If you read the paper I linked to, it says that the money is likely going to the US and other places outside of the EU. Capital can cross borders effortlessly.
The EU requires member countries to let money cross their borders, and grants corporations the right to pay taxes for the entire EU in the member country of their choosing.
Well my experience as a person living in Eastern Europe is that EU funds are just very expensive roundabout subsidy for German car manufacturers - since everybody steals bulk of the money and buys expensive cars.
So injecting capital is almost guaranteed to not work.
Competing for foreign investment is not stealing. What you're implying is that small countries should know their place, not rock the boat too much and above all else, never dare compete with bigger countries...or else. Needless to say, such a stance is antithetical to the very foundations of the European Union. The free movement of capital, labor and goods & services is a whole package - you cannot pick the parts you like and disregard the parts you don't because they're not to your advantage.
The EU has taken a human rights stance with zero consideration how to compete on the global markets. Of course money never sleeps and this'll eventually move most EU-based properties in the hands of foreign investors. Perhaps this is the intent all along
Quite. That case sounds frivolous, considering that we're talking about two EU countries, and the whole point of EU is that people (labour) and money (capital) can move from member country to other, without duties. But it does not surprise me that when a government starts a frivolous case, they incur frivolous expenses on others, and will not compensate. Belgium appears to be at the top end of world when it comes to tax revenue as % of GDP (after Denmark and Zimbabwe, of all places), and it is no wonder the system starts creaking at joints.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Single_Market#Capital
reply