Read on Twitter
1. One of my favourite remainer conspiracy theories is that #Brexit happened because Ree-Mogg et al were worried about rules against tax avoidance practices. Sorta overlooks the fact that Brexit has been building since 1993. Arguably 1975 even.
2. But it wouldn't have done the Brexiteers any good if they had. Remainers might have worked this out if they read the tax avoidance directive. The clue is in the first paragraph.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32016L1164&from=EN
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32016L1164&from=EN
3. "These new political objectives have been translated into concrete action recommendations in the context of the initiative against base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)."
4. The left do like to whine about tax avoidance claiming that if they were in power they would act while the Tories just let it happen. This overlooks the fact that tax avoidance is a complex global problem and unilateral action alone is no solution.
5. This is something that international organisations have been trying to crack for decades with only limited success. It can only really be cracked by way of mulateral cooperation and global governance mechanisms.
6. This is where the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, (BEPS multilateral instrument) comes into play. A major OECD treaty to which the UK is an independent signatory.
7. Virtually all of the latter era EU directives are designed to implement global conventions, and merely replicate that which is agreed at the top table. This is why the adoption of "EU rules" is such a red herring. In or out of the EU we would implement the same.
8. That then points to the limitations of "sovereignty". As an independent state we gain an independent voice at the very top table but we are still bound by international conventions, and to some extent bound by treaties we didn't even sign by way of customary law.
9. The notion of free for all sovereignty so that we have the power to deregulate is a delusion built on the misapprehension that the EU is the centre of the regulatory universe. In fact, it's just a middleman. Brexit does not make technocracy go away.
10. This is the unfortunate delusion shared by hard right Tories, Spiked cult Marxists, and the thicker of the Ukip brigade. Sovereignty has long been a nebulous concept and there is no "taking back control" since we never had control to begin with in the modern era.
11. This is why the kneejerk phobia of the "level playing field" provisions is absurd. Between the various ILO conventions, climate agreements and WTO rules on subsidy and state aid, the potential and capacity for substantial or useful divergence is minimal.
12. Ultimately the EU just wants the assurance that the UK regime will be something it can formally recognise as in line with its own measures so it doesn't have to closely monitor UK policymaking. With trust established, it can grant more preferences as the relationship evolves.
13. The reason this is beneficial to the UK is that though the rules are to a large extent a duplicate of international rules, there exists a bilateral mechanism for expedited dispute resolution. https://www.turbulenttimes.co.uk/news/trade/we-missed-the-boat-on-a-good-deal-but-we-still-need-a-deal/
14. There is no such thing absolute sovereignty. Only superpowers have anything close and even then they are bound by the agreements they sign. What matters is the safeguards and where the decision making authority resides; the capacity to rapidly fix things when they go wrong.
15. Ultra Brexiteers would prefer it if we broke off all formal relations with the EU. That is essentially what "WTO rules" Brexit means. But that is not a realistic basis for two advanced economies in close proximity. Trade does not function well without trust and without rules.
