I was interviewed by BBC Guernsey yesterday as a direct result of the blog I published on it complying with the UK's demand for full, automatic information exchange.
I did, of course, say Guernsey had to be dragged "kicking and screaming" into doing so. Peter Harwood, its Chief Minister, took objection to this, and the BBC reporter, showing the usual complete and total bias of the BBC in the islands, defended its financial services industry with all the usual nonsense the BBC, its politicians and financial services industry are inclined to spout, often. This includes "we're fully cooperative", "we've passed all reviews" and "how can you complain now we've signed this deal", let alone "it's impossible to say we're secret anymore".
Well, I can and do so Guernsey is still a secrecy jurisdiction, or tax haven, if you will. It has only ever agreed to any reform under duress, whether from the UK, US, EU or IMF. Its compliance is always the minimum necessary. And its commitment to low taxes and secrecy, plus financial innovation to ensure people and companies can hide their affairs from view is continuing. This leopard has not changed its spots.
The evidence is clear. As I pointed out, if Mr Harwood was sincere first of all he'd have been willing to debate with me rather than shout from afar. More than that though, if he really means he's committed to end secrecy he'll now offer a UK style deal to France, Germany, Italy, Spain, South Africa, India, Brazil and beyond. Then we'll know he did not sign just because the UK gave him no choice (as is the case) but because he really believes in transparency. I know I am on a completely safe bet that no such agreements will happen. His claim that he believes that this deal is beneficial is completely untrue: if it were he'd be rolling them out as fast as possible and that's just not going to happen.
The real irony came though when I was asked who might suffer if anyone as a result of Guernsey's activities. It was Red Nose Day. I pointed out the impact on developing countries. And then I pointed out the impact on people in the UK - many of whom, inclduing children, will be thrown out of their homes soon to save money - money not paid because people avoid and evade tax through Guernsey. Guernsey's choice to create laws designed to undermine the laws of other countries around the world is not a victimless crime. It is a crime intended to make the poor poorer. Signing an agreement under duress does not absolve them from guilt. It does instead show just how token their compliance is.
Mr Harwood has a great deal to apologise for. And in the meantime all he can do is hurl abuse from afar at me through statements issued to the press (which I deliberately interrupted repeatedly when the reporter tried to read it). That's what someone losing the argument does.
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:
Guernsey was not “dragged kicking and screaming” to the table. There has never been any question of Guernsey not signing a deal. The delay was due to negotiating the best possible deal, ie a carve out for non-doms. Peter Harwood had a duty to the people of Guernsey to negotiate the best deal for Guernsey, not to just accept the first deal.
Guernsey has passed every test laid down before it by the IMF, the OECD, the EU and by the UK. It has not failed to comply with anything. It runs a financial services industry which is arguably the most respectable and one of the tightest regulated anywhere in the world. It operates to very high standards. These high standards serve to attract higher quality business, and will continue to do so.
But even that’s not good enough for you. I heard the radio interview yesterday. You came across as a petulant child, especially when you kept interrupting the interviewer. Of course Peter Harwood and the interviewer were going to counter your unjustified attacks.
I don’t expect you to stand and applaud Guernsey. But if you are going to continue to attack Guernsey then I would suggest that you do so from a position of strength. Guernsey’s industry has changed massively over the past 5-10 years. It is probably now the premier “offshore” jurisdiction in the world in terms of standards. I would suggest that you focus your attention on those jurisdictions which are lagging behind.
Read the blog today
To anyone but the wilfully deaf on Guernsey your comments are obviously absurd
And note, it is not the BBC’s job to defend your abuse
I have indeed read the blog today, and today’s posts are equally full of inaccuracies. I’m not at all sure that your story today is about Guernsey.
Correct, its not the BBC’s job to defend our (alleged) abuse. It is to report accurately. Which it is doing.
Guernsey gas responsibility for Sark – which is, of course, how the Sark Lark was stopped
Guernsey has not sought to deny its responsibility
I think I am being accurate
I have extensive experience of the BBC in Jersey and Guernsey – and both are biased to their core. Objectivity is not known – like your politics
Guernsey only had responsibility for Sark in relation to
the Sark Lark because the Sark Lark was activity which would
clearly be a regulated fiduciary activity had it been carried out
in Guernsey. Running a payroll company is not necessarily a
regulated fiduciary activity. Think of it this way – would the UK
FSA be responsible for regulating a UK payroll company? The answer
is emphatically no. You are on very dodgy ground indeed here. Re
the BBC, you say that they are biased to the core. I would suggest
that they simply don’t accept your claims. Just because they
disagree with you doesn’t make them biased. If you don’t like how
they operate, why do you agree to participate in interviews by
them? Nobody is forcing you to do so.
Very useful, thanks.
“Objectivity is not known — like your politics”
Having read your blog for several years now, this comment does make me laugh!!!!