Topic: Brexit. the Con continues

[PaulF]

Being argumentative ( not like me). Hunt can choose to reject some forecasts. But for him to not appear a dick about it, he has to elaborate the grounds on which he refutes the forecast. There may be underlying assumptions which he feels are unrepresentative or that the model misses certain things. He should explain his position on those. Other experts can review his position on those points.
I'm sure though he just doesn't like the answer.

[TSC]

Like Jeremy C*nt this morning who has had enough of experts it seems

Bet he managed to keep a straight face while saying that too.

[Nobby Reserve]

Bet he managed to keep a straight face while saying that too.

Probably. I do wonder if that fixed expression and those wild, staring eyes suggest an addiction to Botox.

[Nobby Reserve]

I know this is the ECJ and not strictly the EU, but this is a shocking decision, and will set back efforts to clamp down on tax-dodging a money-laundering through increasing transparency of 'beneficial ownership'

https://taxjustice.net/press/eu-court-returns-eu-to-dark-ages-of-dirty-money/

An absolute disgrace.

[rob1966]

I know this is the ECJ and not strictly the EU, but this is a shocking decision, and will set back efforts to clamp down on tax-dodging a money-laundering through increasing transparency of 'beneficial ownership'

https://taxjustice.net/press/eu-court-returns-eu-to-dark-ages-of-dirty-money/

An absolute disgrace.

So the Tories didn't need Brexit after all.?

[PaulF]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/26/brexit-britain-japan-trade-deal-exports-slump

More winning without winning.

[kavah]

The latest poll shows the only demographic still for Brexit are the over 65s 
Fucking mad bastards 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/nov/27/brexit-has-made-britain-the-sick-man-of-europe-again

[PaulF]

Wait till KH sees that !

[Jiminy Cricket]

Wait till KH sees that !

I wonder if KH has seen this Netflix film?

https://www.netflix.com/title/81217751

Surely, her worst nightmare!? Will probably think it is a documentary.

Edit: I assumed you were referring to this:

Wrong thread.

[Nobby Reserve]

I know this is the ECJ and not strictly the EU, but this is a shocking decision, and will set back efforts to clamp down on tax-dodging a money-laundering through increasing transparency of 'beneficial ownership'

https://taxjustice.net/press/eu-court-returns-eu-to-dark-ages-of-dirty-money/

An absolute disgrace.

Surprised there's not more reaction to this.

Then again, with not a peep from the vast majority of the MSM about it, perhaps not. Given the bulk of the UK print media is owned by tax-dodging shitstains like Rothermere, Barclay and Murdoch, you expect this.

The ruling is basically telling governments they cannot look deeper into tax dodging and money laundering methods by the financial elites.

Hiding assets - for tax-dodging, money-laundering or other personal reasons - is a $multi-trillion industry. $hundreds-of-billions in tax revenues are lost every year through the use of secrecy jurisdictions and tax havens. Wiping these out needs to be a core aim of governments. The cornerstone of fighting this has to be transparency. To have the ECJ blocking that transparency makes me puke.

[PaulF]

Now we have our blue passports, we can stick two fingers up to the EU and go hard after these tax dodgers.

Sorry. There was no need for that. I just feel like giving up sometimes.

[thaddeus]

Now we have our blue passports, we can stick two fingers up to the EU and go hard after these tax dodgers.

Sorry. There was no need for that. I just feel like giving up sometimes.

You jest but we might.  I was a "Remainer" and am now a "Rejoiner" but the EU do have a habit of falling at the last hurdle when it comes to taking on the corporations (or, in some cases, seemingly putting an extra hurdle in their own way that they can then fall over).

Right now it's fanciful to think the UK might spearhead anything like this but if Labour get into power and at some point end up with a leader from the left of the party they *might*.  It's a wild long shot but, assuming Labour come into power and assuming the country is is an absolute post-Tory mess, bills will need paying and Labours suggestions so far don't look like touching the sides.  Much of that off-shored money would vanish way in advance of any legislation going through but it's got to be a tempter for someone from Corbyn's wing of the party.

Really poor from the ECJ though and, on a larger scale, gives no confidence that the race to the bottom won't just pick up pace.

[stoa]

The ruling is basically telling governments they cannot look deeper into tax dodging and money laundering methods by the financial elites.

Except, it's not. You should maybe read the ruling and not some hysterical agenda driven website.

The ECJ has said nothing about it being illegal to collect data about who the beneficial owners of an entity are or collecting that data in a special register. It has also said nothing about it being illegal that that data is made accessible to (certain) people. What the ECJ has said is that the way the regulation has been written in terms of giving the public broad access to (possibly) all the data about a beneficial owner (including adressess and other personal information) is way over the top and is too much of an interference with the basic rights given to people in article 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (i.e. respect for private and family life and protection of personal data). That's basically it. Yeah, it takes away some transparency, but it's also not "going back to the dark ages of dirty money".

I also don't really get the "Oh, the EU/states/ECJ is run by tax dodgers and they do everything to shield themselves from transparency"-shouts. If you look at it objectively, the EU has shown with that regulation that it is willing to provide more transparency. In return, the ECJ acknowledge that that was what the EU was trying to do and that they had a point doing it. However, the execution was not right as there were no clear rules what data should be accessible. The way I see it (as a non lawyer and non economic expert) there is room to fix this in a way that makes the ECJ happy by being in line with articles 7 and 8 of the Charter.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Except, it's not. You should maybe read the ruling and not some hysterical agenda driven website.

The ECJ has said nothing about it being illegal to collect data about who the beneficial owners of an entity are or collecting that data in a special register. It has also said nothing about it being illegal that that data is made accessible to (certain) people. What the ECJ has said is that the way the regulation has been written in terms of giving the public broad access to (possibly) all the data about a beneficial owner (including adressess and other personal information) is way over the top and is too much of an interference with the basic rights given to people in article 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (i.e. respect for private and family life and protection of personal data). That's basically it. Yeah, it takes away some transparency, but it's also not "going back to the dark ages of dirty money".

I also don't really get the "Oh, the EU/states/ECJ is run by tax dodgers and they do everything to shield themselves from transparency"-shouts. If you look at it objectively, the EU has shown with that regulation that it is willing to provide more transparency. In return, the ECJ acknowledge that that was what the EU was trying to do and that they had a point doing it. However, the execution was not right as there were no clear rules what data should be accessible. The way I see it (as a non lawyer and non economic expert) there is room to fix this in a way that makes the ECJ happy by being in line with articles 7 and 8 of the Charter.

Thank you for posting details about this, Stoa. I had wondered what actually happened and how it would impact the new tax evasion laws. By the looks of it, the authorities should still have access to the data. So, just to be clear though, will they need to pass new legislation? If so, I expect this will cause significant delay - not a good thing, obviously.

[stoa]

Thank you for posting details about this, Stoa. I had wondered what actually happened and how it would impact the new tax evasion laws. By the looks of it, the authorities should still have access to the data. So, just to be clear though, will they need to pass new legislation? If so, I expect this will cause significant delay - not a good thing, obviously.

The way I understand it, the EU has put the Directive in place, but as with everything they decide there's time for the individual member states to put it in their own legislation. Luxemburg had done it, hence the law suit against their online platform where they made the information public online for everyone. A quick google search earlier brought up some headlines that Germany had also implemented it, but Austria for example were behind. Don't know about other member states. From my understanding the ECJ have only looked at the making the info public for everyone part of the Directive, because that's what they've been asked to do by a court in Luxemburg. So, that's the only part that's affected by the decision and everything else is still in place. Again, I'm not an expert and don't know if there are other issues with the Directive that might end up being ruled on by the ECJ or some other institution, but this ECJ-ruling only goes for that specific part.

[Jiminy Cricket]

The way I understand it, the EU has put the Directive in place, but as with everything they decide there's time for the individual member states to put it in their own legislation. Luxemburg had done it, hence the law suit against their online platform where they made the information public online for everyone. A quick google search earlier brought up some headlines that Germany had also implemented it, but Austria for example were behind. Don't know about other member states. From my understanding the ECJ have only looked at the making the info public for everyone part of the Directive, because that's what they've been asked to do by a court in Luxemburg. So, that's the only part that's affected by the decision and everything else is still in place. Again, I'm not an expert and don't know if there are other issues with the Directive that might end up being ruled on by the ECJ or some other institution, but this ECJ-ruling only goes for that specific part.

Cheers, Stoa.

Google, you say. I use the Stoa search engine myself.

[stoa]

Cheers, Stoa.

Google, you say. I use the Stoa search engine myself.

And I'm collecting as much if not more of your private data as Google. Nice stuff you had in your bin this morning. Are you sure you want to throw all that away?

[Jiminy Cricket]

And I'm collecting as much if not more of your private data as Google. Nice stuff you had in your bin this morning. Are you sure you want to throw all that away?

Damn you! I trusted you. I thought you were different. Erm. I'm sounding more like a jilted lover.

[dutchkop]

wrt Brexit and football - do you think Brexit has put UK Prem teams on a least competitive position in that young affordable UK talent cannot work in UK?

[Nobby Reserve]

Except, it's not. You should maybe read the ruling and not some hysterical agenda driven website.

The ECJ has said nothing about it being illegal to collect data about who the beneficial owners of an entity are or collecting that data in a special register. It has also said nothing about it being illegal that that data is made accessible to (certain) people. What the ECJ has said is that the way the regulation has been written in terms of giving the public broad access to (possibly) all the data about a beneficial owner (including adressess and other personal information) is way over the top and is too much of an interference with the basic rights given to people in article 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (i.e. respect for private and family life and protection of personal data). That's basically it. Yeah, it takes away some transparency, but it's also not "going back to the dark ages of dirty money".

I also don't really get the "Oh, the EU/states/ECJ is run by tax dodgers and they do everything to shield themselves from transparency"-shouts. If you look at it objectively, the EU has shown with that regulation that it is willing to provide more transparency. In return, the ECJ acknowledge that that was what the EU was trying to do and that they had a point doing it. However, the execution was not right as there were no clear rules what data should be accessible. The way I see it (as a non lawyer and non economic expert) there is room to fix this in a way that makes the ECJ happy by being in line with articles 7 and 8 of the Charter.

Can governments share the data with each other? With NGO's? It's pretty neutered if not.

Crucially, it denies access to public-service campaigning organisations. It wasn't governments who exposed and publicised the Panama Papers or the Pandora Papers. It's vital to the war against asset-hiding (and all that that facilitates) that the general public and groups who seek to expose these parssites who hide their assets have full access to registers. Governments haven't the resources (nor, sadly too often, the will) to join all the dots and expose these scum. They can also come to sweetheart deals with tax dodgers behind closed doors (allowing the shitstains to escape with a lower tax bill and their reputations intact). Not to mention the potential for corruption and brown envelopes.

Giving the public access to beneficial ownership registers would have been revolutionary. Witch hunts? Fucking right there'd have been witch hunts. GEt wider publicity for the scale of this, as too many people have no idea of the scale of the 'dark money' sytem (nor the UK's central role in it, via the BOTs and CDs)

[Robinred]

Gabby Hinsliffe in today’s Guardian suggests Starmer’s playing a waiting game, and we should ‘decipher’ his messages accordingly:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/29/keir-starmer-softer-brexit-labour-leader-leave-voters-remainers?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

In the comments that followed, I thought this, from poster Hak_a_dalan, was beautifully put, and accurately encapsulates what many of us feel:

“The fate that awaits the majority in the UK is to endure a period of tedious pandering to a block of voters who resolutely refuse to be lured away from their shiny little Brexity bauble. A group that are treated like children because it seems that this is what they prefer.

Rather than embracing and engaging with the real world, the UK is now fated to be held back by this confluence of slow learners and a generation of gutless politicians ….. locked together in a grotesque slow dance of the wilfully obtuse and the cowardly.”

[stoa]

Can governments share the data with each other? With NGO's? It's pretty neutered if not.

Crucially, it denies access to public-service campaigning organisations. It wasn't governments who exposed and publicised the Panama Papers or the Pandora Papers. It's vital to the war against asset-hiding (and all that that facilitates) that the general public and groups who seek to expose these parssites who hide their assets have full access to registers. Governments haven't the resources (nor, sadly too often, the will) to join all the dots and expose these scum. They can also come to sweetheart deals with tax dodgers behind closed doors (allowing the shitstains to escape with a lower tax bill and their reputations intact). Not to mention the potential for corruption and brown envelopes.

Giving the public access to beneficial ownership registers would have been revolutionary. Witch hunts? Fucking right there'd have been witch hunts. GEt wider publicity for the scale of this, as too many people have no idea of the scale of the 'dark money' sytem (nor the UK's central role in it, via the BOTs and CDs)

I have no idea what data sharing between member states is looking like, but the ECJ clearly states in the ruling that the authorities and certain institutios like banks absolutely MUST have access to the data. So, I don't think there's an issue with the database being kept and access being given to certain people or institutions. They also mention the old rules for accessing the data and it seems the judges are fine with those original regulations, i.e. authorities, certain entities and everyone who can show that they have a legitimate interest in knowing who the beneficial owners are. It even says in the press release that giving acces to the whole public is a much more severe interference with Articles 7 and 8 than the old regulations.

Link to the ECJ press release about the decision (if you go to the bottom of the page, there's a link where you can read the judgement in full): https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2022-11/cp220188en.pdf

[killer-heels]

Gabby Hinsliffe in today’s Guardian suggests Starmer’s playing a waiting game, and we should ‘decipher’ his messages accordingly:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/29/keir-starmer-softer-brexit-labour-leader-leave-voters-remainers?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

In the comments that followed, I thought this, from poster Hak_a_dalan, was beautifully put, and accurately encapsulates what many of us feel:

“The fate that awaits the majority in the UK is to endure a period of tedious pandering to a block of voters who resolutely refuse to be lured away from their shiny little Brexity bauble. A group that are treated like children because it seems that this is what they prefer.

Rather than embracing and engaging with the real world, the UK is now fated to be held back by this confluence of slow learners and a generation of gutless politicians ….. locked together in a grotesque slow dance of the wilfully obtuse and the cowardly.”

Starmer and Labour dont have the strength or standing to do anything but pander to Brexiteers. Currently there are still doubts on how much of a victory Starmer would deliver in the next election even though it should be the most open of open goals. I understand completely the arse kissing of the Brexiteers that he is undertaking.

People need to forget strong EU ties and any Brexit compromise. 2030 it may come back up.

[Robinred]

Starmer and Labour dont have the strength or standing to do anything but pander to Brexiteers. Currently there are still doubts on how much of a victory Starmer would deliver in the next election even though it should be the most open of open goals. I understand completely the arse kissing of the Brexiteers that he is undertaking.

People need to forget strong EU ties and any Brexit compromise. 2030 it may come back up.

Oh I agree.

I just liked the language and truth of the comment - that we are all hostage to a long process of coming to our senses, because of the intransigence of Brexiteers - I loved the reference to “slow learners” too. I should have added the caveat that I don’t consider Starmer a coward, rather a politician who’s made a political calculation, albeit one that, as Hinsliffe says, carries risks.

In any case, as you say, the time is wrong to be having that conversation. The EU have moved on (and are doing better from global companies either re-locating, or at the least rethinking their investment strategies than the U.K). Sadly for Remainers, we’ll likely all need a substantial period of pain for the bleeding obvious to dawn on everyone.

[Nobby Reserve]

I have no idea what data sharing between member states is looking like, but the ECJ clearly states in the ruling that the authorities and certain institutios like banks absolutely MUST have access to the data. So, I don't think there's an issue with the database being kept and access being given to certain people or institutions. They also mention the old rules for accessing the data and it seems the judges are fine with those original regulations, i.e. authorities, certain entities and everyone who can show that they have a legitimate interest in knowing who the beneficial owners are. It even says in the press release that giving acces to the whole public is a much more severe interference with Articles 7 and 8 than the old regulations.

Link to the ECJ press release about the decision (if you go to the bottom of the page, there's a link where you can read the judgement in full): https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2022-11/cp220188en.pdf

It's a ruling that I struggle to get my head round. If you go on Companies House (or the equivalent in many EU countries) you can retrieve a list of directors and, often, shareholders. In other words, the beneficial owners of companies.

If you apply to the Land Resgistry, you can obtain the details of woners of property assets.

How long before some shyster tries to get the ECJ to rule that showing the directors of companies or owners of assets that are publicly available, contravenes Articles 7 & 8 of the ECHR?

All the public register sought to do was to eradicate the method of hiding the ownership of companies and assets behind the use of shell companies located in secrecy jurisdictions.

I fundamentally believe the public has a right to know who owns what, in terms of companies, land/property and other major assets. Indeed, the more people try to hide what they own, the more it is in the public interest to make that information public knowledge.

[stoa]

I fundamentally believe the public has a right to know who owns what, in terms of companies, land/property and other major assets. Indeed, the more people try to hide what they own, the more it is in the public interest to make that information public knowledge.

I agree that the public has a right to know who owns what and I doubt that regulations will be walked back in terms of knowing the actual beneficial owners and authorities/organisations/people having access to that data. The ECJ has made it pretty clear in my view, that while the Charter is very important, not all the Articles apply all the time, if there's a higher good or public interest to protect. So, no I don't think there's a way for companies or directors going up and being successful against declaring who the beneficial owner is.

And I can also kind of see why the ECJ might think the way the regulations were written and executed was an issue. Again, it's clear that it should be public knowledge who owns what, but having a publicly available online plattform everyone can search willy-nilly whenever they want with no real limit in terms of what data is put on there (including private addresses) does seem to be going a bit too far.

I think if the EU want to create transparency that way, they need to make clear rules what kind of data can be shown to people, i.e. name, Date of Birth and probably the current state/city of residence (not the exact address). That way it's clear who a person is as there's very little chance of people sharing the same name, date of birth and residence. I'd probably also include some kind of registration process to make sure it is known who's looking at the data and to maybe stop the mass collection of data by bots.

Another issue that also needs to be considered is that not everyone who has to register as a beneficial owner is a criminal tax dodger and money launderer or some rich billionaire from Russia trying to hide their fortune. On the contrary, most  of the people will be regular business people who haven't broken any laws and are doing what's asked of them. I can kind of see why the ECJ thought making all their personal data public (again, possibly including stuff like their home address) is going a bit too far, when the reasoning by the EU was that they simply wanted to create an atmosphere of transparency as a deterrence for possible money launderers by making the data public.

[Machae]

Brexit added £210 to household food bills, LSE says

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63821133

[redbyrdz]

Brexit added £210 to household food bills, LSE says

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63821133

Saw that, "due to extra red tape and paperwork"

[PaulF]

£210 over two years is 6%?  I'm reading something wrong there.

[Jiminy Cricket]

£210 over two years is 6%?  I'm reading something wrong there.

It's £210/per year for two years. Or, that's how I read it.

[rob1966]

It's £210/per year for two years. Or, that's how I read it.

Thats how I'm reading it too

[PaulF]

Even so. You'd think 6% would be more.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Even so. You'd think 6% would be more.

Well it is based on an average household - seems to be 2.4 for the UK. And if a 6% rise equates to £210, that's a base price of £3500 for the year (£67.30/wk) before the price increase. And a lot of people will have survive on a lot less than that. Cheap, shit food - Iceland deals and all that.

[PaulF]

Ah fair enough. Maths always overrides gut feel 😃

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Saw one of my mates in town yesterday and his mate was a full on Brexiter.

We ended up talking about it and he wanted to fight me - walking sticks and fat belly and no balance and all

Weird fuckers.

People watch me walk away from shit and think I'm a coward and that's fine, but I actually do it because I mainly don't want to hurt people but also get a bit miffed when I catch one and can be somewhat unpredictable when annoyed

But his main point was Blair. Fucking Blair. He voted Brexit because of Blair.

lol.

He was as thick as pig shit as well.

[rob1966]

Saw one of my mates in town yesterday and his mate was a full on Brexiter.

We ended up talking about it and he wanted to fight me - walking sticks and fat belly and no balance and all

Weird fuckers.

People watch me walk away from shit and think I'm a coward and that's fine, but I actually do it because I mainly don't want to hurt people but also get a bit miffed when I catch one and can be somewhat unpredictable when annoyed

But his main point was Blair. Fucking Blair. He voted Brexit because of Blair.

lol.

He was as thick as pig shit as well.

People like him deserve all the pain and suffering Brexit brings.

[PaulF]

Saw one of my mates in town yesterday and his mate was a full on Brexiter.

We ended up talking about it and he wanted to fight me - walking sticks and fat belly and no balance and all

Enough about you though, what was he like?

[redbyrdz]

But his main point was Blair. Fucking Blair. He voted Brexit because of Blair.

I've seen that a lot, people voted leave because of a tiny thing that they disagree with, often something that hasn't got anything to do with the EU. No understanding of the scale of it at all.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Enough about you though, what was he like?

[thaddeus]

Not strictly speaking Brexit related but still quite the story:

EU corruption charges 'very very worrisome', says foreign policy chief

Arrests over alleged corruption at the European Parliament are "very, very worrisome", the EU's foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has said.

And Irish Foreign Affairs minister Simon Coveney said the charges against four people were "very damaging".

Among the arrested was European Parliament Vice President Eva Kaili - believed to be one of those charged.

Prosecutors suspect a Gulf state - reportedly Qatar - tried to influence parliament by donating money or gifts.

Interesting that it's Qatar that have been (unofficially) named as the corrupting influence.