Panama Paradise Papers

Discussion in 'world politics, current affairs and news' started by Bernie Gunther, Apr 3, 2016.

  1. DotCommunist

    DotCommunist my world is fire and blood

    I take we all saw that, to nobodies suprise, the offshore money the great and good had stashed was in the company of international terrorist money and the blood money of organised crime
     
    teqniq likes this.
  2. yield

    yield zero

    Potters Bar, Ukraine’s stolen billions and the Eurovision connection
    6 February 2018
     
  3. teqniq

    teqniq DisMembered

  4. not-bono-ever

    not-bono-ever Space/time supply indicators near to zero

    Like no one in UKG knew about these loopholes. FFS.
     
    SpookyFrank, mojo pixy and teqniq like this.
  5. teqniq

    teqniq DisMembered

    Well yes, exactly. I pretty much thought that when I read the first article yesterday, as do some of the readers judging by the comments.
     
  6. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated



    the view from Bermuda


     
  7. not-bono-ever

    not-bono-ever Space/time supply indicators near to zero

    Panama Papers: Owners could not be traced

    and there is more- Mossack were unable to determine the beneficial owner of 70% of their BVI companies. I know this is kinda the purpose of these vehicles but the response of the BVI financial authorities is belligerent and evasive to say the least. This is basic KYC stuff, it should not be something that is negotiable.
    /
     
  8. not-bono-ever

    not-bono-ever Space/time supply indicators near to zero

  9. stavros

    stavros Well-Known Member

    Alternatively, Bermuda, the BVIs, Gibraltar et al can fuck right back in. I've not heard a convincing reason why the overseas territories and other bits of rock with the Union flag flying can't be brought under direct control. The Exchequer loses billions through them every year, yet foots the bill for their protection, so why not make them subject to mainland tax rules?
     
    mojo pixy, Chilli.s and not-bono-ever like this.
  10. SpookyFrank

    SpookyFrank Ridin' a Stutz Bearcat, Jim

    Because our unique array of tame tax havens is a boon for crooked business twats the world over. If Vasiliy Bugarov wants to move his looted billions somewhere he can hide them from the tax man while still enjoying the amenities of a state where someone is actually paying their taxes, London is the best choice by far.

    I'm sure a few tory donors will be among the mystery benefactors of all these BVI shell companies as well. Not to say a former prime minister or two.
     
  11. stavros

    stavros Well-Known Member

    Like I said, no convincing reason.
     
    not-bono-ever likes this.
  12. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    It's easy to sit in the center of Empire and say that the uppity colonies should do as they're told, and we'll send a gunboat if they don't. But that isn't real, not in 2018, is it? Real means respecting them and their rights to self determination and using negotiation within a legal and constitutional framework.
     
  13. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    Real also ought to mean level playing fields. The proposal insists that some places, most of which happen to have black populations, should have to unconstitutionally change their financial service regulation while allowing other, mostly white, places to carry on regardless. Why should Bermuda or BVI be forced to change yet Jersey and the IoM not?
     
  14. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus one of Maxwell's demons

    The French method with their little rumps of empire is to incorporate them fully as part of France.
     
  15. not-bono-ever

    not-bono-ever Space/time supply indicators near to zero

    B
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2018
  16. not-bono-ever

    not-bono-ever Space/time supply indicators near to zero

    and i am off to bed. goodnight
     
  17. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    Same applies, the legal and constitutional arrangements would have to be changed at the whim of the mother country. Not to mention the practical issues: would the 300 people on Tristan da Cunha get an MP of their own or would they be expected to share one with the 49 from Pitcairn, 10,447km away?
     
  18. stavros

    stavros Well-Known Member

    Why not both?
     
    Badgers likes this.
  19. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    That's not what's been proposed.
     
  20. stavros

    stavros Well-Known Member

    I thought I proposed it, in post 699 above. I know there are various statuses for the UK outposts - overseas dependencies, Crown Dependencies, overseas territories - and I'm sure ways could be found, where there was willing on the part of the UK government, to close the assorted loopholes in each of them. The precise mechanics of this would require people more schooled in these matters than me.
     
    Badgers likes this.
  21. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    I meant proposed in parliament. TBH it's the colonialist mechanics of what's been proposed that interests me, why one set of outposts and not others, how the constitutional and legal barriers will be dealt with. It strikes me as a can of worms and I'm highly doubtful that transparency will happen anytime soon.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice