The cabinet decided to block the takeover of Solvinity the company that manages the infrastructure behind DigiD by the American IT company Kyndryl.
The cabinet is getting waaay to much credit here, they initially wanted to go through with the deal. It wasn't until major public backlash, multiple experts putting their jobs on the line by going on television saying how bad an idea this was and an official committee strongly advising against it that cabinet changed their mind and chose to block the takeover. They were sitting their pants because of how the US would respond. Had they acted earlier, this could've gone much smoother: they could've just ended the contract at the company that's being taken over, move the data to another company that isn't being taken over. Or even better, they could have ordered to move the infrastructure in-house instead of having some commercial party handle the security of the population it's most sensitive data.
I heard that as well, but their original intention was definitely to make money one way or the other. They needed economic activity and i suppose attracting large businesses to headquarter in your country is a legit way to generate economic activity. Now they're the only natively English country in the EU, but without those low taxes those companies would've likely put up shop in London instead of Dublin.
They failed to only take the good part and reject the bad part, and that sucks for all of us. But my point isn't that them failing isn't problematic or that it was a smart financial policy, but that their failing is a failing of the EU as well. Whether they ended up benefitting from their policies isn't part of that debate imo.
We think it does. We usually focus on complexity within individual taxes, but “number of taxes” is also a sign of complexity. When you’re a company looking to do business, each tax means a new adviser, a new set of advice, and a new list of things you can and can’t do.
The article goes on, explaining the differences between two extremes withing the EU (France on the one end and Germany on the other). It's not saying all taxes are bad, or a low tax burden is good - it is arguing why complex tax systems hurt business. I agree with you that expensive cigarettes increase the population their overall health, i have no reason to believe the author thinks different.
Don't hate the player, hate the game. If Ireland wouldn't have offered the lowest taxes somebody else would have. Not saying we can't blame the Irish but pointing fingers here feels a bit sad. EU as a whole failed, not just one member state.
Tldr; France had barely any reforms, Germany had two big ones. Both Germany and France have a higher tax burden compared to the UK, amount of taxes ≠ amount paid in tax. The more taxes, the more complex the system. A complex system decreases international attractiveness for (large) businesses, so it would be good if UK looked more like Germany when it comes to taxes.
I feel like their racism is selective enough to consider Portuguese-looking Portuguese in Portugal as "okay" and Portuguese-looking Mexicans with the same exact skin colour in the US as not okay, does that make sense?
The paper is printed and transported, a data center meant for storing data handles much more data than that of a collage. You make a fair point, but the paper vs paperless debate isn't that simple.
The first few weeks i was surprised how weak Russia was, now I am surprised how well they are defending against drones considering the massive amount of them being produced. Keep it up Ukraine!
Really like how the eu cut it up in blocks, putting up conditions to make sure Hungary makes multiple steps in the right direction.
About €2.2bn of the funds being released are contingent on “academic freedom” being restored in Hungary’s universities, while another €500m is being held back until Hungary complies with last month’s ruling by the European court of justice over laws discriminating against the LGBTQ community.
The cabinet is getting waaay to much credit here, they initially wanted to go through with the deal. It wasn't until major public backlash, multiple experts putting their jobs on the line by going on television saying how bad an idea this was and an official committee strongly advising against it that cabinet changed their mind and chose to block the takeover. They were sitting their pants because of how the US would respond. Had they acted earlier, this could've gone much smoother: they could've just ended the contract at the company that's being taken over, move the data to another company that isn't being taken over. Or even better, they could have ordered to move the infrastructure in-house instead of having some commercial party handle the security of the population it's most sensitive data.