This was the exchange between Jeremy Corbyn and David Cameron on country-by-country reporting yesterday during Prime Minister's Question Time:
Jeremy Corbyn
[An] issue that I raised with him a couple of weeks ago is the anger over tax avoidance that exists all over this country and indeed all over the western world. I agree that we are more likely to make progress on tax avoidance inside the European Union than outside it, but his Members of the European Parliament have not been supporting country-by-country tax transparency, which would force companies to publish their tax payments in each country in which they operate. Will he now tell us when that will be supported by his MEPs and when it will go through so that we can close down just one of the many tax loopholes that currently exist?
The Prime Minister
I would argue that no Government have done more nationally to crack down on tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. I would also argue that no Government have done more internationally to bring this up the international agenda: I made it the centrepiece at the G8; we have driven change in the OECD; and we are now driving change in the European Union. Let me confirm that my MEPs do support country-by-country reporting, and they have said that over and again, and I am happy to repeat it again today.
Jeremy Corbyn
I am really pleased that the Prime Minister's MEPs support this transparency; we are all delighted about that. I just hope that they get round to voting for it when the opportunity comes up, because that would certainly help.
Jeremy Corbyn's point was well made because David Cameron had just blatantly lied to the House. As Anneliese Dodds MEP has pointed out, Tory MEPs have voted against country-by-country reporting in the EU parliament on the last five occasions when they have had chance to do so.
What will the government do on 28 June? That is the day when the lie that they support country-by-country reporting could be exposed.
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:
When you consider that the same bunch are telling lies about being in and out of Europe as well as lies like austerity and that Labour bankrupted the country in 2008 one does feel really sorry for the British public. Talk about being manipulated.
And who will impeach Cameron?
Is it also true that British MEPs voted to veto EU moves to curb Chinese steel imports when they started dumping their over-produced steel on the market?
If so, could someone point this out to the Welsh steel workers I saw on TV last week saying they wanted out because their predicament was all the EU’s fault?
The mendacity of the Tory party knows no limits.
Richard, what did you expect? PMQs is risible. Why does it still exist? It contributes nothing to the democratic process. Surely it’s not maintained because the Americans find it entertaining? Cameron (like Blair) enjoys grand-standing and is good at it, in a bad way. He’s a polished performer as was seen recently against Farage. But the House of Commons is not the Oxbridge Debating Society. By contrast Corbyn just doesn’t get it. Clearly he’s uncomfortable at the despatch box. No matter how poignant his questions may be, Cameron dismisses them with relatively ease, aside from occasional reddening of his face when he’s visibly angry. I don’t suppose Corbyn even expects to get a straight answer. He’d be better off making a mockery of it than trying to be serious. Nothing MPs like more than a silly joke. The behaviour of the Tories is quite literally shocking. It would help if Bercow exercised some real authority and was respected by the members. To have survived this long he must have close friends in high places. The whole thing is a deceitful charade.
I think there have been moments where PMQ’s has been truly useful.
I also think Corbyn is clearly improving. Granted, he’s still not much good, but I think he’s learned a lot since September.
Though when you get opposing parties trying to question each other, you’ll always get slipperiness. The braying doesn’t help at all, but making something quieter doesn’t necessarily make it better for democracy.
I think the best bet is to let the MPs keep their midweek jeering session, but drastically increase the importance of SC sessions. Like Richard said elsewhere on this blog (if I remember rightly!) I think they’re one of the best ways for real policy-making and accountability to take place.
Surely not another porky pie from the great porker Cameron!
Fantasy seems to be at the heart of Tory policy – what they say and what they do are now completely the opposite things.
David Cameron spoke in the present tense yet you point to historical evidence.
Strictly no evidence of a lie.
I would be careful of the language you use.
I am quite sure I am right
“Let me confirm that my MEPs do support country-by-country reporting, and they have said that over and again, and I am happy to repeat it again today.”
Since when was “and they have said that over and again” a present tense statement?
I am not sure if you are joking, so will assume you purport to be serious.
‘Do support’ is clearly a present tense construction.
The reference to the past is about these MEPs saying more than once in the past that they then supported country-by-country reporting, which is not inconsistent with voting against it multiple times (voting and saying are different actions – moreover, many law-makers vote against things which they are basically in favour of)
So, to be clear, Cameron made two statements. That these MEPs do support it, and that they have said they support it more than once in the past. Murphy has no evidence of the former’s falseness (indeed he says himself that the opportunity to prove this lies on 28 June) and neither does he have evidence of the falseness of the latter.
Murphy had two opportunities to justify his description of Cameron’s words, but he has so far failed both of them. Yet he explicitly says that Cameron lied.
As I said, I would be much more careful about making such accusations.
Respectfully, I think in this case the risk of libel is zero
Even you cannot support the claim
That is, of course, your choice entirely.
Of course
John Appleseed you clearly have your brain wired differently than me if you think Cameron did not intend to deceive parliament and the public with his comments.
And if intending to deceive is not lying in your mind, then you can only be a barrister intent on trying to argue your case knowing full well that your client is guilty as charged in the eyes of any reasonable person.
John, if I spend a year acting in one way and then on the first day of the next year act in a diametrically opposite way, I’m only a hypocrite? If, on the second day of the next year, I revert to my former behaviour, am I then a liar? Pedantry on a epic scale.
Come on Mr Appleseed – we’re waiting!
Mr Appleseed is hair splitting – Camoron says one thing for public consumption & Tory MPs/MEPs then do the diametric oposite when it comes down to a vote on the subject. The late great Pete Cook noted that hypocrisy is the vaseline of political intercourse (said on the Clive James show – audience reaction – stunned silence) – the country by country position of the Tories (in terms of voting) shows that they have always bought their hypocrisy wholsale. In turn this raises the question – what is Mr Appleseeds position on hypocrisy & Tories.
I believe the word for this is ‘dissembling’.
What better example of Cameron’s duplicity than when he accused Sadiq Khan of sharing platforms with terrorist sympathisers and then when he shared a platform with Khan (yeah ironic isn’t it) he referred to him as a proud Muslim.