Ireland Government intend to appeal EU/Apples Tax Ruling

[Sakkura]

5 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

Socialism and government intervention introduces cronyism, not capitalism. In capitalism, the government is a non-entity, as it should be. It's only when the government gets involved that suddenly governments can be bought for the benefit of businesses.

That argument is proven wrong by the Scandinavian countries - some of the most regulated, big-government countries in the world, yet also the least corrupt countries in the world.

[Centurius]

11 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

Agree to disagree, depending on your definitions that's what we have now, that's what a state is.

 

As for the EU, I can understand their stance on the legality, and wanting to ensure an even playing field across the EU, but this seems a little invasive to national sovereignty on an internal action. It did not effect anything, so far as I can see, between IRE and the rest of the EU, taxes and costs were still accounted for externally. The EU is supposed to be something like the American Federal government, each EU nation is an american state equivalent, granted the foundations are different and the enumerated powers I am sure are, I have never read the EU charter or their "constitution" but I would doubt any of the nations would have agreed to such a wholesale reduction in their sovereign powers. Although I wouldnt put it past the EU to overstep just as the US does.

It's not overstepping as has been told a few times already, this is the direct enforcement of a treaty provision, specifically Article 101 TFEU which states.

Quote

 

Article 101

(ex Article 81 TEC)

1. The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the internal market, and in particular those which:

(a) directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions;

(b) limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment;

(c) share markets or sources of supply;

(d) apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;

(e) make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.

2. Any agreements or decisions prohibited pursuant to this Article shall be automatically void.

3. The provisions of paragraph 1 may, however, be declared inapplicable in the case of:

- any agreement or category of agreements between undertakings,

- any decision or category of decisions by associations of undertakings,

- any concerted practice or category of concerted practices,

which contributes to improving the production or distribution of goods or to promoting technical or economic progress, while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit, and which does not:

(a) impose on the undertakings concerned restrictions which are not indispensable to the attainment of these objectives;

(b) afford such undertakings the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question.

 

 

Under the Treaties that Ireland voluntarily signed(and in their specific case actually had a referendum for) their arrangement with Apple was and is illegal and void. Those same treaties give the European Commission the power to enforce.

7 hours ago, abazigal said:

Whether you think Apple is paying too little tax is besides the point. The point is that the EU is flat out telling a company to pay taxes that they didn't owe, under some ambiguous "it just feels right" rationale. That's not how the law works. 

 

Imagine if someone came up to you and told you "I think you have been paying too little car insurance these past 10 years. Time to make up the difference." and expects you to pay up there and then. How is that fair? 

 

If the EU thinks that Ireland's corporate tax rates are too low, have them raised, and proceed to tax Apple from the next financial year onwards. Apple has broken no laws (much as some people feel that their low tax rates is morally and ethically reprehensible), and if this case ever made it to the courts, I honestly can't see the EU winning. 

The problem isn't Ireland's low tax rate, it is that a company gets an even lower one that is not applied uniformly. Which is as illustrated above prohibited and automatically void. So a better comparison would be if someone came up to you and told you you could steal a car and face no consequences if you signed a contract. Only to be later on arrested by the police anyway as the person was not authorized to make such an arrangement.

5 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

It's not stupid. This is how governments compete to get better conditions for their own people. Having a low tax rate necessitates wise spending on only what is necessary and making governments efficient.

 

It's not up to you to decide whether Apple should pay more or not. It's up to the Irish government and by proxy, the people of Ireland as a whole. Now, the Irish government should tax people and firms uniformly from a moral perspective, but on the whole, this is not your decision to make and it's not the EU's. Ireland is either a sovereign state or it isn't.

Sovereignty isn't a dichotomy, it's a spectrum. Ireland as a sovereign state agreed to a set of treaties with very specific provisions and also agreed that these could be enforced. As a result the supranational body empowered in part by Irish support is now using the powers at its disposal.

5 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

Socialism and government intervention introduces cronyism, not capitalism. In capitalism, the government is a non-entity, as it should be. It's only when the government gets involved that suddenly governments can be bought for the benefit of businesses.

In a world without a powerful central authority a new one always rises, this has been the case for all of human history and follows basic human nature. The kind of capitalism you envision just like utopian socialism or any of the isms taken to the extreme will always fail on the human condition.

[HalGameGuru]

2 hours ago, Centurius said:

-snip-

unless there is a lot of established case law that is a pretty ambiguous passage. And it seems to be referring directly to actions of undertakings (corporate entities?) not states. IT seems to be talking about price fixing, third party collusion, and things like dumping.

[Master Disaster]

On 03/09/2016 at 4:12 PM, Centurius said:

Please ignore, forum error

 

2 hours ago, Centurius said:

It's not overstepping as has been told a few times already, this is the direct enforcement of a treaty provision, specifically Article 101 TFEU which states.

 

Under the Treaties that Ireland voluntarily signed(and in their specific case actually had a referendum for) their arrangement with Apple was and is illegal and void. Those same treaties give the European Commission the power to enforce.

The problem isn't Ireland's low tax rate, it is that a company gets an even lower one that is not applied uniformly. Which is as illustrated above prohibited and automatically void. So a better comparison would be if someone came up to you and told you you could steal a car and face no consequences if you signed a contract. Only to be later on arrested by the police anyway as the person was not authorized to make such an arrangement.

Sovereignty isn't a dichotomy, it's a spectrum. Ireland as a sovereign state agreed to a set of treaties with very specific provisions and also agreed that these could be enforced. As a result the supranational body empowered in part by Irish support is now using the powers at its disposal.

In a world without a powerful central authority a new one always rises, this has been the case for all of human history and follows basic human nature. The kind of capitalism you envision just like utopian socialism or any of the isms taken to the extreme will always fail on the human condition.

I'd like to ask how to process of devolution and a monarchy handing over power to a government affects the state of a nations sovereignty. 

 

Can a nation that's run by a constitutional government and a member of a larger union still call themselves a sovereign nation? 

[patrickjp93]

8 hours ago, laminutederire said:

That doesn't apply to the EU. Ireland gets money from the EU so the EU has a say. You can't ask for money someone if you don't make sure you get all the money you should elsewhere.

As long as Ireland is asking only in proportion to the tax revenue it gives to the EU, the EU can get bent.

 

7 hours ago, Centurius said:

It's not overstepping as has been told a few times already, this is the direct enforcement of a treaty provision, specifically Article 101 TFEU which states.

 

Under the Treaties that Ireland voluntarily signed(and in their specific case actually had a referendum for) their arrangement with Apple was and is illegal and void. Those same treaties give the European Commission the power to enforce.

The problem isn't Ireland's low tax rate, it is that a company gets an even lower one that is not applied uniformly. Which is as illustrated above prohibited and automatically void. So a better comparison would be if someone came up to you and told you you could steal a car and face no consequences if you signed a contract. Only to be later on arrested by the police anyway as the person was not authorized to make such an arrangement.

Sovereignty isn't a dichotomy, it's a spectrum. Ireland as a sovereign state agreed to a set of treaties with very specific provisions and also agreed that these could be enforced. As a result the supranational body empowered in part by Irish support is now using the powers at its disposal.

In a world without a powerful central authority a new one always rises, this has been the case for all of human history and follows basic human nature. The kind of capitalism you envision just like utopian socialism or any of the isms taken to the extreme will always fail on the human condition.

That part of the treat is unenforceable. Every single decision governments make distorts the economy in some way.

 

No, as the U.S. proved. Capitalism is perfectly sustainable. The problem is government intervention in nearly all cases.

[laminutederire]

On Sunday, September 04, 2016 at 11:06 PM, patrickjp93 said:

As long as Ireland is asking only in proportion to the tax revenue it gives to the EU, the EU can get bent.

 

That part of the treat is unenforceable. Every single decision governments make distorts the economy in some way.

 

No, as the U.S. proved. Capitalism is perfectly sustainable. The problem is government intervention in nearly all cases.

Europe can't get bent because it's a common work of countries, and such laws disrupt competition so hard in the free market that it can't be allowed.

 

When the US has proved capitalism is sustainable? You need to travel and broaden your mind on some things. I admit you know better on computer hardware, but I just can't let you say that.

US capitalism is at the roots of many unsustainable behaviors around the world.

How creating wars and funding ISIS was a sustainable move? Of course the US has done that only for money, but still.

How is having an economy so disconnected from ecology sustainable?

I don't know if you're one of those skeptics, but the temperature have been rising significantly, you can even grasp it year to year when it's getting hotter in the winter and summer.

How is having a social system so unfair sustainable? Look at Trump, he's an idiot but he's also the embodiment of the fact that the social ladder doesn't work in the US capitalism, since it doesn't allow government intervention.

I could go on and on and on about how unsustainable it all is, but I think you get the point, so I'll make it short:

Think about the stock market and its link to the US capitalism. Now think about how sustainable the stock market paradigm is.

Do you see it now? 

[patrickjp93]

47 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Europe can't get bent because it's a common work of countries, and such laws disrupt competition so hard in the free market that it can't be allowed.

 

When the US has proved capitalism is sustainable? You need to travel and broaden your mind on some things. I admit you know better on computer hardware, but I just can't let you say that.

US capitalism is at the roots of many unsustainable behaviors around the world.

How creating wars and funding ISIS was a sustainable move? Of course the US has done that only for money, but still.

How is having an economy so disconnected from ecology sustainable?

I don't know if you're one of those skeptics, but the temperature have been rising significantly, you can even grasp it year to year when it's getting hotter in the winter and summer.

How is having a social system so unfair sustainable? Look at Trump, he's an idiot but he's also the embodiment of the fact that the social ladder doesn't work in the US capitalism, since it doesn't allow government intervention.

I could go on and on and on about how unsustainable it all is, but I think you get the point, so I'll make it short:

Think about the stock market and its link to the US capitalism. Now think about how sustainable the stock market paradigm is.

Do you see it now? 

IT IS THE FREE MARKET! Good lord you people are dim!

 

Basically before the Great Depression Capitalism worked like a charm, and then we had interventionalism...

 

No, capitalism is the most sustainable economic system. The problem is no one knows what it looks like anymore because no one practices it faithfully.

 

That's not part of capitalism.

 

Simple, as the environment deteriorates, people start to pay to have it maintained, and new products and jobs are provided to do it. It's a self-sustaining system with a positive feedback loop, especially in the information age.

 

There has been no warming at all for a decade! And the predictions about the ice caps were wrong! One is expanding faster than the other is shrinking! The most complete studies cannot find any oceanic warming from the last decade.

 

There shouldn't be a social system in place by the government. That's not a product of capitalism. It's socialism and cronyism with a noose around its neck.

 

No, I don't get your point because you don't have one.

 

The stock market is perfectly sustainable as long as governments are not involved in it.

[Sakkura]

Oh wow, we have a denier on our hands.

 

Jet fuel can't melt polar ice caps. Someone wake up the sheeple.

[IhazHedont]

I can't believe some people actually support Apple in this case.

 

I wanted to write a long post, but nope, this is utterly stupid.

 

 

[patrickjp93]

21 minutes ago, IhazHedont said:

I can't believe some people actually support Apple in this case.

 

I wanted to write a long post, but nope, this is utterly stupid.

 

 

It's not about supporting Apple. It's about supporting Ireland in giving the EU regulators the finger because they're out of control and making decisions not even based in legal grounds anymore.

[szomeret]

Reading the basis of the ruling I think Ireland is right to appeal.

The commission alleged they favored Apple and while in practice this may have been the case other companies were able to set up the same arrangement had they tried.

 

In the end the tax money will still have to be collected, perhaps by the member states of the EU, but I think Ireland may win their appeal. 

[Notional]

Ireland needs to STFU and do as they are told. Not only did EU have to bust them out of their own incompetence, as their economy failed after 2008, but then Ireland screwed EU over by essentially making something similar to a tax haven, that certainly is not done in a legal way. Apple needs to pay up and stop ripping everyone off. Pay up or take your suicide slave produced hardware out of the EU.

[Centurius]

On 9/4/2016 at 5:54 PM, HalGameGuru said:

unless there is a lot of established case law that is a pretty ambiguous passage. And it seems to be referring directly to actions of undertakings (corporate entities?) not states. IT seems to be talking about price fixing, third party collusion, and things like dumping.

I agree, but there has been case law for the current interpretation since the 70s. Right now legal precedent supports considering states as undertakings as well and has grounded asymetric arrangements(be it receiving aid directly or indirectly via tax schemes) in competition law under that article.

[laminutederire]

11 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

Oil is sustainable for another 200 years even at current population growth trends, and by then solar will actually be economically viable thanks to CNT research that was happening privately in a capitalistic manner anyway.

 

And paying farmers to not produce more is better?! NO! Farmers (not Monsanto, but farmers with consciences) take good care of their land. And Monsanto is another product of cronyism.

I'm sorry but you have no credibility to me, I have yet to see the sources I ask you, so I won't bother. USA is a problem for the world because of that state of mind.

I'll let people go on topic now.

[patrickjp93]

9 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

 

Hmm am I? I change my inquiries to bold, only thing I changed of that post.

I'm sorry but you're the only one on this forum I can't discuss with, you impose everything you say but when I try to have tangible data I just can't have it from you.

 

I am the only one on this forum who provides data for everything. As for the proof, can you understand it? Also, that reply literally isn't showing up for me in these pages.

 

Ingenuity, humility, ambition, intelligence, physical fitness, beauty, pragmatism, acumen, and many, many more. This is why we have businesses and not singular human beings. No one can be the best at it all, and so there's competition to get the best people in the right positions.

 

It should not be the prerogative of the government to influence education, and between YouTube, Lynda.com, iTunesU, Udemy, Coursera, and MIT's and Carnegie Melon's open courseware, you can get a free education from Kindergarten through a Bachelor's in a number of STEM fields for pennies on the dollar vs. traditional schooling. The free market took care of the problem without needing any government assistance.

 

As for your proof, have you never heard of deadweight loss? That's literally the reason Capitalism wins over any other system. It lets markets compete and optimize price down and deadweight loss down, and spending is taxation is deadweight loss. Intervention, Socialism, is inherrently less sustainable than Capitalism. When problems arise under Capitalism, money can flow freely to solving in. In any sort of interventionalist system, that money flow has been restricted and gummed up by bureaucracy. The nimbleness/responsiveness of the economy has been dampened. That is a closed proof. If you want it in mathematical notation, pick up any microeconomics textbook.

[patrickjp93]

Just now, IhazHedont said:

I don't see how they deny it honestly.

A quote from the NASA article :" In the 21st century, greenhouse gases have continued to accumulate in the atmosphere, just as they did in the 20th century, but global average surface air temperatures have stopped rising in tandem with the gases. The temperature of the top half of the world's oceans -- above the 1.24-mile mark -- is still climbing, but not fast enough to account for the stalled air temperatures. "

 

English isn't my mother langage, but as far as I understand, the air temperature is linked to the gas emission, which global average concentration is stable, so does the global temperature, doesn't it ?

 

Quote from the second article :"...data limitations that currently prevent the oceanographic community from resolving the differences among various estimates of changing ocean heat content" and the rest of it is based on uncertainties, as is it stated at the end.

 

In my opinion, they don't deny global warming (please note that I wasn't talking about that in the first place, just very basic facts), they are raising some doubts about the explanations and measurements we have.

Go through ALL the sources. Each one finds the oceans, the air, etc. not warming up. No single study is comprehensive. This is a higher-level reasoning called synthesis. Did they not teach you that in your sub-par European school?

[laminutederire]

2 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

I am the only one on this forum who provides data for everything. As for the proof, can you understand it? Also, that reply literally isn't showing up for me in these pages.

 

Ingenuity, humility, ambition, intelligence, physical fitness, beauty, pragmatism, acumen, and many, many more. This is why we have businesses and not singular human beings. No one can be the best at it all, and so there's competition to get the best people in the right positions.

 

It should not be the prerogative of the government to influence education, and between YouTube, Lynda.com, iTunesU, Udemy, Coursera, and MIT's and Carnegie Melon's open courseware, you can get a free education from Kindergarten through a Bachelor's in a number of STEM fields for pennies on the dollar vs. traditional schooling. The free market took care of the problem without needing any government assistance.

If it's a mathematical proof, I can handle it. So try me.

It is in the last page. Want a screenshot? 

 

Intelligence? To me, that's not what USA is the best at uncovering. I could have gotten to the MIT for a master's degree if I wanted to, intelligence wasn't an issue to go there, why haven't I? 

Because it's really expensive (Average loan is more than half of what my parents earn). I am not a genius so I wouldn't have enough scolarships to go there for free. That leaves poorer people with above average intelligence but below genius level absolutely no chance to compete. How does that promote intelligence? That quality is too often left behind to my taste. You could argue that if you're smart you can do things yourself and still do things. Sure maybe, but it's considerably harder, showing that money has a say in the selection. Money isn't natural, since it is a mind construction men base part of their society .

 

Hmm maybe you can, but how well will you be recognized with that education against someone who got out of Stanford or the MIT? You can access some sort of knowledge, but without any trust from others it doesn't matter since you won't get in the right position to use that knowledge.

Benefits of higher than bachelor degrees can't be found like that on the Internet, as you said it, leaving paid schools as an obligation anyway, which doesn't solve the problem.

[Sakkura]

1 hour ago, patrickjp93 said:

It's not about supporting Apple. It's about supporting Ireland in giving the EU regulators the finger because they're out of control and making decisions not even based in legal grounds anymore.

As has been explained over and over again, the EU decision is absolutely correct and follows the law to the letter. The only thing out of control here is your insane climate denial. It's not even really relevant to this topic.

1 hour ago, patrickjp93 said:

Ocean levels are rising, but the water's not getting warmer (NASA).

 

No, all of your issues are linked to cronyism and market manipulation. Pure capitalism is the most sustainable economic system in the world while also being the most efficient and pro-growth. Between Milton Friedman, Adam Smith, and John Nash, this is not up for debate anymore. It's mathematically proven!

 

No, Capitalism is exactly natural selection. You just don't like what some of the parameters of survival are. Cronyism runs counter to natural selection. Too big to fail is cronyism. Monopoly by fiat is cronyism. Capitalism is pure competition, best man wins.

 

The only reason the system is unfair is because of the government intervening in the economy.

Here is how the ocean heat content has developed. Clearly rising.

 

As for cronyism, that's what this thread is about. Ireland conspiring with Apple to break the law, Apple getting a much lower tax rate than honest businesses.

 

The EU stepped in to stop this cronyism.

 

Spoiler

57 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/06oct_abyss/ -NASA

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/no-not-enough-ocean-heat-to-explain-that-warming-pause/news-story/879201490df4a7e18bcf5ff607835146 -MIT

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#Development_of_perception_of_post-1998_hiatus -A summary for the ignorant, i.e., you.

 

Or, have this Nobe laureate explain it for you.

 

also, CO2 is far less of a problem than methane and high-altitude water vapour which is not regulated by the oceans for the record.

 

GHG also show to reflect much of UV light away from the atmosphere, so it's still Catch-22 on the net effect.

That Nobel laureate has been paid off by the Heartland Institute. And your other links still show evidence that climate change is real.

 

Greenhouse gases do not reflect UV light. Not CO2 anyway. UV passes straight through, as does visible light. Some infrared also goes right through, it's only certain bands that are blocked by CO2.

 

Spoiler

31 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

Oil is sustainable for another 200 years even at current population growth trends, and by then solar will actually be economically viable thanks to CNT research that was happening privately in a capitalistic manner anyway.

 

And paying farmers to not produce more is better?! NO! Farmers (not Monsanto, but farmers with consciences) take good care of their land. And Monsanto is another product of cronyism.

I'd rather save the oil for plastic production than burn it, but whatevs. In terms of economic viability and availability, oil will be sustainable for a while. Whether that's 200 years is questionable, but it's certainly not going away soon.

16 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

I handed you 5 on the global warming is a farce comment. What sources have I not given you in this debate? The U.S. consumer market is keeping the entire world propped up. If the U.S. stopped buying things externally for a month the entire world would have slipped into deep recession and frozen financial markets. Just because we don't fall for pseudoscientific propaganda as easily as the Europeans doesn't mean we aren't sustainable. We just don't sacrifice current economic conditions for alternatives that aren't ready and aren't needed.

Your sources disagree with you about global warming being a farce. All the reliable sources agree that it's real, only corporate shills or conspiracy theorists still cling to their denial.

 

The US consumer market is important, but not as important as you think. Anyway, any huge market just "not buying" stuff would hurt the global economy, that goes for the EU as much as the US. The EU economy is generally considered slightly larger than the US economy (depending on how you measure, and whether you use PPP or nominal), so the impact would be very similar. The value of imports is also essentially the same.

2 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

They all deny it! Global warming is not matching modeled trends at all. In fact there was 0 increase in temperature for 2000 to 2010, and what little some speculate there to be is based on incomplete data and is biased by El Nino and La Nina!

 

I'm fine with being questioned, but have your crap together in the first place you sad excuse for an intellectual!

Global warming is still ongoing, as the numbers show. All credible scientists know that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the factual reality of global warming. Models aren't always accurate, but they're better than sticking your head in the sand as the rising sea washes ashore and drowns you.

[Centurius]

20 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

Go through ALL the sources. Each one finds the oceans, the air, etc. not warming up. No single study is comprehensive. This is a higher-level reasoning called synthesis. Did they not teach you that in your sub-par European school?

You realize in most global rankings the Miami University is positioned below a lot of European ones right with a pretty significant share of European universities being in the top 100?

[Mister Snow]

On 9/3/2016 at 5:00 PM, AresKrieger said:

Ethics do not concern me, and I have no stake in this by all rights apple should be paying american tax rates since it is actually an american company, but if Ireland made the arrangement then Ireland should abide by it and the EU should have no say in the matter.

 

Frankly I just hate the EU more than I hate apple, which is saying something.

You are looking at it as an isolated case. What would happen if all big companies of the world are given "tax evasion" rights in a private deal with some country because they employ a lot of people and every country wants their business? Product of that would be anti-competitive in nature. How can a smaller emerging company compete when it has such a huge disadvantage that it has to pay full taxes on top of it having a lot less resources in the first place?

Even if you take two companies that are completely equal in worth and one has to pay taxes and the other one doesn't, who do you think would dominate the market and profit?

 

EU is very strict when it comes to anti-competition rules so this makes perfect sense. While Ireland is allowed to lower taxes as much as they want, doing it on a per company basis is wrong and should be illegal.

[AresKrieger]

3 minutes ago, Mister Snow said:

You are looking at it as an isolated case. What would happen if all big companies of the world are given "tax evasion" rights in a private deal with some country because they employ a lot of people and every country wants their business? Product of that would be anti-competitive in nature. How can a smaller emerging company compete when it has such a huge disadvantage that it has to pay full taxes on top of it having a lot less resources in the first place?

Do you think ireland only provides this service to Apple, because the situation you just described has already occurred with numerous companies, the solution is import tariffs for foreign operated/located for tax reason companies.

[Mister Snow]

6 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

Do you think ireland only provides this service to Apple, because the situation you just described has already occurred with numerous companies, the solution is import tariffs for foreign operated/located for tax reason companies.

No, I don't think that Apple is the only one but they are probably the biggest one and it doesn't really matter if it's Apple, those kind of deals still have a negative consequence. What you described serves to protect only domestic goods and services to a degree.

In the end, if a foreign company A gets a tax reduction and a foreign company B doesn't, that poses a problem and it opens a door to corruption at the top of the government.

[AresKrieger]

Just now, Mister Snow said:

In the end, if a foreign company A gets a tax reduction and a foreign company B doesn't, that poses a problem and it opens a door to corruption at the top of the government.

I can agree with this, though I think the EU having power over other countries to the degree it does also allows for an excess of corruption, so there is no winning in this situation

[HalGameGuru]

I'm just gonna throw some fuel on the fire...

Evidence for Large Decadal Variability in the Tropical Mean Radiative Energy Budget

Evidence for Strengthening of the Tropical General Circulation in the 1990s

Spoiler

 

 

[Mister Snow]

8 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

I can agree with this, though I think the EU having power over other countries to the degree it does also allows for an excess of corruption, so there is no winning in this situation

I would imagine that it's harder to pay off an entire EU council and court then it is to deal with a single country but that is highly speculative in the end.