This is how it has to be. This short sighted race to the bottom will not benefit anybody in the long run.<p>I have no sympathy for big multinationals which make a bucket load of money but still shopping around the world to get even less taxes.<p>It is really just a variation of big multinationals going to corrupt 3rd world countries and getting an unreasonable sweet deal from a dictator. When the dictator is thrown out and a democratic government gets in charge, the multinationals cry that their previous deal is renegaded.<p>The point is that any multinational has to take into consideration what it is reasonable to expect. If a deal is too sweet to be expected to last you don't get into it and start crying about it being revoked later.
So, (1) companies adhered to Belgium laws, (2) Belgium laws were found to be violating international agreements and (3) _companies_ are supposed to pay for it?<p>What the fuck? Why doesn't Belgium pay for its violation itself? Why someone who was adhering to the law would need to pay because the law was found to be wrong?<p>I must have misunderstood this somehow, because this is just too idiotic otherwise.
So let's suppose I am a company that saw a green field to extend to - a country which gets out of its way to entice me to come and develop there. Now I am in their yard, keeping my part of the bargain, the moment in which they draw out their claws and looking hungry at me say "you know what, forget what we've told you, it wasn't good anyway, so let's make a new deal".