Its not the Brits talking about English being less important.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ys-juncker

It is the same debate than when french ATC speaks (legally) in french to french pilots. All foreigners who can't be bothered to learn some french complain. Maybe you noticed that Barnier starts to be so upset that he uses more en more french in press conference with Davis ?

seahawk wrote:

Sounds a bit like wishful thinking by the Brits, as English is and will be the working language of the EU, as most people do speak it.

But this English will probably be closer to American English and a more simple version of ENglish. UK English will not be official any more.

olle wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Sounds a bit like wishful thinking by the Brits, as English is and will be the working language of the EU, as most people do speak it.

But this English will probably be closer to American English and a more simple version of ENglish. UK English will not be official any more.

Probably them same as in the UK once the UK enters into an open market trade deal with the USA.

Why would the UK change its version of English when you consider the main differences between British and American English are very small?

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

Why would the UK change its version of English when you consider the main differences between British and American English are very small?

The differences when written may be small, but when spoken are considerably greater.

I am an American. I must pay very close attention when listening to news on the BBC to be sure I am getting the gist of what is being reported.

The difference is still greater when I listen to Australians. There is little or no difference when I speak or listen to Canadians.

On the matter of English becoming the defacto world language, I think one of the most important reasons is the dominance of English with respect to the most prestigious journals of science

BobPatterson wrote:

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

Why would the UK change its version of English when you consider the main differences between British and American English are very small?

The differences when written may be small, but when spoken are considerably greater.

Yes, spoken English throws up differences but I think these guys are talking about written English in use in trade documents and such.

I must have imaged the last few decades of us trading with the US without needing to change all our spellings?

seahawk wrote:

Sounds a bit like wishful thinking by the Brits, as English is and will be the working language of the EU, as most people do speak it.

French and German languages have always been important languages in the EU. When the UK leaves the EU, then French and German will of course be used sometimes, when English was used before Brexit.

Same in the USA, if 60 million English speaking people left the USA, then Spanish language would become more dominating.

In neither case does that mean than English language would disappear completely.

Here in Denmark I learned English and German language about equally intensively. In many EU countries I have visited, I would have had bigger language problem if I didn't speak German, for instance Finland (mostly elderly people), Estonia, Czech Republik, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia. And of course Austria, Switzerland, and even in north-eastern Italy they talk some German dialect rather than Italian, better German the "worst" Swiss-German dialects. Most Dutchmen also happily switch to German when relevant. I regret that I never learned French language properly, now it's too late.

prebennorholm wrote:

I would have had bigger language problem if I didn't speak German, for instance Finland (mostly elderly people), Estonia, Czech Republik, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia. And of course Austria, Switzerland, and even in north-eastern Italy they talk some German dialect rather than Italian, better German the "worst" Swiss-German dialects. Most Dutchmen also happily switch to German when relevant. I regret that I never learned French language properly, now it's too late.

last year i was pretty surprised that Chile was the first country i visited outside the German language group where German was actually more useful than English.

best regards
Thomas

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41986090

It was a suggestion I made to the Dutch minister for European affairs, Anne Mulder. Was it time, I asked, for the Netherlands and other influential EU nations to offer the UK more concessions, given all would suffer from a breakdown of talks?

The Dutch have a reputation for politeness, and I was expecting a reply laden with diplomatic euphemism. What I got was a surprisingly pithy denunciation of Britain's politicians, and their approach to the Brexit negotiations:

"Some of them are unrealistic, they are not rational… they are always saying the ball is in the EU's court. Well there's a great big ball in their court, but they don't want to see, because they are blind."

And what about the claim that the EU needs the UK just as much as the UK needs the EU?

"If you want to dream, do it at night," he suggested.

When it comes to those UK-EU negotiations, it seems the current betting here is on failure.

Harsh. The time delay in the harbors will cost money, this will be factored in the cost of the final product, so it stands that imported products in the UK will be more expensive and export will be more expensive (= less competitive).

The UK is like a heroin addict, it is hurting everyone around it and mostly itself. Perhaps it is time for a little intervention, get a few million Europeans to go over to London and demonstrate for a rational Brexit with as little damage as possible. We are almost 1 year in and nothing has been accomplished.

And now:
European Parliament cancels on Theresa May https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-negotiation-european-parliament-cancels-on-theresa-may/

British Prime Minister Theresa May’s visit to the European Parliament later this month was canceled on Wednesday only a day after it was announced.

May was scheduled to meet with the Conference of Presidents — the president of the Parliament and the leaders of the political groups — and not rank-and-file MEPs on Friday, November 24. Details of the meeting only emerged Tuesday.

But in a snub to the embattled British PM, the assembly has already canceled, formally because many of them won’t be in Brussels that day, two Parliament officials told POLITICO.

“A number of group leaders weren’t able to rearrange their agenda at such short notice,” a Parliament official said. “On Fridays they are scheduled to be in their constituencies or capitals.”

Most MEPs and Parliament staffers do not work in Brussels on Fridays.

PM May has no real backing in the UK and therefore no authority anymore. This is more and more looking like a soap opera instead of the real-world of a high stake poker play.

Still, kind of a polite way to say, f*ck you.

Russia used Twitter bots and trolls ‘to disrupt’ Brexit vote https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russia-used-web-posts-to-disrupt-brexit-vote-h9nv5zg6c

Russian Twitter accounts posted more than 45,000 messages about Brexit in 48 hours during last year’s referendum in an apparently co-ordinated attempt to sow discord, The Times can reveal.

More than 150,000 accounts based in Russia, which had previously confined their posts to subjects such as the Ukrainian conflict, switched attention to Brexit in the days leading up to last year’s vote, according to research for an upcoming paper by data scientists at Swansea University and the University of California, Berkeley.

Russian activity spiked on June 23, the day of the referendum, and on June 24 when the result was announced.

So we've blamed it on racism, stupidity, poverty, dislike of the Cameron government, now we're going to try blaming it on Russia too?

I am somewhat surprised that the BBC journalist in the Netherlands did not investigate the future of the UK ties.
In all quarters it has been accepted that the UK is leaving the EU which means that the UK will be a third country, one would think that in addition to showing graphs of the UK trade with the EU it would also be fitting to show the extent of the existing facilities by trade that the Netherlands has with non-EU countries, I cannot believe that such a great port does not already have a terminal for good not being received or shipped to non-EU countries. The transition period will only delay the time, unless as with everything else this is all about the UK paying to put new facilities in place rather than expanding existing third countries facilities. Why would there have to be facilities just for UK trade, are they now building facilities for Canada trade different from what s used for the USA and China for example?

As for the shot at the UK politicians, I am a bit confused. The UK does not want the 4 pillars nor the ECJ, the EU has already stated that the 4 pillars are inviolate and the ECJ must be used, hence the comment on the UK politicians dreaming at night, so what exactly are these Europeans expecting the UK to propose that does not involve full acceptance of the 4 pillars and the ECJ which go hand in hand, or is this all about the money?

No, it's not about money, my take is that it's about what the UK politicians can sell to the UK people.

I think the ball was and still remains in the UK's court. They need to make a choice, ranging from a member of the common market with all the rules to a hard Brexit with no EU rules or somewhere in between. Just for letter the time pass by, they will have no choice and no bargaining chip.

The irritation and frustration by all involved is well known.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

So we've blamed it on racism, stupidity, poverty, dislike of the Cameron government, now we're going to try blaming it on Russia too?

Well, Russia has a proven record of targeting racist, poor and/or stupid "establishment"-hating folk in the west. Probably because these folk are the most sympathetic to the Russian bots' disruptive hyper-nationalist/racist/anti-establishment tone.

No ones assessed it's impact on the referendum. What would be the point? Brexiteers are hardly going to voluntarily admit that they were duped, regardless of whether they were or not. That said, it seems the Russians, like the rest of us, see Brexiteers as Trumpists by another name. Would hardly be a surprise then, if they saw an opportunity in Brexit and went for it.

And why not. They stand to gain the most. A relatively more divided Europe, and a relatively more isolated UK (that's already feeling the effects of a devalued pound on its defence imports).

If I was a Russian Machiavelli, I'd be thrilled with Brexit. Wouldn't you?

We know most in the UK rejected the pay dues and live / trade by EU rules without representation at the rule making table, they have also said no ECJ, all of which are required for trade within the Common Market, is there some other way to access without those precedents? I cannot believe the EU is willing to sacrifice or even negotiate its principles for a minor trading partner in the grand scheme, this is also the question for those in the UK talking about soft exit and transition period.

Well, then why does the UK want to enter into trade negotiations?

To get preferential tarrifs below WTO and more than EU?

Only 27 countries trade in the Common Market the rest of the other 200+ countries in the world trade WTO or any special trade agreements they have with the EU.

"Brussels views its free-trade agreement with Canada as the only realistic model for post-Brexit trade with the U.K.
...
In her Florence speech in September, May said: “Compared with what exists between Britain and the EU today, [a Canada-style arrangement] would nevertheless represent such a restriction on our mutual market access that it would benefit neither of our economies.”
...
This could be a particularly severe blow to Britain’s status as Europe’s financial capital. The document says the FTA model would provide “no direct branching in sectors like financial services” and that there are only “limited EU commitments to allow cross border provision of services.”

Given ECJ requirements, looks like it's the only viable option. Not sure it's a good one, given the vast difference between Canadian and UK reliance on trade with the EU.

https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit- ... nada-deal/

The funnier part with politico are the comments. I saw that one of the professional troll tried also to post in the ECB topic on the guardian and was obliterated to oblivion

par13del wrote:

Why would there have to be facilities just for UK trade, are they now building facilities for Canada trade different from what s used for the USA and China for example?

If your company currently exports to the UK and other EU countries you don't have to divide your warehouse in an EU part and a non-EU part. After a hard Brexit you do have to do this. If your company already does business with non-EU countries your problems are less, but still the volume of non-EU trade may go up and that can't be mingled with goods destined for the EU.

LJ wrote:

par13del wrote:

Why would there have to be facilities just for UK trade, are they now building facilities for Canada trade different from what s used for the USA and China for example?

If your company currently exports to the UK and other EU countries you don't have to divide your warehouse in an EU part and a non-EU part. After a hard Brexit you do have to do this. If your company already does business with non-EU countries your problems are less, but still the volume of non-EU trade may go up and that can't be mingled with goods destined for the EU.

What is the rationale for needing separate warehouses?

Why can't a manufacturer or wholesaler serve the entire world from a central facility?

BobPatterson wrote:

LJ wrote:

par13del wrote:

Why would there have to be facilities just for UK trade, are they now building facilities for Canada trade different from what s used for the USA and China for example?

If your company currently exports to the UK and other EU countries you don't have to divide your warehouse in an EU part and a non-EU part. After a hard Brexit you do have to do this. If your company already does business with non-EU countries your problems are less, but still the volume of non-EU trade may go up and that can't be mingled with goods destined for the EU.

What is the rationale for needing separate warehouses?

Why can't a manufacturer or wholesaler serve the entire world from a central facility?

This is a warehouse in the harbor, some goods will go outside the EU so customs etc. and part will stay in the EU, no customs. After the Brexit the goods heading to the UK will move from one part to the other part, so structural stranges have to be made.

LJ wrote:

If your company currently exports to the UK and other EU countries you don't have to divide your warehouse in an EU part and a non-EU part. After a hard Brexit you do have to do this. If your company already does business with non-EU countries your problems are less, but still the volume of non-EU trade may go up and that can't be mingled with goods destined for the EU.

The journalist was at the port in the Netherlands, I would assume that since the port handles traffic from EU as well as non-EU countries they already have separate facilities, as far as I am aware, there is no single port of entry into the EU for EU and non-EU traffic, if that were the case this would have been a bigger issue, all the major ports handle EU and non-EU traffic
As the government will control the tariffs, individual companies will just have to ensure that their paperwork for the relevant side is proper - EU and Non-EU - and delivered to the correct facility.

Dutchy wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

LJ wrote:

If your company currently exports to the UK and other EU countries you don't have to divide your warehouse in an EU part and a non-EU part. After a hard Brexit you do have to do this. If your company already does business with non-EU countries your problems are less, but still the volume of non-EU trade may go up and that can't be mingled with goods destined for the EU.

What is the rationale for needing separate warehouses?

Why can't a manufacturer or wholesaler serve the entire world from a central facility?

This is a warehouse in the harbor, some goods will go outside the EU so customs etc. and part will stay in the EU, no customs. After the Brexit the goods heading to the UK will move from one part to the other part, so structural stranges have to be made.

This is a mere inventory control problem. Shipments subject to customs duties, etc., are easily kept track of. Cartons and/or skid loads or individual items (machinery) and can be tagged, labeled or have revenue stickers attached.

In the USA cigarette manufacturers must apply tax stamps to each pack of cigarettes, depending on the State to which the cigarettes are to be shipped. One warehouse with goods clearly marked easily handles everything. There is no need for 50 different warehouses or divisions within a single warehouse.

BobPatterson wrote:

What is the rationale for needing separate warehouses?

Why can't a manufacturer or wholesaler serve the entire world from a central facility?

BobPatterson wrote:

In the USA cigarette manufacturers must apply tax stamps to each pack of cigarettes, depending on the State to which the cigarettes are to be shipped. One warehouse with goods clearly marked easily handles everything. There is no need for 50 different warehouses or divisions within a single warehouse.

You are correct, and this is pretty much, just done electronically for the most part, aside of, you may have guessed it, cigarettes, that do have stickers.

But the analogy doesn´t work after Brexit. The EU can be compared with the US in many ways, actually it should be the US conservatives wet dream (small "federal government, that doesn´t have the right to levy taxes, unlimited "state" rights, no armed forces or law enforcement of its own, "federal court" pretty much only handles state-on-state, state-on-"feds" issues, and so on and so forth) and that is why it normally does work pretty much as you describe.

But after the UK left, this isn´t like a warehouse shipping to all 50 states anymore, this is a warehouse on Haiti exporting into the United States, you need separate warehouses, at least logically, or in effect a customs border in your warehouse.

As nice and simple VAT/ImportVAT is, it does lead to some bureaucracy when items move across lines between different VAT zones.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

You are correct, and this is pretty much, just done electronically for the most part, aside of, you may have guessed it, cigarettes, that do have stickers.

But the analogy doesn´t work after Brexit. The EU can be compared with the US in many ways, actually it should be the US conservatives wet dream (small "federal government, that doesn´t have the right to levy taxes, unlimited "state" rights, no armed forces or law enforcement of its own, "federal court" pretty much only handles state-on-state, state-on-"feds" issues, and so on and so forth) and that is why it normally does work pretty much as you describe.

But after the UK left, this isn´t like a warehouse shipping to all 50 states anymore, this is a warehouse on Haiti exporting into the United States, you need separate warehouses, at least logically, or in effect a customs border in your warehouse.

As nice and simple VAT/ImportVAT is, it does lead to some bureaucracy when items move across lines between different VAT zones.

Thanks for the discussion. It jogged my memory enough to look up "Bonded Warehouses": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonded_warehouse

There is a bit of mention on that page of "Free Trade Zones", one of which exists just a few miles from where I live. Within the zone there are export/import firms and companies that process products prior to final shipment to wholesalers/retailers.

And, speaking of bonded warehouses, the State of Maryland still operates at least one for the purpose of storing tobacco crops awaiting auction or shipment to manufacturers. I guess we tax the crop itself as well as the finished product. Maybe they also handle legally grown marijuana nowadays.

Duplicate

BobPatterson wrote:

There is a bit of mention on that page of "Free Trade Zones", one of which exists just a few miles from where I live. Within the zone there are export/import firms and companies that process products prior to final shipment to wholesalers/retailers..

Same here, but getting in/out is quite the hassle. We have a couple of customers in Bremerhaven free harbor and getting in and out with a sample already sucks, the cost benefit situation has gotten so bad that tax free zones pretty much stopped existing. Hamburg Habor gave its own one up just a few years ago, and that is a big international harbor.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

There is a bit of mention on that page of "Free Trade Zones", one of which exists just a few miles from where I live. Within the zone there are export/import firms and companies that process products prior to final shipment to wholesalers/retailers..

Same here, but getting in/out is quite the hassle. We have a couple of customers in Bremerhaven free harbor and getting in and out with a sample already sucks, the cost benefit situation has gotten so bad that tax free zones pretty much stopped existing. Hamburg Habor gave its own one up just a few years ago, and that is a big international harbor.

best regards
Thomas

They exist for some very specific industries. Wood and bulk agricultural products (cereal, coffee, etc.) and raw materials.

For manufactured products they don't really make much sense nowadays.

Brexit is having a serious impact on the UK constitution. Nowhere is this more marked than in the existential threat that it poses to the United Kingdom. Although the EU referendum was held as a UK-wide vote – with no “quadruple lock” requirements for majorities in each of the constituent nations – the result proves that the UK is divided, with Scotland, Northern Ireland and London voting in favour of remaining, and England and Wales voting to leave.

One of the main arguments for the referendum was that of democracy – that the will of the people should be respected. But perhaps it is the will of the peoples on which we should focus – the peoples of the four nations of the UK, whose desires to leave or remain in the EU should be respected, but distinctly.

But how can Scotland remain within the EU, if the UK acts on the referendum vote? One possibility is that Scotland (and Northern Ireland, London, Gibraltar?) might remain within the EU somehow, even though England and Wales leave.

rest of article: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... land-wales

now that would be quite something...

best regards
Thomas

London is not a constituent nation of the UK.

Also, no votes have required a majority be attained across all four parts of the UK. A political party could could win less than half the seats in England at an election but if it won all the seats in Scotland and Wales (no mainland parties stand in Northern Ireland), still have a majority in parliament despite England being the biggest and most populated part of the UK.

650 seats in total
533 in England
40 in Wales
59 in Scotland
18 in N Ireland
326 for a majority

Party with 227 seats in England, plus all 90 from Wales and Scotland = Majority in only two parts of the UK (Wales and Scotland population is 8.5 million out of a total of 65 million). This is not unlawful or unconstitutional in anyway.

That article is an attempt to legitimise what some see as an attempt by the EU to annex places like Northern Ireland and Gibraltar by stealth.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

That article is an attempt to legitimise what some see as an attempt by the EU to annex places like Northern Ireland and Gibraltar by stealth.

Annex? Hardly (by stealth or otherwise). This article is predicated on the fact that the majority in those areas want to stay in the EU. The EU doesn't need to annex them.

As a Brexiteer, I have no doubt that you accept the importance of respecting the "democratic" choice of the people inhabiting those regions.

ElPistolero wrote:

As a Brexiteer, I have no doubt that you accept the importance of respecting the "democratic" choice of the people inhabiting those regions.

...but that cuts both ways, under the systems that are currently legal in the UK, the majority of persons voting elected to Leave, somehow no one seems to want to respect that democratic choice, the system is majority of the nation. What is funny about the article is that it appears after a region in Spain had a vote to leave Spain. I guess additional traction can also be gained by saying that the EU nationals who have built the UK economy did not get a chance to vote in the referendum so that should invalidate the vote or even force a new one, and since the TM government seems to have caved in to give EU citizens the right to vote in local elections after Brexit (saw it in an article need to confirm) how can they refuse.

par13del wrote:

...but that cuts both ways, under the systems that are currently legal in the UK, the majority of persons voting elected to Leave, somehow no one seems to want to respect that democratic choice, the system is majority of the nation. What is funny about the article is that it appears after a region in Spain had a vote to leave Spain. I guess additional traction can also be gained by saying that the EU nationals who have built the UK economy did not get a chance to vote in the referendum so that should invalidate the vote or even force a new one, and since the TM government seems to have caved in to give EU citizens the right to vote in local elections after Brexit (saw it in an article need to confirm) how can they refuse.

Of course it does - that was the point.

If one believes in regressive populist nationalism, one should accept it regardless of the proponent. No?

par13del wrote:

I guess additional traction can also be gained by saying that the EU nationals who have built the UK economy did not get a chance to vote in the referendum so that should invalidate the vote or even force a new one, and since the TM government seems to have caved in to give EU citizens the right to vote in local elections after Brexit (saw it in an article need to confirm) how can they refuse.

Not quite true. I am a ROI citizen and at the time living in the UK, as such I was allowed to vote in the non-binding referendum. Citizens of the ROI, who live in the UK, are allowed to vote in all UK elections.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

So we've blamed it on racism, stupidity, poverty, dislike of the Cameron government, now we're going to try blaming it on Russia too?

Indeed. Most tweets came after the vote and we are constantly told that ‘old people’ caused Brexit. Twitter is way less popular with ‘old people’ yet somehow we are to blame the Russians.

Ironically it’s hardcore remainer Alex Salmond who is now working with Putin’s mouthpiece - RT! You literally couldn’t make this up.

Obama, Soros, Murdoch’s media empire, £9m government leaflet campaign, Geldof, businesses, opposition, government, EU, IMF, IFS, BoE, Chancellor all telling us to remain but a few Russian tweets are what dunit? Right!

Anyway we all know we did it because we want to bring back the Empire, bendy bananas and blue passports. So I’m told anyway.

mmo wrote:

par13del wrote:

I guess additional traction can also be gained by saying that the EU nationals who have built the UK economy did not get a chance to vote in the referendum so that should invalidate the vote or even force a new one, and since the TM government seems to have caved in to give EU citizens the right to vote in local elections after Brexit (saw it in an article need to confirm) how can they refuse.

Not quite true. I am a ROI citizen and at the time living in the UK, as such I was allowed to vote in the non-binding referendum. Citizens of the ROI, who live in the UK, are allowed to vote in all UK elections.

Non-binding quite. But let’s not pretend this was some little ‘lifestyle survey’ or quiz.

Any predictions how Brexit is going to end? Here's mine:

• The UK is leaving the EU without the trade deal they want
• The Irish border will be closed
• The UK is not paying anything to the EU
• The EU will not allow UK companies to provide financial services in the EU until the UK fulfills its financial obligations.
• The UK becomes a tax haven

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see any other logical outcome at the moment.

AeroVega wrote:

Any predictions how Brexit is going to end? Here's mine:

The UK is leaving the EU without the trade deal they want

I agree as the deal UK wants is against the EU core.

[*] The Irish border will be closed

I doubt that. I guess they will finally make a border in the sea, between UK or NI or between RoI and EU.

[*] The UK is not paying anything to the EU

The UK will pay until it leaves and the RAL and pension will be recovered ,directly or thru taxes. UK will prolly refuse to pay for the project and the EU will cut fund going in the UK for theses.

[*] The EU will not allow UK companies to provide financial services in the EU until the UK fulfills its financial obligations.

I guess so but when it is settled, financial services should have been relocated in the Euro zone.

[*] The UK becomes a tax haven

UK could try that and be put on the EU blacklist....

Olddog wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

Any predictions how Brexit is going to end? Here's mine:

The UK is leaving the EU without the trade deal they want

I agree as the deal UK wants is against the EU core.

[*] The Irish border will be closed

I doubt that. I guess they will finally make a border in the sea, between UK or NI or between RoI and EU.

[*] The UK is not paying anything to the EU

The UK will pay until it leaves and the RAL and pension will be recovered ,directly or thru taxes. UK will prolly refuse to pay for the project and the EU will cut fund going in the UK for theses.

[*] The EU will not allow UK companies to provide financial services in the EU until the UK fulfills its financial obligations.

I guess so but when it is settled, financial services should have been relocated in the Euro zone.

[*] The UK becomes a tax haven

UK could try that and be put on the EU blacklist....

How does Holland get away with being a tax haven?

https://www.socialeurope.eu/what-europe ... -tax-haven

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... -avoidance

https://thecorrespondent.com/6942/bermu ... 8-b85252de

Dano1977 wrote:

[*] The UK becomes a tax haven

UK could try that and be put on the EU blacklist....

How does Holland get away with being a tax haven?

https://www.socialeurope.eu/what-europe ... -tax-haven

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... -avoidance

https://thecorrespondent.com/6942/bermu ... 8-b85252de[/quote]

Whataboutism...... The Netherlands will remain part of the EU, Brittain doesn't, see the difference there?

Holland get away for now because it is inside the EU and we need unanimity to change theses rules. Guess what when UK leaves with Jersey, Guernsey, Isle Of Man, Gibraltar and so on...

Can anyone explain how, or if, the Netherlands benefits by being a tax haven?

How much income does this generate for the Dutch government?

Off topic, but I'll answer: about 3.000 high paying job and a bit of taxes revenue, however, the state "loses" much more from Dutch companies going to tax havens as well.

The public opinion is turning on these letterbox companies and so is it within the EU. Long way but it is coming.

Google "sandwich Hollandais". It should explain why the other states will come down on Luxembourg, Malta Netherlands.... But it will need some years and Brexit is more Urgent.

So will the rest of the EU states cough up to give those states money they lose when taxes are harmonised?

Isn't having a single EU wide tax policy the ultimate in saying "You are no longer a self-governing state"? without actually invading?