Treat ‘em mean is the title of today’s editorial on tax havens in the Guardian.

I understand the sentiment. The editorial quotes my work.

There is also a need for an air of realism. I said yesterday that simple promotion of tax information exchange agreements would be a very poor outcome from the G20. Better than no outcome, but a poor one. But as the Guardian says “any optimism must be heavily qualified”.

We know the US administration is all over the place on Treasury issues — which is a massive problem.

We know China will not agree to any OECD linked statement at the G20 — they just don’t.

We know that not all intermediate states see this as big an issue as they should — and some of their politicians might have their own reasons for that.

And communiqu?©s from events such as this are brief — and are hints at directions of travel at best.

In practice we know the direction of travel for Germany, France and the USA — domestic action is likely whatever the G20 says. That’s good.

In the UK we do not know that — we await to know the terms of reference of the Michael Foot commission on our tax havens, let alone what it will do. But it would be very good to know these as well as anything the G20 might say — these might indicate a direction of travel for the UK more resoundingly than anything the G20 communiqu?© might — and at the same time might deal with the not unreasonable criticism from places like Switzerland that the UK does contribute to this problem.

So I want to be realistic — and guardedly optimistic — but also pragmatic. The G20 communiqu?© will, I hope, refer to increased transparency of tax havens in some way. I hope it will confirm a commitment to effective and maybe multilateral information exchange. I would like reference to regulatory reform — even though I know the US is dragging its feet. I would like (and we’re being led to expect) a reference to sanctions on blacklisted states to show that the G20 means to get tough — whatever detailed criteria are agreed for blacklisting (and there’s not a hope these will come out at the G20 on reflection — there is not time to negotiate them between now and then). And I would like the UK to indicate its commitment to follow through on this process by announcing a robust review by Michael Foot. An OECD statement of support for the G20 process, which will have to be outside the G20 framework because of China, would be also be very helpful.

And then, although it seems like mayhem now if you’re working on the tax haven issue, as I am day and night, the real work and lobbying will begin.

This may be as much as we can get. I’d love it to be more. I’d love to include country-by-country reporting. But is that a detail too far for the G20? It may be. It’s an issue to progress — but maybe not at a heads of state summit, I have to admit. I’d like automatic information exchange — but I think ‘effective’ with automatic being an option for consideration under that heading is the best we might get. I’d love any reference to transparency to include requirement that financial and legal data to be placed on public record. But is that too much for a communiqu?©? It might be, much as I’d wish otherwise. We have to realise the US might redline that one.

So, this is me being realistic and pragmatic. The optimism comes because the Foot commission might deliver — how can Gordon Brown back down from what he said now? — and because the fat lady will not have sung at the G20 — it is the opening overture in all probability.

We’ll have to retain energy for the work that follows. There will be a lot of it.

Prepare for the long haul is my message.