'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

[Ootohere]

^^^ 'Multi-internationals'    World Wide / Global Corporations,  and Global Finance which they like to Head Quarter in some countries say France, 

but bank through the United Kingdom while paying tax in some other country / continent. 

 

Maybe some Tax Havens set up by David Cameron's Grandfather & Grand Uncle and used by David Cameron's Father and even the Inlaws Family.

 

Great Britain will keep trading Internationally and being a centre for banking no matter how the voters vote.

As it is the Airbus Group Employees working in the UK will not all have a vote in the referendum.

 

EDIT.

http://theguardian.com/politics/2012/apr/20/cameron-family-tax-havens

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_of_David_Cameron

Edited 4 April, 2016 by GoneOffSKi

[Llanigraham]

Just read on the BBC that Airbus have written a letter to all employees which is basically Pro EU stance. Is that even legal?, I think its fair 'if asked' that they answer truthfully that they are against brexit as a company but surely this crosses the line to actual canvasing for votes. This type of scare mongering makes me want to leave. What they are saying doesn't bother me, if it makes financial and economical sense for Airbus to be in the EU then fair enough but it seams like they are actively trying to coerce employees into voting a particular way, I wonder if the Unions are involved a whipped vote effectively.

 

Yes it is legal, as all it is doing is pointing out the Companies views on the matter. Since when has "canvassing" been illegal?

[Llanigraham]

There are no doubt many financial and economic reasons to stay and I don't have an issue with those companies affected making clear publically their intensions. A letter to all the employees for me is a step too far. Its effectively a threat, they could have announced it in the media like so many others have done.

Personally for me it boils down to electoral accountability. I like to be able to remove the people responsible for doing something I don't agree with and have the potential to change things in a given direction usually this threat is enough to make politicians think more about the decisions they make (Arguable). We can elect MEP's but if something is changed at EU level removing our MEP's at the following elections will do nothing to reverse the decision, so we effectively have no say in the outcome because

it requires agreement of all Members. I can't ever see me agreeing with someone from Turkey who stand to be the next members.

 

What "threat" is it? 

What difference does it make publishing the letter in the local papers than issuing directly to the employees? None what-so-ever.

[Scribbler]

What "threat" is it? 

What difference does it make publishing the letter in the local papers than issuing directly to the employees? None what-so-ever.

 

Where's your big WRONG highlighter gone?

 

I'm just pointing out the 'perceived' threat. one is to the wider public the other is personal very different in my opinion.

Edited 4 April, 2016 by Scribbler

[trundlenut]

Where's your big WRONG highlighter gone?

I'm just pointing out the 'perceived' threat. one is to the wider public the other is personal very different in my opinion.

Whereas if Airbus had made public pronouncements and not talked directly to their staff they would have been criticised for not talking to the staff.

Presumably from up on your high horse you can see a copy of thus dastardly letter.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

[Scribbler]

Whereas if Airbus had made public pronouncements and not talked directly to their staff they would have been criticised for not talking to the staff.

Presumably from up on your high horse you can see a copy of thus dastardly letter.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

 

I'm commenting from an unbiased position, I don't have a dog in this fight so to speak. What I do see though is the hypocrisy of the Yes camp for Scottish independence not so long ago saying UK companies shouldn't comment on moving their headquarters and downsizing following a yes vote. The same people are now happy for companies to express their opinions on an exit from the EU. I have tried to imagine myself in the position of receiving an official letter in the post from my employer warning me to vote a particular way which I find vastly different from the chairman of the company making a public announcement on the news that they are concerned about the outcome. You don't see a difference that's fine.

[trundlenut]

I'm commenting from an unbiased position, I don't have a dog in this fight so to speak. What I do see though is the hypocrisy of the Yes camp for Scottish independence not so long ago saying UK companies shouldn't comment on moving their headquarters and downsizing following a yes vote. The same people are now happy for companies to express their opinions on an exit from the EU. I have tried to imagine myself in the position of receiving an official letter in the post from my employer warning me to vote a particular way which I find vastly different from the chairman of the company making a public announcement on the news that they are concerned about the outcome. You don't see a difference that's fine.

Your making a big presumption there. The letter may something very different to "though shalt vote yes". The BBC article doesn't give any details.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

[jlwah]

Head of Airbus UK has said that Airbus will continue operating from the UK whatever the vote.

 

Hardly surprising that Airbus came out with this as they are about the most pro EU thing outside of Brussels.

 

And since when has the leave campaign said that leaving will result in 8% of the working population losing their jobs? It's quite possible that there could be a growth in the number of jobs after a leave vote. Some jobs will be lost, some will be created - net result is likely to be no change.

[Scribbler]

Your making a big presumption there. The letter may something very different to "though shalt vote yes". The BBC article doesn't give any details.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

 

There are extracts from the Letter in the BBC article but the content is largely irrelevant. It doesn't have to expressly forbid the employee of voting Leave once the employee has figured out the general gist reading between the lines its implied. Like I said its the perceived threat. As Llanigraham pointed out their is no legal president that stops them even telling their employees how to vote. I just think it crossed a line. 

[Llanigraham]

Where's your big WRONG highlighter gone?

 

I'm just pointing out the 'perceived' threat. one is to the wider public the other is personal very different in my opinion.

 

And you still haven't explained what this "perceived threat" is?

 

I'm commenting from an unbiased position, I don't have a dog in this fight so to speak. What I do see though is the hypocrisy of the Yes camp for Scottish independence not so long ago saying UK companies shouldn't comment on moving their headquarters and downsizing following a yes vote. The same people are now happy for companies to express their opinions on an exit from the EU. I have tried to imagine myself in the position of receiving an official letter in the post from my employer warning me to vote a particular way which I find vastly different from the chairman of the company making a public announcement on the news that they are concerned about the outcome. You don't see a difference that's fine.

 

Sorry, but from all your postings on this sunject, the one thing you are most certainly not is unbiased!

What same people are happy with the current situation but not previously? I see no-one like that here.

Has AirBus told their staff not to vote "Out"? From what I have seen the letter says nothing of the kind.

 

There are extracts from the Letter in the BBC article but the content is largely irrelevant. It doesn't have to expressly forbid the employee of voting Leave once the employee has figured out the general gist reading between the lines its implied. Like I said its the perceived threat. As Llanigraham pointed out their is no legal president that stops them even telling their employees how to vote. I just think it crossed a line. 

 

The content of the letter is not irrelevant if you worked for AirBus, and it does not tell them how to vote.

And I suggest you reread what I actually wrote; canvassing is not instructing someone to vote a particular way. To INSTRUCT an employee to vote in a particular way would be illegal. All they are doing is giving their view, and I am sure they are not the only Company doing so. 

Edited 4 April, 2016 by Llanigraham

[KenONeill]

 

The content of the letter is not irrelevant if you worked for AirBus, and it does not tell them how to vote.

And I suggest you reread what I actually wrote; canvassing is not instructing someone to vote a particular way. To INSTRUCT an employee to vote in a particular way would be illegal. All they are doing is giving their view, and I am sure they are not the only Company doing so. 

I won't name the company, or the Chairman, but the Chair of the company I work for has expressed his view on Brexit to the staff, without any statement that could be construed as "vote the way I think you should or else".

[Llanigraham]

Quite, Ken. I am sure plenty of companies are doing the same thing.

[domhnall]

Where's your big WRONG highlighter gone?

I'm just pointing out the 'perceived' threat. one is to the wider public the other is personal very different in my opinion.

The MOD in 2014 wrote to everyone reminding them it was their duty to support UK government policy at all times. They provided a contact number manned in case anyone was unsure what government policy was in relation to the referendum.

Airbus are stopping short of telling their staff what their duty is.

Sent from my Nexus 9 using Tapatalk

[gadgetman]

There are extracts from the Letter in the BBC article but the content is largely irrelevant. It doesn't have to expressly forbid the employee of voting Leave once the employee has figured out the general gist reading between the lines its implied. Like I said its the perceived threat. As Llanigraham pointed out their is no legal president that stops them even telling their employees how to vote. I just think it crossed a line.

And if they didn't make their position clear, staff voted out, they pulled investment/jobs I'm sure people would be complaining no one told employees the consequences to them and their employment.

Many multinationals are explaining to staff the benefits to their company of continued eu membership, which I'm sure any savvy employee can read into such statements what it'll mean for them personally & financially.

I don't see the airbus letter to staff any differently.

It's posted in full - http://www.dailypost.co.uk/business/business-news/airbus-sends-brexit-letter-employees-11134618

[bilun777]

Surely Multinational means just that.

 

USA,Canada,South America,India, Indonesia,Australasia,China,Korea ,All the Commonwealth countries.

Not" just "the EU...

Edited 4 April, 2016 by bilun777

[Llanigraham]

There is nothing in that letter that could be considered to be an instruction to the AirBus employees to vote "In" or "Out".

[gadgetman]

Surely Multinational means just that.

USA,Canada,South America,India, Indonesia,Australasia,China,Korea ,All the Commonwealth countries.

Not" just "the EU...

Companies typically Base themselves in one part of a continent yet cover the whole region from there.

There are a number of EMEA HQs in the UK, with no physical presence in their other markets. Others will look to consolidate their markets into one HQ location and this could rule out the UK.

Many may choose this approach with regards to the UK following a leave vote. Many are planning for this scenario.

For some Ireland will be favourite to keep key staff.

For others it'll depend where their main market is. For many the UK forms a small portion of their sales/revenues.

[trundlenut]

Companies typically Base themselves in one part of a continent yet cover the whole region from there.

There are a number of EMEA HQs in the UK, with no physical presence in their other markets. Others will look to consolidate their markets into one HQ location and this could rule out the UK.

Many may choose this approach with regards to the UK following a leave vote. Many are planning for this scenario.

For some Ireland will be favourite to keep key staff.

For others it'll depend where their main market is. For many the UK forms a small portion of their sales/revenues.

The Canadian company I use to work for did exactly this.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

Edited 4 April, 2016 by trundlenut

[lol-lol]

Well had a very interesting presentation on BREXIT at a meeting with HMRC policy Group present and Open Europe Group as a guest also.  http://openeurope.org.uk/

 

It would be my industry that would need to make the customs entries in and out of the UK and having the staff and systems to cope with it.

 

One interesting element highlighted would be how long would it take for the Government to ask Article 50 of the exit procedure to be triggered?

 

Would the Government wait a week, month or a few months to go in to a few details of what FTA with the EU might be agreeable, maybe not until the Autumn Conference season?  Also much thinking that Cameron might go then and leave it to Boris and Co.

[moley]

Well had a very interesting presentation on BREXIT at a meeting with HMRC policy Group present and Open Europe Group as a guest also.  http://openeurope.org.uk/

 

It would be my industry that would need to make the customs entries in and out of the UK and having the staff and systems to cope with it.

 

One interesting element highlighted would be how long would it take for the Government to ask Article 50 of the exit procedure to be triggered?

I used to love meetings like that, where you would discuss something that might or might not happen, that nobody knew when it might happen or not and best of all nobody knew what to do if it did happen.

My view is that if we wake up on the 24th of June to find the UK has decided to leave the EU that will be the day to start dealing with the issues involved. I can see a lot of consults making some cash of helping companies through the transition.

If the vote is to leave the leave campaign will be on to Cameron to trigger article 50 immediately or resign. I think he would resign on the 24th if the vote is to leave and let the tories rip themselves apart and force an autumn general election.

[jlwah]

I used to love meetings like that, where you would discuss something that might or might not happen, that nobody knew when it might happen or not and best of all nobody knew what to do if it did happen.

My view is that if we wake up on the 24th of June to find the UK has decided to leave the EU that will be the day to start dealing with the issues involved. I can see a lot of consults making some cash of helping companies through the transition.

If the vote is to leave the leave campaign will be on to Cameron to trigger article 50 immediately or resign. I think he would resign on the 24th if the vote is to leave and let the tories rip themselves apart and force an autumn general election.

I'm not sure that the recent 5 year parliament rule would allow an autumn election and I certainly can't see Labour wanting one with the potential for such an uncertain outcome. Having said that, the centre of the Labour party would probably see it as an opportunity for the electorate to register its dislike of Corbyn and they could stand a chance of turfing him out. Alternately we could end up with a Corbyn led Labour party negotiating the terms of our Brexit or a Tory government with a larger majority, such is the unpredictability of the current state of politics.

 

I also thought the UK had a period of 2 years in which to trigger article 50 and with a nominal 5 year negotiating period after that, it could be 2023 before we're set free. Plenty of time for the EU leaders to concoct a sweetening deal for us to have a second vote.

 

It's interesting that the vote on this thread has remained a fairly consistent 55% leave 45% stay, not sure how representative of the wider electorate that is.  

[domhnall]

Interesting article in the paper this morning considering what happens if it's a close leave vote in England but a big remain vote in Scotland swings it overall for a UK remain vote. There's a suggestion that Scotland would be booted out of the UK. Not sure that would happen though.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

[gadgetman]

Interesting article in the paper this morning considering what happens if it's a close leave vote in England but a big remain vote in Scotland swings it overall for a UK remain vote. There's a suggestion that Scotland would be booted out of the UK. Not sure that would happen though.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

No one will be kicked out, but there would be a strong push for another Scottish referendum that's for sure

[moley]

Interesting article in the paper this morning considering what happens if it's a close leave vote in England but a big remain vote in Scotland swings it overall for a UK remain vote. There's a suggestion that Scotland would be booted out of the UK. Not sure that would happen though.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

I would suggest that is one for the scaremongering category. I'm sure the voting by country, county, areas will be analyzed after the result and the arguments, backlash witch-hunt and fallout will follow. Nobody is going to kick any country out of the UK, but whatever the result Ms Sturgeon will no doubt be straight onto the referendum trail.

[bilun777]

Unfortunately (rather like the Scottish independance vote.) I suspect that it will be a narrowish vote to stay In.

We'll then have the same situation of never ending talk about it with nothing ever changing.