All the "vons" would love it they could be aristocracy again ;-)
The football league would be the best in the world.
brits could be on the winning side of a world cup.
Best music - german classical and brit pop.
More Nobel prizes than anyone else
Brits get professionalism, germans get a sense of humour
power up the Quattro Hermann ...... :-)
Bring back Prussia I say!
We had our chance and fluffed it Mr Eagles. If primogeniture had allowed Queen Victoria's eldest child to succeed to the throne the UK and Germany would have had the same monarch. Her eldest child Victoria would have handed the british throne to her son Kaiser Wilhelm. So no world war 1, no rise of communism, no world war 2 and probably no Labour Party.
Queen and Empress Viktoria is buried in Potsdam outside Berlin.
All the "vons" would love it they could be aristocracy again ;-)
The football league would be the best in the world.
brits could be on the winning side of a world cup.
Best music - german classical and brit pop.
More Nobel prizes than anyone else
Brits get professionalism, germans get a sense of humour
power up the Quattro Hermann ...... :-)
Bring back Prussia I say!
We had out chance and fluffed it Mr Eagles. If primogeniture had allowed Queen Victoria's eldest child to succeed to the throne the UK and Germany would have had the same monarch. Her eldest child Victoria would have handed the british throne to her son Kaiser Wilhelm. So no world war 1, no rise of communism, no world war 2 and probably no Labour Party.
Queen and Empress Viktoria is buried in Potsdam outside Berlin.
If only Cameron had been PM in Queen Victoria's day he would have made sorted out that primogeniture stuff out like he has now.
All the "vons" would love it they could be aristocracy again ;-)
The football league would be the best in the world.
brits could be on the winning side of a world cup.
Best music - german classical and brit pop.
More Nobel prizes than anyone else
Brits get professionalism, germans get a sense of humour
power up the Quattro Hermann ...... :-)
Bring back Prussia I say!
We had out chance and fluffed it Mr Eagles. If primogeniture had allowed Queen Victoria's eldest child to succeed to the throne the UK and Germany would have had the same monarch. Her eldest child Victoria would have handed the british throne to her son Kaiser Wilhelm. So no world war 1, no rise of communism, no world war 2 and probably no Labour Party.
Queen and Empress Viktoria is buried in Potsdam outside Berlin.
If only Cameron had been PM in Queen Victoria's day he would have made sorted out that primogeniture stuff out like he has now.
or alternatively George IV could have married Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia ;-)
All the "vons" would love it they could be aristocracy again ;-)
The football league would be the best in the world.
brits could be on the winning side of a world cup.
Best music - german classical and brit pop.
More Nobel prizes than anyone else
Brits get professionalism, germans get a sense of humour
power up the Quattro Hermann ...... :-)
Bring back Prussia I say!
We had out chance and fluffed it Mr Eagles. If primogeniture had allowed Queen Victoria's eldest child to succeed to the throne the UK and Germany would have had the same monarch. Her eldest child Victoria would have handed the british throne to her son Kaiser Wilhelm. So no world war 1, no rise of communism, no world war 2 and probably no Labour Party.
Queen and Empress Viktoria is buried in Potsdam outside Berlin.
If only Cameron had been PM in Queen Victoria's day he would have made sorted out that primogeniture stuff out like he has now.
or alternatively George IV could have married Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia ;-)
So George IV would also been known as the Queen of Bithynia Prussia
Mr. Socrates, I find it hard to believe that's anything but a populist/opportunistic stance by Labour. The party wanted 90 days without detention and everybody to be forced to have an ID card. I simply can't believe civil liberties has suddenly become something they care about.
I'm extremely unhappy! A friend of mine got to see a screening of 'Man of Steel' tonight.
Comment was: 'It's like the Avengers movie but even better'.
That cannot be possible......can it?
And I thought Into Darkness couldn't be beat this year!
It can't be right.
I've never enjoyed Superman that much, I did like Smallville though
I totally agree. The last 3-4 series of Smallville were especially excellent. The previous Superman movies on the other hand, all sucked a big one. But my friend who saw this tonight is not prone to ultra raving without cause. I'm starting to quiver...a bit.
They were terrible in power, of course, but every party is allowed to reinvent themselves in opposition.
" The Guardian says it has obtained documents showing that the secret listening post had access to the Prism system, set up by America's National Security Agency (NSA), since at least June 2010. "
No doubt this all started under the Labour government in which Cooper , her husband , Edward Miliband , and his brother were prominent and well-informed ministers.
They were terrible in power, of course, but every party is allowed to reinvent themselves in opposition.
I thought everyone knew that we did things for them in the US that would have been illegal for them and they did the same for us avoiding RIPA etc? May have slowed down a bit after the Patriot Act when pretty much everything became legal in the US but probably still goes on at some levels.
Anyone who was even close to government and claims not to have known this is, well stretching a point.
I'm extremely unhappy! A friend of mine got to see a screening of 'Man of Steel' tonight.
Comment was: 'It's like the Avengers movie but even better'.
That cannot be possible......can it?
And I thought Into Darkness couldn't be beat this year!
It can't be right.
I've never enjoyed Superman that much, I did like Smallville though
I totally agree. The last 3-4 series of Smallville were especially excellent. The previous Superman movies on the other hand, all sucked a big one. But my friend who saw this tonight is not prone to ultra raving without cause. I'm starting to quiver...a bit.
Mr. Brooke, did she have an elder daughter who got the German throne?
Mr Dancer
Edward VII came to the throne after Queen Victoria, but he was the second child. The first child was princess Victoria who married Crown Prince Friedrich of Prussia. Friedrich was very much a reformer who admired the British system and wanted to push through a liberalisation of the German consitiution.
His father Wilhelm I lived until well into his nineties so Friedrich didn't come unto the throne until 1888 when unfortunately he was suffering from terminal throat cancer. Empress Viktoria ( as QV's daughter was then ) didn't get much of a run. Friedrich was succeeded by his and Viktoria's son Wilhelm II ( Kaiser Bill ). One of the great what ifs of German history is if Friedrich had had a full reign would war have been avoided ?
As an aside the UK and Prussia have the same tune for their national anthem - God save the King\Queen and Heil Dir im Siegerkranz. So everyone was happy.
They were terrible in power, of course, but every party is allowed to reinvent themselves in opposition.
" The Guardian says it has obtained documents showing that the secret listening post had access to the Prism system, set up by America's National Security Agency (NSA), since at least June 2010. "
No doubt this all started under the Labour government in which Cooper , her husband , Edward Miliband , and his brother were prominent and well-informed ministers.
What on earth are the BBC going to do if Labour win the 2015 election when they can't drink champagne?
"In May 2007 in a discussion on the tenth anniversary of the Labour Party gaining power in the United Kingdom Garvey unwittingly revealed an apparent pro-Labour bias at the BBC. Garvey reminisced how in the morning after the general election "the corridors of Broadcasting House were strewn with empty champagne bottles - I will always remember that",
They were terrible in power, of course, but every party is allowed to reinvent themselves in opposition.
" The Guardian says it has obtained documents showing that the secret listening post had access to the Prism system, set up by America's National Security Agency (NSA), since at least June 2010. "
No doubt this all started under the Labour government in which Cooper , her husband , Edward Miliband , and his brother were prominent and well-informed ministers.
Of course. I just wish Labour would go easy on the hypocrisy.
They were terrible in power, of course, but every party is allowed to reinvent themselves in opposition.
On that basis may they continue to reinvent themselves for many decades to come.
Give 'em a year back in power and ID cards will be back on the table and CCTV cameras in every home, just to make sure nobody is fiddling their benefits of course. Or would it be to ensure everyone is claiming as much as possible?
And don't forget, EVERYONE is a potential terrorist threat.
Vodaphone has apparently paid no corporation tax for 2 years. I mean come on, this is ridiculous. It is one thing to have competitive CT rates, it is another when our largest companies are able to make tax optional and choose not to. I am disgusted to have a Vodaphone contract.
Vodaphone has apparently paid no corporation tax for 2 years. I mean come on, this is ridiculous. It is one thing to have competitive CT rates, it is another when our largest companies are able to make tax optional and choose not to. I am disgusted to have a Vodaphone contract.
Isn't that to do with the 4g investment they made?
They were terrible in power, of course, but every party is allowed to reinvent themselves in opposition.
" The Guardian says it has obtained documents showing that the secret listening post had access to the Prism system, set up by America's National Security Agency (NSA), since at least June 2010. "
No doubt this all started under the Labour government in which Cooper , her husband , Edward Miliband , and his brother were prominent and well-informed ministers.
Of course. I just wish Labour would go easy on the hypocrisy.
Vodaphone has apparently paid no corporation tax for 2 years. I mean come on, this is ridiculous. It is one thing to have competitive CT rates, it is another when our largest companies are able to make tax optional and choose not to. I am disgusted to have a Vodaphone contract.
Isn't that to do with the 4g investment they made?
Yes in part but it also has to do with diverting a significant part of their profits to Luxembourg. This is from their own financial report: "Adjusted operating profit £12.0bn - exceeded guidance; FCF £5.6bn - at high end of guidance •Final dividend per share 6.92 pence (total 10.19 pence, +7.0%)" See http://www.vodafone.com/content/index/investors/investor_information/financial_results.html
£12bn operating profit (admittedly by no means all earned in the UK) zero tax. It really won't do.
Vodaphone has apparently paid no corporation tax for 2 years. I mean come on, this is ridiculous. It is one thing to have competitive CT rates, it is another when our largest companies are able to make tax optional and choose not to. I am disgusted to have a Vodaphone contract.
I'm afraid multinats are now just taking the piss. They want all the benefits of an open market, with enforceable laws, copyright, security of payment etc. but want to make bugger all contribution tothe cost of keeping it that way. Their Boards hide behind share holder value and fiduciary duty bollocks and they rip off their host countries. Labour allowed this to get out of hand and the Coalition has done nothing significant to reverse it. It's time to find some nasty bastard tax inspectors and issue them with Marigolds and then send some Directors to jail.
A friend of mine moved to Malta a couple of years ago and he pays a set amount of tax per year on all the business he does there. (I think it's €17,000). He's trading in Foreign exchange mainly.
I don't know the details of how it all works but apparently it doesn't matter if he makes a shedload of profit or a loss.
I'm amazed a system like that even exists within the EU, why aren't we doing it?
Oi Vodafone, give us 250 million and get on with it?
Mr. Brooke, did she have an elder daughter who got the German throne?
Mr Dancer
Edward VII came to the throne after Queen Victoria, but he was the second child. The first child was princess Victoria who married Crown Prince Friedrich of Prussia. Friedrich was very much a reformer who admired the British system and wanted to push through a liberalisation of the German consitiution.
His father Wilhelm I lived until well into his nineties so Friedrich didn't come unto the throne until 1888 when unfortunately he was suffering from terminal throat cancer. Empress Viktoria ( as QV's daughter was then ) didn't get much of a run. Friedrich was succeeded by his and Viktoria's son Wilhelm II ( Kaiser Bill ). One of the great what ifs of German history is if Friedrich had had a full reign would war have been avoided ?
As an aside the UK and Prussia have the same tune for their national anthem - God save the King\Queen and Heil Dir im Siegerkranz. So everyone was happy.
I think Germany should be eligible to join the Commonwealth, not only for the Hanoverian link, but also because of our, ah, "guidance" in the immediate post-War years
Vodaphone has apparently paid no corporation tax for 2 years. I mean come on, this is ridiculous. It is one thing to have competitive CT rates, it is another when our largest companies are able to make tax optional and choose not to. I am disgusted to have a Vodaphone contract.
I'm afraid multinats are now just taking the piss. They want all the benefits of an open market, with enforceable laws, copyright, security of payment etc. but want to make bugger all contribution tothe cost of keeping it that way. Their Boards hide behind share holder value and fiduciary duty bollocks and they rip off their host countries. Labour allowed this to get out of hand and the Coalition has done nothing significant to reverse it. It's time to find some nasty bastard tax inspectors and issue them with Marigolds and then send some Directors to jail.
Agreed. Is it any wonder we have such a deficit and yet those who work for a living in this country get bled dry?
Osborne in fairness has done more than anyone since Lawson to close tax loopholes in this country and tax shelters abroad and is at least trying to coordinate an international response to this but Governments are 20 years behind the curve and there is so much catching up to do. Apples' tax situation in the US has been equally outrageous.
I do not think I am alone in finding the BBC's insistence that there is a fundamental difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion increasingly irritating and wildly inaccurate. One blends into the other with a huge section of grey in the middle which is being exploited by multinationals above all.
Mr. Brooke, did she have an elder daughter who got the German throne?
Mr Dancer
Edward VII came to the throne after Queen Victoria, but he was the second child. The first child was princess Victoria who married Crown Prince Friedrich of Prussia. Friedrich was very much a reformer who admired the British system and wanted to push through a liberalisation of the German consitiution.
His father Wilhelm I lived until well into his nineties so Friedrich didn't come unto the throne until 1888 when unfortunately he was suffering from terminal throat cancer. Empress Viktoria ( as QV's daughter was then ) didn't get much of a run. Friedrich was succeeded by his and Viktoria's son Wilhelm II ( Kaiser Bill ). One of the great what ifs of German history is if Friedrich had had a full reign would war have been avoided ?
As an aside the UK and Prussia have the same tune for their national anthem - God save the King\Queen and Heil Dir im Siegerkranz. So everyone was happy.
I think Germany should be eligible to join the Commonwealth, not only for the Hanoverian link, but also because of our, ah, "guidance" in the immediate post-War years
A friend of mine moved to Malta a couple of years ago and he pays a set amount of tax per year on all the business he does there. (I think it's €17,000). He's trading in Foreign exchange mainly.
I don't know the details of how it all works but apparently it doesn't matter if he makes a shedload of profit or a loss.
I'm amazed a system like that even exists within the EU, why aren't we doing it?
Oi Vodafone, give us 250 million and get on with it?
They were terrible in power, of course, but every party is allowed to reinvent themselves in opposition.
On that basis may they continue to reinvent themselves for many decades to come.
Give 'em a year back in power and ID cards will be back on the table and CCTV cameras in every home, just to make sure nobody is fiddling their benefits of course. Or would it be to ensure everyone is claiming as much as possible?
And don't forget, EVERYONE is a potential terrorist threat.
Is it only Labour which changes policy ? Did the Tories always have the Minimum Wage as part of their policy ? Or, for that equal rights for gays ? Remember, clause 28 ?
They were terrible in power, of course, but every party is allowed to reinvent themselves in opposition.
On that basis may they continue to reinvent themselves for many decades to come.
Give 'em a year back in power and ID cards will be back on the table and CCTV cameras in every home, just to make sure nobody is fiddling their benefits of course. Or would it be to ensure everyone is claiming as much as possible?
And don't forget, EVERYONE is a potential terrorist threat.
Is it only Labour which changes policy ? Did the Tories always have the Minimum Wage as part of their policy ? Or, for that equal rights for gays ? Remember, clause 28 ?
Labour is forever changing its policies and performing U-turns , but somethings remain constant ; Labour always puts up unemployment and wrecks the economy. Without fail.
A friend of mine moved to Malta a couple of years ago and he pays a set amount of tax per year on all the business he does there. (I think it's €17,000). He's trading in Foreign exchange mainly.
I don't know the details of how it all works but apparently it doesn't matter if he makes a shedload of profit or a loss.
I'm amazed a system like that even exists within the EU, why aren't we doing it?
Oi Vodafone, give us 250 million and get on with it?
Sounds extremely similar to our non doms to me.
The thing is he lives there full time. And runs his business completely from Malta itself.
I think the concept of telling companies to pay more tax than they are legally obliged to, 'because it's morally correct', is nonsense. It suggests a government is impotent in regards to it's tax collecting and basically is begging for it's money. Paying taxes shouldn't be voluntary, rules should be clear and comprehensive so there are no loopholes to exploit.
Big business has used influence on consecutive UK governments to allow them to take the p**s. All 3 major political parties should sit down and agree a system that works so it's set in stone. If the corporation tax rate ends up being lower, fine as long as everyone pays it.
We have similar arrangements in the UK with a great many non UK citizens. Basically, if you are rich and non British, you can enter into direct negotiations with the Inland Revenue about the exact amount of tax you want to pay.
"The University of Nottingham’s stunning new eco-friendly hotel has received a tourism and leisure award from the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS).
The Orchard Hotel, which opened in November 2012 and is entirely funded by the University, picked up the regional award because of its outstanding contribution to tourism and leisure facilities in the region.
The RICS Awards showcase the most inspirational regional initiatives and developments in land, property, construction and the environment. Project recommendations are submitted by industry professionals to represent the best examples of work within the East Midlands area."
A friend of mine moved to Malta a couple of years ago and he pays a set amount of tax per year on all the business he does there. (I think it's €17,000). He's trading in Foreign exchange mainly.
I don't know the details of how it all works but apparently it doesn't matter if he makes a shedload of profit or a loss.
I'm amazed a system like that even exists within the EU, why aren't we doing it?
Oi Vodafone, give us 250 million and get on with it?
Sounds extremely similar to our non doms to me.
The thing is he lives there full time. And runs his business completely from Malta itself.
I think the concept of telling companies to pay more tax than they are legally obliged to, 'because it's morally correct', is nonsense. It suggests a government is impotent in regards to it's tax collecting and basically is begging for it's money. Paying taxes shouldn't be voluntary, rules should be clear and comprehensive so there are no loopholes to exploit.
Big business has used influence on consecutive UK governments to allow them to take the p**s. All 3 major political parties should sit down and agree a system that works so it's set in stone. If the corporation tax rate ends up being lower, fine as long as everyone pays it.
You think our own non doms don't live here full time?
Cameron said in a speech recently that he is a low tax Conservative but not a no tax Conservative. He really should speak out about Vodaphone. I hope he does.
They were terrible in power, of course, but every party is allowed to reinvent themselves in opposition.
On that basis may they continue to reinvent themselves for many decades to come.
Give 'em a year back in power and ID cards will be back on the table and CCTV cameras in every home, just to make sure nobody is fiddling their benefits of course. Or would it be to ensure everyone is claiming as much as possible?
And don't forget, EVERYONE is a potential terrorist threat.
Is it only Labour which changes policy ? Did the Tories always have the Minimum Wage as part of their policy ? Or, for that equal rights for gays ? Remember, clause 28 ?
The introduction of the minimum wage was probably the best achievement of Blairs government. I get extremely peed off hearing some on the right who basically want to dump it. They are the same idiots who think the main powers to claw back from the EU are employment ones. It's only dodgy employers who are screaming for that.
It's ridiculous to spend 3 years opposing every single government policy and cut, to then just say didn't mean it really. We are still no wiser as to how Labour will control spending though. 'We will, honest', just doesn't wash.
We have similar arrangements in the UK with a great many non UK citizens. Basically, if you are rich and non British, you can enter into direct negotiations with the Inland Revenue about the exact amount of tax you want to pay.
But surely not if you are running your primary business in the UK and earning your income from it? Does Mr Chelski not abide by the rules for running his footie club and pay tax accordingly? Sorry, bad example, they won't make a profit.
Mr. Brooke, did she have an elder daughter who got the German throne?
Mr Dancer
Edward VII came to the throne after Queen Victoria, but he was the second child. The first child was princess Victoria who married Crown Prince Friedrich of Prussia. Friedrich was very much a reformer who admired the British system and wanted to push through a liberalisation of the German consitiution.
His father Wilhelm I lived until well into his nineties so Friedrich didn't come unto the throne until 1888 when unfortunately he was suffering from terminal throat cancer. Empress Viktoria ( as QV's daughter was then ) didn't get much of a run. Friedrich was succeeded by his and Viktoria's son Wilhelm II ( Kaiser Bill ). One of the great what ifs of German history is if Friedrich had had a full reign would war have been avoided ?
As an aside the UK and Prussia have the same tune for their national anthem - God save the King\Queen and Heil Dir im Siegerkranz. So everyone was happy.
I think Germany should be eligible to join the Commonwealth, not only for the Hanoverian link, but also because of our, ah, "guidance" in the immediate post-War years
LOL, if only we'd followed our own advice !
Going back through history, we or the Americans have had a military/administrative presence in virtually every EU nation, except Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria and Lithuania too I think.
A friend of mine moved to Malta a couple of years ago and he pays a set amount of tax per year on all the business he does there. (I think it's €17,000). He's trading in Foreign exchange mainly.
I don't know the details of how it all works but apparently it doesn't matter if he makes a shedload of profit or a loss.
I'm amazed a system like that even exists within the EU, why aren't we doing it?
Oi Vodafone, give us 250 million and get on with it?
Sounds extremely similar to our non doms to me.
The thing is he lives there full time. And runs his business completely from Malta itself.
I think the concept of telling companies to pay more tax than they are legally obliged to, 'because it's morally correct', is nonsense. It suggests a government is impotent in regards to it's tax collecting and basically is begging for it's money. Paying taxes shouldn't be voluntary, rules should be clear and comprehensive so there are no loopholes to exploit.
Big business has used influence on consecutive UK governments to allow them to take the p**s. All 3 major political parties should sit down and agree a system that works so it's set in stone. If the corporation tax rate ends up being lower, fine as long as everyone pays it.
You think our own non doms don't live here full time?
Cameron said in a speech recently that he is a low tax Conservative but not a no tax Conservative. He really should speak out about Vodaphone. I hope he does.
But Vodafone are just playing by the rules I assume? The rules are crap, change them. What's the point in slagging off Vodafone when it's down to politicians.
'Please give us more money that you are not legally obliged to', kind of sucks as a way of running things.
Vodafone are playing by the rules indeed. The reason that the politicians are using the moral argument is that they cannot change the rules because companies are choosing to pay the tax in another EU state (Luxembourg I believe for vodafone) and so there is nothing they can do about it without getting the EU to change the inter state taxation legislation at the EU level.
But Vodafone are just playing by the rules I assume? The rules are crap, change them. What's the point in slagging off Vodafone when it's down to politicians.
'Please give us more money that you are not legally obliged to', kind of sucks as a way of running things.
Vodaphone has apparently paid no corporation tax for 2 years. I mean come on, this is ridiculous. It is one thing to have competitive CT rates, it is another when our largest companies are able to make tax optional and choose not to. I am disgusted to have a Vodaphone contract.
Isn't that to do with the 4g investment they made?
Right, there are a lot of shenannigans going on out there but not owing corporation tax could be legit.
Press reports focussing on just one kind of tax are usually designed to mislead, like when people say the rich are paying more than their fair share of income tax.
Without a doubt the combined musical taste of you lot on here is truly truly appalling!
Now, if you want some decent music to listen to, try the album I've used as my new user picture.
Ghost - Infestissumam.
Number 1 in Sweden for a couple of weeks in May. Probably one of the greatest Satanic metal albums ever. Like a cross between Sabbath and Blue Oyster Cult. Magnificent!
And on that bombshell, time for bed. All Hail the dark Lord and his realms of the underworld.
Vodafone are playing by the rules indeed. The reason that the politicians are using the moral argument is that they cannot change the rules because companies are choosing to pay the tax in another EU state (Luxembourg I believe for vodafone) and so there is nothing they can do about it without getting the EU to change the inter state taxation legislation at the EU level.
Or leaving the EU of course
The obvious thing to do here is to set EU-wide tax rates, but I suppose the British will block it. They'd rather hand their tax revenues over to Luxembourg than hand the power to make sure they get them over to Brussels.
Actually, 65% of Vodafone's earnings come from Verizon Wireless in the US. Tax evasion - as the US companies Apple and Google have proven - is all about ensuring your profits end up in a low tax country, whether it is the EU or not.
We have similar arrangements in the UK with a great many non UK citizens. Basically, if you are rich and non British, you can enter into direct negotiations with the Inland Revenue about the exact amount of tax you want to pay.
But surely not if you are running your primary business in the UK and earning your income from it? Does Mr Chelski not abide by the rules for running his footie club and pay tax accordingly? Sorry, bad example, they won't make a profit.
The Inland Revenue cuts deals on a case-by-case basis. If I am a - say - Moroccan citizen, and a rich, successful Forex trader, I can contact HMRC and say "I am considering coming the UK and living here, and paying Council Tax and VAT. However, I'm not prepared to pay GBP3m in income tax a year. It's possible for me to live anywhere, and the UK taxpayer would benefit from me being resident here. I would like to propose that I pay a flat GBP500,000 per year."
Vodafone are playing by the rules indeed. The reason that the politicians are using the moral argument is that they cannot change the rules because companies are choosing to pay the tax in another EU state (Luxembourg I believe for vodafone) and so there is nothing they can do about it without getting the EU to change the inter state taxation legislation at the EU level.
Or leaving the EU of course
The obvious thing to do here is to set EU-wide tax rates, but I suppose the British will block it. They'd rather hand their tax revenues over to Luxembourg than hand the power to make sure they get them over to Brussels.
Yes: but in that case Starbucks would transfer the intellectual property (brands, etc.) to Panama or Equitorial Guinea. Starbucks UK would license those brands from Starbucks Panama ASA, and would pay royalties back to there. Profits would accrue in this low tax country. This is one area where the EU is an irrelevancy.
Vodafone are playing by the rules indeed. The reason that the politicians are using the moral argument is that they cannot change the rules because companies are choosing to pay the tax in another EU state (Luxembourg I believe for vodafone) and so there is nothing they can do about it without getting the EU to change the inter state taxation legislation at the EU level.
Or leaving the EU of course
The obvious thing to do here is to set EU-wide tax rates, but I suppose the British will block it. They'd rather hand their tax revenues over to Luxembourg than hand the power to make sure they get them over to Brussels.
Yes: but in that case Starbucks would transfer the intellectual property (brands, etc.) to Panama or Equitorial Guinea. Starbucks UK would license those brands from Starbucks Panama ASA, and would pay royalties back to there. Profits would accrue in this low tax country. This is one area where the EU is an irrelevancy.
Is it really beyond the powers of governments to block the IP loophole? I know they'll always be paying whack-a-mole with creative new tax avoidance techniques but where your IP originates seems like something with some actual facts behind it rather than something you should be able to decide at your whim.
Vodafone are playing by the rules indeed. The reason that the politicians are using the moral argument is that they cannot change the rules because companies are choosing to pay the tax in another EU state (Luxembourg I believe for vodafone) and so there is nothing they can do about it without getting the EU to change the inter state taxation legislation at the EU level.
Or leaving the EU of course
The obvious thing to do here is to set EU-wide tax rates, but I suppose the British will block it. They'd rather hand their tax revenues over to Luxembourg than hand the power to make sure they get them over to Brussels.
If we were to let the eu set tax rates I have a sneaking suspicion they would want to collect the tax as well as dole out the proceeds according to their own guidelines rather than ours
Lets say there is a company in the UK. We'll call it Robert's Fried Chicken Ltd. I'd quite like to sell Kentucky Fried Chicken in the UK, so I call Yum Brands in the US and ask if I can license the concept. They say 'yes, but the price is that you pay 10% of your sales back to us in the US as a royalty". Fine, you say. And in your first year, you make 1 million pounds of sales, and 150,000 of pre-royalty income. You then pay 100,000 of royalties to Yum Brands in the US and have 50,000 of pre-tax profits. (And will pay, say, 12,000 or so of corporation tax.)
All fine, right?
Now, imagine that instead of Robert's Fried Chicken Ltd having the franchise for KFC in the UK, that another company called New Fried Chicken Ltd has the franchise. Everything is the same, except that the sole shareholder of New Fried Chicken Ltd is Yum Brands Inc. Now, the commercial arrangement is *exactly* as when I owed it - the difference is that two-thirds of the 150,000 profit is being transferred to the US without tax being paid.
This is just the simplest example: but this is the most common method of tax avoidance used by large corporations. And, while Ireland has been particularly keen on using itself as a haven for brand licensing scams, there is nothing to stop the South Koreans, or the Jordanians, or the Icelandics from doing it. It is also quite difficult to get around: because the first example, of Robert's Friend Chicken Ltd., is so transparently a normal commercial arrangement.
Vodafone are playing by the rules indeed. The reason that the politicians are using the moral argument is that they cannot change the rules because companies are choosing to pay the tax in another EU state (Luxembourg I believe for vodafone) and so there is nothing they can do about it without getting the EU to change the inter state taxation legislation at the EU level.
Or leaving the EU of course
The obvious thing to do here is to set EU-wide tax rates, but I suppose the British will block it. They'd rather hand their tax revenues over to Luxembourg than hand the power to make sure they get them over to Brussels.
Yes: but in that case Starbucks would transfer the intellectual property (brands, etc.) to Panama or Equitorial Guinea. Starbucks UK would license those brands from Starbucks Panama ASA, and would pay royalties back to there. Profits would accrue in this low tax country. This is one area where the EU is an irrelevancy.
Is it really beyond the powers of governments to block the IP loophole? I know they'll always be paying whack-a-mole with creative new tax avoidance techniques but where your IP originates seems like something with some actual facts behind it rather than something you should be able to decide at your whim.
What is to stop Starbucks US Inc selling the Starbucks trademark to Starbucks India Pty?
And, what makes it hard to stop is that all these companies always make sure there is at least one country with one operation which genuinely is a franchise (usually in the Middle East), so they can point to the tax man and say "look, this is a standard commercial arrangement with have with all the brand licensees, irrespective of whether they are owned by the parent or not."
Lets say there is a company in the UK. We'll call it Robert's Fried Chicken Ltd. I'd quite like to sell Kentucky Fried Chicken in the UK, so I call Yum Brands in the US and ask if I can license the concept. They say 'yes, but the price is that you pay 10% of your sales back to us in the US as a royalty". Fine, you say. And in your first year, you make 1 million pounds of sales, and 150,000 of pre-royalty income. You then pay 100,000 of royalties to Yum Brands in the US and have 50,000 of pre-tax profits. (And will pay, say, 12,000 or so of corporation tax.)
All fine, right?
Now, imagine that instead of Robert's Fried Chicken Ltd having the franchise for KFC in the UK, that another company called New Fried Chicken Ltd has the franchise. Everything is the same, except that the sole shareholder of New Fried Chicken Ltd is Yum Brands Inc. Now, the commercial arrangement is *exactly* as when I owed it - the difference is that two-thirds of the 150,000 profit is being transferred to the US without tax being paid.
This is just the simplest example: but this is the most common method of tax avoidance used by large corporations. And, while Ireland has been particularly keen on using itself as a haven for brand licensing scams, there is nothing to stop the South Koreans, or the Jordanians, or the Icelandics from doing it. It is also quite difficult to get around: because the first example, of Robert's Friend Chicken Ltd., is so transparently a normal commercial arrangement.
Make a rule that they have to have UK registered version of their brand to trade in the UK.
Vodafone are playing by the rules indeed. The reason that the politicians are using the moral argument is that they cannot change the rules because companies are choosing to pay the tax in another EU state (Luxembourg I believe for vodafone) and so there is nothing they can do about it without getting the EU to change the inter state taxation legislation at the EU level.
Or leaving the EU of course
The obvious thing to do here is to set EU-wide tax rates, but I suppose the British will block it. They'd rather hand their tax revenues over to Luxembourg than hand the power to make sure they get them over to Brussels.
Yes: but in that case Starbucks would transfer the intellectual property (brands, etc.) to Panama or Equitorial Guinea. Starbucks UK would license those brands from Starbucks Panama ASA, and would pay royalties back to there. Profits would accrue in this low tax country. This is one area where the EU is an irrelevancy.
Is it really beyond the powers of governments to block the IP loophole? I know they'll always be paying whack-a-mole with creative new tax avoidance techniques but where your IP originates seems like something with some actual facts behind it rather than something you should be able to decide at your whim.
What is to stop Starbucks US Inc selling the Starbucks trademark to Starbucks India Pty?
And, what makes it hard to stop is that all these companies always make sure there is at least one country with one operation which genuinely is a franchise (usually in the Middle East), so they can point to the tax man and say "look, this is a standard commercial arrangement with have with all the brand licensees, irrespective of whether they are owned by the parent or not."
If you sell an asset like a brand, it clearly has a value, which is only partly subjective. If you're going to be paying x% of sales to the brand owner, it's clearly quite a big value. When the US company makes that IP sale, can't the taxman demand that they pay tax there and then on the income from the real value of the asset?
Your idea has much merit. Unfortunately, it would effectively prohibit all cross border licensing transactions of any nature - which would put the UK government in breach of many treaty obligations.
That said, I think a little bit of sabre rattling, and threatening that brands and ip may only be licensed from UK companies might be possible in some way. It would, fair to say, be a bonanza for lawyers, as it would invalidate many existing contacts. But still, it should be investigated.
Anyone who was even close to government and claims not to have known this is, well stretching a point..
Quite so. I'm nothing like close to government and I've known for something like thirty years.
What on earth do people think GCHQ has been doing for the last half-century?
I don't know what they have been doing, but I know what they should be doing: only collecting private information on UK citizens if they have documented reason to be suspicious and a warrant.
It's amazing how many conservatives on here seem not to give a damn about the conservation of English legal tradition.
They were terrible in power, of course, but every party is allowed to reinvent themselves in opposition.
On that basis may they continue to reinvent themselves for many decades to come.
Give 'em a year back in power and ID cards will be back on the table and CCTV cameras in every home, just to make sure nobody is fiddling their benefits of course. Or would it be to ensure everyone is claiming as much as possible?
And don't forget, EVERYONE is a potential terrorist threat.
And if they do that, I shall criticise them then. But even if they only support civil liberties in opposition, that will bring political pain on the government for engaging in such flagrant abuse of the law, and that is better than nothing.
They were terrible in power, of course, but every party is allowed to reinvent themselves in opposition.
" The Guardian says it has obtained documents showing that the secret listening post had access to the Prism system, set up by America's National Security Agency (NSA), since at least June 2010. "
No doubt this all started under the Labour government in which Cooper , her husband , Edward Miliband , and his brother were prominent and well-informed ministers.
And David Cameron supported section 28 before turning around and supporting gay marriage. Principled politicians are a rare thing indeed, so we are left with little choice than to at least give credit to unprincipled ones doing the right thing, whether it is consistent or not.
Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but here are the Scottish Social Attitudes findings on constitutional preferences -
Independence 35% Devo Max 32% Status Quo 24%
35% for independence is pretty damn impressive in a multi-option poll that includes Devo Max as an alternative. It also seems that less than a quarter of the Scottish population want the outcome that the No side are actually campaigning for.
"They're only one percentage point below the threshold. The chances are enough CDU/CSU voters will vote tactically to push them above 5%. We saw that in Lower Saxony at the start of the year, where the FDP polled 10% compared to 5% in most polls."
There's no reason to assume that will happen, and certainly not on anything like the same scale that it did in Lower Saxony. The key difference is that the CDU are not in much danger of losing power - what's really at stake is whether they will lead a coalition with the FDP or with the SPD. Many CDU voters will actually prefer a coalition with the SPD, or not care much one way or the other.
Just caught a repeat of 10 O'Clock live tonight, and an interesting debate between Diane Abbot and Zac Goldsmith on issue of recall of MP's. Zac is a passionate advocate of allowing constituents the power of recall if their MP's are not up to scratch, and he put forward a powerful argument in favour. Diane, who is not against the recall of MP's in principle, then waffled on a bit and didn't really make her case about the risks involved of recall option being misused.
It was refreshing to have a pair MP's discussing an 'in the news issue' without any sign of an on line party message, or the usual partisan tit for tat sound bites. In fact, it was great that Goldsmith could openly criticise both Clegg and Cameron on the measures that his own Government were taking as not enough without an instant side tracking of the whole issue under discussion to then focus on this as if that was the bigger issue. It reminded me of a BBC Question Time years ago when Tony Benn appeared and made a joke about his pager going nuts because he was being so honest in expressing his views........and oh so off the New Labour spin message.
Take BBC Question Time these days, they often invite guests onto the show because of particular or confrontational views they might have on the issues of the day. But the minute an elected politician gives an honest or open opinion to a question that might vary or go completely off piste from the party line they are jumped on, interrupted, and then asked to explain themselves for not being on message. How many great discussions or interesting opinions are now lost this way with this confrontation style of interview or debate? No wonder the public are now being turned off politics and politicians. The media, and specifically the Westminster Lobby often at times act more like Liam Gallagher when he turned up at an Oasis concert to heckle his own band for having the audacity for carrying on without his appearance front and centre on the main stage.
Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but here are the Scottish Social Attitudes findings on constitutional preferences -
Independence 35% Devo Max 32% Status Quo 24%
35% for independence is pretty damn impressive in a multi-option poll that includes Devo Max as an alternative. It also seems that less than a quarter of the Scottish population want the outcome that the No side are actually campaigning for.
And whose fault is that? Alex Salmond went into the last Holyrood election advocating Independence or bust, he didn't fight for or make the case for a Devo Max option. I posted just months after that election that Salmond had made a catastrophic political mistake by not putting Devo Max front and centre in his election campaign as a vital component of the Indy Referendum agenda in his campaign. An early Devo Max Referendum in this Parliament would have been won by the SNP. The Scots people are nothing but fair, it would have allowed the SNP to prove their mettle in the run up to an Indy Ref. Instead we now have an ill prepared Scottish Government making it up as they go along.
And the frustrating thing is that it has allowed a rather misguided view to take hold on PB that the Scots are simple too scared to let go of a now increasingly austere and reformed Welfare pinny. I am just wondering how many of those that would like to see Scots become free to improve their lot by breaking away from the UK would themselves vote for this on the back of the dodgy sales pitch we have just been offered by the SNP?
"I posted just months after that election that Salmond had made a catastrophic political mistake"
Well, that's highly unusual for you, Fitalass. I hope you've noticed that most of your fellow travellers have claimed that your suggestion of a unilateral Devo Max referendum would have been illegitimate.
Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but here are the Scottish Social Attitudes findings on constitutional preferences -
Independence 35% Devo Max 32% Status Quo 24%
35% for independence is pretty damn impressive in a multi-option poll that includes Devo Max as an alternative. It also seems that less than a quarter of the Scottish population want the outcome that the No side are actually campaigning for.
In the previous thread, someone mentioned Dame (now Baroness) Jill Knight and her helpful contribution to the House of Lords debate on Same Sex Marriage on Monday. I was watching some of the debate; it is easy to forget that when famous people disapear from public prominence for 20 years or so, they actually grow old in the meantime. I saw an old man with grey hair and glasses, and an old(ish) lady with white hair. It wasn't until the captions appeared that I realised that they were Tristan Garel-Jones and Rabbi Julia Neuberger.
As for Jill Knight, I didn't recognise her because I thought she was dead. I must have got her confused in my mind with the homophobic Baroness Young. Anyway, Wikipedia says she is actually 88 rather than the 85 which she claims.
Something which i don't think anyone has mentioned her is a gaffe which Nicholas Witchell made on the BBC News Channel yesterday at c.7pm. While waffling about Prince Philip, he mentioned in passing that we are awaiting the imminent birth of the Duchess of Cambridge's "daughter" [sic].
He seemed to be stumbling slightly in his verbal construction of his sentence, and I think that he was probably thinking in terms of the Duchess of Cambridge being the Duke of Edinburgh's "daughter-in-law"... but the word "daughter" accidentally transposed itself into the wrong part of the sentence.
Conspiracy theorists would probably say that Witchell somehow knows the gender of the baby, and accidentally let it slip. The reality of course is that he doesn't know any more than we do, and he only reports to us the information which is fed to him.
I don't dislike Nicholas Witchell in the way that some people seem to, but I was amused by some of the things which came up when i searched for his name on Twitter:
------------
"Pretend you're Nicholas Witchell by standing outside a hospital for the next fortnight speculating wildly on the health of old men
Queen gatecrashing BBC news reminded me of the moment when protestors against Section 28 invaded, and Nicholas Witchell sat on a lesbian.
On BBC news channel at 7pm, Nicholas Witchell referred to the impending birth of Duchess of Cambridge's "daughter"; Obviously it was a slip.
"Live from outside the hospital" ... I think Nicholas Witchell is dead inside.
I can't look at Nicholas Witchell without hearing Prince Charles saying 'that dreadful man' in my ear.
Absolutely essential to have Nicholas Witchell standing outside DofE's hospital so that we know what a hospital looks like.
The Queen seems to be coping with Prince Philip's illness much better than Nicholas Witchell is.
They've just gone live to Nicholas Witchell in the street to confirm that there is no news.
Nicholas Witchell admitted to same hospital as Prince Philip with 'severe sunburn'
Long live the Duke of Ed. But can Nicholas Witchell be put out of his misery, please?
Nicholas Witchell looks older than Prince Phillip."
Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but here are the Scottish Social Attitudes findings on constitutional preferences - ( Change vs YA ) Independence 35% (-8) Devo Max 32% (+3) Status Quo 24% (+3)
35% for independence is pretty damn impressive in a multi-option poll that includes Devo Max as an alternative. It also seems that less than a quarter of the Scottish population want the outcome that the No side are actually campaigning for.
Curiously enough you neglected to mention the year on year change - fixed it for you!
I think you can opt to be taxed in Malta on a 'remittance basis', meanng you're only taxed on what you bring into the island. Of course you may be taxed in another country prior to that. Certain UK brokers offer Forex trading within a spread-betting wrapper, which last time I looked was non taxable.
There are actually enough tax breaks in the UK for someone to earn a very comfortable income (circa £100k) and pay negligible tax...
Just stay away from PAYE and NI, maximize the tax breaks, and count the loopholes ...
Here's Nicholas Witchell interviewing Owen Carron after winning the Fermanagh and South Tyrone by-election on Friday 21st August 1981 (at 3 mins 15 secs):
I saw the slides in the Mail - whoever created those should be charged with Powerpoint crimes. And that logo?!! Who designed that...jeez- it gave me serious flashbacks to appallingly amateurish presentations I've endured that were crammed with graphics, multicoloured text and every font under the sun...
"Curiously enough you neglected to mention the year on year change - fixed it for you!"
And curiously enough you neglected to mention that independence is still seven points higher (and the status quo three points lower) than it was two years ago - fixed it for you!
Comments
"Needs a name. How about the Kingdom of Hanover?"
All the "vons" would love it they could be aristocracy again ;-)
The football league would be the best in the world.
brits could be on the winning side of a world cup.
Best music - german classical and brit pop.
More Nobel prizes than anyone else
Brits get professionalism, germans get a sense of humour
power up the Quattro Hermann ...... :-)
Queen and Empress Viktoria is buried in Potsdam outside Berlin.
You will appreciate/suffer like me at this news.
I'm extremely unhappy! A friend of mine got to see a screening of 'Man of Steel' tonight.
Comment was: 'It's like the Avengers movie but even better'.
That cannot be possible......can it?
And I thought Into Darkness couldn't be beat this year!
I've never enjoyed Superman that much, I did like Smallville though
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22813893
They were terrible in power, of course, but every party is allowed to reinvent themselves in opposition.
No doubt this all started under the Labour government in which Cooper , her husband , Edward Miliband , and his brother were prominent and well-informed ministers.
Anyone who was even close to government and claims not to have known this is, well stretching a point.
That's what happens when you're a vile Republican.
God Save The Queen.
Edward VII came to the throne after Queen Victoria, but he was the second child. The first child was princess Victoria who married Crown Prince Friedrich of Prussia. Friedrich was very much a reformer who admired the British system and wanted to push through a liberalisation of the German consitiution.
His father Wilhelm I lived until well into his nineties so Friedrich didn't come unto the throne until 1888 when unfortunately he was suffering from terminal throat cancer. Empress Viktoria ( as QV's daughter was then ) didn't get much of a run. Friedrich was succeeded by his and Viktoria's son Wilhelm II ( Kaiser Bill ). One of the great what ifs of German history is if Friedrich had had a full reign would war have been avoided ?
As an aside the UK and Prussia have the same tune for their national anthem - God save the King\Queen and Heil Dir im Siegerkranz. So everyone was happy.
"In May 2007 in a discussion on the tenth anniversary of the Labour Party gaining power in the United Kingdom Garvey unwittingly revealed an apparent pro-Labour bias at the BBC. Garvey reminisced how in the morning after the general election "the corridors of Broadcasting House were strewn with empty champagne bottles - I will always remember that",
Give 'em a year back in power and ID cards will be back on the table and CCTV cameras in every home, just to make sure nobody is fiddling their benefits of course. Or would it be to ensure everyone is claiming as much as possible?
And don't forget, EVERYONE is a potential terrorist threat.
Vodaphone has apparently paid no corporation tax for 2 years. I mean come on, this is ridiculous. It is one thing to have competitive CT rates, it is another when our largest companies are able to make tax optional and choose not to. I am disgusted to have a Vodaphone contract.
@PickardJE: Mills, Labour's "tax-efficient" donor, was sacked as deputy chairman of the London Docklands Development Corporation
Ministers, especially the Home Sec become house trained by their civil servants very quickly.
"Adjusted operating profit £12.0bn - exceeded guidance; FCF £5.6bn - at high end of guidance
•Final dividend per share 6.92 pence (total 10.19 pence, +7.0%)"
See http://www.vodafone.com/content/index/investors/investor_information/financial_results.html
£12bn operating profit (admittedly by no means all earned in the UK) zero tax. It really won't do.
I don't know the details of how it all works but apparently it doesn't matter if he makes a shedload of profit or a loss.
I'm amazed a system like that even exists within the EU, why aren't we doing it?
Oi Vodafone, give us 250 million and get on with it?
12 Reasons Why Benedict Cumberbatch Should Be The 12th Doctor
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jolin/12-reasons-why-benedict-cumberbatch-should-be-the-12th-docto
Osborne in fairness has done more than anyone since Lawson to close tax loopholes in this country and tax shelters abroad and is at least trying to coordinate an international response to this but Governments are 20 years behind the curve and there is so much catching up to do. Apples' tax situation in the US has been equally outrageous.
I do not think I am alone in finding the BBC's insistence that there is a fundamental difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion increasingly irritating and wildly inaccurate. One blends into the other with a huge section of grey in the middle which is being exploited by multinationals above all.
Tony Hadley (he of Spandau Ballet fame) was on BBC Breakfast this morning! He should be touring/releasing a new album in October.
This much is True
I think the concept of telling companies to pay more tax than they are legally obliged to, 'because it's morally correct', is nonsense. It suggests a government is impotent in regards to it's tax collecting and basically is begging for it's money. Paying taxes shouldn't be voluntary, rules should be clear and comprehensive so there are no loopholes to exploit.
Big business has used influence on consecutive UK governments to allow them to take the p**s. All 3 major political parties should sit down and agree a system that works so it's set in stone. If the corporation tax rate ends up being lower, fine as long as everyone pays it.
We have similar arrangements in the UK with a great many non UK citizens. Basically, if you are rich and non British, you can enter into direct negotiations with the Inland Revenue about the exact amount of tax you want to pay.
Cameron said in a speech recently that he is a low tax Conservative but not a no tax Conservative. He really should speak out about Vodaphone. I hope he does.
It's ridiculous to spend 3 years opposing every single government policy and cut, to then just say didn't mean it really. We are still no wiser as to how Labour will control spending though. 'We will, honest', just doesn't wash.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMOGaugKpzs&
What on earth do people think GCHQ has been doing for the last half-century?
'Please give us more money that you are not legally obliged to', kind of sucks as a way of running things.
Or leaving the EU of course
Press reports focussing on just one kind of tax are usually designed to mislead, like when people say the rich are paying more than their fair share of income tax.
Now, if you want some decent music to listen to, try the album I've used as my new user picture.
Ghost - Infestissumam.
Number 1 in Sweden for a couple of weeks in May. Probably one of the greatest Satanic metal albums ever. Like a cross between Sabbath and Blue Oyster Cult. Magnificent!
And on that bombshell, time for bed. All Hail the dark Lord and his realms of the underworld.
Actually, 65% of Vodafone's earnings come from Verizon Wireless in the US. Tax evasion - as the US companies Apple and Google have proven - is all about ensuring your profits end up in a low tax country, whether it is the EU or not.
I didn't say I liked that particular song. Although I do actually.
Lets say there is a company in the UK. We'll call it Robert's Fried Chicken Ltd. I'd quite like to sell Kentucky Fried Chicken in the UK, so I call Yum Brands in the US and ask if I can license the concept. They say 'yes, but the price is that you pay 10% of your sales back to us in the US as a royalty". Fine, you say. And in your first year, you make 1 million pounds of sales, and 150,000 of pre-royalty income. You then pay 100,000 of royalties to Yum Brands in the US and have 50,000 of pre-tax profits. (And will pay, say, 12,000 or so of corporation tax.)
All fine, right?
Now, imagine that instead of Robert's Fried Chicken Ltd having the franchise for KFC in the UK, that another company called New Fried Chicken Ltd has the franchise. Everything is the same, except that the sole shareholder of New Fried Chicken Ltd is Yum Brands Inc. Now, the commercial arrangement is *exactly* as when I owed it - the difference is that two-thirds of the 150,000 profit is being transferred to the US without tax being paid.
This is just the simplest example: but this is the most common method of tax avoidance used by large corporations. And, while Ireland has been particularly keen on using itself as a haven for brand licensing scams, there is nothing to stop the South Koreans, or the Jordanians, or the Icelandics from doing it. It is also quite difficult to get around: because the first example, of Robert's Friend Chicken Ltd., is so transparently a normal commercial arrangement.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/federal-election/kevin-rudd-is-a-8216lunatic8217-says-former-labor-leader-mark-latham/story-fnho52jl-1226659114039
And, what makes it hard to stop is that all these companies always make sure there is at least one country with one operation which genuinely is a franchise (usually in the Middle East), so they can point to the tax man and say "look, this is a standard commercial arrangement with have with all the brand licensees, irrespective of whether they are owned by the parent or not."
Your idea has much merit. Unfortunately, it would effectively prohibit all cross border licensing transactions of any nature - which would put the UK government in breach of many treaty obligations.
That said, I think a little bit of sabre rattling, and threatening that brands and ip may only be licensed from UK companies might be possible in some way. It would, fair to say, be a bonanza for lawyers, as it would invalidate many existing contacts. But still, it should be investigated.
It's amazing how many conservatives on here seem not to give a damn about the conservation of English legal tradition.
Independence 35%
Devo Max 32%
Status Quo 24%
35% for independence is pretty damn impressive in a multi-option poll that includes Devo Max as an alternative. It also seems that less than a quarter of the Scottish population want the outcome that the No side are actually campaigning for.
"They're only one percentage point below the threshold. The chances are enough CDU/CSU voters will vote tactically to push them above 5%. We saw that in Lower Saxony at the start of the year, where the FDP polled 10% compared to 5% in most polls."
There's no reason to assume that will happen, and certainly not on anything like the same scale that it did in Lower Saxony. The key difference is that the CDU are not in much danger of losing power - what's really at stake is whether they will lead a coalition with the FDP or with the SPD. Many CDU voters will actually prefer a coalition with the SPD, or not care much one way or the other.
It was refreshing to have a pair MP's discussing an 'in the news issue' without any sign of an on line party message, or the usual partisan tit for tat sound bites. In fact, it was great that Goldsmith could openly criticise both Clegg and Cameron on the measures that his own Government were taking as not enough without an instant side tracking of the whole issue under discussion to then focus on this as if that was the bigger issue. It reminded me of a BBC Question Time years ago when Tony Benn appeared and made a joke about his pager going nuts because he was being so honest in expressing his views........and oh so off the New Labour spin message.
Take BBC Question Time these days, they often invite guests onto the show because of particular or confrontational views they might have on the issues of the day. But the minute an elected politician gives an honest or open opinion to a question that might vary or go completely off piste from the party line they are jumped on, interrupted, and then asked to explain themselves for not being on message. How many great discussions or interesting opinions are now lost this way with this confrontation style of interview or debate?
No wonder the public are now being turned off politics and politicians. The media, and specifically the Westminster Lobby often at times act more like Liam Gallagher when he turned up at an Oasis concert to heckle his own band for having the audacity for carrying on without his appearance front and centre on the main stage.
And the frustrating thing is that it has allowed a rather misguided view to take hold on PB that the Scots are simple too scared to let go of a now increasingly austere and reformed Welfare pinny. I am just wondering how many of those that would like to see Scots become free to improve their lot by breaking away from the UK would themselves vote for this on the back of the dodgy sales pitch we have just been offered by the SNP?
trouble at t'mill?
Well, that's highly unusual for you, Fitalass. I hope you've noticed that most of your fellow travellers have claimed that your suggestion of a unilateral Devo Max referendum would have been illegitimate.
It's here -
http://www.natcen.ac.uk/media/1111766/the option not on the table final.pdf
As for Jill Knight, I didn't recognise her because I thought she was dead. I must have got her confused in my mind with the homophobic Baroness Young. Anyway, Wikipedia says she is actually 88 rather than the 85 which she claims.
He seemed to be stumbling slightly in his verbal construction of his sentence, and I think that he was probably thinking in terms of the Duchess of Cambridge being the Duke of Edinburgh's "daughter-in-law"... but the word "daughter" accidentally transposed itself into the wrong part of the sentence.
Conspiracy theorists would probably say that Witchell somehow knows the gender of the baby, and accidentally let it slip. The reality of course is that he doesn't know any more than we do, and he only reports to us the information which is fed to him.
I don't dislike Nicholas Witchell in the way that some people seem to, but I was amused by some of the things which came up when i searched for his name on Twitter:
------------
"Pretend you're Nicholas Witchell by standing outside a hospital for the next fortnight speculating wildly on the health of old men
Queen gatecrashing BBC news reminded me of the moment when protestors against Section 28 invaded, and Nicholas Witchell sat on a lesbian.
On BBC news channel at 7pm, Nicholas Witchell referred to the impending birth of Duchess of Cambridge's "daughter"; Obviously it was a slip.
"Live from outside the hospital" ... I think Nicholas Witchell is dead inside.
I can't look at Nicholas Witchell without hearing Prince Charles saying 'that dreadful man' in my ear.
Absolutely essential to have Nicholas Witchell standing outside DofE's hospital so that we know what a hospital looks like.
The Queen seems to be coping with Prince Philip's illness much better than Nicholas Witchell is.
They've just gone live to Nicholas Witchell in the street to confirm that there is no news.
Nicholas Witchell admitted to same hospital as Prince Philip with 'severe sunburn'
Long live the Duke of Ed. But can Nicholas Witchell be put out of his misery, please?
Nicholas Witchell looks older than Prince Phillip."
There are actually enough tax breaks in the UK for someone to earn a very comfortable income (circa £100k) and pay negligible tax...
Just stay away from PAYE and NI, maximize the tax breaks, and count the loopholes ...
Here's Nicholas Witchell interviewing Owen Carron after winning the Fermanagh and South Tyrone by-election on Friday 21st August 1981 (at 3 mins 15 secs):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16jpMtaQcAg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
And curiously enough you neglected to mention that independence is still seven points higher (and the status quo three points lower) than it was two years ago - fixed it for you!