Did we really hoodwink them? – Isle of Man Today .
From today’s editorial:
Once again the tax black hole is dominating the news.Lord Bach, the government minister who’s responsible for the Crown Dependencies, has been in the Island.Our reporter, John Turner, interviewed him.
Lord Bach was very complimentary about the way the Manx negotiated the VAT agreement two years ago. In fact, you might be tempted to draw the conclusion that he thinks we outflanked the UK and got a much better deal than we deserved.
That conclusion would, I am sure, be hotly disputed by our political leaders.
But it does seem to be what Lord Bach is saying. It’s only now, after Alistair Darling’s buddies (and perhaps Richard Murphy, the blogger who has been so angry about the Isle of Man), looked at the books again that they decided that we were being subsidised by the UK.
I wonder if heads will roll at the UK Treasury if they really believe their negotiators were hoodwinked by the Manx in 2007?
12 Responses to “Did we really hoodwink them? – Isle of Man Today”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Richard, you would be welcome here. We Manx people are a friendly lot.
Of course, we’d want to have an open and robust dialogue with you, and would want to explain our own perspective. Not everything is as black and white as you might like, and we would prefer it if you would give us some more credit for the things we have been trying to do, but nonetheless, the Manx would welcome you here!
Sue
In fact I remember your colleague Mr Christensen participating in a debate with the Isle of Man Tax assessor.
This was organised from the PAG.
I was rather disappointed by the quality of Mr Cristensens’ arguments and delivery, but I am sure if you were to contact them again maybe you might give a better account in an open moderated discussion.
So it never was a subsidy, it’s just that HM Treasury are numpties?
You couldn’t make it up, as they say.
Girrl
@Jersey Girrl
No – it was a subsidy – because that was the pre-2007 intent
They did cock up by allowing it to continue
Doesn’t stop it being a subsidy
You still haven’t once explained why the UK would subsidise the IOM – it doesn’t make sense
Way back before you were a little girrl the IoM was very poor – indeed
It was relatively poor even in the 1970s
So the UK subsidised it
In 2007 they still did so – even though on GDP per head it was richer
That was the time this did not make sense
Before then it was an act of pure charity
But I’m sure that I read somewhere that the IOM VAT deal was renegotiated in 2007 too – is that wrong?
@Jersey Girrl
The subsidy continued in 2007 in error
Good job someone spotted it, eh?
Richard
Quite informative and amusing, from an outsider perepsetive, how the blog goes dead when the facts are laid on the table….
Nadia
Facts:
1) The IoM was subsidised
2) I demonstrated it
3) I was told that was not true
4) It was true
5) The subsidy was withdrawn
6) The amount was less than I suggested – but a different basis of calculation has been used
7) No one in the IoM has apologised
What more can be said?
Richard
@Richard Murphy
Which means that you are – in fact – saying that HM Treasury is incompetent. QED the Girrl
Is it incompetence, or something more unpleasant?