Isn’t this a glorious definition of sovereignty?

The campaign to tackle tax haven abuse, in which I think it fair to say I have played a part, has always been about sovereignty, or rather the abuse of the sovereignty that a country should have to choose its own tax system that tax havens have always deliberately and knowingly undermined.

Johnny Foreigner cannot tax as he wishes because it will undermine my ability to rook my citizenry. Thus Johnny Foreigner can only have the sort of sovereignty that I will allow him.

to effectively be part of a direct attack on the democratic freedom of countries to tax as they will.

I am not exaggerating his views.

Try it on free speech to test the logic. France has a law against insulting a person in public office (no, really, criminal offence). This is a democratic freedom, in the sense that it has been passed by a democratically elected legislature.

So, Britain must also make it an offence to insult a French public servant in order not to undermine the democratic decision of the French government?

Hmm, there comes a point, doesn’t there?

12 thoughts on “Isn’t this a glorious definition of sovereignty?”

  1. Apparently, he is responsible for the definition of the term ‘secrecy jurisdiction’ (to replace tax haven)

    As you say, delusions of grandeur at the very least – and sadly I think the Biden administration has a number of people who would seem to think along those lines.

  2. @V-P

    Googling ‘secrecy jurisdiction’ all you get is the usual wank-fest of “tax justice” website. Certainly it isn’t a term used by the OECD.

    I’m going to suggest “Self-Righteous Tax-Wanker” as alternative to “Tax Justice Campaigner”

  3. So that G7 proposal for a minimum corporation tax is an affront to sovereignty then. Glad to have that cleared up.

  4. I’ve noticed this attitude all too often. The woke love to say, ‘It’s against international law.’ In other words, ‘laws’ made up by people like them because the pollies who have to get elected know the voters wouldn’t stand for the nonsense.

  5. I would contest the notion there even is such a thing as “international law”. Except as a lucrative field for lawyers, bureaucrats & most significantly judiciary. For it to be “law” it would have to be universally applicable & universally enforceable. Which it obviously isn’t. There’s agreements between specific countries which may, or may not be. applied. When it suits the parties concerned. Might very often making right.
    To dress that up as “law” is an insult to the intelligence.

  6. The only “international law” of any sort that can really be said to exist in reality is that it is verboten to interfere in another country’s/government’s actions within their sovereign territory. Westphalia and all that. Which is *EXACTLY* what the Wokken SS are demanding. Thou Shalt Not run your own country as you see fit, Thou Shalt do what we tell you to do. *THAT* is no more clearer an example of breaking “international law”.

  7. @jgh
    “Thou Shalt Not run your own country as you see fit, Thou Shalt do what we tell you to do”

    Indeed!! Spot on.
    But tell them this is just old-fashioned colonialism, and see them try and claim, oh no, this is different!
    Yellow/Brown/Black man not running yellow/brown/black man’s country to heap-big white man’s satisfaction. Heap-big white man say that Yellow/Brown/Black man better shape up! Chop-chop!
    Only please, to call it “International Law”.

    Putin & Pooh Bear understand this. Not our lot, but they are welcome to go to Bejing to explain.

    NB Has anyone told the Admiralty what happened to the last “Force Z” to the South China Sea?

  8. Tax havens don’t undermine anybody’s tax system. If countries want to tax offshore income, including that of offshore subsidiaries (UK CFC, US Subpart F), they can do so.

  9. I still don’t understand how Murphy can clam that rich people don’t move their money or their person away to avoid tax, while campaigning against tax havens?

    How does he reconcile these positions?

  10. Well the EU is threatening to take Hungary to court over its LGBT legislation. Lay in the popcorn

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *