The suggestion, made in the Guardian this morning that Jean-Claude Juncker, the former prime minister and finance minister of Luxembourg and now President of the European Commission was instrumental in Amazon locating its business activities in the Duchy should be a surprise to no one.
Firstly, the allegation is well sourced. It comes from the former Amazon employee responsible for doing the deal.
Secondly, it is only necessary to observe the amount of time UK prime ministers spend on doing trade deals to realise how important they think such activity is. Why this should have been different in Luxembourg is hard to imagine.
However, Juncker has denied any such involvement, saying that he was not the architect of the Luxembourg tax deals that so very obviously underpinned its economy and were the reason why it was the European state with the highest foreign direct investment despite its diminutive size. Such a claim has always looked implausible in that case; now it looks to be highly improbable.
Juncker will, no doubt, continue to deny involvement. Association with such deals would be toxic for any politician outside a tax haven. But that's exactly what he is now. And unless he can provide plausible answers on this issue he is effectively ruling himself unfit for office in the EU.
It's time for a little truth from Jean-Claude Juncker, or he has to go. And unless he's forthcoming the chance that others will make the decision for him appears to be growing by the day.
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:
It looks like Juncker thinks he’s in the wrong job himself, or at least the ostensible aims of the EU are to be avoided, clandestinely of course otherwise what he’s doing amounts to an admission that the whole scheme’s a nonsense and all the grand panjorums involved should be out of work Coppola Comment. I’ve thought for some time the ECB should be creating QE for the people via sovereign investments, since the former sovereigns themselves aren’t allowed to, and now, if I have this right, they’re making accommodation for just that. They have to obscure what they’re doing though as to do otherwise is to admit they should all be queuing at the jobcentre instead of milking that overflowing EU trough.
Good heavens so Cameron was right to oppose Juncker – suppose it had to happen some time.
As they say, even stopped clocks are right sometimes
Cameron was right – but for the wrong reasons.
This is the man famous for saying (to the effect) “When the going gets tough, best to lie”
Richard. Do you rely solely on Guardian journalists for sources of information/comment from the popular press. Do you read other newspapers?
And will the day ever dawn when we will see the words “from the Daily Telegraph this morning”.
All in the interest of “balance” of course!
I quote the FT often
Reading the Telegraph usually makes me feel ill
We all have opinions and the “human condition” dictates that they do not always harmonize with others. Sympathy with, and perhaps even understanding of, other person´s viewpoints even though you consider them to be wrong (or in your case making you ill) could go some way to creating a more coherent society …
Probably on the same day the Telegraph actually starts reporting evidence-based fact rather than the mishmash of rightwing kneejerk crap they normally publish.
Given that the DT is owned by two of the most egregious tax-avoiders of them all, that’s not happening any time soon.
And as to ‘balance’ – you’re comparing apples and oranges. The Guardian publishes quality journalism; the DT doesn’t. You might as well ask Richard to quote from the Daily Mail, which is like the Telegraph in every respect but uses shorter words and more pictures of women “flaunting their curves” (copyright Dacre).
I bet you’re one of those people who think the Beeb should show a climate change denier for every serious climate scientist they interview too, aren’t you?
To save Richard the trouble, perhaps you would like to return to the Daily Mail message board, where I think you may find a more amenable standard of discussion.
Crickey what an hostile response! Clearly the staff of the Daily Telegraph (and presumably its readers) are held in low regard in your circle…. and by inference on this column.
Very few of our group read the Telegraph, but then they don´t read newspapers of any partiality (we are all in our 70s and 80s and have found more important occupations!) so we are unable to substantiate your claims (expressed in the vulgar vernacular) regarding inferior journalism in newspapers which do not distribute your particular “politics”..
Why a simple, impartial question should precipitate a barrage of personal insults is strange; may we respectfully suggest that, no matter your political perspective, your future replies adopt a more considerate approach. In civilized democracy people are allowed to articulate their views without fear of being bludgeoned into silence by abusive comments.
In the meantime the PSG will continue to note your “posts” with polite interest.
“I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.”
Maya Angelou (author, poet, actor, writer, director and producer, and Civil Rights movement activist.)
What a phrase a “Juncker truth”, that would be an oxymoron.
As said, you can’t quote the Telegraph or Mail, not because they are right wing but because they’re, simply, stupid. Richard quotes FT articles all the time & the FT is where you’d expect to find intelligent economic journalism.
Although not according to David Cameron who says that Martin Wolfe & Paul Krugman are “idiots who believe in a magic money tree”.
To add to the list of sources I am unlikely to quote from there is the Express – the only UK national paper I think I have never been mentioned in – thankfully. I may have missed the NoW too, come to think of it, but can’t be sure.
I must admit to being troubled by the Guardian’s tax status.
Now I know that there can be no question of malicious intent, it’s left-of-centre, but there is still something odd about the arrangements they made.
This sort of thing can provide ammunition to dark elements of society who to wish to avoid tax for their own ends.
It is a legacy of an era when appropriate questions were not asked
But is an unfortunate one
The UK tax payer subsidies the Guardian through the newspaper´s monopoly on public sector job adverts for government, local authorities and its incestuous partner at the BBC. It also earns money indirectly from UK tax payer via its education device “Learn Premium” which it sells to schools to indoctrinate children with leftist texts.
As UK tax pounds are poured into the Guardian it is ever ready (and rightly so) to “expose” those who avoid tax whilst benefiting financially at the expense of UK tax payers although (as you comment) still avoiding paying UK tax via a system that is “a legacy of an era when appropriate questions were not asked.”
More than a whiff of hypocrisy?
This is bordering on the paranoid
I have made clear, repeatedly, on the Guardian’s tax position
But what else you have written makes Nigel Farage look positively normal