A regular commentator on this blog — passing by the name of Jersey Girrl, who is, without doubt close to the Jersey establishment, has commented on this blog, saying:
It interests me that Richard and John C find it impossible to acknowledge that the governments in Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man accept that they have built their economies to an extent using tax competition (quite the thing when each of them started as finance centres) but also accept that they must move to different places. The UK, OECD and EU seem perfectly happy that the CDs are being sincere and in all probability moving/evolving faster than many finance centres in the world.
It follows that a number of the comments that Richard and John make are congruent with the views of the governments in the CDs, but that the irritation that sometimes comes out is simply due to the one-sided and blinkered views that TJN expresses.
It may be that Thomas said that he wouldn't accept Jesus' resurrection until he could his hand in the spear hole; but the other apostles were content with what they were told.
I simply don’t buy this logic. As I noted:
Girrl
Yes they’ve moved.
They have gone a metre
But the journey is 1,000 km long
I have given credit where due
But there’s precious little to give
In the last decade [there’s been] blatant abuse of EU Code of Conduct — now exposed
Non-cooperation with European Union Savings Tax Directive — still not corrected
Flagrantly abusive new trust laws
New foundation laws
No movement on transparency at all
Token gestures on information exchange
Remind me - what was I meant to be applauding?
Richard
Jersey is a dedicated secrecy jurisdiction: secrecy jurisdictions are places that intentionally create regulation for the primary benefit and use of those not resident in their geographical domain that is designed to undermine the legislation or regulation of another jurisdiction. They do in addition create a deliberate, legally backed veil of secrecy that ensures that those from outside the jurisdiction making use of its regulation cannot be identified to be doing so.
Whilst this remains the case please do not expect plaudits. Jersey does not deserve them.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Henry
1) Prove it
2) Don’t you agree the UK would be net better off despite paying the subsidy?
Richard
Richard
If that happened and Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man became just another UK region, wouldn’t some of their work just move to Liechtenstein, Singapore, Austria or Delaware?
John
Henry
I am rapidly realising just how out of touch with reality you are
I ran a manufacturing company in Cornwall once: it was a good place to do business.
And have you noticed how popular it is as a place to live especially with the Cornish?
Open you eyes – life is not all about a pile of cash
London is for most the wasteland
Cornwall is the aspiration
As for your analysis of tax havens: I suggest you work out what they actually do before coming to your conclusions. Nothing supports your claims
Richard
In any case, Jersey and Cornwall are not all that comparable, even if Jersey was part of the UK.
Also, if Jersey was no longer able to support itself, we would have the option of becoming part of France, or any other European country, not just the UK.
France being the sensible option given that it is only 14 miles away.
Dan
If Jersey couldn’t support itself, why do you think the French would want to support Jersey? No, it would be the UK, who would have a moral obligation to assist.
Richard
Girrl online!
“In the last decade [there’s been] blatant abuse of EU Code of Conduct — now exposed”
Cf. very regular contact with the UK and EU on replacement regimes so as to get it right – politics in the EU have shifted and led to the re-examination in Jersey, nothing tax-related – would any other readers of this blog call this “blatant abuse”?
“Non-cooperation with European Union Savings Tax Directive — still not corrected”
Cf. Jersey follows a section of the EUSD that is settled EU law re. the withholding tax option – would any other readers of this blog call this “non-cooperation”?
“Flagrantly abusive new trust laws New foundation laws”
You may have a point here – doesn’t quite fit in with everything else – tactical error not made by Guernsey and the IOM.
“No movement on transparency at all Token gestures on information exchange”
Apart from the number of international agreements which are now regularly relied upon by other countries – would any other readers of this blog call this “no movement”?
The Girrl xx
I recognised the metre
I still do
But don’t for one second pretend TIEAs are meaningful or that anyone is fooled by the European Union Savings Tax Directive opt out
You know they aren’t
Richard
I agree with The Girrl re Jersey foundations. A big mistake for Jersey to make to try to import this civil law concept. Its no different from Panama importing a trust law. How will the Jersey courts impose civil law when their system is so heavily trust law-based ? I wouldn’t want to rely on it.
I really don’t see why you are so hung up about the CDs opting to take up something which was openly offered by the EU in relation to the EUSTD. If the EU didn’t want anybody to withhold, why offer it as an option in the first place ? Of course TIEAs will be more effective once the withholding option is ended, but the EU always knew that. All that’s changed is that they’ve become impatient with something that they consciously offered to the CDs. Is that the CDs fault ? Your ire should be addressed at the people in the EU who offered it and agreed to it.
They know how I feel
But no one asked you to use it
And you did
So don’t claim innocence
It doesn’t wash
So we were supposed to be psychic and ignore what they offer us in a deal negotiated by the UK, and instead try to guess what they really wanted? How ridiculous. If the EU didn’t want anybody to take up the option then they shouldn’t have offered it.
Quite bizarre that the EU couldn’t even control its own members (Austria, Belgium and Luxembourg) but expects non-members to do something different.
Seems to me that the EU needs to become rather better at communication.
And strange though it may seem, I didn’t have any say in the EU negotiations so please don’t have a go at me !
Rupert
Richard is having one of his wriggles. The reason that the EU has this rule is that AU, BE and LU are tax havens and so are J, G and IOM…you get the drift. However, a Directive needs a unanimous vote, so we actually have 27 member states accepting the WHT option used by Jersey. To call this non-cooperation is tosh, and Richard knows it.
Girrly
Setting up facilities for multinationals and the super-rich to stash their loot is what I call wriggly, Girrly. When are you going to start concerning yourself with what your dirty business does for ordinary tax-payers around the world, especially the desperately poor?
@Carol Wilcox
Carol
Without wishing to open a whole can of worms; capitalism is essentially amoral. Politics, and by extension governments, despite their protestations are not much better. Where you and Richard come close to hitting the mark on occasion is that Jersey may only be a vassal to capitalists in London, Geneva and New York, and our politicians know that they need to live with this situation.
In terms of preventing illicit flows, we really need to be more honest about the conditions in the countries where they originate. Rampant systemic corruption is the norm. Don’t get me wrong – I’m not going to say that finance centres are whited sepulchres – far from it – but lobbyists often rather conveniently forget more than half of the equation.
The Girrl
Girrl, I suspect that finance centres may indeed be whited sepulchres.
I think you have missed the point that whited sepulchres look pure (white) from the outside but contain rotting corpses. A contrast between outward appearance and inward reality.