One of the islands that makes up Papua New Guinea is called New Ireland. However, it seems that a much colder island far to the north might also wish to be called New Ireland — the island formerly known as Great Britain.
In the wake of the European Commission’s ruling that Ireland must reclaim 13 billion euros (US$14.51 billion) plus interest in taxes from Apple, there is a good deal of excitement at the prospect of a post-Brexit Britain replacing its smaller neighbor in the affections of tax-shy global corporations.
As the Daily Telegraph put it in an editorial: “If Ireland and the EU do not want a huge, wealth-creating firm doing business in their territory, Apple will be very welcome in the UK.”
Illustration: Mountain people
Welcome, that is, to use the UK as it has previously used Ireland — as a compliant state that will look the other way while vast profits pass through, untaxed.
It is, on the surface, an appealing prospect. You only have to walk around Dublin or Cork to see that Ireland’s tax regime has been a honeypot for all the hottest digital corporations — not just the long-established ones like Apple, Microsoft and Intel, but the entire new wave of Internet behemoths: Google, Facebook, Twitter and so on. And the same is broadly true in other areas such as pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Little Ireland has a stock of US direct investment much larger than France and Germany combined. Ireland is the No. 1 location worldwide for investment by US chemical and pharmaceutical companies and No. 2 for tech companies. And no one thinks those corporations are attracted by the scenery.
For the more excitable elements among the Brexiters, the EU’s ruling on Apple’s tax bill thus opens up a delirious prospect. The Brussels bureaucrats are moving against Ireland’s vigorously pro-business taxation policies, but Britain, when it throws off the shackles of the EU, will be free to swoop in and grab the golden eggs from the Irish nest.
Apple and Pfizer, Facebook and Google, driven by EU persecution from the Emerald Isle, will seek asylum in the New Ireland next door, where the writ of the Eurocrats does not run and the government knows how to treat a corporation with the respect it deserves.
Could there be any more dramatic illustration of both the evils of the EU and the thrilling possibilities of Brexit?
However, there are two small questions about this strategy. Is it possible? And is it desirable? The answers might perhaps curb the enthusiasm of the true believers.
There is, for a start, the small matter of whether, even after the EU tax ruling, Apple wants to leave Ireland for the UK or anywhere else. The answer could hardly be clearer — it does not.
In an interview with Ireland’s national broadcaster RTE, Apple chief executive Tim Cook was full of indignation at the very idea that Apple might have benefited from illegal state aid in the form of a sweetheart tax deal.
“When you are accused of doing something that’s so foreign to your values, it brings out an outrage in you, that’s how we feel,” he said.
He made it clear that Apple will appeal against the 13 billion euros ruling and that it expected the Irish government to do the same. Those listening out for signs of a dismay that might be exploited by post-Brexit Britain will have been encouraged — up to a point.
And the point at which the encouragement stopped was when Cook discussed Apple’s intentions. What will Apple do in benighted EU-ridden Ireland? Keep investing.
He reaffirmed without qualification that Apple was going ahead with a major expansion of its campus in Cork: “We’re very committed to Ireland, have been for 37 years. We have a long-term romance together.”
So why on earth would Apple remain in Ireland instead of taking refuge in the brave new post-Brexit world of low-tax Britain? Partly because tax, even for greedy corporations, is not everything. And partly because Apple is smart enough to know that the kind of outrageous dodge that resulted in a tax rate in 2014 for its Irish-based subsidiary of 0.005 percent is not sustainable — in Ireland, Britain or any other democratic society.
Though market fundamentalists find it hard to believe, even global corporations need social relationships. Will they exploit every possible loophole to maximize their profits? Yes — ruthlessly and without conscience.
However, is the ability to dodge tax the sole criterion they apply to their decisions to invest? No.
As Cook said: “We went into Ireland in 1980. We didn’t go there to seek advantages on taxes — we had only 60 employees and very little revenue.”
This reassurance explains why public and political opinion in Ireland has been more ambivalent about the Apple ruling than the establishment consensus would suggest. The big right-of-center parties, Fine Gael and Fianna Fail, have backed Apple to the hilt and tried to rally the public by warning that accepting the unpaid taxes would drive multinational investors away.
However, most people seem to understand that it is not so simple. The choice between colluding in morally obnoxious tax avoidance on the one hand and facing economic chaos on the other does not ring true.
The Brexiters’ fantasy of stealing Ireland’s corporate investors relies on a deeply patronizing attitude to Ireland. Underlying it is the notion that no foreign company would possibly invest in Ireland for any other reason than its lax attitude to taxation. However, there are a lot of other reasons — a highly skilled and productive workforce, cultural vitality, political stability and (oddly enough) EU membership with full access to the world’s biggest single market.
The obsession of giant corporations with avoiding tax does not blind them to their need for the social, political and cultural resources on which they draw.
This is not just a matter of theory. A crucial point easily lost in the noise of the EU’s Apple ruling is that the regime under which it could avoid so much tax has already changed. The notorious “double Irish” strategy used by Apple and other corporations to make themselves stateless for taxation purposes is being dismantled.
Market fundamentalists would tell us that corporations will respond to this tightening of the tax regime by fleeing Ireland. Actually, they have responded by paying more tax: Ireland took in 6.9 billion euros in corporation tax last year compared with 4.5 billion euros in 2014 when the abolition of the “double Irish” was announced.
And why was the Irish corporate tax regime made tougher? Not because of the EU, but because of an organization the Brexiters seem not to have heard of: the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). It is the OECD, not the EU, that has driven attempts to clean up the worst excesses of corporate tax avoidance.
The UK is a member of the OECD and has signed up to these anti-tax avoidance strategies. Unless Britain wants to go completely rogue and leave the OECD as well as the EU, the fantasy of luring companies such as Apple with the virtual impunity from taxation they used to enjoy in Ireland could not be fulfilled.
So much for the possibility of becoming the New Ireland — what about the desirability? Would it be good for Britain if it were to try to emulate Ireland’s strategy of relying on foreign investment and attracting it by becoming, in effect, a tax haven for the largest corporations?
The key point about Ireland’s Faustian pact with global corporations is that it was a strategy of desperation. The country sold its soul in the 1960s because it had a stagnant agricultural economy. Indigenous industrial development was slow and weak, Ireland was an economic vassal of the UK and mass emigration was bleeding the country dry.
Giving global corporations massive tax breaks was not an ideological principle — it was a last resort when pretty much everything else had failed.
This matters in the British context because it explains why very low corporation taxes could operate in Ireland without creating social conflict. The corporate devil gave the Irish Faust a pretty good price for his soul: a way of moving from backwardness to modernity.
However, Britain has a radically different economic, social and political history. Transplanting a policy that worked for very specific reasons in Ireland into post-Brexit Britain would show scant regard for the nature of either country.
Ireland has had to live with the consequences of its particular choice. One of them is what US economist Paul Krugman recently called “leprechaun economics.” Krugman coined the phrase in response to the news that the Irish economy grew by an incredible 26.3 percent last year. Literally incredible — the figures are massively inflated by the fiscal juggling of the giant corporations. Irish GDP is meaningless.
There is a vast gulf between the real economy and the kind of hyped-up faux-economy you get when you turn your state into a conduit for torrents of funny money. And that hype is not harmless — the Celtic Tiger bubble was one of its more catastrophic products.
It is not accidental that Ireland has the most unequal distribution of market income (before tax and welfare) in the developed world. In effect, there are two Irish economies: the foreign corporate economy that is highly skilled, ultra-globalized and very favorably treated by the state; and a weaker indigenous economy that exists in its shadow.
One of the consequences of this extreme inequality of market income is that the state has to do an enormous amount of heavy lifting through the income tax and welfare systems to keep these divisions in check. This activist state is hardly what the British right expects it will get if it follows the Irish model.
And here, surely, is the fatal contradiction in the notion of a post-Brexit Britain that will combine huge tax benefits for the corporate few with British Prime Minister Theresa May’s promise of social justice for the many.
The more honest voices urging Britain to replace Ireland as the new best buddy of the global corporations recognize that radical cuts to corporate taxes would have to be matched by drastic reductions in personal taxes because, otherwise, rage at grossly unequal treatment would destabilize society and politics.
Hence, the final paradox: Giving the corporations what they want on tax means not giving them what they need in every other respect.
The general low tax regime in this brave new Britain would be delightful for the likes of Apple — except when they want a terrific educational system to produce their smart workforce, a national health service to keep them healthy, a decline in social inequality to keep the political environment stable and lots of public investment in world-class infrastructure. For those things they need big government funded by high taxes — on somebody else.
It is pure delusion to think that the smartest corporations will be drawn to a Britain not only outside the single European market, but no longer raising enough tax to invest in its society, services and infrastructure.
Ireland is discovering that the game of beggar-my-neighbor tax policies is pretty much up. Inside or outside the EU, Britain will have to join Ireland and the rest of Europe in telling the corporations that, if they want to operate in civilized societies, they have to help pay for them.
Fintan O’Toole is an Irish Times columnist.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry