playing there fair share of local taxes.
In Australia most of the big tech firms pay virtual no tax despite making billions of dollars in our country. Not because they aren’t profitable but because they just move the money around to make it look like they make no money.... rubbish.
This is unfair to local businesses that don’t have the ability / scale of business to do this and thus pay a tax rate closer to 30% in Australia vs the virtually nothing that these companies pay.
The second problem with this is that these companies are generating money in other nations while providing little back. These companies use our airports our roads our infrastructure yet pay virtually nothing to help keep it going despite using it.. just take take take.
This helps funnel billions of dollars back to a few rich Americans in Silicon Valley. I get why you would be pro this happening if you’re American, cause it is good for the US. For the rest of the world it’s not great and nations are looking for a way to fix this.
It’s a difficult problem for a country to solve as a country can only make tax laws over there own area. Trying to get a global tax agreement between nations to stop this is extremely difficult so good on France for saying enough is enough.... you won’t pay your fair share, fine we will start going after your revenue. I hope many more do
All Apple sales are taxed in Europe with VAT. As for company profits, since Apple is a US corporation it is US where that corporation tax is due. What would you feel if EU begins taxing Australian corporations just because they export goods and services to EU?
Local subsidiaries of Apple are already paying their corporation tax in the countries where they are established. This is not those profits EU is trying to hunt. EU is in the pursuit of root Apple’s profits.
@macplusplus , VAT is not a tax Apple is paying. They are a collections agent, turning over the end-user taxes they've collected on a countries behalf. It's a consumer tax not a corporate one. That would be like me claiming I'm paying thousands in sales tax every year from the sales I make to my customers. No. it's my customers paying the tax, I'm simply a collections agent for the state.
And no the French are not after Apple's worldwide revenues either. This is for services provided to French citizens living in France, but where the majority of those profits are currently being shifted to Ireland where a reduced rate is paid instead of subject to taxation in the country where the service was provided: France.
That's a typical accounting tactic, tax trickery in essence IMO, used by big multinationals and not available to the vast majority of companies doing business in France. (According to a recent article little tax may be paid in Ireland as well with Apple purportedly moving operations to Jersey within the last year to avoid it)
Apple is a just collection agent for VAT but so what? That’s still a tax take for the French government. Taking corporate profits is an entirely different thing and it goes against the existing tax treaties.
(Taxing revenue rather than profit is also problematic as is setting the tax to 3% of all revenue past a threshold. A threshold designed to stop the tax being taxed on French service providers perhaps).
Do you actually believe this? There have been countless news stories about how Apple manipulated their operations to shift most EU profits into Ireland to minimise their tax liability. They've been fined for it before.
You cannot shift a profit. Don’t even try. Detecting profit is the most basic thing in a tax investigation. To shift a profit you have to commit rough crimes such as shill invoicing, money laundering and alike. Companies at Apple’s scale are continuously monitored during their operations by the tax authorities, SEC etc...
This seems like a good tax measure and other countries should consider it. Why??
The problem is that the big five tech firms and other multinational play tax and accounting games at a global level to get around playing there fair share of local taxes.
In Australia most of the big tech firms pay virtual no tax despite making billions of dollars in our country. Not because they aren’t profitable but because they just move the money around to make it look like they make no money.... rubbish.
This is unfair to local businesses that don’t have the ability / scale of business to do this and thus pay a tax rate closer to 30% in Australia vs the virtually nothing that these companies pay.
The second problem with this is that these companies are generating money in other nations while providing little back. These companies use our airports our roads our infrastructure yet pay virtually nothing to help keep it going despite using it.. just take take take.
This helps funnel billions of dollars back to a few rich Americans in Silicon Valley. I get why you would be pro this happening if you’re American, cause it is good for the US. For the rest of the world it’s not great and nations are looking for a way to fix this.
It’s a difficult problem for a country to solve as a country can only make tax laws over there own area. Trying to get a global tax agreement between nations to stop this is extremely difficult so good on France for saying enough is enough.... you won’t pay your fair share, fine we will start going after your revenue. I hope many more do
All Apple sales are taxed in Europe with VAT. As for company profits, since Apple is a US corporation it is US where that corporation tax is due. What would you feel if EU begins taxing Australian corporations just because they export goods and services to EU?
Local subsidiaries of Apple are already paying their corporation tax in the countries where they are established. This is not those profits EU is trying to hunt. EU is in the pursuit of root Apple’s profits.
@macplusplus , VAT is not a tax Apple is paying. They are a collections agent, turning over the end-user taxes they've collected on a countries behalf. It's a consumer tax not a corporate one. That would be like me claiming I'm paying thousands in sales tax every year from teh sales I make to my customers. No. it's my customers paying the tax, I'm simply a collections agent for the state.
And no the French are not after Apple's worldwide revenues either. This is for services provided to French citizens living in France, but where the majority of those profits are currently being shifted to Ireland where a reduced rate is paid instead of subject to taxation in the country where the service was provided: France.
That's a typical accounting tactic, tax trickery in essence, used by big multinationals and not available to the vast majority of companies doing business there. (According to a recent article little tax may be paid in Ireland as well with Apple purportedly moving operations to Jersey within the last year to avoid it)
Before inventing conspiracy theories get informed. There
There is an Apple subsidiary in almost ALL COUNTRIES Apple operates. Those subsidiaries are TAXED in the countries they are established. Cork may get additional profits over those subsidiaries, such as when exporting hardware to those countries. If so then obviously it will be taxed in Ireland. Nothing is shifted nowhere, every company in the chain gets its profits and pays its taxes LOCALLY. Find another artist for your wet financial porn dreams.
Of course there may be differing political opinions or stances regarding international trade and fiscal issues, but things change when they are ported to legal and investigative platforms, because those platforms work on technical grounds, not on journalists’ opinions. And apparently Irish investigation by EU led to nowhere and France tries a different course of action...
Do you actually believe this? There have been countless news stories about how Apple manipulated their operations to shift most EU profits into Ireland to minimise their tax liability. They've been fined for it before.
You cannot shift a profit. Don’t even try. Detecting profit is the most basic thing in a tax investigation. To shift a profit you have to commit rough crimes such as shill invoicing and alike. Companies at Apple’s scale are continuously monitored during their operations by the tax authorities, SEC etc...
No idea what you're talking about, lots of forms of profit shifting can be legal or in a grey area, such as IP movement, setting up additional service companies (i.e. the Ireland operations entities) and digital service locationing in friendlier tax locales (e.g. iTunes S.à.r.l. in Luxembourg). The latter of those is precisely what this new French tax law is being aimed at. In addition, Apple has been found to have used illegal measures, see the link that I handily provided you
Do you actually believe this? There have been countless news stories about how Apple manipulated their operations to shift most EU profits into Ireland to minimise their tax liability. They've been fined for it before.
You cannot shift a profit. Don’t even try. Detecting profit is the most basic thing in a tax investigation. To shift a profit you have to commit rough crimes such as shill invoicing and alike. Companies at Apple’s scale are continuously monitored during their operations by the tax authorities, SEC etc...
No idea what you're talking about, lots of forms of profit shifting can be legal or in a grey area, such as IP movement, setting up additional service companies (i.e. the Ireland operations entities) and digital service locationing in friendlier tax locales (e.g. iTunes S.à.r.l. in Luxembourg). The latter of those is precisely what this new French tax law is being aimed at. In addition, Apple has been found to have used illegal measures, see the link that I handily provided you
OK thank you, we have learned your political opinions, FWIW.
I'm not sure which country you are from, but looking at high quality health care and affordable education provided in most of the European Union, it bears evidence that high taxes, when used the right way, do pay social dividends.
Complete baloney. The ONLY reason the EU has the social programs it has is because the EU members have NO military budgets to speak of. Instead the EU relies on the United States to protect it from the Russian Bear, the Middle East Islamic radicals. If the U.S. pulled out militarily from the EU and NATO those countries would have no choice but to dramatically increase their military budgets and those social programs would suffer big time. For over 70 years now the U.S. has spent its treasure to keep the peace in Europe.
Now that is baloney. The absence of conflict in Europe is precisely because of the EU.
As for external threats and U.S 'protection', simply pull out of NATO if it costs too much!
That won't happen because the U.S wants to keep its military bases in Europe. It wants to continue selling arms. It needs NATO allies. Without them (however 'small' their financial contribution) the Gulf wars would not have been possible and with so much debt, the U.S is rapidly approaching a point where it might have hardware to parade around but no be able to use in actual conflict. Wars are expensive.
I'll take a balanced welfare state over any of that.
You're believing the spin from the Eurocrats I'm afraid, the EU has done NOTHING to prevent conflict in Europe. When Yugoslavia split and war broke out, including ethnic cleansing, it wasn't the EU that stopped it, it was NATO with the USA and UK at the forefront. As for the current ongoing war in the Ukraine, that's solely due to the EU courting the Ukraine to get them to join as part of their ongoing aggressive expansionist policy. Every observer pointed out that Russia would never allow Ukraine to join, but the EU persisted. Meanwhile there is civil unrest across Europe - weekly riots in France for months - and the rise of extremists on both left and right due to the EU's disasterous Euro policy. Economists warned back in the 90's that allowing countries with divergent economies to use a common currency would result in economic collapse, so rules were put in place to stop it. But when Eurocrats realised that Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and France would fail the test and be excluded from the Euro, they decided to ignore their own rules. As a result they set in train the sovereign debt crisis that erupted in 2009 and is still ongoing. The reason they did this was simple to trap these countries in the EU, leaving after having adopted the Euro would be nearly impossible.
The USA and Canda should consider a mutual defence pact with a smaller set of countries - the UK and France account for nearly 50% of ALL of europe's military capability. In the long term, the like of Macron in France and the Eurocrats in Brussels want to undermine NATO and rely more on an EU Army. The hilarious thing is they don't want to fund it properly, for example, Germany's armed forces reduced to a token force with most ships, aircraft, and submarines unsable due to repairs being required.
You are mixing different things up.
Yugoslavia was not the EU and its problems were rooted in a completely non-EU world.
Peace and stability is very much one of the pillars of the EU and the vast majority of EU citizens are pro EU (and I'm including UK citizens here).
There are rules. Greece broke them (it lied) to join the euro. The consequences were hard to swallow but totally necessary. The blame lies - ultimately - with those who took Greece to where they did: its politicians. The world financial crisis also had roots. Do you remember where? The euro crisis was simply made worse by that but is now better prepared for future depressions. Of course, the U.S would have loved to see the euro fail.
There is no civil unrest in Europe. There were violent protests in a few places in France - and for a clear reason. They were not anti EU protests. This is nothing new for the French. Have you ever seen how they deal with Spanish tomatoes?
Do you really understand why some elements of the EU would like a unified EU controlled armed forces? It isn't hard to figure out and is nothing new. The EDC dates back to the fifties! At some point an alternative idea will get support and move forward. The U.S will not be happy when that happens.
Ukraine?
Ukraine wants to be rid of Russia as a threat. The only way that is going to happen is by joining the EU. We know the people of Ukraine are willing to give their lives to achieve their goals but first they must get their house in order and tackle corruption. The EU has a strategic interest in Ukraine and a pressing need to reduce its dependence on Russian energy. That is already in progress.
It's not 'euro spin' it's happening and people are supporting it in spite of populist movements peddling nationalistic manifests in most countries.
It’s not surprising you’re confused if you quote and believe The Guardian newspaper!!! Yugoslavia wasn’t it the EU but the EU tried to stop the fighting the genocide by diplomatic means. It was up to NATO to stop it the only way possible, by military action. Afterwards after the fighting the EU was allowed in as a peacekeeping and policing force.
The EU knew the Greeks lied about their economy to pass the rules. Italy Spain, Portugal and France didn’t even have to lie, the EU just ignored its own rules. And Greece’s problems are nothing compared to what Italy has. The Eurozone crisis was an inevitability, a bomb waiting to go off at any time. It just happened to have been the drying up of liquidity in the international markets in 2008 that set it off. You should be thankful, if that hadn’t triggered it and the same issue had gone on for another 10 years then even Germany would hVe been bankrupted by it.
It may not be covered by the europhile media but there’s been weekly disturbances or riots by the yellow jackets for the last 34 weeks in Paris. And you obviously are ignorant of the rise of the AfD and waves of attacks against immigrants in Germany.
As for the Ukraine, if it ever does submit a membership application to the EU, Russian tanks will arrive in Kiev before the application arrives in Brussels.
And God help Europe if the EU thinks it can defend itself military without NATO. Only Poland would slow the Russians before they arrived at the French border. At the start of the year every single German submarine was broken, the majority of their air-force grounded, and their new frigates have to carry concrete ballast because the are top heavy with a 10 degree list to starboard. The German Tornadoes can’t fly at night because the lighting of the control panel interferes with their night vision:- an aircraft the RAF has already retired. And the German Defence Minister responsible for all this? She’s the new unelected EU Commission President!!!!
It has participated in all of the recent multi-paper investigations of the last few years.
At the time of the Balkan conflict the EU had no option but diplomacy, although from the beginning NATO was seen as the best way to handle a response. It wasn't until Javier Solana became the first High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security in 1999, that the EU had a common exterior voice.
Weekly protests by yellow jackets have been widely reported (Guardian included) but the yellow jacket protests are aimed at Macron, not the EU and yesterday's protests were at best pockets of protest. A tiny minority of the people that turned out for the celebrations. After dark, we see the Anti-System come out to smash windows, burn rubbish bins and confront the police. They are not yellow jacket protesters and don't care about their protests. They are simply a form of hooligan.
As for Germany, it has long kept its head down when it comes military hardware and for obvious reasons. It also had the difficult (and extremely costly process of reunification to deal with) plus the worst world economic downturn on record.
That doesn't change the facts though and the facts are that the EU is moving to improve its defence options through more integration and efficiencies.
The EU's desire for an EU army has nothing to do with "efficiency", rather it's about weakening the member states.
For instance if Poland no longer has a standing army of their own, Brussels can order them around with ever increasing force in the years to come.
And considering a wide divide is developing between the nations of Western Europe versus Eastern on a range of issues, (migration, taxation) this is no small advantage in Brussel's favor to have an army of their own.
It is now clear you haven't read anything on the subject.
Any proposal for an EU-wide defence force would require unanimous support from all member states. Yes, even those on the other side of that divide you mention. They have a veto!
They are also net receivers from the EU and enjoy EU aide.
It is still early days. The Franco-German accord is just one tiny step.
If you had read anything, even at a high level, on this subject you would have understood that efficicies are one of the goals. They are referenced in one form or another, all over the place.
-- Annex the Council Conclusions on Security and Defence in the context
of the EU Global Strategy, adopted by the Council at its 3700th meeting held on 17 June 2019.--
Point 25: EDF
"Looks forward to the swift adoption and implementation of the European Defence Fund, following the common understanding reached in February by the European Parliament and the Council on the related Regulation and once an overall agreement on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 is reached. The Council stresses the importance of the Fund in helping to enhance the competitiveness, efficiency and innovation capacity of the EDTIB throughout the Union. The Council also welcomes the foreseen role of the EDF in promoting disruptive technologies for defence."
You are correct, I am not an expert on the EU.
Nevertheless as a casual observer it seems fairly self-evident the EU is a power grab by Germany and France so they can rule the Continent through the administrative state where they failed in the past militarily. And Germany does enjoy throwing its weight around. You saw this during the 2008 financial crisis and then more recently with Merkel's extremely generous migration policy which she expects all member states to fall in line with, no matter if they view her policies as needlessly reckless or not.
So the creation of an EU army is just another step in the German consolidation of power.
And I think you have to be a little bit naive to not notice the trend. For instance if Germany really cared about its military so much, they wouldn't have such trouble meeting their 2% NATO funding requirement. So their own military is not their primary concern, they merely want to be in control of everyone else's.
And then of course the EU bureaucrats are going to sell the idea of an EU army to the public on promises of greater "efficiency"!
I mean do you really expect them to say: "Hey, this is nothing but a naked power grab, I hope y'all don't mind..."
Germany is one of the least power grabbing nations on earth, these days and one of the best regarded by its neighbours. Bit odd to see someone from the US (presumably) talk about power grabbing.
Is that so?
Talk to the Hungarians or the Poles or the Greeks or the Italians...
Angela Merkel is not well liked outside the corridors of Berlin or Paris.
And just because Germany throws its weight around from inside the EU these days, doesn't mean it's not transparent who's calling the shots.
As the most populous, richest, and most productive country in the union of course they wield a lot of influence. Not sure why you're surprised by that. Antipathy towards a single leader for fairly simple policy differences is not evidence that a country is power grabbing.
Do you actually believe this? There have been countless news stories about how Apple manipulated their operations to shift most EU profits into Ireland to minimise their tax liability. They've been fined for it before.
You cannot shift a profit. Don’t even try. Detecting profit is the most basic thing in a tax investigation. To shift a profit you have to commit rough crimes such as shill invoicing, money laundering and alike. Companies at Apple’s scale are continuously monitored during their operations by the tax authorities, SEC etc...
Of course there may be differing political opinions or stances regarding international trade and fiscal issues, but things change when they are ported to legal and investigative platforms, because those platforms work on technical grounds, not on journalists’ opinions. And apparently Irish investigation by EU led to nowhere and France tries a different course of action...
What Apple has been doing is buying iProducts from China through its Irish company. It then sells those products at a higher price to yet other Apple owned subsidiaries who then sell those same products to its Apple owned distributors across Europe like Apple Germany, Apple Italy, Apple France and so on, again at some even higher price which assures there's little profit realized when the products sell to citizens in a particular country. Those Apple-owned subsidiaries are left with just enough margin in the deal to cover their costs. Because their margins and their costs are designed to be roughly equal there's not much if any taxes to pay in the countries where the sale occurred because there's not much left in the way of profits in them. All the profits were realized far up the chain and they are substantial.
So at the end of the day those profits end up sitting in Apple Ireland, or as reported now in Apple Jersey (see Paradise Papers https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41889787) and as such they are not taxable in the country where the transaction took place. But yeah, technically Apple is obligated to pay its taxes in the country where the profit was realized, and Apple might claim to pay all the taxes they are legally obligated to pay. It's just not the country where the retail sale happened.
I'm not sure which country you are from, but looking at high quality health care and affordable education provided in most of the European Union, it bears evidence that high taxes, when used the right way, do pay social dividends.
Complete baloney. The ONLY reason the EU has the social programs it has is because the EU members have NO military budgets to speak of. Instead the EU relies on the United States to protect it from the Russian Bear, the Middle East Islamic radicals. If the U.S. pulled out militarily from the EU and NATO those countries would have no choice but to dramatically increase their military budgets and those social programs would suffer big time. For over 70 years now the U.S. has spent its treasure to keep the peace in Europe.
Now that is baloney. The absence of conflict in Europe is precisely because of the EU.
As for external threats and U.S 'protection', simply pull out of NATO if it costs too much!
That won't happen because the U.S wants to keep its military bases in Europe. It wants to continue selling arms. It needs NATO allies. Without them (however 'small' their financial contribution) the Gulf wars would not have been possible and with so much debt, the U.S is rapidly approaching a point where it might have hardware to parade around but no be able to use in actual conflict. Wars are expensive.
I'll take a balanced welfare state over any of that.
You're believing the spin from the Eurocrats I'm afraid, the EU has done NOTHING to prevent conflict in Europe. When Yugoslavia split and war broke out, including ethnic cleansing, it wasn't the EU that stopped it, it was NATO with the USA and UK at the forefront. As for the current ongoing war in the Ukraine, that's solely due to the EU courting the Ukraine to get them to join as part of their ongoing aggressive expansionist policy. Every observer pointed out that Russia would never allow Ukraine to join, but the EU persisted. Meanwhile there is civil unrest across Europe - weekly riots in France for months - and the rise of extremists on both left and right due to the EU's disasterous Euro policy. Economists warned back in the 90's that allowing countries with divergent economies to use a common currency would result in economic collapse, so rules were put in place to stop it. But when Eurocrats realised that Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and France would fail the test and be excluded from the Euro, they decided to ignore their own rules. As a result they set in train the sovereign debt crisis that erupted in 2009 and is still ongoing. The reason they did this was simple to trap these countries in the EU, leaving after having adopted the Euro would be nearly impossible.
The USA and Canda should consider a mutual defence pact with a smaller set of countries - the UK and France account for nearly 50% of ALL of europe's military capability. In the long term, the like of Macron in France and the Eurocrats in Brussels want to undermine NATO and rely more on an EU Army. The hilarious thing is they don't want to fund it properly, for example, Germany's armed forces reduced to a token force with most ships, aircraft, and submarines unsable due to repairs being required.
You are mixing different things up.
Yugoslavia was not the EU and its problems were rooted in a completely non-EU world.
Peace and stability is very much one of the pillars of the EU and the vast majority of EU citizens are pro EU (and I'm including UK citizens here).
There are rules. Greece broke them (it lied) to join the euro. The consequences were hard to swallow but totally necessary. The blame lies - ultimately - with those who took Greece to where they did: its politicians. The world financial crisis also had roots. Do you remember where? The euro crisis was simply made worse by that but is now better prepared for future depressions. Of course, the U.S would have loved to see the euro fail.
There is no civil unrest in Europe. There were violent protests in a few places in France - and for a clear reason. They were not anti EU protests. This is nothing new for the French. Have you ever seen how they deal with Spanish tomatoes?
Do you really understand why some elements of the EU would like a unified EU controlled armed forces? It isn't hard to figure out and is nothing new. The EDC dates back to the fifties! At some point an alternative idea will get support and move forward. The U.S will not be happy when that happens.
Ukraine?
Ukraine wants to be rid of Russia as a threat. The only way that is going to happen is by joining the EU. We know the people of Ukraine are willing to give their lives to achieve their goals but first they must get their house in order and tackle corruption. The EU has a strategic interest in Ukraine and a pressing need to reduce its dependence on Russian energy. That is already in progress.
It's not 'euro spin' it's happening and people are supporting it in spite of populist movements peddling nationalistic manifests in most countries.
It’s not surprising you’re confused if you quote and believe The Guardian newspaper!!! Yugoslavia wasn’t it the EU but the EU tried to stop the fighting the genocide by diplomatic means. It was up to NATO to stop it the only way possible, by military action. Afterwards after the fighting the EU was allowed in as a peacekeeping and policing force.
The EU knew the Greeks lied about their economy to pass the rules. Italy Spain, Portugal and France didn’t even have to lie, the EU just ignored its own rules. And Greece’s problems are nothing compared to what Italy has. The Eurozone crisis was an inevitability, a bomb waiting to go off at any time. It just happened to have been the drying up of liquidity in the international markets in 2008 that set it off. You should be thankful, if that hadn’t triggered it and the same issue had gone on for another 10 years then even Germany would hVe been bankrupted by it.
It may not be covered by the europhile media but there’s been weekly disturbances or riots by the yellow jackets for the last 34 weeks in Paris. And you obviously are ignorant of the rise of the AfD and waves of attacks against immigrants in Germany.
As for the Ukraine, if it ever does submit a membership application to the EU, Russian tanks will arrive in Kiev before the application arrives in Brussels.
And God help Europe if the EU thinks it can defend itself military without NATO. Only Poland would slow the Russians before they arrived at the French border. At the start of the year every single German submarine was broken, the majority of their air-force grounded, and their new frigates have to carry concrete ballast because the are top heavy with a 10 degree list to starboard. The German Tornadoes can’t fly at night because the lighting of the control panel interferes with their night vision:- an aircraft the RAF has already retired. And the German Defence Minister responsible for all this? She’s the new unelected EU Commission President!!!!
It has participated in all of the recent multi-paper investigations of the last few years.
At the time of the Balkan conflict the EU had no option but diplomacy, although from the beginning NATO was seen as the best way to handle a response. It wasn't until Javier Solana became the first High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security in 1999, that the EU had a common exterior voice.
Weekly protests by yellow jackets have been widely reported (Guardian included) but the yellow jacket protests are aimed at Macron, not the EU and yesterday's protests were at best pockets of protest. A tiny minority of the people that turned out for the celebrations. After dark, we see the Anti-System come out to smash windows, burn rubbish bins and confront the police. They are not yellow jacket protesters and don't care about their protests. They are simply a form of hooligan.
As for Germany, it has long kept its head down when it comes military hardware and for obvious reasons. It also had the difficult (and extremely costly process of reunification to deal with) plus the worst world economic downturn on record.
That doesn't change the facts though and the facts are that the EU is moving to improve its defence options through more integration and efficiencies.
The EU's desire for an EU army has nothing to do with "efficiency", rather it's about weakening the member states.
For instance if Poland no longer has a standing army of their own, Brussels can order them around with ever increasing force in the years to come.
And considering a wide divide is developing between the nations of Western Europe versus Eastern on a range of issues, (migration, taxation) this is no small advantage in Brussel's favor to have an army of their own.
It is now clear you haven't read anything on the subject.
Any proposal for an EU-wide defence force would require unanimous support from all member states. Yes, even those on the other side of that divide you mention. They have a veto!
They are also net receivers from the EU and enjoy EU aide.
It is still early days. The Franco-German accord is just one tiny step.
If you had read anything, even at a high level, on this subject you would have understood that efficicies are one of the goals. They are referenced in one form or another, all over the place.
-- Annex the Council Conclusions on Security and Defence in the context
of the EU Global Strategy, adopted by the Council at its 3700th meeting held on 17 June 2019.--
Point 25: EDF
"Looks forward to the swift adoption and implementation of the European Defence Fund, following the common understanding reached in February by the European Parliament and the Council on the related Regulation and once an overall agreement on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 is reached. The Council stresses the importance of the Fund in helping to enhance the competitiveness, efficiency and innovation capacity of the EDTIB throughout the Union. The Council also welcomes the foreseen role of the EDF in promoting disruptive technologies for defence."
You are correct, I am not an expert on the EU.
Nevertheless as a casual observer it seems fairly self-evident the EU is a power grab by Germany and France so they can rule the Continent through the administrative state where they failed in the past militarily. And Germany does enjoy throwing its weight around. You saw this during the 2008 financial crisis and then more recently with Merkel's extremely generous migration policy which she expects all member states to fall in line with, no matter if they view her policies as needlessly reckless or not.
So the creation of an EU army is just another step in the German consolidation of power.
And I think you have to be a little bit naive to not notice the trend. For instance if Germany really cared about its military so much, they wouldn't have such trouble meeting their 2% NATO funding requirement. So their own military is not their primary concern, they merely want to be in control of everyone else's.
And then of course the EU bureaucrats are going to sell the idea of an EU army to the public on promises of greater "efficiency"!
I mean do you really expect them to say: "Hey, this is nothing but a naked power grab, I hope y'all don't mind..."
Germany is one of the least power grabbing nations on earth, these days and one of the best regarded by its neighbours. Bit odd to see someone from the US (presumably) talk about power grabbing.
Is that so?
Talk to the Hungarians or the Poles or the Greeks or the Italians...
Angela Merkel is not well liked outside the corridors of Berlin or Paris.
And just because Germany throws its weight around from inside the EU these days, doesn't mean it's not transparent who's calling the shots.
As the most populous, richest, and most productive country in the union of course they wield a lot of influence. Not sure why you're surprised by that. Antipathy towards a single leader for fairly simple policy differences is not evidence that a country is power grabbing.
If you want an example of power grabbing, here it is:
During the summer of 2015 Merkel threw open the borders to Germany and 1.5 million refugees flooded into Germany.
She then turned around and demanded that all EU member states take in their "fair share".
Such unilateral decision making without consulting your friends and allies is the very definition of power grabbing.
And try to tell us immigration is a "fairly simple policy difference".
I wouldn't categorise a bold, but somewhat reckless, attempt at humanitarian leadership as a power grab, and don't really get why you see it as such. How is Germany more powerful now because of it, or how might Merkel have seen that it would make her so?
So please spare us the talk of how Europe can defend itself.
Do you think that such an article is a solid argument that all the armies of the WHOLE of Europe cannot defend themselves? This kind of article is just clickbait for people to confirm their biases or preconceived ideas.
So please spare us the talk of how this is evidence of anything. (Condescending, isn't it?)
@Abalos65 - It's interesting when you come across an article which doesn't confirm your own bias, you are rather quick to dismiss it as "clickbait". I guess that makes things easy...
For many people though, when they hear the German army is so poorly funded it cannot even conduct a military exercise without having to resort to using broomsticks, it's rather eye opening.
And given that Germany has the strongest economy in Europe, if even German soldiers don't have the funds to use real guns in NATO military exercises, then I'm not sure what other country you think is magically going to rush to Europe's defense if such a need arises. The Flemish, perhaps?
Just repeating the article again doesn't make it anymore convincing. You're still saying that because one time the German army had to use broomsticks Europe is not able to defend itself. I still call that a crappy argument. And this all the while I do think that armies in Europe should have larger budgets to comply with the 2% GDP agreement. Also, thank you for assuming my stance on the topic and pointing the finger back is also not childish at all.
On an internet forum I'm not going to take an hour to write a post. Internet forums are meant for quick little snippets of info.
But if you must know, a friend of mine is a former member of the Swedish Special Protection Group, which is similar to the US's Rangers.
Him and I have had long conversations about Europe's military preparedness, and in his opinion, both Sweden as well as Europe as a whole have cut their military budgets to such a point where they're basically a joke.
And the article I posted about the German army having to use broomsticks in a NATO military exercise, is a prime example of just what a joke the European military now is.
You are free to think such an article is "clickbait", and you are free to think the Europeans are capable of defending themselves from a conventional Russian military attack. But people who are much closer to the European military scene than I presume you are, tend to differ.
"A friend of my said" -some random forum person The arguments keep getting more and more convincing.
The article you linked was not for just for 'quick info'. It was used for a cheap shot at Europe's different armies to make the point that it cannot defend itself, as you assert again in this response. I can just as easily link a Youtube video of US Army fails and make the same crappy/incorrect argument. You can say that it is just an internet forum, so I should lower myself to that kind of discourse. I won't.
Since you seem to enjoy facts so much, NATO members are supposed to spend a minimum of 2% of their GDP on defense. Germany only spends 1.2 or 1.3%, nowhere near what they should to maintain a basic combat readiness. So therefore they end up having to use broomsticks instead of rifles because their military is short of funds.
To be honest, this isn't really that difficult to understand, I'm not sure what your hangup is.
Oh, I am well aware, since I mentioned the 2% agreement in an earlier reply.
My hangup is kind of obvious is it not? The jumping to large sweeping conclusions with only clickbait articles as some kind of proof.
I'm not sure which country you are from, but looking at high quality health care and affordable education provided in most of the European Union, it bears evidence that high taxes, when used the right way, do pay social dividends.
Complete baloney. The ONLY reason the EU has the social programs it has is because the EU members have NO military budgets to speak of. Instead the EU relies on the United States to protect it from the Russian Bear, the Middle East Islamic radicals. If the U.S. pulled out militarily from the EU and NATO those countries would have no choice but to dramatically increase their military budgets and those social programs would suffer big time. For over 70 years now the U.S. has spent its treasure to keep the peace in Europe.
Now that is baloney. The absence of conflict in Europe is precisely because of the EU.
As for external threats and U.S 'protection', simply pull out of NATO if it costs too much!
That won't happen because the U.S wants to keep its military bases in Europe. It wants to continue selling arms. It needs NATO allies. Without them (however 'small' their financial contribution) the Gulf wars would not have been possible and with so much debt, the U.S is rapidly approaching a point where it might have hardware to parade around but no be able to use in actual conflict. Wars are expensive.
I'll take a balanced welfare state over any of that.
You're believing the spin from the Eurocrats I'm afraid, the EU has done NOTHING to prevent conflict in Europe. When Yugoslavia split and war broke out, including ethnic cleansing, it wasn't the EU that stopped it, it was NATO with the USA and UK at the forefront. As for the current ongoing war in the Ukraine, that's solely due to the EU courting the Ukraine to get them to join as part of their ongoing aggressive expansionist policy. Every observer pointed out that Russia would never allow Ukraine to join, but the EU persisted. Meanwhile there is civil unrest across Europe - weekly riots in France for months - and the rise of extremists on both left and right due to the EU's disasterous Euro policy. Economists warned back in the 90's that allowing countries with divergent economies to use a common currency would result in economic collapse, so rules were put in place to stop it. But when Eurocrats realised that Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and France would fail the test and be excluded from the Euro, they decided to ignore their own rules. As a result they set in train the sovereign debt crisis that erupted in 2009 and is still ongoing. The reason they did this was simple to trap these countries in the EU, leaving after having adopted the Euro would be nearly impossible.
The USA and Canda should consider a mutual defence pact with a smaller set of countries - the UK and France account for nearly 50% of ALL of europe's military capability. In the long term, the like of Macron in France and the Eurocrats in Brussels want to undermine NATO and rely more on an EU Army. The hilarious thing is they don't want to fund it properly, for example, Germany's armed forces reduced to a token force with most ships, aircraft, and submarines unsable due to repairs being required.
You are mixing different things up.
Yugoslavia was not the EU and its problems were rooted in a completely non-EU world.
Peace and stability is very much one of the pillars of the EU and the vast majority of EU citizens are pro EU (and I'm including UK citizens here).
There are rules. Greece broke them (it lied) to join the euro. The consequences were hard to swallow but totally necessary. The blame lies - ultimately - with those who took Greece to where they did: its politicians. The world financial crisis also had roots. Do you remember where? The euro crisis was simply made worse by that but is now better prepared for future depressions. Of course, the U.S would have loved to see the euro fail.
There is no civil unrest in Europe. There were violent protests in a few places in France - and for a clear reason. They were not anti EU protests. This is nothing new for the French. Have you ever seen how they deal with Spanish tomatoes?
Do you really understand why some elements of the EU would like a unified EU controlled armed forces? It isn't hard to figure out and is nothing new. The EDC dates back to the fifties! At some point an alternative idea will get support and move forward. The U.S will not be happy when that happens.
Ukraine?
Ukraine wants to be rid of Russia as a threat. The only way that is going to happen is by joining the EU. We know the people of Ukraine are willing to give their lives to achieve their goals but first they must get their house in order and tackle corruption. The EU has a strategic interest in Ukraine and a pressing need to reduce its dependence on Russian energy. That is already in progress.
It's not 'euro spin' it's happening and people are supporting it in spite of populist movements peddling nationalistic manifests in most countries.
It’s not surprising you’re confused if you quote and believe The Guardian newspaper!!! Yugoslavia wasn’t it the EU but the EU tried to stop the fighting the genocide by diplomatic means. It was up to NATO to stop it the only way possible, by military action. Afterwards after the fighting the EU was allowed in as a peacekeeping and policing force.
The EU knew the Greeks lied about their economy to pass the rules. Italy Spain, Portugal and France didn’t even have to lie, the EU just ignored its own rules. And Greece’s problems are nothing compared to what Italy has. The Eurozone crisis was an inevitability, a bomb waiting to go off at any time. It just happened to have been the drying up of liquidity in the international markets in 2008 that set it off. You should be thankful, if that hadn’t triggered it and the same issue had gone on for another 10 years then even Germany would hVe been bankrupted by it.
It may not be covered by the europhile media but there’s been weekly disturbances or riots by the yellow jackets for the last 34 weeks in Paris. And you obviously are ignorant of the rise of the AfD and waves of attacks against immigrants in Germany.
As for the Ukraine, if it ever does submit a membership application to the EU, Russian tanks will arrive in Kiev before the application arrives in Brussels.
And God help Europe if the EU thinks it can defend itself military without NATO. Only Poland would slow the Russians before they arrived at the French border. At the start of the year every single German submarine was broken, the majority of their air-force grounded, and their new frigates have to carry concrete ballast because the are top heavy with a 10 degree list to starboard. The German Tornadoes can’t fly at night because the lighting of the control panel interferes with their night vision:- an aircraft the RAF has already retired. And the German Defence Minister responsible for all this? She’s the new unelected EU Commission President!!!!
It has participated in all of the recent multi-paper investigations of the last few years.
At the time of the Balkan conflict the EU had no option but diplomacy, although from the beginning NATO was seen as the best way to handle a response. It wasn't until Javier Solana became the first High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security in 1999, that the EU had a common exterior voice.
Weekly protests by yellow jackets have been widely reported (Guardian included) but the yellow jacket protests are aimed at Macron, not the EU and yesterday's protests were at best pockets of protest. A tiny minority of the people that turned out for the celebrations. After dark, we see the Anti-System come out to smash windows, burn rubbish bins and confront the police. They are not yellow jacket protesters and don't care about their protests. They are simply a form of hooligan.
As for Germany, it has long kept its head down when it comes military hardware and for obvious reasons. It also had the difficult (and extremely costly process of reunification to deal with) plus the worst world economic downturn on record.
That doesn't change the facts though and the facts are that the EU is moving to improve its defence options through more integration and efficiencies.
The EU's desire for an EU army has nothing to do with "efficiency", rather it's about weakening the member states.
For instance if Poland no longer has a standing army of their own, Brussels can order them around with ever increasing force in the years to come.
And considering a wide divide is developing between the nations of Western Europe versus Eastern on a range of issues, (migration, taxation) this is no small advantage in Brussel's favor to have an army of their own.
It is now clear you haven't read anything on the subject.
Any proposal for an EU-wide defence force would require unanimous support from all member states. Yes, even those on the other side of that divide you mention. They have a veto!
They are also net receivers from the EU and enjoy EU aide.
It is still early days. The Franco-German accord is just one tiny step.
If you had read anything, even at a high level, on this subject you would have understood that efficicies are one of the goals. They are referenced in one form or another, all over the place.
-- Annex the Council Conclusions on Security and Defence in the context
of the EU Global Strategy, adopted by the Council at its 3700th meeting held on 17 June 2019.--
Point 25: EDF
"Looks forward to the swift adoption and implementation of the European Defence Fund, following the common understanding reached in February by the European Parliament and the Council on the related Regulation and once an overall agreement on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 is reached. The Council stresses the importance of the Fund in helping to enhance the competitiveness, efficiency and innovation capacity of the EDTIB throughout the Union. The Council also welcomes the foreseen role of the EDF in promoting disruptive technologies for defence."
You are correct, I am not an expert on the EU.
Nevertheless as a casual observer it seems fairly self-evident the EU is a power grab by Germany and France so they can rule the Continent through the administrative state where they failed in the past militarily. And Germany does enjoy throwing its weight around. You saw this during the 2008 financial crisis and then more recently with Merkel's extremely generous migration policy which she expects all member states to fall in line with, no matter if they view her policies as needlessly reckless or not.
So the creation of an EU army is just another step in the German consolidation of power.
And I think you have to be a little bit naive to not notice the trend. For instance if Germany really cared about its military so much, they wouldn't have such trouble meeting their 2% NATO funding requirement. So their own military is not their primary concern, they merely want to be in control of everyone else's.
And then of course the EU bureaucrats are going to sell the idea of an EU army to the public on promises of greater "efficiency"!
I mean do you really expect them to say: "Hey, this is nothing but a naked power grab, I hope y'all don't mind..."
Germany is one of the least power grabbing nations on earth, these days and one of the best regarded by its neighbours. Bit odd to see someone from the US (presumably) talk about power grabbing.
Is that so?
Talk to the Hungarians or the Poles or the Greeks or the Italians...
Angela Merkel is not well liked outside the corridors of Berlin or Paris.
And just because Germany throws its weight around from inside the EU these days, doesn't mean it's not transparent who's calling the shots.
As the most populous, richest, and most productive country in the union of course they wield a lot of influence. Not sure why you're surprised by that. Antipathy towards a single leader for fairly simple policy differences is not evidence that a country is power grabbing.
If you want an example of power grabbing, here it is:
During the summer of 2015 Merkel threw open the borders to Germany and 1.5 million refugees flooded into Germany.
She then turned around and demanded that all EU member states take in their "fair share".
Such unilateral decision making without consulting your friends and allies is the very definition of power grabbing.
And try to tell us immigration is a "fairly simple policy difference".
I wouldn't categorise a bold, but somewhat reckless, attempt at humanitarian leadership as a power grab, and don't really get why you see it as such. How is Germany more powerful now because of it, or how might Merkel have seen that it would make her so?
If Germany wanted to accept 1.5 million refugees and house them within Germany, no problem.
But to turn around and demand all member states take in their "fair share", is an authoritarian power play.
In essence Merkel was saying, "I'm the boss, do as I say."
If the EU wants to consider itself a democracy rather than a dictatorship run from Berlin, then you can't be pulling stunts like that.
What demands are you talking about? Several EU countries were (and probably still are) not meeting their treaty commitments to accommodate refugees. I don't see much wrong with requesting that other countries step up to the plate and do what they said they would. And in the context of the greatest refugee crisis the EU has ever seen.
Do you actually believe this? There have been countless news stories about how Apple manipulated their operations to shift most EU profits into Ireland to minimise their tax liability. They've been fined for it before.
You cannot shift a profit. Don’t even try. Detecting profit is the most basic thing in a tax investigation. To shift a profit you have to commit rough crimes such as shill invoicing, money laundering and alike. Companies at Apple’s scale are continuously monitored during their operations by the tax authorities, SEC etc...
Of course there may be differing political opinions or stances regarding international trade and fiscal issues, but things change when they are ported to legal and investigative platforms, because those platforms work on technical grounds, not on journalists’ opinions. And apparently Irish investigation by EU led to nowhere and France tries a different course of action...
What Apple has been doing is buying iProducts from China through its Irish company. It then sells those products at a higher price to yet other Apple owned subsidiaries who then sell those same products to its Apple owned distributors across Europe like Apple Germany, Apple Italy, Apple France and so on, again at some even higher price which assures there's little profit realized when the products sell to citizens in a particular country. Those Apple-owned subsidiaries are left with just enough margin in the deal to cover their costs. Because their margins and their costs are designed to be roughly equal there's not much if any taxes to pay in the countries where the sale occurred because there's not much left in the way of profits in them. All the profits were realized far up the chain and they are substantial.
So at the end of the day those profits end up sitting in Apple Ireland, or as reported now in Apple Jersey (see Paradise Papers https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41889787) and as such they are not taxable in the country where the transaction took place. But yeah, technically Apple is obligated to pay its taxes in the country where the profit was realized, and Apple might claim to pay all the taxes they are legally obligated to pay. It's just not the country where the retail sale happened.
"The action was brought by Italian prosecutors following a probe which alleged that Apple had failed to pay €879m in taxes in the country.
However, Apple and Italian authorities came to a settlement whereby the six-month jail sentence for the executive has been converted into the payment of a €45,000 settlement"
The affair is settled because as described in the article this is a simple accounting error that may happen to any business. And if Apple is misled in such a way this is the fault of Apple Italy, they should follow the tax laws of their country better. You don't know who sells to whom, the pyramidal scheme you invented is pure fiction, show me the box and the invoice...
There: €45.000 in Italy. Apple is caught on the job as a tax evader ! Vive La France... Monsieur Macron would do better without supporters like you...
1. Apple get criticised 2. Wah! Stop criticing Apple and change the laws! 3. Laws get changed 4. Wah! How dare you change the laws, this is discriminatory against Apple!
So tiresome, you lot.
So why the fuck are you even here, posting and reading, if it is tiresome?
Oh and there's another one, someone doesn't agree with you then they should leave. Classic.
In answer: I guess I must enjoy being tired. That or none of your fucking business, I don't need to justify my presence to you or anyone.
1. Apple get criticised 2. Wah! Stop criticing Apple and change the laws! 3. Laws get changed 4. Wah! How dare you change the laws, this is discriminatory against Apple!
So tiresome, you lot.
So why the fuck are you even here, posting and reading, if it is tiresome?
Oh and there's another one, someone doesn't agree with you then they should leave. Classic.
In answer: I guess I must enjoy being tired. That or none of your fucking business, I don't need to justify my presence to you or anyone.
Sure, but why the fuck are you here?
Are you thick, or have difficulty reading? None of your fucking business.
I'm not sure which country you are from, but looking at high quality health care and affordable education provided in most of the European Union, it bears evidence that high taxes, when used the right way, do pay social dividends.
Complete baloney. The ONLY reason the EU has the social programs it has is because the EU members have NO military budgets to speak of. Instead the EU relies on the United States to protect it from the Russian Bear, the Middle East Islamic radicals. If the U.S. pulled out militarily from the EU and NATO those countries would have no choice but to dramatically increase their military budgets and those social programs would suffer big time. For over 70 years now the U.S. has spent its treasure to keep the peace in Europe.
Now that is baloney. The absence of conflict in Europe is precisely because of the EU.
As for external threats and U.S 'protection', simply pull out of NATO if it costs too much!
That won't happen because the U.S wants to keep its military bases in Europe. It wants to continue selling arms. It needs NATO allies. Without them (however 'small' their financial contribution) the Gulf wars would not have been possible and with so much debt, the U.S is rapidly approaching a point where it might have hardware to parade around but no be able to use in actual conflict. Wars are expensive.
I'll take a balanced welfare state over any of that.
You're believing the spin from the Eurocrats I'm afraid, the EU has done NOTHING to prevent conflict in Europe. When Yugoslavia split and war broke out, including ethnic cleansing, it wasn't the EU that stopped it, it was NATO with the USA and UK at the forefront. As for the current ongoing war in the Ukraine, that's solely due to the EU courting the Ukraine to get them to join as part of their ongoing aggressive expansionist policy. Every observer pointed out that Russia would never allow Ukraine to join, but the EU persisted. Meanwhile there is civil unrest across Europe - weekly riots in France for months - and the rise of extremists on both left and right due to the EU's disasterous Euro policy. Economists warned back in the 90's that allowing countries with divergent economies to use a common currency would result in economic collapse, so rules were put in place to stop it. But when Eurocrats realised that Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and France would fail the test and be excluded from the Euro, they decided to ignore their own rules. As a result they set in train the sovereign debt crisis that erupted in 2009 and is still ongoing. The reason they did this was simple to trap these countries in the EU, leaving after having adopted the Euro would be nearly impossible.
The USA and Canda should consider a mutual defence pact with a smaller set of countries - the UK and France account for nearly 50% of ALL of europe's military capability. In the long term, the like of Macron in France and the Eurocrats in Brussels want to undermine NATO and rely more on an EU Army. The hilarious thing is they don't want to fund it properly, for example, Germany's armed forces reduced to a token force with most ships, aircraft, and submarines unsable due to repairs being required.
You are mixing different things up.
Yugoslavia was not the EU and its problems were rooted in a completely non-EU world.
Peace and stability is very much one of the pillars of the EU and the vast majority of EU citizens are pro EU (and I'm including UK citizens here).
There are rules. Greece broke them (it lied) to join the euro. The consequences were hard to swallow but totally necessary. The blame lies - ultimately - with those who took Greece to where they did: its politicians. The world financial crisis also had roots. Do you remember where? The euro crisis was simply made worse by that but is now better prepared for future depressions. Of course, the U.S would have loved to see the euro fail.
There is no civil unrest in Europe. There were violent protests in a few places in France - and for a clear reason. They were not anti EU protests. This is nothing new for the French. Have you ever seen how they deal with Spanish tomatoes?
Do you really understand why some elements of the EU would like a unified EU controlled armed forces? It isn't hard to figure out and is nothing new. The EDC dates back to the fifties! At some point an alternative idea will get support and move forward. The U.S will not be happy when that happens.
Ukraine?
Ukraine wants to be rid of Russia as a threat. The only way that is going to happen is by joining the EU. We know the people of Ukraine are willing to give their lives to achieve their goals but first they must get their house in order and tackle corruption. The EU has a strategic interest in Ukraine and a pressing need to reduce its dependence on Russian energy. That is already in progress.
It's not 'euro spin' it's happening and people are supporting it in spite of populist movements peddling nationalistic manifests in most countries.
It’s not surprising you’re confused if you quote and believe The Guardian newspaper!!! Yugoslavia wasn’t it the EU but the EU tried to stop the fighting the genocide by diplomatic means. It was up to NATO to stop it the only way possible, by military action. Afterwards after the fighting the EU was allowed in as a peacekeeping and policing force.
The EU knew the Greeks lied about their economy to pass the rules. Italy Spain, Portugal and France didn’t even have to lie, the EU just ignored its own rules. And Greece’s problems are nothing compared to what Italy has. The Eurozone crisis was an inevitability, a bomb waiting to go off at any time. It just happened to have been the drying up of liquidity in the international markets in 2008 that set it off. You should be thankful, if that hadn’t triggered it and the same issue had gone on for another 10 years then even Germany would hVe been bankrupted by it.
It may not be covered by the europhile media but there’s been weekly disturbances or riots by the yellow jackets for the last 34 weeks in Paris. And you obviously are ignorant of the rise of the AfD and waves of attacks against immigrants in Germany.
As for the Ukraine, if it ever does submit a membership application to the EU, Russian tanks will arrive in Kiev before the application arrives in Brussels.
And God help Europe if the EU thinks it can defend itself military without NATO. Only Poland would slow the Russians before they arrived at the French border. At the start of the year every single German submarine was broken, the majority of their air-force grounded, and their new frigates have to carry concrete ballast because the are top heavy with a 10 degree list to starboard. The German Tornadoes can’t fly at night because the lighting of the control panel interferes with their night vision:- an aircraft the RAF has already retired. And the German Defence Minister responsible for all this? She’s the new unelected EU Commission President!!!!
It has participated in all of the recent multi-paper investigations of the last few years.
At the time of the Balkan conflict the EU had no option but diplomacy, although from the beginning NATO was seen as the best way to handle a response. It wasn't until Javier Solana became the first High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security in 1999, that the EU had a common exterior voice.
Weekly protests by yellow jackets have been widely reported (Guardian included) but the yellow jacket protests are aimed at Macron, not the EU and yesterday's protests were at best pockets of protest. A tiny minority of the people that turned out for the celebrations. After dark, we see the Anti-System come out to smash windows, burn rubbish bins and confront the police. They are not yellow jacket protesters and don't care about their protests. They are simply a form of hooligan.
As for Germany, it has long kept its head down when it comes military hardware and for obvious reasons. It also had the difficult (and extremely costly process of reunification to deal with) plus the worst world economic downturn on record.
That doesn't change the facts though and the facts are that the EU is moving to improve its defence options through more integration and efficiencies.
The EU's desire for an EU army has nothing to do with "efficiency", rather it's about weakening the member states.
For instance if Poland no longer has a standing army of their own, Brussels can order them around with ever increasing force in the years to come.
And considering a wide divide is developing between the nations of Western Europe versus Eastern on a range of issues, (migration, taxation) this is no small advantage in Brussel's favor to have an army of their own.
It is now clear you haven't read anything on the subject.
Any proposal for an EU-wide defence force would require unanimous support from all member states. Yes, even those on the other side of that divide you mention. They have a veto!
They are also net receivers from the EU and enjoy EU aide.
It is still early days. The Franco-German accord is just one tiny step.
If you had read anything, even at a high level, on this subject you would have understood that efficicies are one of the goals. They are referenced in one form or another, all over the place.
-- Annex the Council Conclusions on Security and Defence in the context
of the EU Global Strategy, adopted by the Council at its 3700th meeting held on 17 June 2019.--
Point 25: EDF
"Looks forward to the swift adoption and implementation of the European Defence Fund, following the common understanding reached in February by the European Parliament and the Council on the related Regulation and once an overall agreement on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 is reached. The Council stresses the importance of the Fund in helping to enhance the competitiveness, efficiency and innovation capacity of the EDTIB throughout the Union. The Council also welcomes the foreseen role of the EDF in promoting disruptive technologies for defence."
You are correct, I am not an expert on the EU.
Nevertheless as a casual observer it seems fairly self-evident the EU is a power grab by Germany and France so they can rule the Continent through the administrative state where they failed in the past militarily. And Germany does enjoy throwing its weight around. You saw this during the 2008 financial crisis and then more recently with Merkel's extremely generous migration policy which she expects all member states to fall in line with, no matter if they view her policies as needlessly reckless or not.
So the creation of an EU army is just another step in the German consolidation of power.
And I think you have to be a little bit naive to not notice the trend. For instance if Germany really cared about its military so much, they wouldn't have such trouble meeting their 2% NATO funding requirement. So their own military is not their primary concern, they merely want to be in control of everyone else's.
And then of course the EU bureaucrats are going to sell the idea of an EU army to the public on promises of greater "efficiency"!
I mean do you really expect them to say: "Hey, this is nothing but a naked power grab, I hope y'all don't mind..."
Germany, the most industrialised state in the EU has been the motor of the bloc. As a permanent net contributor to the bloc and its poorer nations, yes it does carry weight and influence (like others) but the countries you place on the other side of 'the divide' were all eager to join, knowing full well the conditions and get a veto on major decisions. They wouldn't have been so eager to join if they had reservations. Their weight is proportional to different factors but veto power is not easy to come by for smaller nations so that is a big win.
The EU may not be perfect but its citizens are overwhelmingly pro EU. Yes, I am also pro EU and enjoying so many things that we now take for granted. Free movement, consumer protection, WEEE, RoHs, environment protection - stability.
In my case (Spain) the EU courts have ruled against Spanish banking abuses which would never have succeeded inside Spain. That's billions of euros finding their way back to consumers.
The EU is also coming down hard on Spain for failing to tackle pollution. That's a big positive if you're breathing the Barcelona air.
We have learned a lot from each other but no one has lost their cultural identity either (which was a big fear of people 30 years ago).
Thank you, I enjoyed reading your post... And how are things in Barcelona?? Been meaning to visit there, but haven't had the chance yet.
And yes I agree with you the EU has done some very good things. The eastern europeans were indeed absolutely dying to join the EU a number of years ago because they were very poor after the Soviet Union collapsed and needed all the financial help they could get.
However things change and as the EU has evolved, many people are starting to worry that too much power has shifted to Brussels.
And no bigger issue looms across the EU than immigration. Merkel favors nearly unlimited immigration, as does Guy Verhofstadt, and so the countries of eastern europe are very much worried about losing their cultural identity. So the big fear you mention from 30 years ago, is alive today as well, if not more so.
So there is this uneasy tension these days in the EU between national sovereignty and the EU superstate. How this all resolves is anyone's guess, but the EU shows no signs of slowing down in its quest for ever greater powers. And for those who don't believe in a 'one-size-fits-all' philosophy, this is not so welcome.
And then of course, there is Brexit. If Britain didn't enjoy being in the EU, it's quite possible other countries aren't enjoying the experience either.
But nice to hear the EU has been helping Spain combat air pollution as well as bank corruption... Nothing to complain about there.
The air in Barcelona looks and tastes fine but is often full of particles in suspension . Things are changing. The government is pushing the sale of electric vehicles and the public transport consortium of Barcelona (already having one of the cleanest fleets in Europe) intends to phase out the last large format diesel buses within 8 years, switching to a mix of hybrid, natural gas and electric vehicles. The buses will come EU manufacturers (MAN, Polaris etc).
You can check the air quality in real time at many websites:
Roads have noise reduction coatings, more and more buses have onboard charging ports for your devices. You can check the wait time to the next bus from your phone. Virtually the entire fleet is adapted for disabled people. Tickets are 'integrated'. You pay for your journey from point A to point B independently of the medium used (bus, tram, metro, overground etc).
As for EU funding, and on a wider scale, between 2007-2013 the EU provided Spain with financial support to the tune of 26,600 million euros to create key infrastructure (763Km of rail track, 510Km of roads and getting broadband and water processing plants for two million people). 75,000 jobs were created and living standards rose. Much of the financing has now shifted east where it is needed more, although Poland is probably receiving the most lately.
Immigration is a problem but it is far from the problem it is made out to be. In the same way UK citizens were literally led up the garden path on many issues (immigration included) many EU citizens are being told by vocal right wing groups that immigration is the root of all evil. Should more be done to counter this? Without doubt. For the UK, the truth emerged (from government studies that they tried hard to keep from public view) and painted a different picture (especially for legal EU immigration under free movement rules). Far from draining funds for 'natives', EU migrants were were a to the balance while the drain was from natives and illegal immigration.
As for satisfaction with the EU from EU citizens and the member states from the east, you have Euro Barometer at your disposal:
I'm not sure which country you are from, but looking at high quality health care and affordable education provided in most of the European Union, it bears evidence that high taxes, when used the right way, do pay social dividends.
Complete baloney. The ONLY reason the EU has the social programs it has is because the EU members have NO military budgets to speak of. Instead the EU relies on the United States to protect it from the Russian Bear, the Middle East Islamic radicals. If the U.S. pulled out militarily from the EU and NATO those countries would have no choice but to dramatically increase their military budgets and those social programs would suffer big time. For over 70 years now the U.S. has spent its treasure to keep the peace in Europe.
Now that is baloney. The absence of conflict in Europe is precisely because of the EU.
As for external threats and U.S 'protection', simply pull out of NATO if it costs too much!
That won't happen because the U.S wants to keep its military bases in Europe. It wants to continue selling arms. It needs NATO allies. Without them (however 'small' their financial contribution) the Gulf wars would not have been possible and with so much debt, the U.S is rapidly approaching a point where it might have hardware to parade around but no be able to use in actual conflict. Wars are expensive.
I'll take a balanced welfare state over any of that.
You're believing the spin from the Eurocrats I'm afraid, the EU has done NOTHING to prevent conflict in Europe. When Yugoslavia split and war broke out, including ethnic cleansing, it wasn't the EU that stopped it, it was NATO with the USA and UK at the forefront. As for the current ongoing war in the Ukraine, that's solely due to the EU courting the Ukraine to get them to join as part of their ongoing aggressive expansionist policy. Every observer pointed out that Russia would never allow Ukraine to join, but the EU persisted. Meanwhile there is civil unrest across Europe - weekly riots in France for months - and the rise of extremists on both left and right due to the EU's disasterous Euro policy. Economists warned back in the 90's that allowing countries with divergent economies to use a common currency would result in economic collapse, so rules were put in place to stop it. But when Eurocrats realised that Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and France would fail the test and be excluded from the Euro, they decided to ignore their own rules. As a result they set in train the sovereign debt crisis that erupted in 2009 and is still ongoing. The reason they did this was simple to trap these countries in the EU, leaving after having adopted the Euro would be nearly impossible.
The USA and Canda should consider a mutual defence pact with a smaller set of countries - the UK and France account for nearly 50% of ALL of europe's military capability. In the long term, the like of Macron in France and the Eurocrats in Brussels want to undermine NATO and rely more on an EU Army. The hilarious thing is they don't want to fund it properly, for example, Germany's armed forces reduced to a token force with most ships, aircraft, and submarines unsable due to repairs being required.
You are mixing different things up.
Yugoslavia was not the EU and its problems were rooted in a completely non-EU world.
Peace and stability is very much one of the pillars of the EU and the vast majority of EU citizens are pro EU (and I'm including UK citizens here).
There are rules. Greece broke them (it lied) to join the euro. The consequences were hard to swallow but totally necessary. The blame lies - ultimately - with those who took Greece to where they did: its politicians. The world financial crisis also had roots. Do you remember where? The euro crisis was simply made worse by that but is now better prepared for future depressions. Of course, the U.S would have loved to see the euro fail.
There is no civil unrest in Europe. There were violent protests in a few places in France - and for a clear reason. They were not anti EU protests. This is nothing new for the French. Have you ever seen how they deal with Spanish tomatoes?
Do you really understand why some elements of the EU would like a unified EU controlled armed forces? It isn't hard to figure out and is nothing new. The EDC dates back to the fifties! At some point an alternative idea will get support and move forward. The U.S will not be happy when that happens.
Ukraine?
Ukraine wants to be rid of Russia as a threat. The only way that is going to happen is by joining the EU. We know the people of Ukraine are willing to give their lives to achieve their goals but first they must get their house in order and tackle corruption. The EU has a strategic interest in Ukraine and a pressing need to reduce its dependence on Russian energy. That is already in progress.
It's not 'euro spin' it's happening and people are supporting it in spite of populist movements peddling nationalistic manifests in most countries.
It’s not surprising you’re confused if you quote and believe The Guardian newspaper!!! Yugoslavia wasn’t it the EU but the EU tried to stop the fighting the genocide by diplomatic means. It was up to NATO to stop it the only way possible, by military action. Afterwards after the fighting the EU was allowed in as a peacekeeping and policing force.
The EU knew the Greeks lied about their economy to pass the rules. Italy Spain, Portugal and France didn’t even have to lie, the EU just ignored its own rules. And Greece’s problems are nothing compared to what Italy has. The Eurozone crisis was an inevitability, a bomb waiting to go off at any time. It just happened to have been the drying up of liquidity in the international markets in 2008 that set it off. You should be thankful, if that hadn’t triggered it and the same issue had gone on for another 10 years then even Germany would hVe been bankrupted by it.
It may not be covered by the europhile media but there’s been weekly disturbances or riots by the yellow jackets for the last 34 weeks in Paris. And you obviously are ignorant of the rise of the AfD and waves of attacks against immigrants in Germany.
As for the Ukraine, if it ever does submit a membership application to the EU, Russian tanks will arrive in Kiev before the application arrives in Brussels.
And God help Europe if the EU thinks it can defend itself military without NATO. Only Poland would slow the Russians before they arrived at the French border. At the start of the year every single German submarine was broken, the majority of their air-force grounded, and their new frigates have to carry concrete ballast because the are top heavy with a 10 degree list to starboard. The German Tornadoes can’t fly at night because the lighting of the control panel interferes with their night vision:- an aircraft the RAF has already retired. And the German Defence Minister responsible for all this? She’s the new unelected EU Commission President!!!!
It has participated in all of the recent multi-paper investigations of the last few years.
At the time of the Balkan conflict the EU had no option but diplomacy, although from the beginning NATO was seen as the best way to handle a response. It wasn't until Javier Solana became the first High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security in 1999, that the EU had a common exterior voice.
Weekly protests by yellow jackets have been widely reported (Guardian included) but the yellow jacket protests are aimed at Macron, not the EU and yesterday's protests were at best pockets of protest. A tiny minority of the people that turned out for the celebrations. After dark, we see the Anti-System come out to smash windows, burn rubbish bins and confront the police. They are not yellow jacket protesters and don't care about their protests. They are simply a form of hooligan.
As for Germany, it has long kept its head down when it comes military hardware and for obvious reasons. It also had the difficult (and extremely costly process of reunification to deal with) plus the worst world economic downturn on record.
That doesn't change the facts though and the facts are that the EU is moving to improve its defence options through more integration and efficiencies.
The EU's desire for an EU army has nothing to do with "efficiency", rather it's about weakening the member states.
For instance if Poland no longer has a standing army of their own, Brussels can order them around with ever increasing force in the years to come.
And considering a wide divide is developing between the nations of Western Europe versus Eastern on a range of issues, (migration, taxation) this is no small advantage in Brussel's favor to have an army of their own.
It is now clear you haven't read anything on the subject.
Any proposal for an EU-wide defence force would require unanimous support from all member states. Yes, even those on the other side of that divide you mention. They have a veto!
They are also net receivers from the EU and enjoy EU aide.
It is still early days. The Franco-German accord is just one tiny step.
If you had read anything, even at a high level, on this subject you would have understood that efficicies are one of the goals. They are referenced in one form or another, all over the place.
-- Annex the Council Conclusions on Security and Defence in the context
of the EU Global Strategy, adopted by the Council at its 3700th meeting held on 17 June 2019.--
Point 25: EDF
"Looks forward to the swift adoption and implementation of the European Defence Fund, following the common understanding reached in February by the European Parliament and the Council on the related Regulation and once an overall agreement on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 is reached. The Council stresses the importance of the Fund in helping to enhance the competitiveness, efficiency and innovation capacity of the EDTIB throughout the Union. The Council also welcomes the foreseen role of the EDF in promoting disruptive technologies for defence."
You are correct, I am not an expert on the EU.
Nevertheless as a casual observer it seems fairly self-evident the EU is a power grab by Germany and France so they can rule the Continent through the administrative state where they failed in the past militarily. And Germany does enjoy throwing its weight around. You saw this during the 2008 financial crisis and then more recently with Merkel's extremely generous migration policy which she expects all member states to fall in line with, no matter if they view her policies as needlessly reckless or not.
So the creation of an EU army is just another step in the German consolidation of power.
And I think you have to be a little bit naive to not notice the trend. For instance if Germany really cared about its military so much, they wouldn't have such trouble meeting their 2% NATO funding requirement. So their own military is not their primary concern, they merely want to be in control of everyone else's.
And then of course the EU bureaucrats are going to sell the idea of an EU army to the public on promises of greater "efficiency"!
I mean do you really expect them to say: "Hey, this is nothing but a naked power grab, I hope y'all don't mind..."
Germany is one of the least power grabbing nations on earth, these days and one of the best regarded by its neighbours. Bit odd to see someone from the US (presumably) talk about power grabbing.
Is that so?
Talk to the Hungarians or the Poles or the Greeks or the Italians...
Angela Merkel is not well liked outside the corridors of Berlin or Paris.
And just because Germany throws its weight around from inside the EU these days, doesn't mean it's not transparent who's calling the shots.
As the most populous, richest, and most productive country in the union of course they wield a lot of influence. Not sure why you're surprised by that. Antipathy towards a single leader for fairly simple policy differences is not evidence that a country is power grabbing.
If you want an example of power grabbing, here it is:
During the summer of 2015 Merkel threw open the borders to Germany and 1.5 million refugees flooded into Germany.
She then turned around and demanded that all EU member states take in their "fair share".
Such unilateral decision making without consulting your friends and allies is the very definition of power grabbing.
And try to tell us immigration is a "fairly simple policy difference".
I wouldn't categorise a bold, but somewhat reckless, attempt at humanitarian leadership as a power grab, and don't really get why you see it as such. How is Germany more powerful now because of it, or how might Merkel have seen that it would make her so?
If Germany wanted to accept 1.5 million refugees and house them within Germany, no problem.
But to turn around and demand all member states take in their "fair share", is an authoritarian power play.
In essence Merkel was saying, "I'm the boss, do as I say."
If the EU wants to consider itself a democracy rather than a dictatorship run from Berlin, then you can't be pulling stunts like that.
Germany decided to take in those refugees as an exceptional measure. It was a humanitarian issue and yes, EU member states should take their fair share but this has nothing to do with Germany's decision to take those refugees in. The base reason for the idea (there is no obligation) is to ease the stress on the buffer countries (Greece, Spain, Italy etc) who have been demanding for years that the EU take a more active role in managing the problem.
Apart from that exceptional measure (refugees basically), Germany has long been the desired final destination of many illegal immigrants and probably does more than any other member state.
I'm not sure which country you are from, but looking at high quality health care and affordable education provided in most of the European Union, it bears evidence that high taxes, when used the right way, do pay social dividends.
Complete baloney. The ONLY reason the EU has the social programs it has is because the EU members have NO military budgets to speak of. Instead the EU relies on the United States to protect it from the Russian Bear, the Middle East Islamic radicals. If the U.S. pulled out militarily from the EU and NATO those countries would have no choice but to dramatically increase their military budgets and those social programs would suffer big time. For over 70 years now the U.S. has spent its treasure to keep the peace in Europe.
Now that is baloney. The absence of conflict in Europe is precisely because of the EU.
As for external threats and U.S 'protection', simply pull out of NATO if it costs too much!
That won't happen because the U.S wants to keep its military bases in Europe. It wants to continue selling arms. It needs NATO allies. Without them (however 'small' their financial contribution) the Gulf wars would not have been possible and with so much debt, the U.S is rapidly approaching a point where it might have hardware to parade around but no be able to use in actual conflict. Wars are expensive.
I'll take a balanced welfare state over any of that.
You're believing the spin from the Eurocrats I'm afraid, the EU has done NOTHING to prevent conflict in Europe. When Yugoslavia split and war broke out, including ethnic cleansing, it wasn't the EU that stopped it, it was NATO with the USA and UK at the forefront. As for the current ongoing war in the Ukraine, that's solely due to the EU courting the Ukraine to get them to join as part of their ongoing aggressive expansionist policy. Every observer pointed out that Russia would never allow Ukraine to join, but the EU persisted. Meanwhile there is civil unrest across Europe - weekly riots in France for months - and the rise of extremists on both left and right due to the EU's disasterous Euro policy. Economists warned back in the 90's that allowing countries with divergent economies to use a common currency would result in economic collapse, so rules were put in place to stop it. But when Eurocrats realised that Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and France would fail the test and be excluded from the Euro, they decided to ignore their own rules. As a result they set in train the sovereign debt crisis that erupted in 2009 and is still ongoing. The reason they did this was simple to trap these countries in the EU, leaving after having adopted the Euro would be nearly impossible.
The USA and Canda should consider a mutual defence pact with a smaller set of countries - the UK and France account for nearly 50% of ALL of europe's military capability. In the long term, the like of Macron in France and the Eurocrats in Brussels want to undermine NATO and rely more on an EU Army. The hilarious thing is they don't want to fund it properly, for example, Germany's armed forces reduced to a token force with most ships, aircraft, and submarines unsable due to repairs being required.
You are mixing different things up.
Yugoslavia was not the EU and its problems were rooted in a completely non-EU world.
Peace and stability is very much one of the pillars of the EU and the vast majority of EU citizens are pro EU (and I'm including UK citizens here).
There are rules. Greece broke them (it lied) to join the euro. The consequences were hard to swallow but totally necessary. The blame lies - ultimately - with those who took Greece to where they did: its politicians. The world financial crisis also had roots. Do you remember where? The euro crisis was simply made worse by that but is now better prepared for future depressions. Of course, the U.S would have loved to see the euro fail.
There is no civil unrest in Europe. There were violent protests in a few places in France - and for a clear reason. They were not anti EU protests. This is nothing new for the French. Have you ever seen how they deal with Spanish tomatoes?
Do you really understand why some elements of the EU would like a unified EU controlled armed forces? It isn't hard to figure out and is nothing new. The EDC dates back to the fifties! At some point an alternative idea will get support and move forward. The U.S will not be happy when that happens.
Ukraine?
Ukraine wants to be rid of Russia as a threat. The only way that is going to happen is by joining the EU. We know the people of Ukraine are willing to give their lives to achieve their goals but first they must get their house in order and tackle corruption. The EU has a strategic interest in Ukraine and a pressing need to reduce its dependence on Russian energy. That is already in progress.
It's not 'euro spin' it's happening and people are supporting it in spite of populist movements peddling nationalistic manifests in most countries.
It’s not surprising you’re confused if you quote and believe The Guardian newspaper!!! Yugoslavia wasn’t it the EU but the EU tried to stop the fighting the genocide by diplomatic means. It was up to NATO to stop it the only way possible, by military action. Afterwards after the fighting the EU was allowed in as a peacekeeping and policing force.
The EU knew the Greeks lied about their economy to pass the rules. Italy Spain, Portugal and France didn’t even have to lie, the EU just ignored its own rules. And Greece’s problems are nothing compared to what Italy has. The Eurozone crisis was an inevitability, a bomb waiting to go off at any time. It just happened to have been the drying up of liquidity in the international markets in 2008 that set it off. You should be thankful, if that hadn’t triggered it and the same issue had gone on for another 10 years then even Germany would hVe been bankrupted by it.
It may not be covered by the europhile media but there’s been weekly disturbances or riots by the yellow jackets for the last 34 weeks in Paris. And you obviously are ignorant of the rise of the AfD and waves of attacks against immigrants in Germany.
As for the Ukraine, if it ever does submit a membership application to the EU, Russian tanks will arrive in Kiev before the application arrives in Brussels.
And God help Europe if the EU thinks it can defend itself military without NATO. Only Poland would slow the Russians before they arrived at the French border. At the start of the year every single German submarine was broken, the majority of their air-force grounded, and their new frigates have to carry concrete ballast because the are top heavy with a 10 degree list to starboard. The German Tornadoes can’t fly at night because the lighting of the control panel interferes with their night vision:- an aircraft the RAF has already retired. And the German Defence Minister responsible for all this? She’s the new unelected EU Commission President!!!!
It has participated in all of the recent multi-paper investigations of the last few years.
At the time of the Balkan conflict the EU had no option but diplomacy, although from the beginning NATO was seen as the best way to handle a response. It wasn't until Javier Solana became the first High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security in 1999, that the EU had a common exterior voice.
Weekly protests by yellow jackets have been widely reported (Guardian included) but the yellow jacket protests are aimed at Macron, not the EU and yesterday's protests were at best pockets of protest. A tiny minority of the people that turned out for the celebrations. After dark, we see the Anti-System come out to smash windows, burn rubbish bins and confront the police. They are not yellow jacket protesters and don't care about their protests. They are simply a form of hooligan.
As for Germany, it has long kept its head down when it comes military hardware and for obvious reasons. It also had the difficult (and extremely costly process of reunification to deal with) plus the worst world economic downturn on record.
That doesn't change the facts though and the facts are that the EU is moving to improve its defence options through more integration and efficiencies.
The EU's desire for an EU army has nothing to do with "efficiency", rather it's about weakening the member states.
For instance if Poland no longer has a standing army of their own, Brussels can order them around with ever increasing force in the years to come.
And considering a wide divide is developing between the nations of Western Europe versus Eastern on a range of issues, (migration, taxation) this is no small advantage in Brussel's favor to have an army of their own.
It is now clear you haven't read anything on the subject.
Any proposal for an EU-wide defence force would require unanimous support from all member states. Yes, even those on the other side of that divide you mention. They have a veto!
They are also net receivers from the EU and enjoy EU aide.
It is still early days. The Franco-German accord is just one tiny step.
If you had read anything, even at a high level, on this subject you would have understood that efficicies are one of the goals. They are referenced in one form or another, all over the place.
-- Annex the Council Conclusions on Security and Defence in the context
of the EU Global Strategy, adopted by the Council at its 3700th meeting held on 17 June 2019.--
Point 25: EDF
"Looks forward to the swift adoption and implementation of the European Defence Fund, following the common understanding reached in February by the European Parliament and the Council on the related Regulation and once an overall agreement on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 is reached. The Council stresses the importance of the Fund in helping to enhance the competitiveness, efficiency and innovation capacity of the EDTIB throughout the Union. The Council also welcomes the foreseen role of the EDF in promoting disruptive technologies for defence."
You are correct, I am not an expert on the EU.
Nevertheless as a casual observer it seems fairly self-evident the EU is a power grab by Germany and France so they can rule the Continent through the administrative state where they failed in the past militarily. And Germany does enjoy throwing its weight around. You saw this during the 2008 financial crisis and then more recently with Merkel's extremely generous migration policy which she expects all member states to fall in line with, no matter if they view her policies as needlessly reckless or not.
So the creation of an EU army is just another step in the German consolidation of power.
And I think you have to be a little bit naive to not notice the trend. For instance if Germany really cared about its military so much, they wouldn't have such trouble meeting their 2% NATO funding requirement. So their own military is not their primary concern, they merely want to be in control of everyone else's.
And then of course the EU bureaucrats are going to sell the idea of an EU army to the public on promises of greater "efficiency"!
I mean do you really expect them to say: "Hey, this is nothing but a naked power grab, I hope y'all don't mind..."
Germany is one of the least power grabbing nations on earth, these days and one of the best regarded by its neighbours. Bit odd to see someone from the US (presumably) talk about power grabbing.
Is that so?
Talk to the Hungarians or the Poles or the Greeks or the Italians...
Angela Merkel is not well liked outside the corridors of Berlin or Paris.
And just because Germany throws its weight around from inside the EU these days, doesn't mean it's not transparent who's calling the shots.
As the most populous, richest, and most productive country in the union of course they wield a lot of influence. Not sure why you're surprised by that. Antipathy towards a single leader for fairly simple policy differences is not evidence that a country is power grabbing.
If you want an example of power grabbing, here it is:
During the summer of 2015 Merkel threw open the borders to Germany and 1.5 million refugees flooded into Germany.
She then turned around and demanded that all EU member states take in their "fair share".
Such unilateral decision making without consulting your friends and allies is the very definition of power grabbing.
And try to tell us immigration is a "fairly simple policy difference".
I wouldn't categorise a bold, but somewhat reckless, attempt at humanitarian leadership as a power grab, and don't really get why you see it as such. How is Germany more powerful now because of it, or how might Merkel have seen that it would make her so?
If Germany wanted to accept 1.5 million refugees and house them within Germany, no problem.
But to turn around and demand all member states take in their "fair share", is an authoritarian power play.
In essence Merkel was saying, "I'm the boss, do as I say."
If the EU wants to consider itself a democracy rather than a dictatorship run from Berlin, then you can't be pulling stunts like that.
What demands are you talking about? Several EU countries were (and probably still are) not meeting their treaty commitments to accommodate refugees. I don't see much wrong with requesting that other countries step up to the plate and do what they said they would. And in the context of the greatest refugee crisis the EU has ever seen.
I'm not sure what treaty commitments you're referring to, but I'm pretty sure when those treaties were signed no one was expecting Merkel to open Germany's borders and to have 1.5 million refugees rush in within 6 months.
Needless to say, such a huge number of refugees changes the calculus of any prior treaties signed, and so the responsible thing would have been to arrive at a consensus throughout Europe before throwing the German borders wide open.
But Merkel acted unilaterally, which is the problem, and is why many people view it as a power grab.
In fact, the response to Merkel's actions has been the rise of populism throughout Eastern Europe as well as Italy. So clearly, there are many not happy with Merkel.
From a broader perspective, the debate over immigration has become hopelessly simplistic. Just because there are wars and hardship in Africa, doesn't mean that half of Africa can migrate to Europe without changing the fabric of Europe itself. Such concerns should not be swept under the rug as the people who live there have the right to determine for themselves how much immigration they are comfortable with.
Why do you think the number of refugees that Germany takes in is relevant to treaty obligations of other member states to provide safe haven to a minimum quota of refugees? They're two completely different things, and there's no calculus involved.
You and I agree to each give 5% of our income to charity. I give 10%, and complain that you haven't given your 5% You say I should have consulted you before giving 10% and that this changes the calculus?
The rise of populism has multiple root causes, it's very reductive to boil it down to one person.
The refugee crisis was predominantly Syria, which is not in Africa. And I agree that a large number of refugees is going to be challenging to they places that they are displaced to. They do have to end up somewhere though. Merkel did something where so many other would have turned a blind eye. Though it lacked some forethought, I think it's commendable in intention.
So please spare us the talk of how Europe can defend itself.
Do you think that such an article is a solid argument that all the armies of the WHOLE of Europe cannot defend themselves? This kind of article is just clickbait for people to confirm their biases or preconceived ideas.
So please spare us the talk of how this is evidence of anything. (Condescending, isn't it?)
@Abalos65 - It's interesting when you come across an article which doesn't confirm your own bias, you are rather quick to dismiss it as "clickbait". I guess that makes things easy...
For many people though, when they hear the German army is so poorly funded it cannot even conduct a military exercise without having to resort to using broomsticks, it's rather eye opening.
And given that Germany has the strongest economy in Europe, if even German soldiers don't have the funds to use real guns in NATO military exercises, then I'm not sure what other country you think is magically going to rush to Europe's defense if such a need arises. The Flemish, perhaps?
Just repeating the article again doesn't make it anymore convincing. You're still saying that because one time the German army had to use broomsticks Europe is not able to defend itself. I still call that a crappy argument. And this all the while I do think that armies in Europe should have larger budgets to comply with the 2% GDP agreement. Also, thank you for assuming my stance on the topic and pointing the finger back is also not childish at all.
On an internet forum I'm not going to take an hour to write a post. Internet forums are meant for quick little snippets of info.
But if you must know, a friend of mine is a former member of the Swedish Special Protection Group, which is similar to the US's Rangers.
Him and I have had long conversations about Europe's military preparedness, and in his opinion, both Sweden as well as Europe as a whole have cut their military budgets to such a point where they're basically a joke.
And the article I posted about the German army having to use broomsticks in a NATO military exercise, is a prime example of just what a joke the European military now is.
You are free to think such an article is "clickbait", and you are free to think the Europeans are capable of defending themselves from a conventional Russian military attack. But people who are much closer to the European military scene than I presume you are, tend to differ.
"A friend of my said" -some random forum person The arguments keep getting more and more convincing.
The article you linked was not for just for 'quick info'. It was used for a cheap shot at Europe's different armies to make the point that it cannot defend itself, as you assert again in this response. I can just as easily link a Youtube video of US Army fails and make the same crappy/incorrect argument. You can say that it is just an internet forum, so I should lower myself to that kind of discourse. I won't.
Since you seem to enjoy facts so much, NATO members are supposed to spend a minimum of 2% of their GDP on defense. Germany only spends 1.2 or 1.3%, nowhere near what they should to maintain a basic combat readiness. So therefore they end up having to use broomsticks instead of rifles because their military is short of funds.
To be honest, this isn't really that difficult to understand, I'm not sure what your hangup is.
Oh, I am well aware, since I mentioned the 2% agreement in an earlier reply.
My hangup is kind of obvious is it not? The jumping to large sweeping conclusions with only clickbait articles as some kind of proof.
If memory serves you were going to find a YouTube video of US soldiers using broomsticks during NATO exercises as a way of saying "everyone does it."
I'm still waiting for the link.
Meanwhile there is nothing clickbait about an article highlighting just how poorly funded Germany's military is. Granted this may ruffle your feathers for whatever reason, but the article stands on its own merits. Well funded militaries don't use broomsticks as weapons when conducting NATO exercises as if the soldiers were 10 years old and playing 'cops and robbers' out in the back yard as Mom and Dad look on.
Never said that the US army used broomsticks, please read my responses more carefully. I also never said 'everyone does it', and specifically said that it would be crappy way of arguing. But since you asked, I will make the same kind of crappy (and incorrect) argument now for illustration purposes:
For those who think the US has a well funded military, this article may catch you by surprise:
So please spare us the talk of how the United States can defend itself.
You see how dishonest this is? It is a single event and it says nothing about the whole of the great army of the United States. Just to be sure, I do NOT think that the US cannot defend itself, it has the greatest military in the world. I'm only pointing out the crappy arguments used.
And by the way, in the second part you are again just spewing your preconceived conclusions of the all the armies in Europe, now making it even more over the top with the mom and dad tangent.
Do you actually believe this? There have been countless news stories about how Apple manipulated their operations to shift most EU profits into Ireland to minimise their tax liability. They've been fined for it before.
You cannot shift a profit. Don’t even try. Detecting profit is the most basic thing in a tax investigation. To shift a profit you have to commit rough crimes such as shill invoicing, money laundering and alike. Companies at Apple’s scale are continuously monitored during their operations by the tax authorities, SEC etc...
Of course there may be differing political opinions or stances regarding international trade and fiscal issues, but things change when they are ported to legal and investigative platforms, because those platforms work on technical grounds, not on journalists’ opinions. And apparently Irish investigation by EU led to nowhere and France tries a different course of action...
What Apple has been doing is buying iProducts from China through its Irish company. It then sells those products at a higher price to yet other Apple owned subsidiaries who then sell those same products to its Apple owned distributors across Europe like Apple Germany, Apple Italy, Apple France and so on, again at some even higher price which assures there's little profit realized when the products sell to citizens in a particular country. Those Apple-owned subsidiaries are left with just enough margin in the deal to cover their costs. Because their margins and their costs are designed to be roughly equal there's not much if any taxes to pay in the countries where the sale occurred because there's not much left in the way of profits in them. All the profits were realized far up the chain and they are substantial.
So at the end of the day those profits end up sitting in Apple Ireland, or as reported now in Apple Jersey (see Paradise Papers https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41889787) and as such they are not taxable in the country where the transaction took place. But yeah, technically Apple is obligated to pay its taxes in the country where the profit was realized, and Apple might claim to pay all the taxes they are legally obligated to pay. It's just not the country where the retail sale happened.
Its total wrong to say that Apple Ireland is buying iProducts from China. This is a total misunderstanding of IP. The Chinese assembly factories don't own that device and don't sell it to Apple, Apple Ireland licenses Foxconn etc. to build for it and gives them the components, the software, and often the machines. No different from Apple US doing the same, except Cork was always the International manufacturing hub. These days no devices are made in the West. Its a licensing agreement to build something.
Apple does then sell to its own subsidiaries across Europe, which is totally legal. The vast majority of its sales are to other vendors or direct online though. The only illegality would be if Apple charged its own stores more than it charges a 3rd party vendor. You seem to be claiming that as fact and there may be some cases where it might have been true, but it can't be true of the vast majority of their sales ( to vendors other than themselves). You've conflated normal business practice -- selling to retailers at a manufacturing price, with some kind of "transfer". Each Apple store in each country realises the profit only on the difference between the wholesale and retail prices.
The profits sitting in Apple Ireland are therefore totally or mostly legit. As for Jersey I don't follow what is going on there, and nobody can rate the BBC as a useful source these days.
Even if Apple doesn't pay in Ireland, tax is due when repatriated to the US, which has a higher rate of tax than Ireland even after Trump. Its fairly meaningless to say that Apple didn't pay tax in those years when it withheld from Ireland because it has now paid in the US. Double taxation agreements would see to it that it shouldn't owe the money to Ireland.
You've talked about physical sales here, and not digital services, but in the latter France can tax sales using the standard VAT mechanism, which they have chosen not to do. Instead they are claiming tax on revenue, not profit, at the head quarters in Ireland or the US. However that's a pretty unusual way to tax digital services, to say the least.
One of the few French competitors in this space is Daily Motion. Heres what I get about that company on quora.
Despite growing at about 30% per year, Dailymotion has yet make a profit with only about 10% of its roughly $110 million annual revenue actually coming from France, according to Orange chairman and chief executive, Stéphane Richard.
Applying the French tax logic to Daily Motion the countries where 90% of the revenue comes from should garnish 3% taxes on the $100 million in revenue generated outside France.
Do you actually believe this? There have been countless news stories about how Apple manipulated their operations to shift most EU profits into Ireland to minimise their tax liability. They've been fined for it before.
You cannot shift a profit. Don’t even try. Detecting profit is the most basic thing in a tax investigation. To shift a profit you have to commit rough crimes such as shill invoicing, money laundering and alike. Companies at Apple’s scale are continuously monitored during their operations by the tax authorities, SEC etc...
Of course there may be differing political opinions or stances regarding international trade and fiscal issues, but things change when they are ported to legal and investigative platforms, because those platforms work on technical grounds, not on journalists’ opinions. And apparently Irish investigation by EU led to nowhere and France tries a different course of action...
What Apple has been doing is buying iProducts from China through its Irish company. It then sells those products at a higher price to yet other Apple owned subsidiaries who then sell those same products to its Apple owned distributors across Europe like Apple Germany, Apple Italy, Apple France and so on, again at some even higher price which assures there's little profit realized when the products sell to citizens in a particular country. Those Apple-owned subsidiaries are left with just enough margin in the deal to cover their costs. Because their margins and their costs are designed to be roughly equal there's not much if any taxes to pay in the countries where the sale occurred because there's not much left in the way of profits in them. All the profits were realized far up the chain and they are substantial.
So at the end of the day those profits end up sitting in Apple Ireland, or as reported now in Apple Jersey (see Paradise Papers https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41889787) and as such they are not taxable in the country where the transaction took place. But yeah, technically Apple is obligated to pay its taxes in the country where the profit was realized, and Apple might claim to pay all the taxes they are legally obligated to pay. It's just not the country where the retail sale happened.
Its total wrong to say that Apple Ireland is buying iProducts from China. This is a total misunderstanding of IP. The Chinese assembly factories don't own that device and don't sell it to Apple
Any yes the accounting trickery being used is generally legal. There's folks at the multinationals paid a whole lotta money for crafting some way to dodge assorted tax laws, counter to the spirit of those laws (!) alluding to a comment made by Mr Cook in front of the US Senate.
The second article I linked explains the tax advantages and the intricacies involved. It's pretty convoluted but proven very effective for avoiding profits on taxes in part or in some cases altogether. FWIW the tax avoidance practices have likely become even more refined and effective in the few years since the Senate investigation, and no that's the opinion of tax experts not just some guy on a tech blog. See Paradise Papers.
...Oh and that repatriation of all that overseas cash that you imply has happened since the reduced tax rate went into effect? It hasn't happened. In fact Apple doesn't even say they will. The comment from Cook was that the majority of it would eventually be repatriated to the US and taxes paid on it when it happens. Not all of it will be repatriated, and Apple will no longer be reporting the cash they hold outside of the US and not perhaps not subject to taxation as currently crafted.
Do you actually believe this? There have been countless news stories about how Apple manipulated their operations to shift most EU profits into Ireland to minimise their tax liability. They've been fined for it before.
You cannot shift a profit. Don’t even try. Detecting profit is the most basic thing in a tax investigation. To shift a profit you have to commit rough crimes such as shill invoicing, money laundering and alike. Companies at Apple’s scale are continuously monitored during their operations by the tax authorities, SEC etc...
Of course there may be differing political opinions or stances regarding international trade and fiscal issues, but things change when they are ported to legal and investigative platforms, because those platforms work on technical grounds, not on journalists’ opinions. And apparently Irish investigation by EU led to nowhere and France tries a different course of action...
What Apple has been doing is buying iProducts from China through its Irish company. It then sells those products at a higher price to yet other Apple owned subsidiaries who then sell those same products to its Apple owned distributors across Europe like Apple Germany, Apple Italy, Apple France and so on, again at some even higher price which assures there's little profit realized when the products sell to citizens in a particular country. Those Apple-owned subsidiaries are left with just enough margin in the deal to cover their costs. Because their margins and their costs are designed to be roughly equal there's not much if any taxes to pay in the countries where the sale occurred because there's not much left in the way of profits in them. All the profits were realized far up the chain and they are substantial.
So at the end of the day those profits end up sitting in Apple Ireland, or as reported now in Apple Jersey (see Paradise Papers https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41889787) and as such they are not taxable in the country where the transaction took place. But yeah, technically Apple is obligated to pay its taxes in the country where the profit was realized, and Apple might claim to pay all the taxes they are legally obligated to pay. It's just not the country where the retail sale happened.
As for Jersey I don't follow what is going on there, and nobody can rate the BBC as a useful source these days.
Consider the report to be fact since after it was revealed Apple themselves acknowledged it. So what was the reason Apple gave for moving it's cash to yet another albeit newer set of tax havens? I'll quote this so it's not misstated: "The changes Apple made to its corporate structure in 2015 were specially designed to preserve its tax payments to the United States, not to reduce its taxes anywhere else."
LOL. Yes Apple is saying they want to make sure no opportunities for the US to tax overseas profits are missed so they are protecting that cash from the Australians, and French, and Swedes, and all those other countries where the sales happened until the US gets a shot at it. Did the person who wrote that at Apple manage a straight face?
Apple also says they have been paying all the taxes they owe and at the US statutory rate.... but there's a disclaimer: "on investment income from its overseas cash". Not on the profits themselves held as cash "overseas".
Do you actually believe this? There have been countless news stories about how Apple manipulated their operations to shift most EU profits into Ireland to minimise their tax liability. They've been fined for it before.
You cannot shift a profit. Don’t even try. Detecting profit is the most basic thing in a tax investigation. To shift a profit you have to commit rough crimes such as shill invoicing, money laundering and alike. Companies at Apple’s scale are continuously monitored during their operations by the tax authorities, SEC etc...
Of course there may be differing political opinions or stances regarding international trade and fiscal issues, but things change when they are ported to legal and investigative platforms, because those platforms work on technical grounds, not on journalists’ opinions. And apparently Irish investigation by EU led to nowhere and France tries a different course of action...
What Apple has been doing is buying iProducts from China through its Irish company. It then sells those products at a higher price to yet other Apple owned subsidiaries who then sell those same products to its Apple owned distributors across Europe like Apple Germany, Apple Italy, Apple France and so on, again at some even higher price which assures there's little profit realized when the products sell to citizens in a particular country. Those Apple-owned subsidiaries are left with just enough margin in the deal to cover their costs. Because their margins and their costs are designed to be roughly equal there's not much if any taxes to pay in the countries where the sale occurred because there's not much left in the way of profits in them. All the profits were realized far up the chain and they are substantial.
So at the end of the day those profits end up sitting in Apple Ireland, or as reported now in Apple Jersey (see Paradise Papers https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41889787) and as such they are not taxable in the country where the transaction took place. But yeah, technically Apple is obligated to pay its taxes in the country where the profit was realized, and Apple might claim to pay all the taxes they are legally obligated to pay. It's just not the country where the retail sale happened.
Its total wrong to say that Apple Ireland is buying iProducts from China. This is a total misunderstanding of IP. The Chinese assembly factories don't own that device and don't sell it to Apple
It's a license agreement to assemble components that apple owns already. FoxConn does not own anything in the iPhone it is assembling. It doesn't own the chassis, or the software, or the CPU, or the GPU, or the GPS, or the camera, or anything else. It can't sell the assembled product. All it does is assemble bits that Apple sends it, that Apple owns by buying or building. Apple stays in ownership of all the components it allows Foxconn access to to assemble the iPhone, and the final product. This cost of assembly to Apple is about $5 per device or so, IIRC. There is no selling of an iPhone you don't own. FoxConn does not own that iPhone, or any part of it, it merely invoices Apple for the cost of assembly.
(The value added is much higher than the cost of this assembly by the way, as what adds the value to the completed iPhone is the software and the brand. Another blow to the labour theory of value).
And the assembly is one of the last steps of production, not the first.
Any yes the accounting trickery being used is generally legal. There's folks at the multinationals paid a whole lotta money for crafting some way to dodge assorted tax laws, counter to the spirit of those laws (!)
There is no accounting trickery in wholesale vs retail prices. I am sure that I have explained this before but its pretty remedial. If BMW sells cars to France via a BMW distributor fully owned by BMW, then the French treasury can only tax the retail profits of that BMW store. It has always been thus. The only trickery would be if the BMW dealership was charged a higher wholesale price than other dealers to transfer profits back to Germany ( if corporate tax were lower in Germany).
Given all that I haven't much hope in the rest of your articles, although I haven't fully linked into them.
You don't seem to be dealing, at all here, with digital services. Care to?
Comments
and it goes against the existing tax treaties.
(Taxing revenue rather than profit is also problematic as is setting the tax to 3% of all revenue past a threshold. A threshold designed to stop the tax being taxed on French service providers perhaps).
In Japan Apple's tax plans were deemed tax evasion.Yes Apple hid profits and no they are not the only multinational who has done so. It is also not as easy to discover as you like to claim it is.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Japan-casts-wider-net-for-corporate-tax-evaders
Apple refused to pay it's Italian corporate taxes on profit from sales in that country until one of Apple's executives was threatened with a six-month jail sentence for filing false tax documents. aka tax fraud.
https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/irishbased-apple-executive-spared-italy-jail-sentence-35167822.html
What Apple has been doing is buying iProducts from China through its Irish company. It then sells those products at a higher price to yet other Apple owned subsidiaries who then sell those same products to its Apple owned distributors across Europe like Apple Germany, Apple Italy, Apple France and so on, again at some even higher price which assures there's little profit realized when the products sell to citizens in a particular country. Those Apple-owned subsidiaries are left with just enough margin in the deal to cover their costs. Because their margins and their costs are designed to be roughly equal there's not much if any taxes to pay in the countries where the sale occurred because there's not much left in the way of profits in them. All the profits were realized far up the chain and they are substantial.
So at the end of the day those profits end up sitting in Apple Ireland, or as reported now in Apple Jersey (see Paradise Papers https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41889787) and as such they are not taxable in the country where the transaction took place. But yeah, technically Apple is obligated to pay its taxes in the country where the profit was realized, and Apple might claim to pay all the taxes they are legally obligated to pay. It's just not the country where the retail sale happened.
Is Apple being picked on? Nope. Google for instance has had its own share of tax avoidance schemes
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/03/google-tax-haven-bermuda-netherlands.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/google-avoided-paying-15bn-tax-14250344
My hangup is kind of obvious is it not? The jumping to large sweeping conclusions with only clickbait articles as some kind of proof.
However, Apple and Italian authorities came to a settlement whereby the six-month jail sentence for the executive has been converted into the payment of a €45,000 settlement"
https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/irishbased-apple-executive-spared-italy-jail-sentence-35167822.html
The affair is settled because as described in the article this is a simple accounting error that may happen to any business. And if Apple is misled in such a way this is the fault of Apple Italy, they should follow the tax laws of their country better. You don't know who sells to whom, the pyramidal scheme you invented is pure fiction, show me the box and the invoice...
There: €45.000 in Italy. Apple is caught on the job as a tax evader ! Vive La France... Monsieur Macron would do better without supporters like you...
Sure, but why the fuck are you here?
You can check the air quality in real time at many websites:
http://aqicn.org/map/spain/catalunya/barcelona-eixample/
Roads have noise reduction coatings, more and more buses have onboard charging ports for your devices. You can check the wait time to the next bus from your phone. Virtually the entire fleet is adapted for disabled people. Tickets are 'integrated'. You pay for your journey from point A to point B independently of the medium used (bus, tram, metro, overground etc).
As for EU funding, and on a wider scale, between 2007-2013 the EU provided Spain with financial support to the tune of 26,600 million euros to create key infrastructure (763Km of rail track, 510Km of roads and getting broadband and water processing plants for two million people). 75,000 jobs were created and living standards rose. Much of the financing has now shifted east where it is needed more, although Poland is probably receiving the most lately.
Immigration is a problem but it is far from the problem it is made out to be. In the same way UK citizens were literally led up the garden path on many issues (immigration included) many EU citizens are being told by vocal right wing groups that immigration is the root of all evil. Should more be done to counter this? Without doubt. For the UK, the truth emerged (from government studies that they tried hard to keep from public view) and painted a different picture (especially for legal EU immigration under free movement rules). Far from draining funds for 'natives', EU migrants were were a to the balance while the drain was from natives and illegal immigration.
As for satisfaction with the EU from EU citizens and the member states from the east, you have Euro Barometer at your disposal:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4148_en.htm
Apart from that exceptional measure (refugees basically), Germany has long been the desired final destination of many illegal immigrants and probably does more than any other member state.
You and I agree to each give 5% of our income to charity.
I give 10%, and complain that you haven't given your 5%
You say I should have consulted you before giving 10% and that this changes the calculus?
The rise of populism has multiple root causes, it's very reductive to boil it down to one person.
The refugee crisis was predominantly Syria, which is not in Africa. And I agree that a large number of refugees is going to be challenging to they places that they are displaced to. They do have to end up somewhere though. Merkel did something where so many other would have turned a blind eye. Though it lacked some forethought, I think it's commendable in intention.
For those who think the US has a well funded military, this article may catch you by surprise:
Whoops — The U.S. Army Owns Potentially Hundreds of Thousands of Faulty Guns
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/whoops-%E2%80%94-us-army-owns-potentially-hundreds-thousands-faulty-guns-63032
So please spare us the talk of how the United States can defend itself.
You see how dishonest this is? It is a single event and it says nothing about the whole of the great army of the United States. Just to be sure, I do NOT think that the US cannot defend itself, it has the greatest military in the world. I'm only pointing out the crappy arguments used.
And by the way, in the second part you are again just spewing your preconceived conclusions of the all the armies in Europe, now making it even more over the top with the mom and dad tangent.
Apple does then sell to its own subsidiaries across Europe, which is totally legal. The vast majority of its sales are to other vendors or direct online though. The only illegality would be if Apple charged its own stores more than it charges a 3rd party vendor. You seem to be claiming that as fact and there may be some cases where it might have been true, but it can't be true of the vast majority of their sales ( to vendors other than themselves). You've conflated normal business practice -- selling to retailers at a manufacturing price, with some kind of "transfer". Each Apple store in each country realises the profit only on the difference between the wholesale and retail prices.
The profits sitting in Apple Ireland are therefore totally or mostly legit. As for Jersey I don't follow what is going on there, and nobody can rate the BBC as a useful source these days.
Even if Apple doesn't pay in Ireland, tax is due when repatriated to the US, which has a higher rate of tax than Ireland even after Trump. Its fairly meaningless to say that Apple didn't pay tax in those years when it withheld from Ireland because it has now paid in the US. Double taxation agreements would see to it that it shouldn't owe the money to Ireland.
You've talked about physical sales here, and not digital services, but in the latter France can tax sales using the standard VAT mechanism, which they have chosen not to do. Instead they are claiming tax on revenue, not profit, at the head quarters in Ireland or the US. However that's a pretty unusual way to tax digital services, to say the least.
One of the few French competitors in this space is Daily Motion. Heres what I get about that company on quora.
Despite growing at about 30% per year, Dailymotion has yet make a profit with only about 10% of its roughly $110 million annual revenue actually coming from France, according to Orange chairman and chief executive, Stéphane Richard.
Applying the French tax logic to Daily Motion the countries where 90% of the revenue comes from should garnish 3% taxes on the $100 million in revenue generated outside France.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/technology/iphone-china-apple-stores.html
https://www.cfr.org/blog/apples-exports-arent-missing-they-are-ireland
Any yes the accounting trickery being used is generally legal. There's folks at the multinationals paid a whole lotta money for crafting some way to dodge assorted tax laws, counter to the spirit of those laws (!) alluding to a comment made by Mr Cook in front of the US Senate.
The second article I linked explains the tax advantages and the intricacies involved. It's pretty convoluted but proven very effective for avoiding profits on taxes in part or in some cases altogether. FWIW the tax avoidance practices have likely become even more refined and effective in the few years since the Senate investigation, and no that's the opinion of tax experts not just some guy on a tech blog. See Paradise Papers.
...Oh and that repatriation of all that overseas cash that you imply has happened since the reduced tax rate went into effect? It hasn't happened. In fact Apple doesn't even say they will. The comment from Cook was that the majority of it would eventually be repatriated to the US and taxes paid on it when it happens. Not all of it will be repatriated, and Apple will no longer be reporting the cash they hold outside of the US and not perhaps not subject to taxation as currently crafted.
LOL. Yes Apple is saying they want to make sure no opportunities for the US to tax overseas profits are missed so they are protecting that cash from the Australians, and French, and Swedes, and all those other countries where the sales happened until the US gets a shot at it. Did the person who wrote that at Apple manage a straight face?
Apple also says they have been paying all the taxes they owe and at the US statutory rate....
but there's a disclaimer: "on investment income from its overseas cash". Not on the profits themselves held as cash "overseas".
(The value added is much higher than the cost of this assembly by the way, as what adds the value to the completed iPhone is the software and the brand. Another blow to the labour theory of value).
And the assembly is one of the last steps of production, not the first.
There is no accounting trickery in wholesale vs retail prices. I am sure that I have explained this before but its pretty remedial. If BMW sells cars to France via a BMW distributor fully owned by BMW, then the French treasury can only tax the retail profits of that BMW store. It has always been thus. The only trickery would be if the BMW dealership was charged a higher wholesale price than other dealers to transfer profits back to Germany ( if corporate tax were lower in Germany).
Given all that I haven't much hope in the rest of your articles, although I haven't fully linked into them.
You don't seem to be dealing, at all here, with digital services. Care to?