Forum menu
I am sure that will get straight back to the folk in court and just mean they will wrap it up even tighter than they would have done.
No, it served a purpose then and it still serves it. It's his dead cat, it's something that the man in the street will remember, especially when someone spins the extension asking as either him being forced into it, or someone else doing it.
Boris Johnson said he would rather be “dead in a ditch” than seek a further delay
Yeah but he also said he'd lie down in front of a bulldozer to stop an LHR runway, and in the end he didn't even vote against it.
So he’s not going to die in a ditch then?
I quite liked that idea when he first mooted it, but now I would prefer that he does end up being forced to request an extension. That will be funnier to watch.
A source confirms all this means is that Government will obey the law.
It does not mean we will extend.
It does not mean we will stay in the EU beyond Oct 31.
We will leave
My thoughts are that there is no substance behind this threat/promise, but if enough people say it with enough conviction then it will potentially influence enough people to accept the Johnson plan just in case they actually have a way of doing this. Its a game of chicken and they can run with it right up until the trigger dates in the Benn act, so Johnson wants to get a HoC vote on his deal before the EU summt, while this sword of damocles is still hanging over them.
As soon as he extends half his votes will go to BXP Limited and the fothcoming GE gets a whole lot messier than it already will be.
Boris Johnson said he would rather be “dead in a ditch” than seek a further delay
Given the various known and inferred funders a different interpretation might be that he will be found dead in a ditch if he doesn't deliver a no deal?
Was that aimed at Stewart @MSP? Because, even though I disagree with him on most things, not least as regards Brexit, he has openly fought for what his party should stand for, he has not quietly hidden away on the backbenches, nor could you accurately describe the way he has been acting as to “slink off into the darkness”. He has challenged the shift in his party, and politics in general, away from considered debate and into pure rhetoric. I think he has done so more openly and clearly than many (most?) politicians who are more aligned with my own politics, as it happens.
He’s announced his candidacy for the mayor of London.
I am tempted to vote for him - not because I agree with his Tory ideology but because A) He is open to changing his mind and considering the opinion of the other side and B) He has some interesting thoughts on the centre ground needing to be radicalised - trumpian anti-trump debate.
Boris Johnson said he would rather be “dead in a ditch” than seek a further delay
Given the various known and inferred funders a different interpretation might be that he will be found dead in a ditch if he doesn’t deliver a no deal?
According to BBC "Boris Johnson will send a letter to the EU asking for a Brexit delay if no deal is agreed by 19 October, according to government papers submitted to a Scottish court."
PM BoJo and Tories will certainly be "dead in a ditch" if there is further delay and not out by 31 Oct. 🤣
Might be a dumb question but how do the mechanics of asking for an extension actually go?
Can he ask, the EU say ‘yeah sure’ but then he goes “thanks but we’re leaving anyway”?
Ie: can the government just take us out anyway or do parliament or the EU actually have to ‘do’ something for us to be out?
amedias
Member
Might be a dumb question but how do the mechanics of asking for an extension actually go?Can he ask, the EU say ‘yeah sure’ but then he goes “thanks but we’re leaving anyway”?
Ie: can the government just take us out anyway or do parliament or the EU actually have to ‘do’ something for us to be out?
legaal eagles on twitter have been saying no he cant just ask to leave its alla bout that Padfield Principle
Padfield (1968)13 established the principle that there are no unfettered discretions in public law, and that statutory powers must be used to promote the policy and objects of the statute, to be determined by the courts as a matter of law. Much of what follows can be traced back to that fundamental principle
But there are other ways.....
All this talk about Hungary vetoing the deal is pretty outlandish, Orban would face a huge backlash if they vetoed a deal & threw Ireland under the bus
that said Johnson's Spectator mates & andrew nneil have been chummy with Orban's rather unpleasant anti-semitic propaganda people
https://twitter.com/jpublik/status/986283182558535681
All this talk about Hungary vetoing the deal is pretty outlandish, Orban would face a huge backlash if they vetoed a deal & threw Ireland under the bus
It is either them or PM BoJo and Tories under the bus or ditch. 😀
Orban would face a huge backlash if they vetoed a deal & threw Ireland under the bus
Does he care though? Only takes one of the 27 to veto an extension & its no deal & ERG are happy chappies.
If an extension is vetoed or not granted.. surely revoke A50 should be the default option?
Will this new case be known as the “Cherry on the top” case?
Actually it's the noboff case.
What hat article says is one specific allegation is over egged. However your own link shows that parts of this set of EU directives will come into place in 2020 and those parts of the directive will outlaw many of the tax evasion / avoidance schemes
First the directive has been in place for some time, 2020 is a compliance date. This is an important distinction because directives generally do not have direct force of law as it is left to the member states to introduce laws that are in compliance with the terms of the directive. This is based on the principle of subsidiarity.
Second, therefore one has to look to the status of the UK's compliance with the directive and that is the bit of the article you chose not to reproduce because it explains how the UK has complied or is in the process of complying with the directive's terms. This has not proved a particularly onerous task as the UK has had rules in the areas covered for many years. Unfortunately my collection of Annotated Finance Acts only extends to 1985 so I can't reproduce the first iteration of the CFC regime introduced in 1984 if my recollection is correct. However, the first iteration of the exit charge was introduced in 1988. The introduction starts with the following description on page 9
Company migration When a company ceases to be resident in the UK, there is a deemed disposal at market value of all its assets except the UK trade assets of any UK branch or agency of the company...
Third, these proposals weren't originally formulated by the EU, they are based on work carried out by the OECD, which is the key body when it comes to organizing international tax co-operation. Their model tax treaty and commentary thereon is given great weight by any court interpreting Double Tax Conventions. The UK is of course an independent and proactive member of the OECD and will continue to be after Brexit. Therefore as the OECD develops further recommendations you can expect them to continue to be implemented in the UK.
Much the same analysis applies to the money laundering stuff which is based on the work of the Financial Action Task Force, of which again the UK is an independent and proactive member.
TL/DR TJ is talking out of his arse as usual.
Does he care though? Only takes one of the 27 to veto an extension & its no deal & ERG are happy chappies.
EU already threatening to withhold funding die to Hungary & Poland attack on judiciary
But both countries have promised to use veto to protect each others funding
Vetoing extension could jeopardize that, would be a very reckless move by Orban
As unlikely as it is… the EU saying no to an extension perhaps should be welcomed. We can than “stand up to the EU”, take back control, Revoke A50, and then choose our own timetable for leaving, if we ever do. This is how we should have acted years ago. Decided here how we want to proceed, got a mandate for that from the people, and then started the countdown to leaving. We needed a PM going to the EU with a starting position backed by their government, our parliament, and the voters in a referendum. As it is, we have no plan HERE with enough support across parliament or across the country. It really doesn’t matter what the EU says, we are defeating ourselves. That we started a countdown to force ourselves to come up with something under pressure, is our own stupid faults. Most MPs made that mistake, led by poor party leaders. Stop it. Stop the clock. Go back to the EU when we can agree what we want, and can tell them and push for it.
Stop.
The.
Clock.
Mefty’s post doesn’t reflect the UK’s response to the proposed measures over the last 10 years at all. And it definitely doesn’t reflect Johnson’s response when Major.
No it is completely consistent over the last ten years we have introduced one of the most Draconian approaches to tax avoidance in the world.
. Go back to the EU when we can agree what we want, and can tell them and push for it.
That'll be never then.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-47779783
Taxi is right
until theres a majority in parliament itll never work
Another squirrel hunt.
No it is completely consistent over the last ten years we have introduced one of the most Draconian approaches to tax avoidance in the world.
that is utter nonsense. The UK and its dependent territories are the biggest facilitators of tax avoidance in the world and laws on it are so slack the tories and their chums just ride straight thru them
One key aspect is at the moment the various eurosceptic papers are all run by people who take advantage of the UKs slack tax avoidance and come 2020 they will not be able to do so
follow the money folks don't be taken in by smokescreens such as this. Mefty is using minutiae to obscure the larger picture
Now mefty - does the daily mail ustilise tax avoidence by being owned by a bermuda company so it pays no tax in the UK? After the EU tax avoidance directive comes fully into place in 2020 will this still be possible if we are in the EU?
https://www.accountancydaily.co/uk-overseas-territories-top-tax-haven-risk-list
Etc etc
Once again mefty is totally distorting the true picture because in his eyes no tory can do wrong and greed is good
As Bonnie Greer pointed out on last night’s Question Time, huge chunks of America identify as “Irish”
I said a little while ago to a Chicagoan fried of mine, that it seemed like every American I'd ever met claimed to be a quarter Irish. Her reply, "hey, I'm a quarter Irish!"
Q E anecdotal D.
And of course this
https://www.publicfinanceinternational.org/news/2019/05/index-puts-uk-heart-global-tax-avoidance
"The Tax Justice Network says this is at the root of the $500bn in corporate tax dodged each year globally by multinationals.
Moreover, it places the lion’s share of responsibility on the UK, which has effectively outsourced corporate tax avoidance to a “spider’s web” of Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies."
"The first such study of this scope, the corporate tax haven index ranks countries by their complicity in “havenry” based on scores reflecting the degree to which they enable avoidance.
"It lists the top 10 offenders as: the Virgin Islands, Bermuda, and the Cayman Islands – all British territories – and Jersey, a British dependency; The Netherlands, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Singapore, the Bahamas and Hong Kong.
These jurisdictions alone are responsible for more than half (52%) of the world’s corporate tax avoidance risks, the index indicates."
The top 10 countries that have done the most to proliferate corporate tax avoidance and break down the global corporate tax system are:
1. British Virgin Islands (British territory)
2. Bermuda (British territory)
3. Cayman Islands (British territory)
4. Netherlands
5. Switzerland
6. Luxembourg
7. Jersey (British dependency)
8. Singapore
9. Bahamas
10. Hong Kong"
Etc etc
David Camerons family fortune is built on tax evasion and avoidence
Remember the panama papers?
I think that lot rather proves my point.
Now the Barclay brothers who run a load of eurosceptic press - where are they based again? How much UK tax do they pay? will they still be able to avoid paying tax after the directives come into force fully in 2020?
arron Banks - yes another one who made his fortune thru tax evasion thru his isle of man bank
Rees Mogg - you guessed it - another serial tax avoider.
Andera Lothesome - guess what
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/09/brexiters-put-money-offshore-tax-haven
follow the money
Ok Ok - I am now labouring the point but Meftys bullshine needs to be called out for what it is
Not just tax avoidance. Money laundering too.
To be fair, it isn’t ‘deliberate’ in the truest sense of the word. But lax, cowboy rules combined with under-resourcing on the enforcement side means an open field.
Bit like all the arsewipes I see using their phones whilst driving every day. Starve enforcement of resource and you never catch anyone, whilst emboldening others.
We might learn one day, you never know......
PM BoJo and Tories will certainly be “dead in a ditch” if there is further delay and not out by 31 Oct
Tell me when and where so I can come and gloat pay my respects.
I don’t disagree with mefty but my slant is that the EU are more likely to enforce or force the UK to actually properly police it.
As I bang on having a law and enforcing it are subtly different.
I think there are many reasons people are bank rolling brexit, disaster capitalism and and not having the EU directives seem a valid reason whereas the populist rants of taking back control seem hollow.
The only answer I have been able to come up with to our favourite “so what will you be able to do after we’ve left that you can’t do now?”
Is to not have to worry that my shell tax avoidance money/laundering company Would be scrutinised 🙂
(Edit - assuming hard Brexit an no transition)
PM BoJo and Tories will certainly be “dead in a ditch” if there is further delay and not out by 31 Oct
Tell me when and where so I can come and
gloatpay my respects.
Perfectly fine to gloat or to p*ss on them if they try to reheat ex-PM May's deal. 😀
No Deal is the only way. 😁
I think no deal is looking less likely by the day.
Parliament has ruled it out, it's legally ruled out via the Benn legislation and there are court cases in the pipeline that will strengthen this.
Unless PM Cummings has managed to find a unicorn it seems the worst case scenario is now a May's deal 1.1
Not ideal but I can cope with that.
Could Johnson ask for the extension but then refuse to take it up?
Surely the big brains have thought of that?
Trump impeached
Brexit cancelled
Spiderman staying in the MCU
😎😎😎😎😎
tjagain
Member
Could Johnson ask for the extension but then refuse to take it up?
No
Padfield (1968)13 established the principle that there are no unfettered discretions in public law, and that statutory powers must be used to promote the policy and objects of the statute, to be determined by the courts as a matter of law. Much of what follows can be traced back to that fundamental principle.
However im sure Cummings will try something
I cannot live with any form of brexit. I am so angry about the whole thing.
Its a disaster for the country, it will inevitably lead to the break up of the UK, it will impovrish us all
The whole thing is a populist play by a small number of super rich tax avoiders in order to reshape the uK into a very low wage very low tax economy and they got where they did by a 20 year propaganda campaign playing on the basest racist fears of small section of the population
also funded and directed by russia to destabilise the EU
I am a European. I have more in common with citizens of countries like the Netherlands and Denmark that I do with the backward looking little englander xenophobes
The england I was born in has moved away from me - I have not moved away from it
KImbers - the Benn act by my understanding states they must ask for an extension not enact it.
Trump impeached
Brexit cancelled
Spiderman staying in the MCU
My crystal ball says no 🤣
KImbers – the Benn act by my understanding states they must ask for an extension not enact it.
But parliament has voted not to crash out, and the Benn legislation legally forbids it (Parliament is sovereign, not Dominic boris)
It's a car crash fo sho.
Surely the benn act only asks for an extension and the 31st oct to leave is still on the statue books?
Its a point I really am not clear on
Surely the benn act only asks for an extension and the 31st oct to leave is still on the statue books
Yes, but to be legally obliged to ask for an extension and then refuse said extension would be a contradicion.
It would be subverting the spirit of the legislation.
Cummings boris might attempt such a feat but I'm pretty sure the supreme Court is on speed dial and would quash such a move fairly swiftly.
Not ideal but I can cope with that.
I'm with tjagain.
I might be happy with a 2nd ref but really it's clear the whole affair is an almighty **** up and A50 should be revoked pending a sensible grown up review of what the EU does for us and our place within it. As should have been the case from result of the 2016 referendum.
Surely the benn act only asks for an extension
My understanding is that if an extension is requested and is granted, we are still members of the EU.