It's Liberation Day in Jersey: 66 years since the liberation from the Nazi occupation of the island.
But the real question now is when will they be free from occupation by the finance industry?
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:
Correction: it’s Liberation day in Jersey and Guernsey.
Sorry!
Let’s include the hope for Guernsey’s
You are assuming that the people of Jersey actually want to be free of the finance industry. Sure – a small minority do. But the vast majority certainly do not, as is evidenced by the pathetic attendances at any anti-offshire meetings. And no that’s not due to fear.. You. are bang out of order to compare it to the German Occupation.
I didn’t directly compare
I made the point that these islands are not in any sense free
Their governments have to act at the behest of what is in effect a foreign power – the fiance industry
And let’s be blunt, the result is that the Channel Islands are used as instruments of repression for millions if not billions in the world to advance the interests of a tiny elite. And undoubtedly people die as a consequence
The comparison is not direct, of course
But by turning a blind eye to what happens now you are party to the harm that occurs
You may be bale to sleep with that knowledge
I could not
I can sleep perfectly well thank you because I know its not true.
You can backpedal all you like but your headline is unquestionably a direct comparison. Disgraceful.
The people of Jersey aren’t stupid. Do you really think they’d like to see the back of the finance industry, a well-regulated and responsible one which provides the vast majority with well paid job and a high standard of living and swap it for poverty, high unemployment, negative equity, bankruptcy, mass emigration etc ? A couple of hundred out of 100,000 (ie the ones who attend your meetings) may want that, but not the rest.
Once again your hatred for Jersey shines through but your ridiculous and offensive reference to Liberation really does take the biscuit.
All of which goes to show that Schopenhauer was bang on the money when he said that truth goes through three stages.
In the first stage, it is ridiculed.
In the second stage, it is violently opposed. I guess you’ve reached this point.
And in the third stage it is accepted as self-evident.
Just give us a little time.
Ah, but is it not the same people who financed and profited from WW2 who are now manipulating the financial operations in the Channel Islands?
You can have as much time as you like. I wouldn’t hold your breath though.
That theory clearly only works when there is any truth in the first place.
Looks like you’re still in stage 1 then
Pity OECD, G20, UN, World Bank and most gov’ts don’;t agree with you
Even UK calls Jersey non cooperative!
Harry,
As per a previous question from you…
I’m sure you’ve seen this on Jersey.
Also look at impact on other jurisdictions of interest, i.e. Panama, Caymans, BVI and Singapore.
I long for the day when Jersey will be liberated from the tax avoidance industry. I was born here after WW2 so let’s not pretend that there was ever a golden age. There was poverty but many of us worked very hard and there was a real optimism that we were rebuilding our beautiful Island of which we were so proud. Agriculture and tourism thrived and our town looked like an Island town. Then in came the huge banks. Far too many of them. And in came the finance houses and offices. The hammer went through many of our town shops and big UK shops took their places. St. Helier was beginning to look more and more like any town in the UK. Huge buildings appeared all over the place and when we complained we were ridiculed. We were told that these buildings were “iconic”. Perhaps they are but they’d look better elsewhere. To make way for the almighty tax avoidance industry tourism and agriculture were wound down.
When some of us said that we were not in favour of the finance industry in its present form we were told that we were ignorant, ungrateful, misinformed. In short we were told to be quiet. Now life in Jersey is so expensive that our young people can’t afford to live here. Come to think about it many of our older people who have spent their lives working and paying tax are struggling too. Jersey must be one of the most expensive places on the planet.
The tax avoidance industry hijacked our Island and ruined it. I don’t want to play host to the tax avoidance industry any more. However, if we are to make use of the skills which have been developed by finance over the years, Richard has pointed out how to go about it in an open and honest way by offering us Plan B. Don’t shoot the messenger. Just look at his message delivered for the good of Jersey.
Pat Lucas
Obviously the finance industry elite of Jersey and Guernsey (and the Isle of Man) do not want change to the status quo — as do hundreds of people who directly/indirectly benefit from, or have grown to depend on, this loathsome industry. Well regulated and responsible they most certainly are NOT.
And as Richard writes the number of people who benefit from the shenanigans conducted from Crown Dependency are minuscule when compared to millions if not billions of people who suffer as a consequence.
These places should be despised and discarded rather than hated.
Pat
I know that you are one of Richard’s friends and supporters in Jersey so your comments don’t surprise me.
I have to question though your comment that tourism and agriculture were wound down because of the finance industry. That’s completely untrue. Tourism has receded because Jersey simply hasn’t been able to compete with the low-cost fares and guaranteed weather of the Mediterranean. I happen to think that Jersey’s tourism is actually doing relatively well even today, all things considered, although there is a sizeable segment of the Jersey tourism market which is elderly and which will need to be replaced in due course, and that will be a challenge.
Agriculture receded again because of lower-cost competition, especially from the EU which was subsidising the oil fuel costs of growers in the 1970s. The high shipping costs of produce from Jersey is a massive problem, and the remaining Jersey Royals market is only viable for those dealing with high volumes.
If you think that Jersey could have continued to remain competitive in either the tourism or agricultural markets over the past decade then I think you are very much mistaken. External market forces over which Jersey has no control would have seen to that.
I’m afraid that Richard’s so-called “Plan B” is ill-conceived, naive and unresearched. It would not work. He may have convinced you otherwise, but he’ll never convince me and many others that its remotely viable.
No – unfortunately there is no obvious route for replacing Jersey’s finance industry. Had it not changed over the past decade to react to external demands then it would already be dead. Too many people fail to recognise the changes that have been made. I predict that another 30% of Jersey’s finance industry will disappear over the next 5 years, but I also predict that it will be replaced with high quality new business from new markets. However, I would prefer that at least half of that 30% would actually come from non-financial services. I just can’t see it though.
The real problem is that Jersey has not come up with any alternative viable long-term industries to finance, and so finance has continued to be backed. Nobody has yet come up with a viable alternative, although personally I think tidal power is probably the most viable alternative.
I note that you have addressed your comments to Pat but I will reply.
Of course you say that my plan B for Jersey is naive. You want to defend the existing status quo that leaves Jersey utterly unable to determine its own future because it is completely dependent upon the finance industry that has demanded that the States of Jersey put themselves into a position where they are likely to be bankrupted in the not too distant future so that they can pass a subsidy from the people of Jersey to those with wealth who use the location to undermine the regulation of the countries in which they really live, so seeking to destroy democracy in those places. That is the reality of proposition you seek to uphold.
Your argument is as good as that of the drug runner who says he can’t make as much doing anything else so he might as well carry on drug running. in other words your argument is ethically bankrupt. As is your suggestion that Jersey has not come up with a viable long-term alternative. Of course it has not. It does not want to. But one person has, andinstantly everyone says I got it wrong. Now why was that I wonder? I am not saying I got everything right. Far from it. This I try. That’s more than you can say. In which case, you have no basis to argue from.
Oh, and I believe in tidal power. But it sure as heck does not create jobs. So it’s no solution
Richard
You have done no market research on your Plan B. If you have done then you have not made it available.
Your naivety is in assuming that all of Jersey’s business is bad. It most certainly is not. The clients with good business want to retain privacy and confidentiality. The moment that Jersey removes that, as proposed by your Plan B, is the moment when all that good business disappears to other jurisdictions where privacy and confidentiality for their good business will not be compromised. Instant result – Jersey loses all its good business. To be replaced by a slow trickle of business where absolute transparency to all and sundry is fine. The demand for the latter is totally unproven. The demand for the former is absolutely proven. Net result – Jersey suddenly has no business and cannot balance its books, having driven away perfectly good and legitimate business which nobody other than you is objecting about. Its along the lines of “lets throw away hundrreds of millions of existing government revenues and replace it with maybe tens of millions of new government revenues (if we’re lucky).” Nobody in their right mind is going to make such a decision.
Of course tidal energy won’t create a huge number of jobs, but it will create a lot of revenue which helps Jersey to balance its books and to further diverisfy its economy away from finance. Isn’t that what you want?
Jersey is not in the desperate state that you think it is. The good business isn’t going to leave unless some idiot drives it away.
a) Marketing. JEP, BBC, Channel TV etc all covered it. What more should I do on a budget of £5?
b) Your logic is there’s ample demand for secrecy to hide abuse so let’s supply it. Back to the drug runner’s argument I see…
c) I agree tidal power is good – but the money won’t stay in Jersey so not a plan B
d) Look at your State’s deficit – your argument has a big black hole in it
Richard
1. I didn’t say marketing, I said market research. What demand is there for the type of transparency that you naively propose? I don’t believe there is any but if you know to the contrary then please enlighten us.
2. Rubbish. There is ample fully-compliant business in Jersey which is totally legitimate and non-abusive except in your own eyes. Why would or should Jersey want to get rid of such business? You imply that its all business from the Bergerac era. Pleáse do keep up with the programme.
3. Why? The States of Jersey would surely enter into a partnership with a major energy company in consideration for royalties.
4. Easy. Raise GST to closer to the UK level. Plenty of headroom there to fill the black hole very quickly. And cut reckless public spending which is well out of control.
Jersey has issues but they are all solveable. Your Plan B is only feasible for a new jurisdiction starting from scratch, not for one with a strong tax compliant/tax neutral business. Nobody will take your proposal seriously if you can’t quantify the demand for it. This is not a theoretical economics course question. Its a real world question which needs real world market research.
You’re right – you did say market research. That involves exposing the idea and seeing the reaction. I did. And the response – we’re happy selling abuse.
Simple question. Prove your secrecy does not hide abuse.
No one believes that it doesn’t.
And that you believe in abuse to fund the rich is obvious – raising GST would be exactly that
@Harry
You write “There is ample fully-compliant business in Jersey which is totally legitimate and non-abusive ….”
Despite the veil-of-secrecy drawn around many of Jersey’s financial “activities” perhaps the world may be prepared to suppose that your claim is true.
However there are other “businesses” where compliancy with honesty and morality are severely lacking.
Trust us.
Richard
In the real world you would tend to do some market research in between mooting an idea and them suggesting that its the best thing since sliced bread.
It all comes down to definitions of “abuse”. Promotion of legitimate tax avoidance structures and tax-compliant estate planning structures doesn’t seem to register on everyone else’s radar as “abusive”.
Its impossible to prove a negative. Its your allegation. Its for you to substantiate it.
Who are you to say what’s an acceptable tax structure for individuals? Everybody benefits from low income tax rates, no CGT and no IHT. A GST closer to the UK and rest of EU rates is a small price to pay.
PSG
You may or may not be right but that’s a totally separate topic.
Pat Lucas is a hero and inspiration. She embodies modesty, erudition and good sense and any country in the world would consider itself fortunate to have her as resident.
Let’s be quite clear about Jersey. It is a most beautiful island with some wonderful people amongst its indigenous population. Regrettably it has been hi-jacked by an insidious finance industry whose powerful PR machine attempts to swamp any opposition.
Pat, and others like her, have the courage to question the raison d’être for the invasion of her beloved island and to show genuine concern for Jersey’s grim, long-term future.
No mean feat when living amongst an alien occupier.