ChatterBank2 mins ago
Brexit
DOMINIC RAAB , GOES!.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by gulliver1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
They only laugh at governments because governments won't stand up to them. Too worried they may lose out, they capitulate. One need not be part of a federalist continent run by the unelected to make international agreements which hold merchants in check. The UK may not be as powerful as some larger blocks but that doesn't mean we don't have value. Large blocks can still be played against each other for the right to privileged trade conditions into the UK. Even if initially trade agreements aren't all we might hope, they can evolve over time when we aren't more concerned with getting an agreement. May failed miserably because she wasn't treated seriously as a negotiator; dissent at home more or less guaranteed that. I'm unsure your points stand up to scrutiny.
OG
The UK has tried to squeeze more tax out of Starbucks and Google. You hink it's a matter of 'standing up to them'
And when they bring in a lawyer who previously worked in government and understands te tax codes better than the government lawyers. and then threatens to set up its HQ in Ireland, or – if they are allowed to may minimal tax, set up on London - will you insist they pay the same amoumnt tax?
Or would you Stand up to them.
And when they offer you a non-exec directorship ay £100k per year for two days' work after you leave government, but only if you let them off with a small tax bill.
Will you stand up to them then?
THis is not a level playing field. They have the money and the power to buy governments.
Maisie - I hav eno idea what you are playing at, but whatever you imagine you might be achieving - you are not achieving it.
The UK has tried to squeeze more tax out of Starbucks and Google. You hink it's a matter of 'standing up to them'
And when they bring in a lawyer who previously worked in government and understands te tax codes better than the government lawyers. and then threatens to set up its HQ in Ireland, or – if they are allowed to may minimal tax, set up on London - will you insist they pay the same amoumnt tax?
Or would you Stand up to them.
And when they offer you a non-exec directorship ay £100k per year for two days' work after you leave government, but only if you let them off with a small tax bill.
Will you stand up to them then?
THis is not a level playing field. They have the money and the power to buy governments.
Maisie - I hav eno idea what you are playing at, but whatever you imagine you might be achieving - you are not achieving it.
Thanks for the insight, IJ.
I'm afraid I shed no tears for any government that suffers from companies (large or small) using legitimate means to minimise their tax bills. I consider it every individual's and every company's duty to retain as much of their own money as is legally possible. Giving money to governments (local, national or supra-national) is foolish.
For me the issue of EU membership is simple: the economic benefits or otherwise come a very distant second to removing the pernicious influence that unelected foreign civil servants have over the UK's affairs. I don't really care if I'm £4,000 worse off (or whatever other figure has been plucked from thin air). I voted to leave and expect the country to leave lock, stock and barrel. I may be disappointed but that's what I expect. The EU has presided over massive damage to a generation of young people in the south of the Continent and is now preparing to trash the economy of Italy to preserve the euro - one of the two biggest disasters to have been inflicted on the continent since WW2. I want the UK out of their influence before something similar happens to us and nothing, but nothing, will persuade me to change my mind.
I'm afraid I shed no tears for any government that suffers from companies (large or small) using legitimate means to minimise their tax bills. I consider it every individual's and every company's duty to retain as much of their own money as is legally possible. Giving money to governments (local, national or supra-national) is foolish.
For me the issue of EU membership is simple: the economic benefits or otherwise come a very distant second to removing the pernicious influence that unelected foreign civil servants have over the UK's affairs. I don't really care if I'm £4,000 worse off (or whatever other figure has been plucked from thin air). I voted to leave and expect the country to leave lock, stock and barrel. I may be disappointed but that's what I expect. The EU has presided over massive damage to a generation of young people in the south of the Continent and is now preparing to trash the economy of Italy to preserve the euro - one of the two biggest disasters to have been inflicted on the continent since WW2. I want the UK out of their influence before something similar happens to us and nothing, but nothing, will persuade me to change my mind.
"will you insist they pay the same amoumnt tax?"
Most likely yes, but the question implies that governments haven't agreed that special tax arrangements for multinationals should be illegal, because it allows one country to be played off against another and destroys democracy. Governments should be able to see the benefits of that or they're unfit to govern.
"when they offer you a non-exec directorship ay £100k per year for two days' work"
Obviously yes. You're referring to bribery & corruption.
Let them go set up at the corrupt nations of the world, meanwhile encourage home grown businesses to have a major presence in one's own nation.
Most likely yes, but the question implies that governments haven't agreed that special tax arrangements for multinationals should be illegal, because it allows one country to be played off against another and destroys democracy. Governments should be able to see the benefits of that or they're unfit to govern.
"when they offer you a non-exec directorship ay £100k per year for two days' work"
Obviously yes. You're referring to bribery & corruption.
Let them go set up at the corrupt nations of the world, meanwhile encourage home grown businesses to have a major presence in one's own nation.
I think it's worth bringing together the responses from NJ and OG.
NJ says (and I agree wholeheartedly) that corporate executives have a responsibility to shareholders to minimise their tax bills within the law.
OG suggests that offering a former minister a consultancy contract or non-exec directorship is bribery.
No, OG, it's not. At least not within the letter of the law. If the participants have an ounce of intelligence, there won't be any evidence to show that the decisions are related.
There is plausible deniability.
The reality is that this is how our government works. Why do you think politicians want to become ministers? It's largely because of the lucrative consultancy contracts that they (and the companies they run) can win because of the decision-making power that Ministerial office brings, and the fact that such power can be used with significant personal discretion.
If those decisions favour certain commercial interests, those commercial interests will want to reward the decision-maker.
That's how it works. If you dont believe me, look at the consultancy companies run and owned by former ministers and their clients (except you can't because that is a commercial secret). You can, however, look at the Non-exec directors of large companies. You will often find former ministers on the board. That route is used less nowadays, as non-exec directors have more responsibilities. It's no longer the gravy train it once was.
Nowadays, the former minister sets up a company, and that companynoffers consultancy services to clients that are not disclosed.
In law, it is entirely legitimate. But to me (and, if I interpret OG correctly) it stinks of corruption. The more lightweight the politician, the more open they are to this kind of behaviour.
Who controls the content of the laws? is it the politicians who stand to gain from this process.
As to the tax arrangements, we see government, directed by those same politicians, using EY, KPMG, Accenture and others as consultants to write tax laws. It's part of the privatisation process.
The individuals who help write those laws can offer their services to corporates as tax advisors.
It is not illegal for those external consultants to build in complex loopholes and then advise their corporate clients how to exploit those loopholes.
Again, it stinks of corruption, but there is no cime, as the laws are currently written.
This is the reality of how the UK government works today. It's been developing like this for decades.
As a result, all of them can claim they are behaving within the letter of the law. However, they are not within what the common person might term the spirit of the law.
As NJ will probably accept, that the law is only the letter of the law, according to how expert lawyers can interpret the text. There is no 'spirit' of the law.
It's my opinion that the laws and tax systems developed by the EU and the Council and the Commission are less corrupt than the system that has emerged in the UK over the last few decades.
The evidence shows (at least to me) that the Council and Commission are more resistant to this legalised corruption than our politicians.
I recognise that people may have other views. I'm not really seeking to change those views.
What I would like more than anything is for people to think about what all of this means, rather than taking the word (sometimes barefaced lies) of special interest groups.
NJ says (and I agree wholeheartedly) that corporate executives have a responsibility to shareholders to minimise their tax bills within the law.
OG suggests that offering a former minister a consultancy contract or non-exec directorship is bribery.
No, OG, it's not. At least not within the letter of the law. If the participants have an ounce of intelligence, there won't be any evidence to show that the decisions are related.
There is plausible deniability.
The reality is that this is how our government works. Why do you think politicians want to become ministers? It's largely because of the lucrative consultancy contracts that they (and the companies they run) can win because of the decision-making power that Ministerial office brings, and the fact that such power can be used with significant personal discretion.
If those decisions favour certain commercial interests, those commercial interests will want to reward the decision-maker.
That's how it works. If you dont believe me, look at the consultancy companies run and owned by former ministers and their clients (except you can't because that is a commercial secret). You can, however, look at the Non-exec directors of large companies. You will often find former ministers on the board. That route is used less nowadays, as non-exec directors have more responsibilities. It's no longer the gravy train it once was.
Nowadays, the former minister sets up a company, and that companynoffers consultancy services to clients that are not disclosed.
In law, it is entirely legitimate. But to me (and, if I interpret OG correctly) it stinks of corruption. The more lightweight the politician, the more open they are to this kind of behaviour.
Who controls the content of the laws? is it the politicians who stand to gain from this process.
As to the tax arrangements, we see government, directed by those same politicians, using EY, KPMG, Accenture and others as consultants to write tax laws. It's part of the privatisation process.
The individuals who help write those laws can offer their services to corporates as tax advisors.
It is not illegal for those external consultants to build in complex loopholes and then advise their corporate clients how to exploit those loopholes.
Again, it stinks of corruption, but there is no cime, as the laws are currently written.
This is the reality of how the UK government works today. It's been developing like this for decades.
As a result, all of them can claim they are behaving within the letter of the law. However, they are not within what the common person might term the spirit of the law.
As NJ will probably accept, that the law is only the letter of the law, according to how expert lawyers can interpret the text. There is no 'spirit' of the law.
It's my opinion that the laws and tax systems developed by the EU and the Council and the Commission are less corrupt than the system that has emerged in the UK over the last few decades.
The evidence shows (at least to me) that the Council and Commission are more resistant to this legalised corruption than our politicians.
I recognise that people may have other views. I'm not really seeking to change those views.
What I would like more than anything is for people to think about what all of this means, rather than taking the word (sometimes barefaced lies) of special interest groups.
To return to the original question then:
"It's my opinion that the laws and tax systems developed by the EU and the Council and the Commission are less corrupt than the system that has emerged in the UK over the last few decades."
So, briefly put, you'd rather be ruled by unelected foreign officials than an elected UK Parliament because you believe the former are less prone to corruption. That's your privilege and a good reason to vote to remain in the EU. My side of that argument would be that it doesn't matter how pure they may be, they do not have the UK's best interests at heart because they have to act in "the greater good" of all EU nations and (far more importantly) the preservation of the European Project. The second of those considerations is, for them, paramount and if people who wish to remain in the EU believe they are wishing for the status quo they are mistaken. The EU doesn't have a status quo as its relentless drive towards a federal state will continue unabated. A glance at one or two of the musings of its leaders will confirm that the trifling matter of democracy will not be allowed to hinder that aim. Personally I would sooner be governed by a UK Parliament even if it does contain a modicum of corruption rather than a forum of unelected Euromaniac bureaucrats hell bent on a federal Europe regardless of the cost to its citizens.
"It's my opinion that the laws and tax systems developed by the EU and the Council and the Commission are less corrupt than the system that has emerged in the UK over the last few decades."
So, briefly put, you'd rather be ruled by unelected foreign officials than an elected UK Parliament because you believe the former are less prone to corruption. That's your privilege and a good reason to vote to remain in the EU. My side of that argument would be that it doesn't matter how pure they may be, they do not have the UK's best interests at heart because they have to act in "the greater good" of all EU nations and (far more importantly) the preservation of the European Project. The second of those considerations is, for them, paramount and if people who wish to remain in the EU believe they are wishing for the status quo they are mistaken. The EU doesn't have a status quo as its relentless drive towards a federal state will continue unabated. A glance at one or two of the musings of its leaders will confirm that the trifling matter of democracy will not be allowed to hinder that aim. Personally I would sooner be governed by a UK Parliament even if it does contain a modicum of corruption rather than a forum of unelected Euromaniac bureaucrats hell bent on a federal Europe regardless of the cost to its citizens.
NJ, I've learned a lot from you and I thank you for your insights.
You are much better at arguing a point than I am.
The role I have adopted is to offer an analysis of what I think is going on; why things are the way they are and what the future might look like.
I'm not trying to argue my case in the tradition of the legalistic adversarial system.
What I hope is that people read what I produce and if it resonates; if it makes a bit of sense, then maybe a few readers will start to think a bit.
If people want to tell my why I am wrong, I will listen and try to adapt my interpretation of events so that I have a better picture of the world than I did previously.
You have a view guided by your preconceptions. I have a different view guided by my own preconceptions.
We discuss, and maybe retain some mutual respect.
To address your point, "you'd rather be ruled by unelected foreign officials than an elected UK Parliament"
I've already indicated that I think our system of government – while ostensibly a parliamentary democracy – is crumbling from the inside.
I think the first-past-the-post electoral system worked well in the past, but no longer represents the public adequately.
I think the UK's opaque governmental system is open to corruption and influence by unelected lobbyists and 'Parliamentary advisors" and unaccountable "research groups"
I see the evidence for this in the creeping privatisation of the health service; on the decisions to move government contracts to Carillion and on the tax cuts for the wealthy which, in the view of the UN rapporteur, demonstrate that the government's decisions have been 'cruel and inhuman' to the less fortunate members of society.
There are many other examples that demonstrate that this government is making things easy for the wealthy and privileged, and difficult for the ordinary people.
Boris Johnson's 'Garden Bridge' was another example where millions of pounds of public money found its way intothe hands of private companies.
I could list a stack of similar examples.
Is this better than an EU, where the MEPs are elected; where the Council (which carries most of the real power) use the resources of member governments and provide open dialogue and open process in the development of legislative instruments.
You have your view; I have mine.
To my mind, neither option is ideal. The EU is the least bad option with more checks and balances than the UK offers; with more power to standup to corporates and with a more balanced view of the share of power and responsibility between population and government.
You are much better at arguing a point than I am.
The role I have adopted is to offer an analysis of what I think is going on; why things are the way they are and what the future might look like.
I'm not trying to argue my case in the tradition of the legalistic adversarial system.
What I hope is that people read what I produce and if it resonates; if it makes a bit of sense, then maybe a few readers will start to think a bit.
If people want to tell my why I am wrong, I will listen and try to adapt my interpretation of events so that I have a better picture of the world than I did previously.
You have a view guided by your preconceptions. I have a different view guided by my own preconceptions.
We discuss, and maybe retain some mutual respect.
To address your point, "you'd rather be ruled by unelected foreign officials than an elected UK Parliament"
I've already indicated that I think our system of government – while ostensibly a parliamentary democracy – is crumbling from the inside.
I think the first-past-the-post electoral system worked well in the past, but no longer represents the public adequately.
I think the UK's opaque governmental system is open to corruption and influence by unelected lobbyists and 'Parliamentary advisors" and unaccountable "research groups"
I see the evidence for this in the creeping privatisation of the health service; on the decisions to move government contracts to Carillion and on the tax cuts for the wealthy which, in the view of the UN rapporteur, demonstrate that the government's decisions have been 'cruel and inhuman' to the less fortunate members of society.
There are many other examples that demonstrate that this government is making things easy for the wealthy and privileged, and difficult for the ordinary people.
Boris Johnson's 'Garden Bridge' was another example where millions of pounds of public money found its way intothe hands of private companies.
I could list a stack of similar examples.
Is this better than an EU, where the MEPs are elected; where the Council (which carries most of the real power) use the resources of member governments and provide open dialogue and open process in the development of legislative instruments.
You have your view; I have mine.
To my mind, neither option is ideal. The EU is the least bad option with more checks and balances than the UK offers; with more power to standup to corporates and with a more balanced view of the share of power and responsibility between population and government.
"We discuss, and maybe retain some mutual respect."
I'm always respectful to my fellow AB-ers, IJ and, as I hope you can see, I respect their viewpoints (even whilst vehemently disagreeing with some of them!). I try never to be rude or offensive.
I understand your stance entirely. The governance of the UK is far from ideal. I just think that replacing it with the sort of governance the EU would like to see is even less so.
Nice debating so civily with you when we are obviously poles apart!
I'm always respectful to my fellow AB-ers, IJ and, as I hope you can see, I respect their viewpoints (even whilst vehemently disagreeing with some of them!). I try never to be rude or offensive.
I understand your stance entirely. The governance of the UK is far from ideal. I just think that replacing it with the sort of governance the EU would like to see is even less so.
Nice debating so civily with you when we are obviously poles apart!
