Monthly Archives: September 2016
|After Brexit there will be several vehicles to allow a company stay in the single market. The first one is to move the company overseas to one of the other European country before Brexit ends. It is very important to do during the UK membership to use all accessible vehicles.
A good start is to apply for a EU citizenship,which is what Ian Paisley did, but if someone doesn’t have such a possibility, they should a open new company in another EU country. If you have already opened it before Brexit, you will be able to keep it going in the same way and also after Brexit, with full access to the common market. The easiest way is to open a limited company in a country where you don’t need to have residency.
A decent solution is to choose Poland as a country which has low salaries (average 900 Euro) and low taxation- corporation tax is settled at 18%. Incorporation of the company is possibly via Internet on the following website https://ekrs.ms.gov.pl/
French campaign group Fair Deal for Expats has brought a challenge in the EU General Court to Commission President Jean-Claude Junker’s “presidential order” preventing Brexit negotiations with the UK until the UK has triggered TEU Article 50.
Mr Junker foreshadowed such an order shortly after the UK referendum result, and stated on 28 June 2016 that he had “forbidden Commissioners from holding discussions with representatives from the British government — by presidential order” and “told all the directors-general that there cannot be any prior discussions with British representatives”.
According to the Fair Deal for Expats website, the challenge is being brought under TFEU Article 263. Its grounds include that the order contravenes the principle of sincere cooperation, has no proper basis and discriminates against UK citizens (who remain EU citizens).
One issue might be whether the claimant has standing to bring this challenge. Under TFEU Article 263, a natural or legal person may challenge the legality of acts of the Commission where the act is “addressed to that person” or “a regulatory act which is of direct concern to them and does not entail implementing measures” (which do not appear to be the case), or where the act is “of direct and individual concern to” the person. The CJEU’s case-law on what is required for direct and individual concern is restrictive. In Case C-50/00 Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council , the CJEU reasserted that, for a person to be directly and individually concerned, a measure must affect “specific natural or legal persons by reason of certain attributes peculiar to them, or by reason of a factual situation which differentiates them from all other persons and distinguishes them individually in the same way as the addressee”. It did so despite an Advocate-General’s opinion urging a widening of the test. The application of this case-law to the present challenge, which appears to focus on the effect of the “presidential order” upon UK citizens, may be contested
Post from website brexit.law
The UK is one of most divisive countries in the world in terms of wealth. This is why 10% of UK households own almost 50% of the country. All the problems come from the staggering property prices and even more people rent flats because they cannot afford to pay a mortgage. Landlords earn from year to year, house benefits rise and the government spend extensive amounts of it, which it is passed on to the landlords.
It is impossible to believe that in a city like London someone who has a well-paid job cannot afford to rent a flat and must share a room like a student. E.g in poor Poland someone who needs to dwell, rents a flat or buys it- mostly with a mortgage.
It seems that the only way to solve this problem is to build more, but as the land is very scarce there is a need to build tall buildings with cheap flats to rent or buy with the help of the government instead of granting benefits.