I think it’s worth noting this blog on the TJN site from October 2006, written by John Christensen:
Earlier this year Richard Murphy and I met with senior European Commission officials to discuss - amongst other things - the EU Code of Conduct on Business Taxation. During the course of these discussions, we raised various concerns that the tax changes proposed by Jersey's government(generally referred to as the Zero/Ten proposals) were not compliant with the spirit of the Code, which is based on principles rather than rules, and would therefore fail. We were told, emphatically, that the proposals of the Jersey government, had not been referred to ECOFIN either in broad principle or in their detailed provisions.
Returning from Brussels we alerted colleagues in Jersey to our concerns that fiscal reforms which will shape the island's destiny for years if not decades, were uncertain and could fall foul of the Commission. Our concerns were strongly refuted by the island's chief minister, Frank Walker, and the finance minister, Terry le Sueur, both of whom sought to reassure the local finance industry that ECOFIN had been advised of the policy proposals and - via the UK Treasury - had agreed the principle and detail.
Mr Walker declared on BBC Radio Jersey that he had received confirmation in 'black and white from the UK Treasury that our commitments have been agreed by ECOFIN.'
We now know Walker lied: there was not then, never had been and has never been since an agreement that Jersey complied with the EU Code of Conduct — which ECOFIN would have had to agree.
As John continued:
He has not produced the black and white evidence, and it is clear from his subsequent statements to the Island's Corporate Services Scrutiny Sub-Panel that he lied (I feel under no obligation to give him the benefit of the doubt since I have known him for many years and know his weaknesses in this respect). The Scrutiny Panel confirms this in its report when it states: "that the general approach of zero/ten had been accepted by Rt Hon Dawn Primarolo MP, (who as well as being the UK’s Paymaster General is also Chair of the EU Code of Conduct Group), but that the more detailed provisions had not been discussed in any detail."
The problem with the Zero / Ten proposals arises in the detail. And the fact that Terry le Sueur has had to implicitly concede our critique by radically reshaping the proposals in their original form, confirms our analysis.
Which still leaves open the question of how large the budget deficit will be once the proposals come into force within just a very few years. Walker will retire shortly. Ditto Le Sueur. Both seem to have adopted the classic political stance of 'apr?®s moi le deluge.'
Precisely.
But people in Jersey should know that they were lied to by their former Chief Minister — because it was impossible for him to have claimed what he did. But that two people — John Christensen and myself consistently told the truth, and got the analysis right as well.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
[…] draw attention to my comments on the reliability of announcements by Chief Ministers and then add three additional comments. […]
Thanks for the truth, which we will not be getting here in Jersey from any of our “accredited” media.
Well done Richard & John especially, who has paid the price for his honesty & loyalty.
Branded traitor by the ruling elite of jersey.
Frank Walker lied a lot to the Jersey people and to the world on newsnight when he said there was no abuse in Jersey.
so far there have been four convictions and many more burried by the atorney general..
Heads are about to roll and its about time too.
[…] draw attention to my comments on the reliability of announcements by Chief Ministers and then add three additional comments. […]
It is a fact that the EU Council of Finance Ministers ruled that 0/10 regimes were acceptable – I think in 2003 but would need to check. What is happening here is nothing to do with lies from Jersey – it is more that the worst example of corporate governance in the EU (the Code Group) has moved the goalposts. In the long run Jersey will be stronger for this in any case.
JG
You are right – the outline of 0/10 was approved in 2003
But no one told the EU then that the ring fence was going to be retained by moving it into personal taxation – which is what happened. So the scheme introduced was not the outline scheme that was put for approval – and the devil was in the detail – which is where the abuse was
Second, the outline was just an indication of acceptability – not an EU Code approval – which can only be delivered after the law has been enacted
Given that this has always been the case it was impossible before this year for an approval to have been given – and as yet none has been
Richard
@Richard Murphy
…and personal taxation is not subject to the Code of Conduct. At the end of the day, don’t forget that the Code is not EU law, its working group publishes virtually no information and its “judgements” appear political. It might be better for Jersey to concentrate on the OECD process and withdraw its commitment to the EU.
@Les Dirouilles
Les
Detailed news 24 hours after senior meetings in London sounds pretty good to me in terms of openness.
BTW what ‘price’ has John paid? Being a media darling and travelling the world to conferences sounds better than my job!!
Jersey Girrl
Interesting opinion – and I know from previous leaks you are very close to what is happening in Jersey
Two things – a) why have you changed sides and b) why the pedantry which you know does not reflect the reality of this issue – which is that the UK put a gun to Jersey’s head and said ‘comply or else’ and the threat remains to this day? So much for ‘independence’ you might say – but then there was never any such thing – but it also means Jersey cannot pick and choose as you suggest.
That means that without choice – and Jersey has none – if the 0/10 scheme abuses the Code – as was always glaringly obvious then it has no choice but comply.
Jersey has fought long, hard and dishonestly to avoid doing complying – as is its way. The 0/10 system which you claim was supposedly approved in 2003 could not a) have been approved – at most the idea of a dual tax rate was said to be compliant because the Code never was about tax rates b) was not properly disclosed to the EU as when I went to the EU in 2006 it was clear they did not know of the ‘look through’ or attribution proposals that passed the ring fence into personal taxation – and it was clear that they immediately thought these abusive – which is why the Walker assurances were always wrong because they did not relate to the proposed scheme and anyway c) the claim had to be wrong because as I was told by the EU in 2006 they could never have approved a scheme they had not been told of – and for which there was no approval mechanism until it came into force – and approval under the Code can only ever be given when actually in operation – which did not happen in this case until 2009 – meaning that Sen Walker could not have had an approval in 2006 – it was impossible to have secured it.
But of course, if I’m wrong Jersey could now table that approval and tell the EU it had no right to now retract that approval – and that as a result this is a non-issue. It seems that no one has that approval – which must by definition mean that the claim Walker made in 2006 did not exist and as such he simply could not have been telling the truth when he claimed he had secured it
So I guess either table the approval or as a matter of fact I must be right in saying Sen Walker’s claim was wrong, wouldn’t you agree?
Richard
@Richard Murphy
Richard
No changes from me – I have a lot of detailed knowledge (probably far more than you) on international finance and taxation – and have a personal stance that could easily lead me to compliment or criticise you, Jersey or others.
Don’t forget that the UK represents the Crown Dependencies in international matters, including the Code of Conduct. The UK must therefore have advocated 0/10 – don’t you agree? So why the change on their part now? The Jersey government must be reeling with the weight of what must now be done, and the duplicity of the UK.
A final quicky – in international and legal areas one has to be a pedant. You have the luxury of tapping out opinion (no matter how wild) in a way that governments just don’t have. Law and precedent really matter – although if we think about the Chagos Islands as an example, not to the UK government!
No I do not agree that 0/10 was advocated by the UK
It was a CI or IoM creation about which the truth was almost certainly not told – as it was also not told to ECOFIN until I explained what was going on to them
I agree the UK has changed its mind
It has appraised the evidence and judged me right – that’s my guess
The trouble with a lot of knowledge is you can’t see the wood for the trees – and no doubt you can’t
It’s also my guess by the way that you are Mad Foetus under another guise. Is that true?
Funny how this name – associated with someone very close to the regime in Jersey – as I know MF was – reappears a couple of days after he’s been banned – don’t you think?
Richard
@Richard Murphy
Dear Boy
Beware the failing of hubris, the greatest sin in the classical world.
Nobody has considered anything that you have ever said. Do you really think that the UK, French or German governments listen to so-called (self-asserted) civil society voices??
I promise you that I have never posted on your site before this week, as my style ought to indicate.
Ban me if you wish, but if you consider your frequent shouts for others to enter the debate with you, I don’t think that such a move would be consistent.
Back to the string. The UK advocated 0/10 at Code Group meetings until this summer. Why have they changed their stance?
the Girrl
Girrl
You may of course be right
They don’t listen
But in that case they waste a lot of time inviting us to meetings
As for the change of heart – maybe they did listen? Maybe your hypothesis is straightforwardly wrong
Easiest explanation, wouldn’t you agree?
Richard
“Frank Walker lied a lot to the Jersey people and to the world on newsnight when he said there was no abuse in Jersey.
so far there have been four convictions and many more burried by the atorney general..
Heads are about to roll and its about time too”.
Dream on. This is exactly the kind of “no factual back-up comment” which Richard uses all the time. Funny how people forget that Paxman on Newsnight got into trouble for this interview.