The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
Historically there hs been far more antisemitism in the Tory party.
Listen chummy.. we are talking now not 1800s its your party that is antisemitic.
I belong to no party, but am well aware as to which of the major parties contained significant apolgists for Hitler in the 1930s - and were keen to strike a deal with him. It was the same party which was still riddled with racists in the 1960s and 70s - and many of whose members openly sympathised with Apartheid in South Africa and Ian Smith's repulsive regime in Rhodesia. As late as 1997 the Tories had an MP who had called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged - a message which many Tories were happy to openly display on their T Shirts.
Maggie was responsible for getting rid of Ian Smith and installing Robert Mugabe, you should be praising her
This interview with Smith is fascinating I think. A lot of the Firing Line series on YouTube are worth watching if you like political interviews about politics rather than the politicians.
At the 1978 Tory Conference Thatcher openly appauded speeches from the delegates supportive of Smith. The Shadow Foreign Secretary - John Davies - was loudly heckled when he failed to adopt the same tone.
And a year later she let Mugabe take power. Smith had installed a black PM by then, although Mugabe called him a puppet of Smith
“ when Mr Mugabe's cabinet colleagues were celebrating the fall of Margaret Thatcher in 1990, he rebuked them, reportedly saying: "Who organised our independence? Let me tell you - if it hadn't been for Mrs Thatcher none of you would be here today. I'm sorry she's gone."
Among other things Thatcher rejected a proposal by the diplomatic professionals to er.... "count" the votes in the first democratic election in Zimbabwe so that Mugabe would lose.
Zanu PF's victory is perhaps considered less than optimal, today.
Staff shortages beginning to affect hospitality businesses here in the tourist hotspot that is the Yorkshire Dales. Pubs and cafes choosing to close midweek or run limited services despite huge demand. On a different matter, walk-in vaccinations for over-18s seemed to have stopped suddenly - no idea why.
Same in the Lakes. Every single cafe, pub, restaurant I have seen or heard from is hiring.
Demand is off the scale. The other night the usual 35 covers, which is busy for Daughter's small kitchen, went up to 50.
I now have a late blooming career as a waitress. Comfortable shoes are now the only thing that matter to me .......
Be interesting to see if this bounce back continues. Haldane's prediction of turbo charged v recovery may be happening.
Certainly the level of building work around me is astonishing.
The U.K. simply doesn’t have the capacity for everyone to have a staycation... I imagine that people cancelling holidays abroad now are finding it very hard to book anything in the U.K. And if you manage to book somewhere in the Dales, treat finding a car park space in the likes of Malham or Grassington as seriously as reserving a sun lounger by the pool...
Hartlepool Marina Travelodge is £35 a night, lots of availability in July/August.
Nice stretch of coast to the North, pint in the shadow of HMS Trincomalee, wander around the headland. Catch train up to Sunderland for beach and a couple of pints overlooking the river and harbour.
Solid.
Better get in there quick. I'm going for Swansea travelodge though for a long weekend, it was only £25 a night - cycle round the Gower Pensinsula then on to Pembrokeshire on the west wales line.
I've been off this last week. Trip to High Wycombe to see family. Walked between Warwick and Kenilworth Castles. Couple of boozey evening in Brummingham pubs.
It's not that hard to do stuff in the UK!
The problem is the trains. The fares are eye watering this summer on some routes, cross country with their awful voyager trains are particularly bad offenders, there are literally no cheap advance fares available. It seems the same for the whole of wales, which still seems to be running some sort of pandemic extremely restricted timetable, meaning of course that the trains that do run will be extremely crowded.
I've booked up far in advance and got decent first class advance fares on LNER and GWR for some long trips. I'm considering the national express to Swansea, the fare was £3.90 from Birmingham. I wouldn't go abroad because really whats the point.
My partner just paid £14 return for Newcastle to Edinburgh on a weekend. Hardly exorbitant.
I note the joint position by #G7 finance ministers on international corporate taxation. It is in everyone’s interest to achieve a sustainable, ambitious and equitable agreement on the international tax architecture.
I look forward now to engaging in the discussions at @OECD. There are 139 countries at the table, and any agreement will have to meet the needs of small and large countries, developed and developing.
Fuck them. Ireland are a parasite economy, ultimately what are they doing to do when this is implemented? Their objection can be ignored.
Yep, bollocks to them. They are partly the reason why this is coming into being
More likely it's the US wanting to get hold of the tax revenues. I am probably over-cynical but I wonder how much extra tax revenue countries like the U.K. will actually get from the likes of Google and co?
You are being cynical. The whole reason rishi held out for the digital services part was to avoid that situation where the US does fine but no one else does. It's taking aim at the likes of Apple, Google and others who use Ireland to shelter their UK profits from the taxman.
Let's see what it will mean in practice.
There's a touch of a "what a brilliant Budget!" going on at the moment. Followed by a more sober analysis days later I hope.
I hope it works. The companies are parasites - far more than Ireland (which is doing what any historically poor country will do - use whatever it can to its advantage, especially if this is at the expense of a larger neighbour which exploited and impoverished it over centuries) - and need to be taken several pegs or more.
Not just on tax either. They are far too powerful monopolies. Anti-trust action needs to be taken. What are the chances of that I wonder.
I’m surprised you’d turn a blind eye to Ireland’s culpability. It’s the same as a team leader permitting wrong doing because it makes a positive contribution to the P&L.
Facilitating tax minimisation through sweetheart deals is parasitic.
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
A big issue with military history is that so many primary published sources are written by soldiers eager to vindicate themselves and rubbish their colleagues.
Scarcely any general will admit to errors. Wellington was notorious for blaming others for his mistakes.
The instances I referenced re: Osprey publications, are NOT primary sources but rather secondary. Written many by former soldiers with a clear bias one way or another about events that happened LONG before they came upon the scene. They appear to be pandering to the prejudices of themselves AND others of their ilk. VERY woke.
What counts as a primary source for a battle? Presumably they are mostly first-hand accounts of those that were there. Is there ever anything more objective?
Any eye-witness account or record. An account written by a historian or journalist five years after the battle, based upon interviews and examination of records is still a secondary source, whereas an account written by a participant, fifty years on, will still count as a primary source.
The Osprey monographs are all secondary sources, albeit most are based at least in part on primary source material in addition to secondary sources. Check them out!
If any of you ever purchased any books online from Osprey’s first e-commerce site c 1999-2000 you would have been using code written by yours truly.
"Because if [the Wuhan Lab leak] hypothesis is right, it will soon start to dawn on people that our mistake was not insufficient reverence for scientists, or inadequate respect for expertise, or not enough censorship on Facebook. It was a failure to think critically about all of the above, to understand that there is no such thing as absolute expertise."
Large loyalist/unionist rally opposing the Irish Sea Border taking place in Portadown this afternoon. The latest in a series of protest parades against the Northern Ireland Brexit arrangements.
I note the joint position by #G7 finance ministers on international corporate taxation. It is in everyone’s interest to achieve a sustainable, ambitious and equitable agreement on the international tax architecture.
I look forward now to engaging in the discussions at @OECD. There are 139 countries at the table, and any agreement will have to meet the needs of small and large countries, developed and developing.
Fuck them. Ireland are a parasite economy, ultimately what are they doing to do when this is implemented? Their objection can be ignored.
Yep, bollocks to them. They are partly the reason why this is coming into being
More likely it's the US wanting to get hold of the tax revenues. I am probably over-cynical but I wonder how much extra tax revenue countries like the U.K. will actually get from the likes of Google and co?
You are being cynical. The whole reason rishi held out for the digital services part was to avoid that situation where the US does fine but no one else does. It's taking aim at the likes of Apple, Google and others who use Ireland to shelter their UK profits from the taxman.
Let's see what it will mean in practice.
There's a touch of a "what a brilliant Budget!" going on at the moment. Followed by a more sober analysis days later I hope.
I hope it works. The companies are parasites - far more than Ireland (which is doing what any historically poor country will do - use whatever it can to its advantage, especially if this is at the expense of a larger neighbour which exploited and impoverished it over centuries) - and need to be taken several pegs or more.
Not just on tax either. They are far too powerful monopolies. Anti-trust action needs to be taken. What are the chances of that I wonder.
I’m surprised you’d turn a blind eye to Ireland’s culpability. It’s the same as a team leader permitting wrong doing because it makes a positive contribution to the P&L.
Facilitating tax minimisation through sweetheart deals is parasitic.
I'm not proud of all of the UK's record in Ireland but I'm also not responsible for it.
Ireland is the only country in the world to which the UK grants full rights, and it deserved a slightly more mature response on Brexit than it got.
Yeah - because of course the U.K. never leached off and exploited Ireland for centuries.
Oh wait .... it did.
Ireland did no more and no less than what all those British Overseas Territories were encouraged to do by the U.K. government when they could no longer sell bananas.
No doubt all those asset management companies set up in Dublin (like Rees-Mogg's one) will be rushing back home. Or maybe not.
Good to see British hypocrisy is still a thing.
It's not just the UK that has been getting ripped off. I dare say many national governments in the EU will be grinning about this as well.
They'll be grinning on the other side of their face if Ireland becomes relatively poor again and they have to fund it (again). Let's see how much extra tax revenue this actually disgorges rather than the hype.
If what we hear from the propagandists is true then I assume that post Brexit UK got shat on at the G7 whilst Ireland, as part of the EU, simply came, saw and conquered.
Is that true? Or.. was it slightly different?
Ireland. Lol. Normally I don't give enough of a shit about Ireland for it to register, on tax they are parasites that leech off the UK economy.
Yeah - because of course the U.K. never leached off and exploited Ireland for centuries.
Oh wait .... it did.
Ireland did no more and no less than what all those British Overseas Territories were encouraged to do by the U.K. government when they could no longer sell bananas.
No doubt all those asset management companies set up in Dublin (like Rees-Mogg's one) will be rushing back home. Or maybe not.
Good to see British hypocrisy is still a thing.
Yeah, I guess the crusades also give Islamists justification to commit acts of terror, by that logic.
Yeah: because passing laws to encourage companies to set up in a country (something which is the current British government's stated policy) is the same as acts of terrorist violence.
Of course it is. Silly me. Still I must have confused you with that other MaxPB who on this very forum not so long ago was praising Britain for speaking to pharma companies and others to lure them away from the EU and set up here because Britain was a much friendlier place with all those tax advantages it was offering for investment and research.
If only British hypocrisy could be bottled and sold, Britain would be the richest country in the world by far.
If what we hear from the propagandists is true then I assume that post Brexit UK got shat on at the G7 whilst Ireland, as part of the EU, simply came, saw and conquered.
Is that true? Or.. was it slightly different?
Ireland. Lol. Normally I don't give enough of a shit about Ireland for it to register, on tax they are parasites that leech off the UK economy.
Yeah - because of course the U.K. never leached off and exploited Ireland for centuries.
Oh wait .... it did.
Ireland did no more and no less than what all those British Overseas Territories were encouraged to do by the U.K. government when they could no longer sell bananas.
No doubt all those asset management companies set up in Dublin (like Rees-Mogg's one) will be rushing back home. Or maybe not.
Good to see British hypocrisy is still a thing.
There are some real sick minded people on here for sure.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
Historically there hs been far more antisemitism in the Tory party.
Listen chummy.. we are talking now not 1800s its your party that is antisemitic.
I belong to no party, but am well aware as to which of the major parties contained significant apolgists for Hitler in the 1930s - and were keen to strike a deal with him. It was the same party which was still riddled with racists in the 1960s and 70s - and many of whose members openly sympathised with Apartheid in South Africa and Ian Smith's repulsive regime in Rhodesia. As late as 1997 the Tories had an MP who had called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged - a message which many Tories were happy to openly display on their T Shirts.
Maggie was responsible for getting rid of Ian Smith and installing Robert Mugabe, you should be praising her
This interview with Smith is fascinating I think. A lot of the Firing Line series on YouTube are worth watching if you like political interviews about politics rather than the politicians.
Ian Smith was electorally defeated in April 1979, before Thatcher was PM, leading to the shortlived country of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. The reality was that the Rhodesian regime had been been militarily defeated by the ZANU guerrillas before then.
It hadn't been militarily defeated by the ZANU guerillas it's just that it's strategic and economic position had become hopeless. It wasn't credible to resist them from a totally isolated position any longer given the geopolitical context.
Exactly. That is how a guerilla war ends, by making the continuation of the war impossible by the government.
Very much like the Peninsular campaign.
The war was winnable for the French, IMHO, and they came very close to winning it at the start of 1812, when they drove the Spanish out of Valencia and the Levante. But, they did not have the numbers to win it - and invade Russia at the same time. Had they focused just on Spain and Portugal, and committed perhaps another 50,000 soldiers (they had 350,000 at the beginning of 1812) they would have won - albeit at dreadful cost. Instead, they began withdrawing soldiers to fight in Russia, and the tide turned against them.
Marshal Suchet, who took Valencia, was easily the most talented of the French commanders, the only one who came out of Spain with his reputation enhanced, and probably not conincidentally, a man of utter ruthlessness and inhumanity. Guerilla campaigns are almost never sufficient to win, on their own. Almost always, the insurgents require the support of some external power.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
Historically there hs been far more antisemitism in the Tory party.
Listen chummy.. we are talking now not 1800s its your party that is antisemitic.
I belong to no party, but am well aware as to which of the major parties contained significant apolgists for Hitler in the 1930s - and were keen to strike a deal with him. It was the same party which was still riddled with racists in the 1960s and 70s - and many of whose members openly sympathised with Apartheid in South Africa and Ian Smith's repulsive regime in Rhodesia. As late as 1997 the Tories had an MP who had called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged - a message which many Tories were happy to openly display on their T Shirts.
Maggie was responsible for getting rid of Ian Smith and installing Robert Mugabe, you should be praising her
This interview with Smith is fascinating I think. A lot of the Firing Line series on YouTube are worth watching if you like political interviews about politics rather than the politicians.
Ian Smith was electorally defeated in April 1979, before Thatcher was PM, leading to the shortlived country of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. The reality was that the Rhodesian regime had been been militarily defeated by the ZANU guerrillas before then.
That Firing Line interview us from 1971 I think. Maybe he’s just lying but he doesn’t seem to be to be racist to me, and the black people in Rhodesia were better off than they became Zimbabwe, as he predicted
The Indy obit of Smith isn’t that damning considering
Surely all’s fair in love and war with respect to tax deals. Ireland went down the route of seeking to attract these companies and fair enough. Ultimately it’s up to the rest of the world to change their own behaviour if they don’t like it.
Equally Ireland can have no complaints if other countries actually do something about it.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
Historically there hs been far more antisemitism in the Tory party.
Listen chummy.. we are talking now not 1800s its your party that is antisemitic.
I belong to no party, but am well aware as to which of the major parties contained significant apolgists for Hitler in the 1930s - and were keen to strike a deal with him. It was the same party which was still riddled with racists in the 1960s and 70s - and many of whose members openly sympathised with Apartheid in South Africa and Ian Smith's repulsive regime in Rhodesia. As late as 1997 the Tories had an MP who had called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged - a message which many Tories were happy to openly display on their T Shirts.
Maggie was responsible for getting rid of Ian Smith and installing Robert Mugabe, you should be praising her
This interview with Smith is fascinating I think. A lot of the Firing Line series on YouTube are worth watching if you like political interviews about politics rather than the politicians.
Ian Smith was electorally defeated in April 1979, before Thatcher was PM, leading to the shortlived country of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. The reality was that the Rhodesian regime had been been militarily defeated by the ZANU guerrillas before then.
It hadn't been militarily defeated by the ZANU guerillas it's just that it's strategic and economic position had become hopeless. It wasn't credible to resist them from a totally isolated position any longer given the geopolitical context.
Exactly. That is how a guerilla war ends, by making the continuation of the war impossible by the government.
Very much like the Peninsular campaign.
The war was winnable for the French, IMHO, and they came very close to winning it at the start of 1812, when they drove the Spanish out of Valencia and the Levante. But, they did not have the numbers to win it - and invade Russia at the same time. Had they focused just on Spain and Portugal, and committed perhaps another 50,000 soldiers (they had 350,000 at the beginning of 1812) they would have won - albeit at dreadful cost. Instead, they began withdrawing soldiers to fight in Russia, and the tide turned against them.
Marshal Suchet, who took Valencia, was easily the most talented of the French commanders, the only one who came out of Spain with his reputation enhanced, and probably not conincidentally, a man of utter ruthlessness and inhumanity. Guerilla campaigns are almost never sufficient to win, on their own. Almost always, the insurgents require the support of some external power.
Can you think of any examples where the insurgents have won on their own?
I note the joint position by #G7 finance ministers on international corporate taxation. It is in everyone’s interest to achieve a sustainable, ambitious and equitable agreement on the international tax architecture.
I look forward now to engaging in the discussions at @OECD. There are 139 countries at the table, and any agreement will have to meet the needs of small and large countries, developed and developing.
Fuck them. Ireland are a parasite economy, ultimately what are they doing to do when this is implemented? Their objection can be ignored.
Yep, bollocks to them. They are partly the reason why this is coming into being
More likely it's the US wanting to get hold of the tax revenues. I am probably over-cynical but I wonder how much extra tax revenue countries like the U.K. will actually get from the likes of Google and co?
You are being cynical. The whole reason rishi held out for the digital services part was to avoid that situation where the US does fine but no one else does. It's taking aim at the likes of Apple, Google and others who use Ireland to shelter their UK profits from the taxman.
Let's see what it will mean in practice.
There's a touch of a "what a brilliant Budget!" going on at the moment. Followed by a more sober analysis days later I hope.
I hope it works. The companies are parasites - far more than Ireland (which is doing what any historically poor country will do - use whatever it can to its advantage, especially if this is at the expense of a larger neighbour which exploited and impoverished it over centuries) - and need to be taken several pegs or more.
Not just on tax either. They are far too powerful monopolies. Anti-trust action needs to be taken. What are the chances of that I wonder.
I’m surprised you’d turn a blind eye to Ireland’s culpability. It’s the same as a team leader permitting wrong doing because it makes a positive contribution to the P&L.
Facilitating tax minimisation through sweetheart deals is parasitic.
What is the culpability? Precisely? What law has Ireland broken? What has Ireland done that no other country- including Britain - has not done or tried to do? Go on: let's have the details.
You are assuming that Britain had some automatic right to this money. It didn't. The tax laws in this country have long been structured in such a way as to make it attractive for companies to operate here. Other countries do the same. Some of those laws even benefited companies in the City. Britain is no stranger to doing sweetheart deals on tax with companies. Or to using its own tax havens to make itself attractive. Its complaint boils down to the fact that Ireland was better at it.
If Britain had been in the EU and this was a proposal from the Commission to alter Britain's tax laws so that the French, say, got more of our City tax revenues you and @MaxPB would be complaining bitterly.
Now the laws are being changed. Good. I hope they work. I will wait for the detail of what the laws will say rather than a press release which means jack shit in the real world.
I have no time for these big monopolistic companies who really are parasitic on the work of others and do not contribute to the societies in which they operate. But I can smell British hypocrisy about and condescension to Ireland a mile off.
I note the joint position by #G7 finance ministers on international corporate taxation. It is in everyone’s interest to achieve a sustainable, ambitious and equitable agreement on the international tax architecture.
I look forward now to engaging in the discussions at @OECD. There are 139 countries at the table, and any agreement will have to meet the needs of small and large countries, developed and developing.
Fuck them. Ireland are a parasite economy, ultimately what are they doing to do when this is implemented? Their objection can be ignored.
Yep, bollocks to them. They are partly the reason why this is coming into being
More likely it's the US wanting to get hold of the tax revenues. I am probably over-cynical but I wonder how much extra tax revenue countries like the U.K. will actually get from the likes of Google and co?
You are being cynical. The whole reason rishi held out for the digital services part was to avoid that situation where the US does fine but no one else does. It's taking aim at the likes of Apple, Google and others who use Ireland to shelter their UK profits from the taxman.
Let's see what it will mean in practice.
There's a touch of a "what a brilliant Budget!" going on at the moment. Followed by a more sober analysis days later I hope.
I hope it works. The companies are parasites - far more than Ireland (which is doing what any historically poor country will do - use whatever it can to its advantage, especially if this is at the expense of a larger neighbour which exploited and impoverished it over centuries) - and need to be taken several pegs or more.
Not just on tax either. They are far too powerful monopolies. Anti-trust action needs to be taken. What are the chances of that I wonder.
I’m surprised you’d turn a blind eye to Ireland’s culpability. It’s the same as a team leader permitting wrong doing because it makes a positive contribution to the P&L.
Facilitating tax minimisation through sweetheart deals is parasitic.
I'm not proud of all of the UK's record in Ireland but I'm also not responsible for it.
Ireland is the only country in the world to which the UK grants full rights, and it deserved a slightly more mature response on Brexit than it got.
They certainly were not obliged to, but whilst responsibility for its own actions obviously falls on the UK, I do wonder what the crowd pleasing put downs and asides of Barnier and Coveney got them in the end. I guess the EU and Ireland are happier with the NI protocol situation than the UK, so it counts as a win?
Yeah - because of course the U.K. never leached off and exploited Ireland for centuries.
Oh wait .... it did.
Ireland did no more and no less than what all those British Overseas Territories were encouraged to do by the U.K. government when they could no longer sell bananas.
No doubt all those asset management companies set up in Dublin (like Rees-Mogg's one) will be rushing back home. Or maybe not.
Good to see British hypocrisy is still a thing.
It's not just the UK that has been getting ripped off. I dare say many national governments in the EU will be grinning about this as well.
They'll be grinning on the other side of their face if Ireland becomes relatively poor again and they have to fund it (again). Let's see how much extra tax revenue this actually disgorges rather than the hype.
If what we hear from the propagandists is true then I assume that post Brexit UK got shat on at the G7 whilst Ireland, as part of the EU, simply came, saw and conquered.
Is that true? Or.. was it slightly different?
Ireland. Lol. Normally I don't give enough of a shit about Ireland for it to register, on tax they are parasites that leech off the UK economy.
Yeah - because of course the U.K. never leached off and exploited Ireland for centuries.
Oh wait .... it did.
Ireland did no more and no less than what all those British Overseas Territories were encouraged to do by the U.K. government when they could no longer sell bananas.
No doubt all those asset management companies set up in Dublin (like Rees-Mogg's one) will be rushing back home. Or maybe not.
Good to see British hypocrisy is still a thing.
Yeah, I guess the crusades also give Islamists justification to commit acts of terror, by that logic.
Yeah: because passing laws to encourage companies to set up in a country (something which is the current British government's stated policy) is the same as acts of terrorist violence.
Of course it is. Silly me. Still I must have confused you with that other MaxPB who on this very forum not so long ago was praising Britain for speaking to pharma companies and others to lure them away from the EU and set up here because Britain was a much friendlier place with all those tax advantages it was offering for investment and research.
If only British hypocrisy could be bottled and sold, Britain would be the richest country in the world by far.
As always you miss the point. You said that Ireland leeching off the UK is justified because of historical actions. It's the same stupid argument Islamists put forwards when they try and justify acts of terrorism today based on the crusades.
On your other points, when have I ever advocated for a 0.75% effective tax rate and for companies to transfer profits from other countries into the UK to avoid paying it where the business is being generated? I'd very much like to see you find anything I've written in favour of that because it doesn't exist. I've always been in favour of low but fair taxes. Our 19% rate is a low but fair tax rate. Encouraging businesses to come to the UK to set up shop, create jobs, create value and export is absolutely something we need to encourage. If the government were pursuing companies to domicile themselves here for tax with brass plate companies like Ireland you'd absolutely see me call the out on it. To my knowledge the government doesn't do this and it expects companies who relocate to the UK to actually conduct business here. Not like Google who do almost all of their European business in the UK but book almost all of the profit in Ireland.
It is corporate welfare of the worst kind and the worst part is that Ireland doesn't even gain many jobs from it because it's the land of tax domiciled holding companies with brass plates.
Do I want companies to move to the UK? Absolutely. I want them here to create high value jobs, to create new and interesting products and services that we can export and to support the wider economy. No one in the world benefits from Apple paying a net rate of 0.75% corporate tax in Europe. Not a single fucking person.
Surely all’s fair in love and war with respect to tax deals. Ireland went down the route of seeking to attract these companies and fair enough. Ultimately it’s up to the rest of the world to change their own behaviour if they don’t like it.
Equally Ireland can have no complaints if other countries actually do something about it.
Without that many actual enemies I'd assume the Irish would not be completely screwed in any case.
I note the joint position by #G7 finance ministers on international corporate taxation. It is in everyone’s interest to achieve a sustainable, ambitious and equitable agreement on the international tax architecture.
I look forward now to engaging in the discussions at @OECD. There are 139 countries at the table, and any agreement will have to meet the needs of small and large countries, developed and developing.
Fuck them. Ireland are a parasite economy, ultimately what are they doing to do when this is implemented? Their objection can be ignored.
Yep, bollocks to them. They are partly the reason why this is coming into being
More likely it's the US wanting to get hold of the tax revenues. I am probably over-cynical but I wonder how much extra tax revenue countries like the U.K. will actually get from the likes of Google and co?
You are being cynical. The whole reason rishi held out for the digital services part was to avoid that situation where the US does fine but no one else does. It's taking aim at the likes of Apple, Google and others who use Ireland to shelter their UK profits from the taxman.
Let's see what it will mean in practice.
There's a touch of a "what a brilliant Budget!" going on at the moment. Followed by a more sober analysis days later I hope.
I hope it works. The companies are parasites - far more than Ireland (which is doing what any historically poor country will do - use whatever it can to its advantage, especially if this is at the expense of a larger neighbour which exploited and impoverished it over centuries) - and need to be taken several pegs or more.
Not just on tax either. They are far too powerful monopolies. Anti-trust action needs to be taken. What are the chances of that I wonder.
I’m surprised you’d turn a blind eye to Ireland’s culpability. It’s the same as a team leader permitting wrong doing because it makes a positive contribution to the P&L.
Facilitating tax minimisation through sweetheart deals is parasitic.
I'm not proud of all of the UK's record in Ireland but I'm also not responsible for it.
Ireland is the only country in the world to which the UK grants full rights, and it deserved a slightly more mature response on Brexit than it got.
1. I never said you were responsible. 2. Actually you're wrong: Irish citizens living in the U.K. have more rights than British citizens post-Brexit. Britain had no right to demand anything of Ireland. Nor did Ireland owe it anything at all. Britain made its decision for its own reasons. Ireland took its own decisions for its own interests. The fact that they did not suit Britain is too bad.
Still, it is quite funny to have people talk about a "mature response" on Brexit from a country which signed deals it did not understand, then tried to pass laws to break those deals because according to its own chief negotiator the deal was rubbish.
Must be some new meaning of "mature" I'm not au fait with.
I note the joint position by #G7 finance ministers on international corporate taxation. It is in everyone’s interest to achieve a sustainable, ambitious and equitable agreement on the international tax architecture.
I look forward now to engaging in the discussions at @OECD. There are 139 countries at the table, and any agreement will have to meet the needs of small and large countries, developed and developing.
Fuck them. Ireland are a parasite economy, ultimately what are they doing to do when this is implemented? Their objection can be ignored.
Yep, bollocks to them. They are partly the reason why this is coming into being
More likely it's the US wanting to get hold of the tax revenues. I am probably over-cynical but I wonder how much extra tax revenue countries like the U.K. will actually get from the likes of Google and co?
You are being cynical. The whole reason rishi held out for the digital services part was to avoid that situation where the US does fine but no one else does. It's taking aim at the likes of Apple, Google and others who use Ireland to shelter their UK profits from the taxman.
Let's see what it will mean in practice.
There's a touch of a "what a brilliant Budget!" going on at the moment. Followed by a more sober analysis days later I hope.
I hope it works. The companies are parasites - far more than Ireland (which is doing what any historically poor country will do - use whatever it can to its advantage, especially if this is at the expense of a larger neighbour which exploited and impoverished it over centuries) - and need to be taken several pegs or more.
Not just on tax either. They are far too powerful monopolies. Anti-trust action needs to be taken. What are the chances of that I wonder.
I’m surprised you’d turn a blind eye to Ireland’s culpability. It’s the same as a team leader permitting wrong doing because it makes a positive contribution to the P&L.
Facilitating tax minimisation through sweetheart deals is parasitic.
What is the culpability? Precisely? What law has Ireland broken? What has Ireland done that no other country- including Britain - has not done or tried to do? Go on: let's have the details.
You are assuming that Britain had some automatic right to this money. It didn't. The tax laws in this country have long been structured in such a way as to make it attractive for companies to operate here. Other countries do the same. Some of those laws even benefited companies in the City. Britain is no stranger to doing sweetheart deals on tax with companies. Or to using its own tax havens to make itself attractive. Its complaint boils down to the fact that Ireland was better at it.
If Britain had been in the EU and this was a proposal from the Commission to alter Britain's tax laws so that the French, say, got more of our City tax revenues you and @MaxPB would be complaining bitterly.
Now the laws are being changed. Good. I hope they work. I will wait for the detail of what the laws will say rather than a press release which means jack shit in the real world.
I have no time for these big monopolistic companies who really are parasitic on the work of others and do not contribute to the societies in which they operate. But I can smell British hypocrisy about and condescension to Ireland a mile off.
Becuase the fucking money is being spent here. A UK consumer spends £1000 on an iPhone with a 30% operating margin. Apple books that margin in Ireland with spurious IP licencing schemes from Apple UK to Apple Ireland where it has a sweetheart deal to pay an effective rate of 0.75%, thus avoiding 18.25% in tax on that profit.
If Ireland wants to charge 0.75% tax on iPhones sold in Ireland that's their business. Destroying the tax base of the countries surrounding is why we have these new rules coming in. It's not just the UK that suffers. France, Germany, Italy and other European countries also take a huge hit when multinationals enjoy a strong business environment created by the state and then use tax sheltering to avoid paying for it.
Honestly, this feels like one of those moments where because you don't like the messenger you've decided that this must be bad and that Ireland are the virtuous party and must be right. Ireland are nothing more than a tax parasite in Europe, whatever the UK did to them hundreds of years ago is completely irrelevant.
I note the joint position by #G7 finance ministers on international corporate taxation. It is in everyone’s interest to achieve a sustainable, ambitious and equitable agreement on the international tax architecture.
I look forward now to engaging in the discussions at @OECD. There are 139 countries at the table, and any agreement will have to meet the needs of small and large countries, developed and developing.
Fuck them. Ireland are a parasite economy, ultimately what are they doing to do when this is implemented? Their objection can be ignored.
Yep, bollocks to them. They are partly the reason why this is coming into being
More likely it's the US wanting to get hold of the tax revenues. I am probably over-cynical but I wonder how much extra tax revenue countries like the U.K. will actually get from the likes of Google and co?
You are being cynical. The whole reason rishi held out for the digital services part was to avoid that situation where the US does fine but no one else does. It's taking aim at the likes of Apple, Google and others who use Ireland to shelter their UK profits from the taxman.
Let's see what it will mean in practice.
There's a touch of a "what a brilliant Budget!" going on at the moment. Followed by a more sober analysis days later I hope.
I hope it works. The companies are parasites - far more than Ireland (which is doing what any historically poor country will do - use whatever it can to its advantage, especially if this is at the expense of a larger neighbour which exploited and impoverished it over centuries) - and need to be taken several pegs or more.
Not just on tax either. They are far too powerful monopolies. Anti-trust action needs to be taken. What are the chances of that I wonder.
I’m surprised you’d turn a blind eye to Ireland’s culpability. It’s the same as a team leader permitting wrong doing because it makes a positive contribution to the P&L.
Facilitating tax minimisation through sweetheart deals is parasitic.
What is the culpability? Precisely? What law has Ireland broken? What has Ireland done that no other country- including Britain - has not done or tried to do? Go on: let's have the details.
You are assuming that Britain had some automatic right to this money. It didn't. The tax laws in this country have long been structured in such a way as to make it attractive for companies to operate here. Other countries do the same. Some of those laws even benefited companies in the City. Britain is no stranger to doing sweetheart deals on tax with companies. Or to using its own tax havens to make itself attractive. Its complaint boils down to the fact that Ireland was better at it.
If Britain had been in the EU and this was a proposal from the Commission to alter Britain's tax laws so that the French, say, got more of our City tax revenues you and @MaxPB would be complaining bitterly.
Now the laws are being changed. Good. I hope they work. I will wait for the detail of what the laws will say rather than a press release which means jack shit in the real world.
I have no time for these big monopolistic companies who really are parasitic on the work of others and do not contribute to the societies in which they operate. But I can smell British hypocrisy about and condescension to Ireland a mile off.
Your defence of Ireland's tax regime is a bit odd tbh.
Yeah - because of course the U.K. never leached off and exploited Ireland for centuries.
Oh wait .... it did.
Ireland did no more and no less than what all those British Overseas Territories were encouraged to do by the U.K. government when they could no longer sell bananas.
No doubt all those asset management companies set up in Dublin (like Rees-Mogg's one) will be rushing back home. Or maybe not.
Good to see British hypocrisy is still a thing.
It's not just the UK that has been getting ripped off. I dare say many national governments in the EU will be grinning about this as well.
They'll be grinning on the other side of their face if Ireland becomes relatively poor again and they have to fund it (again). Let's see how much extra tax revenue this actually disgorges rather than the hype.
If what we hear from the propagandists is true then I assume that post Brexit UK got shat on at the G7 whilst Ireland, as part of the EU, simply came, saw and conquered.
Is that true? Or.. was it slightly different?
Ireland. Lol. Normally I don't give enough of a shit about Ireland for it to register, on tax they are parasites that leech off the UK economy.
Yeah - because of course the U.K. never leached off and exploited Ireland for centuries.
Oh wait .... it did.
Ireland did no more and no less than what all those British Overseas Territories were encouraged to do by the U.K. government when they could no longer sell bananas.
No doubt all those asset management companies set up in Dublin (like Rees-Mogg's one) will be rushing back home. Or maybe not.
Good to see British hypocrisy is still a thing.
Yeah, I guess the crusades also give Islamists justification to commit acts of terror, by that logic.
Yeah: because passing laws to encourage companies to set up in a country (something which is the current British government's stated policy) is the same as acts of terrorist violence.
Of course it is. Silly me. Still I must have confused you with that other MaxPB who on this very forum not so long ago was praising Britain for speaking to pharma companies and others to lure them away from the EU and set up here because Britain was a much friendlier place with all those tax advantages it was offering for investment and research.
If only British hypocrisy could be bottled and sold, Britain would be the richest country in the world by far.
That seems like an overreaction to an analogy, even if you consider it a poor analogy. I don't think anyone would have taken it as a literal statement, so treating it as though it was isn't credible and comes across itself as an intention distraction. He clearly referenced the logic of your argument applying to a ridiculous scenario, he didn't say they were the same in nature as you then imply.
Your statement in effect seemed to justify what was claimed to be poor actions by Ireland by engaging in whataboutery in reference to British actions, as though a poor action by one party justifies a poor action by another.
I don't see what is unreasonable in pointing out that argument is nonsense. British actions don't become ok merely because someone else does it, and Irish actions don't become ok just because Britain has done bad things too.
Whataboutery is whataboutery, whoever tries to use it.
I note the joint position by #G7 finance ministers on international corporate taxation. It is in everyone’s interest to achieve a sustainable, ambitious and equitable agreement on the international tax architecture.
I look forward now to engaging in the discussions at @OECD. There are 139 countries at the table, and any agreement will have to meet the needs of small and large countries, developed and developing.
Fuck them. Ireland are a parasite economy, ultimately what are they doing to do when this is implemented? Their objection can be ignored.
Yep, bollocks to them. They are partly the reason why this is coming into being
More likely it's the US wanting to get hold of the tax revenues. I am probably over-cynical but I wonder how much extra tax revenue countries like the U.K. will actually get from the likes of Google and co?
You are being cynical. The whole reason rishi held out for the digital services part was to avoid that situation where the US does fine but no one else does. It's taking aim at the likes of Apple, Google and others who use Ireland to shelter their UK profits from the taxman.
Let's see what it will mean in practice.
There's a touch of a "what a brilliant Budget!" going on at the moment. Followed by a more sober analysis days later I hope.
I hope it works. The companies are parasites - far more than Ireland (which is doing what any historically poor country will do - use whatever it can to its advantage, especially if this is at the expense of a larger neighbour which exploited and impoverished it over centuries) - and need to be taken several pegs or more.
Not just on tax either. They are far too powerful monopolies. Anti-trust action needs to be taken. What are the chances of that I wonder.
I’m surprised you’d turn a blind eye to Ireland’s culpability. It’s the same as a team leader permitting wrong doing because it makes a positive contribution to the P&L.
Facilitating tax minimisation through sweetheart deals is parasitic.
What is the culpability? Precisely? What law has Ireland broken? What has Ireland done that no other country- including Britain - has not done or tried to do? Go on: let's have the details.
You are assuming that Britain had some automatic right to this money. It didn't. The tax laws in this country have long been structured in such a way as to make it attractive for companies to operate here. Other countries do the same. Some of those laws even benefited companies in the City. Britain is no stranger to doing sweetheart deals on tax with companies. Or to using its own tax havens to make itself attractive. Its complaint boils down to the fact that Ireland was better at it.
If Britain had been in the EU and this was a proposal from the Commission to alter Britain's tax laws so that the French, say, got more of our City tax revenues you and @MaxPB would be complaining bitterly.
Now the laws are being changed. Good. I hope they work. I will wait for the detail of what the laws will say rather than a press release which means jack shit in the real world.
I have no time for these big monopolistic companies who really are parasitic on the work of others and do not contribute to the societies in which they operate. But I can smell British hypocrisy about and condescension to Ireland a mile off.
It was interesting to hear the past head of the WTO say just now that this deal is only possible because the US and UK have changed their position after decades of opposition and are now very much promoting it
I note the joint position by #G7 finance ministers on international corporate taxation. It is in everyone’s interest to achieve a sustainable, ambitious and equitable agreement on the international tax architecture.
I look forward now to engaging in the discussions at @OECD. There are 139 countries at the table, and any agreement will have to meet the needs of small and large countries, developed and developing.
Fuck them. Ireland are a parasite economy, ultimately what are they doing to do when this is implemented? Their objection can be ignored.
Yep, bollocks to them. They are partly the reason why this is coming into being
More likely it's the US wanting to get hold of the tax revenues. I am probably over-cynical but I wonder how much extra tax revenue countries like the U.K. will actually get from the likes of Google and co?
You are being cynical. The whole reason rishi held out for the digital services part was to avoid that situation where the US does fine but no one else does. It's taking aim at the likes of Apple, Google and others who use Ireland to shelter their UK profits from the taxman.
Let's see what it will mean in practice.
There's a touch of a "what a brilliant Budget!" going on at the moment. Followed by a more sober analysis days later I hope.
I hope it works. The companies are parasites - far more than Ireland (which is doing what any historically poor country will do - use whatever it can to its advantage, especially if this is at the expense of a larger neighbour which exploited and impoverished it over centuries) - and need to be taken several pegs or more.
Not just on tax either. They are far too powerful monopolies. Anti-trust action needs to be taken. What are the chances of that I wonder.
I’m surprised you’d turn a blind eye to Ireland’s culpability. It’s the same as a team leader permitting wrong doing because it makes a positive contribution to the P&L.
Facilitating tax minimisation through sweetheart deals is parasitic.
What is the culpability? Precisely? What law has Ireland broken? What has Ireland done that no other country- including Britain - has not done or tried to do? Go on: let's have the details.
You are assuming that Britain had some automatic right to this money. It didn't. The tax laws in this country have long been structured in such a way as to make it attractive for companies to operate here. Other countries do the same. Some of those laws even benefited companies in the City. Britain is no stranger to doing sweetheart deals on tax with companies. Or to using its own tax havens to make itself attractive. Its complaint boils down to the fact that Ireland was better at it.
If Britain had been in the EU and this was a proposal from the Commission to alter Britain's tax laws so that the French, say, got more of our City tax revenues you and @MaxPB would be complaining bitterly.
Now the laws are being changed. Good. I hope they work. I will wait for the detail of what the laws will say rather than a press release which means jack shit in the real world.
I have no time for these big monopolistic companies who really are parasitic on the work of others and do not contribute to the societies in which they operate. But I can smell British hypocrisy about and condescension to Ireland a mile off.
Your defence of Ireland's tax regime is a bit odd tbh.
Bit of Boris derangement syndrome here IMO. The government has done well here to get Biden on board for a pretty strong digital services tax that will net the UK billions in additional revenue to pay for public services.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
Historically there hs been far more antisemitism in the Tory party.
Listen chummy.. we are talking now not 1800s its your party that is antisemitic.
I belong to no party, but am well aware as to which of the major parties contained significant apolgists for Hitler in the 1930s - and were keen to strike a deal with him. It was the same party which was still riddled with racists in the 1960s and 70s - and many of whose members openly sympathised with Apartheid in South Africa and Ian Smith's repulsive regime in Rhodesia. As late as 1997 the Tories had an MP who had called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged - a message which many Tories were happy to openly display on their T Shirts.
Maggie was responsible for getting rid of Ian Smith and installing Robert Mugabe, you should be praising her
This interview with Smith is fascinating I think. A lot of the Firing Line series on YouTube are worth watching if you like political interviews about politics rather than the politicians.
Ian Smith was electorally defeated in April 1979, before Thatcher was PM, leading to the shortlived country of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. The reality was that the Rhodesian regime had been been militarily defeated by the ZANU guerrillas before then.
That Firing Line interview us from 1971 I think. Maybe he’s just lying but he doesn’t seem to be to be racist to me, and the black people in Rhodesia were better off than they became Zimbabwe, as he predicted
The Indy obit of Smith isn’t that damning considering
Racists with table manners will often not seem to be racist in a formal interview situation. You need to observe them when they're kicking back and think they're safe. Look for 'tells'. Catch them that way. I'll give you lessons if you like. It's a hobby of mine. I enjoy the activity and (maybe because of this) I'm quite good at it.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
Historically there hs been far more antisemitism in the Tory party.
Listen chummy.. we are talking now not 1800s its your party that is antisemitic.
I belong to no party, but am well aware as to which of the major parties contained significant apolgists for Hitler in the 1930s - and were keen to strike a deal with him. It was the same party which was still riddled with racists in the 1960s and 70s - and many of whose members openly sympathised with Apartheid in South Africa and Ian Smith's repulsive regime in Rhodesia. As late as 1997 the Tories had an MP who had called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged - a message which many Tories were happy to openly display on their T Shirts.
Maggie was responsible for getting rid of Ian Smith and installing Robert Mugabe, you should be praising her
This interview with Smith is fascinating I think. A lot of the Firing Line series on YouTube are worth watching if you like political interviews about politics rather than the politicians.
Ian Smith was electorally defeated in April 1979, before Thatcher was PM, leading to the shortlived country of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. The reality was that the Rhodesian regime had been been militarily defeated by the ZANU guerrillas before then.
It hadn't been militarily defeated by the ZANU guerillas it's just that it's strategic and economic position had become hopeless. It wasn't credible to resist them from a totally isolated position any longer given the geopolitical context.
Exactly. That is how a guerilla war ends, by making the continuation of the war impossible by the government.
Very much like the Peninsular campaign.
The war was winnable for the French, IMHO, and they came very close to winning it at the start of 1812, when they drove the Spanish out of Valencia and the Levante. But, they did not have the numbers to win it - and invade Russia at the same time. Had they focused just on Spain and Portugal, and committed perhaps another 50,000 soldiers (they had 350,000 at the beginning of 1812) they would have won - albeit at dreadful cost. Instead, they began withdrawing soldiers to fight in Russia, and the tide turned against them.
Marshal Suchet, who took Valencia, was easily the most talented of the French commanders, the only one who came out of Spain with his reputation enhanced, and probably not conincidentally, a man of utter ruthlessness and inhumanity. Guerilla campaigns are almost never sufficient to win, on their own. Almost always, the insurgents require the support of some external power.
Can you think of any examples where the insurgents have won on their own?
The overthrow of Mengistu and the DERG in Ethiopia. Even then, the insurgents were fighting more like a conventional army than a guerilla force by the end.
I note the joint position by #G7 finance ministers on international corporate taxation. It is in everyone’s interest to achieve a sustainable, ambitious and equitable agreement on the international tax architecture.
I look forward now to engaging in the discussions at @OECD. There are 139 countries at the table, and any agreement will have to meet the needs of small and large countries, developed and developing.
Fuck them. Ireland are a parasite economy, ultimately what are they doing to do when this is implemented? Their objection can be ignored.
Yep, bollocks to them. They are partly the reason why this is coming into being
More likely it's the US wanting to get hold of the tax revenues. I am probably over-cynical but I wonder how much extra tax revenue countries like the U.K. will actually get from the likes of Google and co?
You are being cynical. The whole reason rishi held out for the digital services part was to avoid that situation where the US does fine but no one else does. It's taking aim at the likes of Apple, Google and others who use Ireland to shelter their UK profits from the taxman.
Let's see what it will mean in practice.
There's a touch of a "what a brilliant Budget!" going on at the moment. Followed by a more sober analysis days later I hope.
I hope it works. The companies are parasites - far more than Ireland (which is doing what any historically poor country will do - use whatever it can to its advantage, especially if this is at the expense of a larger neighbour which exploited and impoverished it over centuries) - and need to be taken several pegs or more.
Not just on tax either. They are far too powerful monopolies. Anti-trust action needs to be taken. What are the chances of that I wonder.
I’m surprised you’d turn a blind eye to Ireland’s culpability. It’s the same as a team leader permitting wrong doing because it makes a positive contribution to the P&L.
Facilitating tax minimisation through sweetheart deals is parasitic.
What is the culpability? Precisely? What law has Ireland broken? What has Ireland done that no other country- including Britain - has not done or tried to do? Go on: let's have the details.
You are assuming that Britain had some automatic right to this money. It didn't. The tax laws in this country have long been structured in such a way as to make it attractive for companies to operate here. Other countries do the same. Some of those laws even benefited companies in the City. Britain is no stranger to doing sweetheart deals on tax with companies. Or to using its own tax havens to make itself attractive. Its complaint boils down to the fact that Ireland was better at it.
If Britain had been in the EU and this was a proposal from the Commission to alter Britain's tax laws so that the French, say, got more of our City tax revenues you and @MaxPB would be complaining bitterly.
Now the laws are being changed. Good. I hope they work. I will wait for the detail of what the laws will say rather than a press release which means jack shit in the real world.
I have no time for these big monopolistic companies who really are parasitic on the work of others and do not contribute to the societies in which they operate. But I can smell British hypocrisy about and condescension to Ireland a mile off.
Your defence of Ireland's tax regime is a bit odd tbh.
The argument seems to be that people are being harsh on Ireland because others including Britain have acted the same now or in the past.
I really don't see what that has to do with anything. For someone hot on standards and probity 'others were doing it too' seems an odd way to complain about the proposals to now, apparently, do something about it.
So nations are being hypocritical about it, so what? Are the proposals themselves fair seems to be what matters.
" I can attest, from speaking to an array of different sources, that Donald Trump does indeed believe quite genuinely that he — along with former senators David Perdue and Martha McSally — will be “reinstated” to office this summer after “audits” of the 2020 elections in Arizona, Georgia, and a handful of other states have been completed."
I note the joint position by #G7 finance ministers on international corporate taxation. It is in everyone’s interest to achieve a sustainable, ambitious and equitable agreement on the international tax architecture.
I look forward now to engaging in the discussions at @OECD. There are 139 countries at the table, and any agreement will have to meet the needs of small and large countries, developed and developing.
Fuck them. Ireland are a parasite economy, ultimately what are they doing to do when this is implemented? Their objection can be ignored.
Yep, bollocks to them. They are partly the reason why this is coming into being
More likely it's the US wanting to get hold of the tax revenues. I am probably over-cynical but I wonder how much extra tax revenue countries like the U.K. will actually get from the likes of Google and co?
You are being cynical. The whole reason rishi held out for the digital services part was to avoid that situation where the US does fine but no one else does. It's taking aim at the likes of Apple, Google and others who use Ireland to shelter their UK profits from the taxman.
Let's see what it will mean in practice.
There's a touch of a "what a brilliant Budget!" going on at the moment. Followed by a more sober analysis days later I hope.
I hope it works. The companies are parasites - far more than Ireland (which is doing what any historically poor country will do - use whatever it can to its advantage, especially if this is at the expense of a larger neighbour which exploited and impoverished it over centuries) - and need to be taken several pegs or more.
Not just on tax either. They are far too powerful monopolies. Anti-trust action needs to be taken. What are the chances of that I wonder.
I’m surprised you’d turn a blind eye to Ireland’s culpability. It’s the same as a team leader permitting wrong doing because it makes a positive contribution to the P&L.
Facilitating tax minimisation through sweetheart deals is parasitic.
While that's true, there are probably thousands of "ten year tax holiday" deals agreed by HMG for regional development purposes.
I note the joint position by #G7 finance ministers on international corporate taxation. It is in everyone’s interest to achieve a sustainable, ambitious and equitable agreement on the international tax architecture.
I look forward now to engaging in the discussions at @OECD. There are 139 countries at the table, and any agreement will have to meet the needs of small and large countries, developed and developing.
Fuck them. Ireland are a parasite economy, ultimately what are they doing to do when this is implemented? Their objection can be ignored.
Yep, bollocks to them. They are partly the reason why this is coming into being
More likely it's the US wanting to get hold of the tax revenues. I am probably over-cynical but I wonder how much extra tax revenue countries like the U.K. will actually get from the likes of Google and co?
You are being cynical. The whole reason rishi held out for the digital services part was to avoid that situation where the US does fine but no one else does. It's taking aim at the likes of Apple, Google and others who use Ireland to shelter their UK profits from the taxman.
Let's see what it will mean in practice.
There's a touch of a "what a brilliant Budget!" going on at the moment. Followed by a more sober analysis days later I hope.
I hope it works. The companies are parasites - far more than Ireland (which is doing what any historically poor country will do - use whatever it can to its advantage, especially if this is at the expense of a larger neighbour which exploited and impoverished it over centuries) - and need to be taken several pegs or more.
Not just on tax either. They are far too powerful monopolies. Anti-trust action needs to be taken. What are the chances of that I wonder.
I’m surprised you’d turn a blind eye to Ireland’s culpability. It’s the same as a team leader permitting wrong doing because it makes a positive contribution to the P&L.
Facilitating tax minimisation through sweetheart deals is parasitic.
What is the culpability? Precisely? What law has Ireland broken? What has Ireland done that no other country- including Britain - has not done or tried to do? Go on: let's have the details.
You are assuming that Britain had some automatic right to this money. It didn't. The tax laws in this country have long been structured in such a way as to make it attractive for companies to operate here. Other countries do the same. Some of those laws even benefited companies in the City. Britain is no stranger to doing sweetheart deals on tax with companies. Or to using its own tax havens to make itself attractive. Its complaint boils down to the fact that Ireland was better at it.
If Britain had been in the EU and this was a proposal from the Commission to alter Britain's tax laws so that the French, say, got more of our City tax revenues you and @MaxPB would be complaining bitterly.
Now the laws are being changed. Good. I hope they work. I will wait for the detail of what the laws will say rather than a press release which means jack shit in the real world.
I have no time for these big monopolistic companies who really are parasitic on the work of others and do not contribute to the societies in which they operate. But I can smell British hypocrisy about and condescension to Ireland a mile off.
Your defence of Ireland's tax regime is a bit odd tbh.
The argument seems to be that people are being harsh on Ireland because others including Britain have acted the same now or in the past.
I really don't see what that has to do with anything. For someone hot on standards and probity 'others were doing it too' seems an odd way to complain about the proposals to now, apparently, do something about it.
So nations are being hypocritical about it, so what? Are the proposals themselves fair seems to be what matters.
But @Cyclefree is accusing countries of doing something they aren't. To my knowledge none of the 7 countries in the agreement offer sweetheart deals with under 1% tax rates to facilitate profit transferring. The UK is one of the only countries in the world to have a diverted profits tax to combat it.
Yeah - because of course the U.K. never leached off and exploited Ireland for centuries.
Oh wait .... it did.
Ireland did no more and no less than what all those British Overseas Territories were encouraged to do by the U.K. government when they could no longer sell bananas.
No doubt all those asset management companies set up in Dublin (like Rees-Mogg's one) will be rushing back home. Or maybe not.
Good to see British hypocrisy is still a thing.
It's not just the UK that has been getting ripped off. I dare say many national governments in the EU will be grinning about this as well.
They'll be grinning on the other side of their face if Ireland becomes relatively poor again and they have to fund it (again). Let's see how much extra tax revenue this actually disgorges rather than the hype.
If what we hear from the propagandists is true then I assume that post Brexit UK got shat on at the G7 whilst Ireland, as part of the EU, simply came, saw and conquered.
Is that true? Or.. was it slightly different?
Ireland. Lol. Normally I don't give enough of a shit about Ireland for it to register, on tax they are parasites that leech off the UK economy.
Yeah - because of course the U.K. never leached off and exploited Ireland for centuries.
Oh wait .... it did.
Ireland did no more and no less than what all those British Overseas Territories were encouraged to do by the U.K. government when they could no longer sell bananas.
No doubt all those asset management companies set up in Dublin (like Rees-Mogg's one) will be rushing back home. Or maybe not.
Good to see British hypocrisy is still a thing.
Yeah, I guess the crusades also give Islamists justification to commit acts of terror, by that logic.
Yeah: because passing laws to encourage companies to set up in a country (something which is the current British government's stated policy) is the same as acts of terrorist violence.
Of course it is. Silly me. Still I must have confused you with that other MaxPB who on this very forum not so long ago was praising Britain for speaking to pharma companies and others to lure them away from the EU and set up here because Britain was a much friendlier place with all those tax advantages it was offering for investment and research.
If only British hypocrisy could be bottled and sold, Britain would be the richest country in the world by far.
As always you miss the point. You said that Ireland leeching off the UK is justified because of historical actions. It's the same stupid argument Islamists put forwards when they try and justify acts of terrorism today based on the crusades.
On your other points, when have I ever advocated for a 0.75% effective tax rate and for companies to transfer profits from other countries into the UK to avoid paying it where the business is being generated? I'd very much like to see you find anything I've written in favour of that because it doesn't exist. I've always been in favour of low but fair taxes. Our 19% rate is a low but fair tax rate. Encouraging businesses to come to the UK to set up shop, create jobs, create value and export is absolutely something we need to encourage. If the government were pursuing companies to domicile themselves here for tax with brass plate companies like Ireland you'd absolutely see me call the out on it. To my knowledge the government doesn't do this and it expects companies who relocate to the UK to actually conduct business here. Not like Google who do almost all of their European business in the UK but book almost all of the profit in Ireland.
It is corporate welfare of the worst kind and the worst part is that Ireland doesn't even gain many jobs from it because it's the land of tax domiciled holding companies with brass plates.
Do I want companies to move to the UK? Absolutely. I want them here to create high value jobs, to create new and interesting products and services that we can export and to support the wider economy. No one in the world benefits from Apple paying a net rate of 0.75% corporate tax in Europe. Not a single fucking person.
No. You misunderstand as usual.
1. I don't think Ireland was leeching off Britain or being parasitic. I don't accept the premise that this was somehow Britain's money which Ireland was stealing. 2. Britain did exploit Ireland for centuries. 3. I hope these monopolistic companies get broken up and pay a proper rate of tax. I hope this agreement really works and it is the start of a process not the end of it. I think it far too soon to celebrate because the detail of exactly how these new laws will work matter and, so far (may be it's too soon) no-one has been able to answer my 4 questions above. 4. Brass plate companies: let's look at the way vast numbers of British registered companies are used in so many scams and by so many dodgy people to launder and hide money. Britain's record on clamping down on the abuses or to take steps to make the misuse of companies incorporated here is pretty poor frankly. It has an absolute brass neck criticising others on this score. So let's hear Rishi call that out. Or - even better - do something about it.
Yeah - because of course the U.K. never leached off and exploited Ireland for centuries.
Oh wait .... it did.
Ireland did no more and no less than what all those British Overseas Territories were encouraged to do by the U.K. government when they could no longer sell bananas.
No doubt all those asset management companies set up in Dublin (like Rees-Mogg's one) will be rushing back home. Or maybe not.
Good to see British hypocrisy is still a thing.
It's not just the UK that has been getting ripped off. I dare say many national governments in the EU will be grinning about this as well.
They'll be grinning on the other side of their face if Ireland becomes relatively poor again and they have to fund it (again). Let's see how much extra tax revenue this actually disgorges rather than the hype.
If what we hear from the propagandists is true then I assume that post Brexit UK got shat on at the G7 whilst Ireland, as part of the EU, simply came, saw and conquered.
Is that true? Or.. was it slightly different?
Ireland. Lol. Normally I don't give enough of a shit about Ireland for it to register, on tax they are parasites that leech off the UK economy.
Yeah - because of course the U.K. never leached off and exploited Ireland for centuries.
Oh wait .... it did.
Ireland did no more and no less than what all those British Overseas Territories were encouraged to do by the U.K. government when they could no longer sell bananas.
No doubt all those asset management companies set up in Dublin (like Rees-Mogg's one) will be rushing back home. Or maybe not.
Good to see British hypocrisy is still a thing.
Yeah, I guess the crusades also give Islamists justification to commit acts of terror, by that logic.
Yeah: because passing laws to encourage companies to set up in a country (something which is the current British government's stated policy) is the same as acts of terrorist violence.
Of course it is. Silly me. Still I must have confused you with that other MaxPB who on this very forum not so long ago was praising Britain for speaking to pharma companies and others to lure them away from the EU and set up here because Britain was a much friendlier place with all those tax advantages it was offering for investment and research.
If only British hypocrisy could be bottled and sold, Britain would be the richest country in the world by far.
That seems like an overreaction to an analogy, even if you consider it a poor analogy. I don't think anyone would have taken it as a literal statement, so treating it as though it was isn't credible and comes across itself as an intention distraction. He clearly referenced the logic of your argument applying to a ridiculous scenario, he didn't say they were the same in nature as you then imply.
Your statement in effect seemed to justify what was claimed to be poor actions by Ireland by engaging in whataboutery in reference to British actions, as though a poor action by one party justifies a poor action by another.
I don't see what is unreasonable in pointing out that argument is nonsense. British actions don't become ok merely because someone else does it, and Irish actions don't become ok just because Britain has done bad things too.
Whataboutery is whataboutery, whoever tries to use it.
Agreed - but hey this is the UK under a Tory government - god forbid it should ever get praise.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
Historically there hs been far more antisemitism in the Tory party.
Listen chummy.. we are talking now not 1800s its your party that is antisemitic.
I belong to no party, but am well aware as to which of the major parties contained significant apolgists for Hitler in the 1930s - and were keen to strike a deal with him. It was the same party which was still riddled with racists in the 1960s and 70s - and many of whose members openly sympathised with Apartheid in South Africa and Ian Smith's repulsive regime in Rhodesia. As late as 1997 the Tories had an MP who had called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged - a message which many Tories were happy to openly display on their T Shirts.
Maggie was responsible for getting rid of Ian Smith and installing Robert Mugabe, you should be praising her
This interview with Smith is fascinating I think. A lot of the Firing Line series on YouTube are worth watching if you like political interviews about politics rather than the politicians.
At the 1978 Tory Conference Thatcher openly appauded speeches from the delegates supportive of Smith. The Shadow Foreign Secretary - John Davies - was loudly heckled when he failed to adopt the same tone.
Because who someone applauds is much more important than what they do.
Openly applauded though - it would have been fine to applaud behind a curtain
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
Historically there hs been far more antisemitism in the Tory party.
Listen chummy.. we are talking now not 1800s its your party that is antisemitic.
I belong to no party, but am well aware as to which of the major parties contained significant apolgists for Hitler in the 1930s - and were keen to strike a deal with him. It was the same party which was still riddled with racists in the 1960s and 70s - and many of whose members openly sympathised with Apartheid in South Africa and Ian Smith's repulsive regime in Rhodesia. As late as 1997 the Tories had an MP who had called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged - a message which many Tories were happy to openly display on their T Shirts.
Maggie was responsible for getting rid of Ian Smith and installing Robert Mugabe, you should be praising her
This interview with Smith is fascinating I think. A lot of the Firing Line series on YouTube are worth watching if you like political interviews about politics rather than the politicians.
Ian Smith was electorally defeated in April 1979, before Thatcher was PM, leading to the shortlived country of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. The reality was that the Rhodesian regime had been been militarily defeated by the ZANU guerrillas before then.
That Firing Line interview us from 1971 I think. Maybe he’s just lying but he doesn’t seem to be to be racist to me, and the black people in Rhodesia were better off than they became Zimbabwe, as he predicted
The Indy obit of Smith isn’t that damning considering
Racists with table manners will often not seem to be racist in a formal interview situation. You need to observe them when they're kicking back and think they're safe. Look for 'tells'. Catch them that way. I'll give you lessons if you like. It's a hobby of mine. I enjoy the activity and (maybe because of this) I'm quite good at it.
Just out of curiosity - what is your view on the Chinese government? racist or antiracist?
I note the joint position by #G7 finance ministers on international corporate taxation. It is in everyone’s interest to achieve a sustainable, ambitious and equitable agreement on the international tax architecture.
I look forward now to engaging in the discussions at @OECD. There are 139 countries at the table, and any agreement will have to meet the needs of small and large countries, developed and developing.
Fuck them. Ireland are a parasite economy, ultimately what are they doing to do when this is implemented? Their objection can be ignored.
Yep, bollocks to them. They are partly the reason why this is coming into being
More likely it's the US wanting to get hold of the tax revenues. I am probably over-cynical but I wonder how much extra tax revenue countries like the U.K. will actually get from the likes of Google and co?
You are being cynical. The whole reason rishi held out for the digital services part was to avoid that situation where the US does fine but no one else does. It's taking aim at the likes of Apple, Google and others who use Ireland to shelter their UK profits from the taxman.
Let's see what it will mean in practice.
There's a touch of a "what a brilliant Budget!" going on at the moment. Followed by a more sober analysis days later I hope.
I hope it works. The companies are parasites - far more than Ireland (which is doing what any historically poor country will do - use whatever it can to its advantage, especially if this is at the expense of a larger neighbour which exploited and impoverished it over centuries) - and need to be taken several pegs or more.
Not just on tax either. They are far too powerful monopolies. Anti-trust action needs to be taken. What are the chances of that I wonder.
I’m surprised you’d turn a blind eye to Ireland’s culpability. It’s the same as a team leader permitting wrong doing because it makes a positive contribution to the P&L.
Facilitating tax minimisation through sweetheart deals is parasitic.
What is the culpability? Precisely? What law has Ireland broken? What has Ireland done that no other country- including Britain - has not done or tried to do? Go on: let's have the details.
You are assuming that Britain had some automatic right to this money. It didn't. The tax laws in this country have long been structured in such a way as to make it attractive for companies to operate here. Other countries do the same. Some of those laws even benefited companies in the City. Britain is no stranger to doing sweetheart deals on tax with companies. Or to using its own tax havens to make itself attractive. Its complaint boils down to the fact that Ireland was better at it.
If Britain had been in the EU and this was a proposal from the Commission to alter Britain's tax laws so that the French, say, got more of our City tax revenues you and @MaxPB would be complaining bitterly.
Now the laws are being changed. Good. I hope they work. I will wait for the detail of what the laws will say rather than a press release which means jack shit in the real world.
I have no time for these big monopolistic companies who really are parasitic on the work of others and do not contribute to the societies in which they operate. But I can smell British hypocrisy about and condescension to Ireland a mile off.
Oh dear. Your hope doesn't sound too sincere does it?
I note the joint position by #G7 finance ministers on international corporate taxation. It is in everyone’s interest to achieve a sustainable, ambitious and equitable agreement on the international tax architecture.
I look forward now to engaging in the discussions at @OECD. There are 139 countries at the table, and any agreement will have to meet the needs of small and large countries, developed and developing.
Fuck them. Ireland are a parasite economy, ultimately what are they doing to do when this is implemented? Their objection can be ignored.
Yep, bollocks to them. They are partly the reason why this is coming into being
More likely it's the US wanting to get hold of the tax revenues. I am probably over-cynical but I wonder how much extra tax revenue countries like the U.K. will actually get from the likes of Google and co?
You are being cynical. The whole reason rishi held out for the digital services part was to avoid that situation where the US does fine but no one else does. It's taking aim at the likes of Apple, Google and others who use Ireland to shelter their UK profits from the taxman.
Let's see what it will mean in practice.
There's a touch of a "what a brilliant Budget!" going on at the moment. Followed by a more sober analysis days later I hope.
I hope it works. The companies are parasites - far more than Ireland (which is doing what any historically poor country will do - use whatever it can to its advantage, especially if this is at the expense of a larger neighbour which exploited and impoverished it over centuries) - and need to be taken several pegs or more.
Not just on tax either. They are far too powerful monopolies. Anti-trust action needs to be taken. What are the chances of that I wonder.
I’m surprised you’d turn a blind eye to Ireland’s culpability. It’s the same as a team leader permitting wrong doing because it makes a positive contribution to the P&L.
Facilitating tax minimisation through sweetheart deals is parasitic.
What is the culpability? Precisely? What law has Ireland broken? What has Ireland done that no other country- including Britain - has not done or tried to do? Go on: let's have the details.
You are assuming that Britain had some automatic right to this money. It didn't. The tax laws in this country have long been structured in such a way as to make it attractive for companies to operate here. Other countries do the same. Some of those laws even benefited companies in the City. Britain is no stranger to doing sweetheart deals on tax with companies. Or to using its own tax havens to make itself attractive. Its complaint boils down to the fact that Ireland was better at it.
If Britain had been in the EU and this was a proposal from the Commission to alter Britain's tax laws so that the French, say, got more of our City tax revenues you and @MaxPB would be complaining bitterly.
Now the laws are being changed. Good. I hope they work. I will wait for the detail of what the laws will say rather than a press release which means jack shit in the real world.
I have no time for these big monopolistic companies who really are parasitic on the work of others and do not contribute to the societies in which they operate. But I can smell British hypocrisy about and condescension to Ireland a mile off.
Becuase the fucking money is being spent here. A UK consumer spends £1000 on an iPhone with a 30% operating margin. Apple books that margin in Ireland with spurious IP licencing schemes from Apple UK to Apple Ireland where it has a sweetheart deal to pay an effective rate of 0.75%, thus avoiding 18.25% in tax on that profit.
If Ireland wants to charge 0.75% tax on iPhones sold in Ireland that's their business. Destroying the tax base of the countries surrounding is why we have these new rules coming in. It's not just the UK that suffers. France, Germany, Italy and other European countries also take a huge hit when multinationals enjoy a strong business environment created by the state and then use tax sheltering to avoid paying for it.
Honestly, this feels like one of those moments where because you don't like the messenger you've decided that this must be bad and that Ireland are the virtuous party and must be right. Ireland are nothing more than a tax parasite in Europe, whatever the UK did to them hundreds of years ago is completely irrelevant.
It’s 30 years since as FD of a Japanese multinational in the U.K. I had to deal with a major investigation from HMRC International Division on transfer pricing - in the days before self assessment of corporation tax. A spurious IP deal wouldn’t have cut the mustard and profits and tax adjusted plus penalties if you tried to resist too hard. Genuine question, has that changed now or are the Apple tax lawyers just a lot better than in the old days?
Yeah - because of course the U.K. never leached off and exploited Ireland for centuries.
Oh wait .... it did.
Ireland did no more and no less than what all those British Overseas Territories were encouraged to do by the U.K. government when they could no longer sell bananas.
No doubt all those asset management companies set up in Dublin (like Rees-Mogg's one) will be rushing back home. Or maybe not.
Good to see British hypocrisy is still a thing.
It's not just the UK that has been getting ripped off. I dare say many national governments in the EU will be grinning about this as well.
They'll be grinning on the other side of their face if Ireland becomes relatively poor again and they have to fund it (again). Let's see how much extra tax revenue this actually disgorges rather than the hype.
If what we hear from the propagandists is true then I assume that post Brexit UK got shat on at the G7 whilst Ireland, as part of the EU, simply came, saw and conquered.
Is that true? Or.. was it slightly different?
Ireland. Lol. Normally I don't give enough of a shit about Ireland for it to register, on tax they are parasites that leech off the UK economy.
Yeah - because of course the U.K. never leached off and exploited Ireland for centuries.
Oh wait .... it did.
Ireland did no more and no less than what all those British Overseas Territories were encouraged to do by the U.K. government when they could no longer sell bananas.
No doubt all those asset management companies set up in Dublin (like Rees-Mogg's one) will be rushing back home. Or maybe not.
Good to see British hypocrisy is still a thing.
Yeah, I guess the crusades also give Islamists justification to commit acts of terror, by that logic.
Yeah: because passing laws to encourage companies to set up in a country (something which is the current British government's stated policy) is the same as acts of terrorist violence.
Of course it is. Silly me. Still I must have confused you with that other MaxPB who on this very forum not so long ago was praising Britain for speaking to pharma companies and others to lure them away from the EU and set up here because Britain was a much friendlier place with all those tax advantages it was offering for investment and research.
If only British hypocrisy could be bottled and sold, Britain would be the richest country in the world by far.
As always you miss the point. You said that Ireland leeching off the UK is justified because of historical actions. It's the same stupid argument Islamists put forwards when they try and justify acts of terrorism today based on the crusades.
On your other points, when have I ever advocated for a 0.75% effective tax rate and for companies to transfer profits from other countries into the UK to avoid paying it where the business is being generated? I'd very much like to see you find anything I've written in favour of that because it doesn't exist. I've always been in favour of low but fair taxes. Our 19% rate is a low but fair tax rate. Encouraging businesses to come to the UK to set up shop, create jobs, create value and export is absolutely something we need to encourage. If the government were pursuing companies to domicile themselves here for tax with brass plate companies like Ireland you'd absolutely see me call the out on it. To my knowledge the government doesn't do this and it expects companies who relocate to the UK to actually conduct business here. Not like Google who do almost all of their European business in the UK but book almost all of the profit in Ireland.
It is corporate welfare of the worst kind and the worst part is that Ireland doesn't even gain many jobs from it because it's the land of tax domiciled holding companies with brass plates.
Do I want companies to move to the UK? Absolutely. I want them here to create high value jobs, to create new and interesting products and services that we can export and to support the wider economy. No one in the world benefits from Apple paying a net rate of 0.75% corporate tax in Europe. Not a single fucking person.
No. You misunderstand as usual.
1. I don't think Ireland was leeching off Britain or being parasitic. I don't accept the premise that this was somehow Britain's money which Ireland was stealing. 2. Britain did exploit Ireland for centuries. 3. I hope these monopolistic companies get broken up and pay a proper rate of tax. I hope this agreement really works and it is the start of a process not the end of it. I think it far too soon to celebrate because the detail of exactly how these new laws will work matter and, so far (may be it's too soon) no-one has been able to answer my 4 questions above. 4. Brass plate companies: let's look at the way vast numbers of British registered companies are used in so many scams and by so many dodgy people to launder and hide money. Britain's record on clamping down on the abuses or to take steps to make the misuse of companies incorporated here is pretty poor frankly. It has an absolute brass neck criticising others on this score. So let's hear Rishi call that out. Or - even better - do something about it.
What a load of bollocks.
Can you please explain exactly what Apple Ireland are doing for their IP licencing to Apple UK/Germany/France/Italy?
The money is spent here, the business is carried out here (Apple UK serves as the functional HQ for Apple in Europe) and the tax is paid at a rate of 0.75% on Ireland.
You have got zero understanding of how these Irish tax dodges work, clearly and are now casting about to try and make it look like you do.
The reason these companies are so gigantic is because none of them pay any bloody tax which means they can sit on hundreds of billions in cash to then use to buy or destroy any competitors before they even become close to being a serious company. That's how Google maintain their monopoly, they buy smaller companies that might one day threaten their core business of search and advertising and becuase the company they are buying has no market share it doesn't come under the purview of competition authorities.
You need to get real about how these companies operate and just how much they are facilitated by Ireland. Without that tax deal Apple would have paid around £30bn on taxes to various countries across Europe over the last decade. Except they didn't, they got to keep their cash and become even bigger and crowd out the market to an even greater extent.
So that country you're so happily absolving becuase of historical actions by Britain is one of the major factors in these companies maintaining their monopoly status. They have got these billions to spare and snuff out the competition because they don't pay any tax in Europe.
I note the joint position by #G7 finance ministers on international corporate taxation. It is in everyone’s interest to achieve a sustainable, ambitious and equitable agreement on the international tax architecture.
I look forward now to engaging in the discussions at @OECD. There are 139 countries at the table, and any agreement will have to meet the needs of small and large countries, developed and developing.
Fuck them. Ireland are a parasite economy, ultimately what are they doing to do when this is implemented? Their objection can be ignored.
Yep, bollocks to them. They are partly the reason why this is coming into being
More likely it's the US wanting to get hold of the tax revenues. I am probably over-cynical but I wonder how much extra tax revenue countries like the U.K. will actually get from the likes of Google and co?
You are being cynical. The whole reason rishi held out for the digital services part was to avoid that situation where the US does fine but no one else does. It's taking aim at the likes of Apple, Google and others who use Ireland to shelter their UK profits from the taxman.
Let's see what it will mean in practice.
There's a touch of a "what a brilliant Budget!" going on at the moment. Followed by a more sober analysis days later I hope.
I hope it works. The companies are parasites - far more than Ireland (which is doing what any historically poor country will do - use whatever it can to its advantage, especially if this is at the expense of a larger neighbour which exploited and impoverished it over centuries) - and need to be taken several pegs or more.
Not just on tax either. They are far too powerful monopolies. Anti-trust action needs to be taken. What are the chances of that I wonder.
I’m surprised you’d turn a blind eye to Ireland’s culpability. It’s the same as a team leader permitting wrong doing because it makes a positive contribution to the P&L.
Facilitating tax minimisation through sweetheart deals is parasitic.
What is the culpability? Precisely? What law has Ireland broken? What has Ireland done that no other country- including Britain - has not done or tried to do? Go on: let's have the details.
You are assuming that Britain had some automatic right to this money. It didn't. The tax laws in this country have long been structured in such a way as to make it attractive for companies to operate here. Other countries do the same. Some of those laws even benefited companies in the City. Britain is no stranger to doing sweetheart deals on tax with companies. Or to using its own tax havens to make itself attractive. Its complaint boils down to the fact that Ireland was better at it.
If Britain had been in the EU and this was a proposal from the Commission to alter Britain's tax laws so that the French, say, got more of our City tax revenues you and @MaxPB would be complaining bitterly.
Now the laws are being changed. Good. I hope they work. I will wait for the detail of what the laws will say rather than a press release which means jack shit in the real world.
I have no time for these big monopolistic companies who really are parasitic on the work of others and do not contribute to the societies in which they operate. But I can smell British hypocrisy about and condescension to Ireland a mile off.
Becuase the fucking money is being spent here. A UK consumer spends £1000 on an iPhone with a 30% operating margin. Apple books that margin in Ireland with spurious IP licencing schemes from Apple UK to Apple Ireland where it has a sweetheart deal to pay an effective rate of 0.75%, thus avoiding 18.25% in tax on that profit.
If Ireland wants to charge 0.75% tax on iPhones sold in Ireland that's their business. Destroying the tax base of the countries surrounding is why we have these new rules coming in. It's not just the UK that suffers. France, Germany, Italy and other European countries also take a huge hit when multinationals enjoy a strong business environment created by the state and then use tax sheltering to avoid paying for it.
Honestly, this feels like one of those moments where because you don't like the messenger you've decided that this must be bad and that Ireland are the virtuous party and must be right. Ireland are nothing more than a tax parasite in Europe, whatever the UK did to them hundreds of years ago is completely irrelevant.
It’s 30 years since as FD of a Japanese multinational in the U.K. I had to deal with a major investigation from HMRC International Division on transfer pricing - in the days before self assessment of corporation tax. A spurious IP deal wouldn’t have cut the mustard and profits and tax adjusted plus penalties if you tried to resist too hard. Genuine question, has that changed now or are the Apple tax lawyers just a lot better than in the old days?
Countries act in their best interest. I don’t blame the Irish for attracting multinationals with generous tax treatment or others for making life difficult for those multinationals.
I note the joint position by #G7 finance ministers on international corporate taxation. It is in everyone’s interest to achieve a sustainable, ambitious and equitable agreement on the international tax architecture.
I look forward now to engaging in the discussions at @OECD. There are 139 countries at the table, and any agreement will have to meet the needs of small and large countries, developed and developing.
Fuck them. Ireland are a parasite economy, ultimately what are they doing to do when this is implemented? Their objection can be ignored.
Yep, bollocks to them. They are partly the reason why this is coming into being
More likely it's the US wanting to get hold of the tax revenues. I am probably over-cynical but I wonder how much extra tax revenue countries like the U.K. will actually get from the likes of Google and co?
You are being cynical. The whole reason rishi held out for the digital services part was to avoid that situation where the US does fine but no one else does. It's taking aim at the likes of Apple, Google and others who use Ireland to shelter their UK profits from the taxman.
Let's see what it will mean in practice.
There's a touch of a "what a brilliant Budget!" going on at the moment. Followed by a more sober analysis days later I hope.
I hope it works. The companies are parasites - far more than Ireland (which is doing what any historically poor country will do - use whatever it can to its advantage, especially if this is at the expense of a larger neighbour which exploited and impoverished it over centuries) - and need to be taken several pegs or more.
Not just on tax either. They are far too powerful monopolies. Anti-trust action needs to be taken. What are the chances of that I wonder.
I’m surprised you’d turn a blind eye to Ireland’s culpability. It’s the same as a team leader permitting wrong doing because it makes a positive contribution to the P&L.
Facilitating tax minimisation through sweetheart deals is parasitic.
What is the culpability? Precisely? What law has Ireland broken? What has Ireland done that no other country- including Britain - has not done or tried to do? Go on: let's have the details.
You are assuming that Britain had some automatic right to this money. It didn't. The tax laws in this country have long been structured in such a way as to make it attractive for companies to operate here. Other countries do the same. Some of those laws even benefited companies in the City. Britain is no stranger to doing sweetheart deals on tax with companies. Or to using its own tax havens to make itself attractive. Its complaint boils down to the fact that Ireland was better at it.
If Britain had been in the EU and this was a proposal from the Commission to alter Britain's tax laws so that the French, say, got more of our City tax revenues you and @MaxPB would be complaining bitterly.
Now the laws are being changed. Good. I hope they work. I will wait for the detail of what the laws will say rather than a press release which means jack shit in the real world.
I have no time for these big monopolistic companies who really are parasitic on the work of others and do not contribute to the societies in which they operate. But I can smell British hypocrisy about and condescension to Ireland a mile off.
Becuase the fucking money is being spent here. A UK consumer spends £1000 on an iPhone with a 30% operating margin. Apple books that margin in Ireland with spurious IP licencing schemes from Apple UK to Apple Ireland where it has a sweetheart deal to pay an effective rate of 0.75%, thus avoiding 18.25% in tax on that profit.
If Ireland wants to charge 0.75% tax on iPhones sold in Ireland that's their business. Destroying the tax base of the countries surrounding is why we have these new rules coming in. It's not just the UK that suffers. France, Germany, Italy and other European countries also take a huge hit when multinationals enjoy a strong business environment created by the state and then use tax sheltering to avoid paying for it.
Honestly, this feels like one of those moments where because you don't like the messenger you've decided that this must be bad and that Ireland are the virtuous party and must be right. Ireland are nothing more than a tax parasite in Europe, whatever the UK did to them hundreds of years ago is completely irrelevant.
It’s 30 years since as FD of a Japanese multinational in the U.K. I had to deal with a major investigation from HMRC International Division on transfer pricing - in the days before self assessment of corporation tax. A spurious IP deal wouldn’t have cut the mustard and profits and tax adjusted plus penalties if you tried to resist too hard. Genuine question, has that changed now or are the Apple tax lawyers just a lot better than in the old days?
Very good lawyers.
I guess a 30billion tax avoidance pays for the best... and to be fair the best HMRC transfer pricing specialists didn’t stay on that side of the fence very long...
I note the joint position by #G7 finance ministers on international corporate taxation. It is in everyone’s interest to achieve a sustainable, ambitious and equitable agreement on the international tax architecture.
I look forward now to engaging in the discussions at @OECD. There are 139 countries at the table, and any agreement will have to meet the needs of small and large countries, developed and developing.
Fuck them. Ireland are a parasite economy, ultimately what are they doing to do when this is implemented? Their objection can be ignored.
Yep, bollocks to them. They are partly the reason why this is coming into being
More likely it's the US wanting to get hold of the tax revenues. I am probably over-cynical but I wonder how much extra tax revenue countries like the U.K. will actually get from the likes of Google and co?
You are being cynical. The whole reason rishi held out for the digital services part was to avoid that situation where the US does fine but no one else does. It's taking aim at the likes of Apple, Google and others who use Ireland to shelter their UK profits from the taxman.
Let's see what it will mean in practice.
There's a touch of a "what a brilliant Budget!" going on at the moment. Followed by a more sober analysis days later I hope.
I hope it works. The companies are parasites - far more than Ireland (which is doing what any historically poor country will do - use whatever it can to its advantage, especially if this is at the expense of a larger neighbour which exploited and impoverished it over centuries) - and need to be taken several pegs or more.
Not just on tax either. They are far too powerful monopolies. Anti-trust action needs to be taken. What are the chances of that I wonder.
I’m surprised you’d turn a blind eye to Ireland’s culpability. It’s the same as a team leader permitting wrong doing because it makes a positive contribution to the P&L.
Facilitating tax minimisation through sweetheart deals is parasitic.
What is the culpability? Precisely? What law has Ireland broken? What has Ireland done that no other country- including Britain - has not done or tried to do? Go on: let's have the details.
You are assuming that Britain had some automatic right to this money. It didn't. The tax laws in this country have long been structured in such a way as to make it attractive for companies to operate here. Other countries do the same. Some of those laws even benefited companies in the City. Britain is no stranger to doing sweetheart deals on tax with companies. Or to using its own tax havens to make itself attractive. Its complaint boils down to the fact that Ireland was better at it.
If Britain had been in the EU and this was a proposal from the Commission to alter Britain's tax laws so that the French, say, got more of our City tax revenues you and @MaxPB would be complaining bitterly.
Now the laws are being changed. Good. I hope they work. I will wait for the detail of what the laws will say rather than a press release which means jack shit in the real world.
I have no time for these big monopolistic companies who really are parasitic on the work of others and do not contribute to the societies in which they operate. But I can smell British hypocrisy about and condescension to Ireland a mile off.
Your defence of Ireland's tax regime is a bit odd tbh.
The argument seems to be that people are being harsh on Ireland because others including Britain have acted the same now or in the past.
I really don't see what that has to do with anything. For someone hot on standards and probity 'others were doing it too' seems an odd way to complain about the proposals to now, apparently, do something about it.
So nations are being hypocritical about it, so what? Are the proposals themselves fair seems to be what matters.
Once again - what rule or law or moral standard has Ireland broken?
The US has the State of Delaware - its very own onshore tax haven. Britain has any number of tax havens. Ditto the Nether lands. Etc.
All countries use tax laws to make themselves attractive. Ireland did it to a high degree for reasons of its own. I do not particularly approve - not because I dislike tax competition. I think that within reason that's a good thing.
But mainly because I think it dangerous to allow companies to grow into the sort of monopolistic super-companies we have today with far too much power over our lives. Far more should be done to break them up. Tax is the very least of the issues their growing monopolistic power raises. I notice that no-one has engaged with this aspect of my comments at all. Odd.
Glad to see a start has been made.
But spare me the outrage at Ireland's behaviour please. It sits ill coming from those ready to cheer a government willing to openly break its own laws and deals to get its own way.
Countries act in their best interest. I don’t blame the Irish for attracting multinationals with generous tax treatment or others for making life difficult for those multinationals.
The problem I have with it is to what end? Apple UK and Google UK still serve as the functional HQ for the two companies so it's not as if they got a whole bunch of jobs out of it.
I note the joint position by #G7 finance ministers on international corporate taxation. It is in everyone’s interest to achieve a sustainable, ambitious and equitable agreement on the international tax architecture.
I look forward now to engaging in the discussions at @OECD. There are 139 countries at the table, and any agreement will have to meet the needs of small and large countries, developed and developing.
Fuck them. Ireland are a parasite economy, ultimately what are they doing to do when this is implemented? Their objection can be ignored.
Yep, bollocks to them. They are partly the reason why this is coming into being
More likely it's the US wanting to get hold of the tax revenues. I am probably over-cynical but I wonder how much extra tax revenue countries like the U.K. will actually get from the likes of Google and co?
You are being cynical. The whole reason rishi held out for the digital services part was to avoid that situation where the US does fine but no one else does. It's taking aim at the likes of Apple, Google and others who use Ireland to shelter their UK profits from the taxman.
Let's see what it will mean in practice.
There's a touch of a "what a brilliant Budget!" going on at the moment. Followed by a more sober analysis days later I hope.
I hope it works. The companies are parasites - far more than Ireland (which is doing what any historically poor country will do - use whatever it can to its advantage, especially if this is at the expense of a larger neighbour which exploited and impoverished it over centuries) - and need to be taken several pegs or more.
Not just on tax either. They are far too powerful monopolies. Anti-trust action needs to be taken. What are the chances of that I wonder.
I’m surprised you’d turn a blind eye to Ireland’s culpability. It’s the same as a team leader permitting wrong doing because it makes a positive contribution to the P&L.
Facilitating tax minimisation through sweetheart deals is parasitic.
I'm not proud of all of the UK's record in Ireland but I'm also not responsible for it.
Ireland is the only country in the world to which the UK grants full rights, and it deserved a slightly more mature response on Brexit than it got.
They certainly were not obliged to, but whilst responsibility for its own actions obviously falls on the UK, I do wonder what the crowd pleasing put downs and asides of Barnier and Coveney got them in the end. I guess the EU and Ireland are happier with the NI protocol situation than the UK, so it counts as a win?
Well, it's politically unsustainable and will be unilaterally disavowed unless they show some pragmatism so I'd say it's too early to say on that front.
I think it was a huge mistake to use NI to play games over Brexit, but it doesn't stop people trying.
It is worth remembering that the greatest profit stealing trick in the world - the debt for equity one - is completely unaffected by this. Private Equity has, as always, paid its lobbyists well.
So long as the entity that is lending the money is off-shore (and therefore the interest income is untaxed), then unlimited sums of money can be efficiently diverted by the simple expedient of making sure interest payments equal pretax profit.
It is worth remembering that the greatest profit stealing trick in the world - the debt for equity one - is completely unaffected by this. Private Equity has, as always, paid its lobbyists well.
So long as the entity that is lending the money is off-shore (and therefore the interest income is untaxed), then unlimited sums of money can be efficiently diverted by the simple expedient of making sure interest payments equal pretax profit.
Tbh, I think the whole concept of the leverage buy out needs looking at. It's a complete scam.
Yeah - because of course the U.K. never leached off and exploited Ireland for centuries.
Oh wait .... it did.
Ireland did no more and no less than what all those British Overseas Territories were encouraged to do by the U.K. government when they could no longer sell bananas.
No doubt all those asset management companies set up in Dublin (like Rees-Mogg's one) will be rushing back home. Or maybe not.
Good to see British hypocrisy is still a thing.
It's not just the UK that has been getting ripped off. I dare say many national governments in the EU will be grinning about this as well.
They'll be grinning on the other side of their face if Ireland becomes relatively poor again and they have to fund it (again). Let's see how much extra tax revenue this actually disgorges rather than the hype.
If what we hear from the propagandists is true then I assume that post Brexit UK got shat on at the G7 whilst Ireland, as part of the EU, simply came, saw and conquered.
Is that true? Or.. was it slightly different?
Ireland. Lol. Normally I don't give enough of a shit about Ireland for it to register, on tax they are parasites that leech off the UK economy.
Yeah - because of course the U.K. never leached off and exploited Ireland for centuries.
Oh wait .... it did.
Ireland did no more and no less than what all those British Overseas Territories were encouraged to do by the U.K. government when they could no longer sell bananas.
No doubt all those asset management companies set up in Dublin (like Rees-Mogg's one) will be rushing back home. Or maybe not.
Good to see British hypocrisy is still a thing.
Yeah, I guess the crusades also give Islamists justification to commit acts of terror, by that logic.
Yeah: because passing laws to encourage companies to set up in a country (something which is the current British government's stated policy) is the same as acts of terrorist violence.
Of course it is. Silly me. Still I must have confused you with that other MaxPB who on this very forum not so long ago was praising Britain for speaking to pharma companies and others to lure them away from the EU and set up here because Britain was a much friendlier place with all those tax advantages it was offering for investment and research.
If only British hypocrisy could be bottled and sold, Britain would be the richest country in the world by far.
As always you miss the point. You said that Ireland leeching off the UK is justified because of historical actions. It's the same stupid argument Islamists put forwards when they try and justify acts of terrorism today based on the crusades.
On your other points, when have I ever advocated for a 0.75% effective tax rate and for companies to transfer profits from other countries into the UK to avoid paying it where the business is being generated? I'd very much like to see you find anything I've written in favour of that because it doesn't exist. I've always been in favour of low but fair taxes. Our 19% rate is a low but fair tax rate. Encouraging businesses to come to the UK to set up shop, create jobs, create value and export is absolutely something we need to encourage. If the government were pursuing companies to domicile themselves here for tax with brass plate companies like Ireland you'd absolutely see me call the out on it. To my knowledge the government doesn't do this and it expects companies who relocate to the UK to actually conduct business here. Not like Google who do almost all of their European business in the UK but book almost all of the profit in Ireland.
It is corporate welfare of the worst kind and the worst part is that Ireland doesn't even gain many jobs from it because it's the land of tax domiciled holding companies with brass plates.
Do I want companies to move to the UK? Absolutely. I want them here to create high value jobs, to create new and interesting products and services that we can export and to support the wider economy. No one in the world benefits from Apple paying a net rate of 0.75% corporate tax in Europe. Not a single fucking person.
No. You misunderstand as usual.
1. I don't think Ireland was leeching off Britain or being parasitic. I don't accept the premise that this was somehow Britain's money which Ireland was stealing. 2. Britain did exploit Ireland for centuries. 3. I hope these monopolistic companies get broken up and pay a proper rate of tax. I hope this agreement really works and it is the start of a process not the end of it. I think it far too soon to celebrate because the detail of exactly how these new laws will work matter and, so far (may be it's too soon) no-one has been able to answer my 4 questions above. 4. Brass plate companies: let's look at the way vast numbers of British registered companies are used in so many scams and by so many dodgy people to launder and hide money. Britain's record on clamping down on the abuses or to take steps to make the misuse of companies incorporated here is pretty poor frankly. It has an absolute brass neck criticising others on this score. So let's hear Rishi call that out. Or - even better - do something about it.
What a load of bollocks.
Can you please explain exactly what Apple Ireland are doing for their IP licencing to Apple UK/Germany/France/Italy?
The money is spent here, the business is carried out here (Apple UK serves as the functional HQ for Apple in Europe) and the tax is paid at a rate of 0.75% on Ireland.
You have got zero understanding of how these Irish tax dodges work, clearly and are now casting about to try and make it look like you do.
The reason these companies are so gigantic is because none of them pay any bloody tax which means they can sit on hundreds of billions in cash to then use to buy or destroy any competitors before they even become close to being a serious company. That's how Google maintain their monopoly, they buy smaller companies that might one day threaten their core business of search and advertising and becuase the company they are buying has no market share it doesn't come under the purview of competition authorities.
You need to get real about how these companies operate and just how much they are facilitated by Ireland. Without that tax deal Apple would have paid around £30bn on taxes to various countries across Europe over the last decade. Except they didn't, they got to keep their cash and become even bigger and crowd out the market to an even greater extent.
So that country you're so happily absolving becuase of historical actions by Britain is one of the major factors in these companies maintaining their monopoly status. They have got these billions to spare and snuff out the competition because they don't pay any tax in Europe.
Yeah - I know all that which is why I said from the start that I welcome these proposals and hope they go further. I am a little sceptical that they will work. But let's see.
Your point?
The reason the companies are not broken up is because the US has refused to take anti-trust action. A very great pity. Will this deal make this any more likely? I doubt it. A shame.
What I object to is your vituperative accusations against Ireland which are very similar to your vituperative accusations against landlords and similarly lacking in any actual analysis.
I will leave the last word to @Sean_F who put it very well upthread -
"Countries act in their best interest. I don’t blame the Irish for attracting multinationals with generous tax treatment or others for making life difficult for those multinationals."
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
Historically there hs been far more antisemitism in the Tory party.
Listen chummy.. we are talking now not 1800s its your party that is antisemitic.
I belong to no party, but am well aware as to which of the major parties contained significant apolgists for Hitler in the 1930s - and were keen to strike a deal with him. It was the same party which was still riddled with racists in the 1960s and 70s - and many of whose members openly sympathised with Apartheid in South Africa and Ian Smith's repulsive regime in Rhodesia. As late as 1997 the Tories had an MP who had called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged - a message which many Tories were happy to openly display on their T Shirts.
Maggie was responsible for getting rid of Ian Smith and installing Robert Mugabe, you should be praising her
This interview with Smith is fascinating I think. A lot of the Firing Line series on YouTube are worth watching if you like political interviews about politics rather than the politicians.
Ian Smith was electorally defeated in April 1979, before Thatcher was PM, leading to the shortlived country of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. The reality was that the Rhodesian regime had been been militarily defeated by the ZANU guerrillas before then.
It hadn't been militarily defeated by the ZANU guerillas it's just that it's strategic and economic position had become hopeless. It wasn't credible to resist them from a totally isolated position any longer given the geopolitical context.
Exactly. That is how a guerilla war ends, by making the continuation of the war impossible by the government.
Very much like the Peninsular campaign.
The war was winnable for the French, IMHO, and they came very close to winning it at the start of 1812, when they drove the Spanish out of Valencia and the Levante. But, they did not have the numbers to win it - and invade Russia at the same time. Had they focused just on Spain and Portugal, and committed perhaps another 50,000 soldiers (they had 350,000 at the beginning of 1812) they would have won - albeit at dreadful cost. Instead, they began withdrawing soldiers to fight in Russia, and the tide turned against them.
Marshal Suchet, who took Valencia, was easily the most talented of the French commanders, the only one who came out of Spain with his reputation enhanced, and probably not conincidentally, a man of utter ruthlessness and inhumanity. Guerilla campaigns are almost never sufficient to win, on their own. Almost always, the insurgents require the support of some external power.
Can you think of any examples where the insurgents have won on their own?
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
A big issue with military history is that so many primary published sources are written by soldiers eager to vindicate themselves and rubbish their colleagues.
Isn't that life?
The worst were probably the German generals after WW2, who asserted they’d have won the war but for Hitler, or bad weather, or mice eating the cables of tanks etc.
The really interesting question is what would have happened had the Nazis never launched Barbarossa and just been content with domination of western, central and south-eastern Europe.
I note the joint position by #G7 finance ministers on international corporate taxation. It is in everyone’s interest to achieve a sustainable, ambitious and equitable agreement on the international tax architecture.
I look forward now to engaging in the discussions at @OECD. There are 139 countries at the table, and any agreement will have to meet the needs of small and large countries, developed and developing.
Fuck them. Ireland are a parasite economy, ultimately what are they doing to do when this is implemented? Their objection can be ignored.
Yep, bollocks to them. They are partly the reason why this is coming into being
More likely it's the US wanting to get hold of the tax revenues. I am probably over-cynical but I wonder how much extra tax revenue countries like the U.K. will actually get from the likes of Google and co?
You are being cynical. The whole reason rishi held out for the digital services part was to avoid that situation where the US does fine but no one else does. It's taking aim at the likes of Apple, Google and others who use Ireland to shelter their UK profits from the taxman.
Let's see what it will mean in practice.
There's a touch of a "what a brilliant Budget!" going on at the moment. Followed by a more sober analysis days later I hope.
I hope it works. The companies are parasites - far more than Ireland (which is doing what any historically poor country will do - use whatever it can to its advantage, especially if this is at the expense of a larger neighbour which exploited and impoverished it over centuries) - and need to be taken several pegs or more.
Not just on tax either. They are far too powerful monopolies. Anti-trust action needs to be taken. What are the chances of that I wonder.
I’m surprised you’d turn a blind eye to Ireland’s culpability. It’s the same as a team leader permitting wrong doing because it makes a positive contribution to the P&L.
Facilitating tax minimisation through sweetheart deals is parasitic.
I'm not proud of all of the UK's record in Ireland but I'm also not responsible for it.
Ireland is the only country in the world to which the UK grants full rights, and it deserved a slightly more mature response on Brexit than it got.
1. I never said you were responsible. 2. Actually you're wrong: Irish citizens living in the U.K. have more rights than British citizens post-Brexit. Britain had no right to demand anything of Ireland. Nor did Ireland owe it anything at all. Britain made its decision for its own reasons. Ireland took its own decisions for its own interests. The fact that they did not suit Britain is too bad.
Still, it is quite funny to have people talk about a "mature response" on Brexit from a country which signed deals it did not understand, then tried to pass laws to break those deals because according to its own chief negotiator the deal was rubbish.
Must be some new meaning of "mature" I'm not au fait with.
No-one understood the history of Northern Ireland and the delicate nature of its peace process better than Ireland.
And yet, they insisted on aligning themselves wholesale with the EU and trying to use its heft to crowbar the UK into the softest Brexit possible - out of some weird historical desire for revenge - rather than coming up with a genuine solution to reset the GFA so it worked for both communities.
They knew full what that risked if it went wrong. That's their fault and theirs alone.
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
A big issue with military history is that so many primary published sources are written by soldiers eager to vindicate themselves and rubbish their colleagues.
Isn't that life?
The worst were probably the German generals after WW2, who asserted they’d have won the war but for Hitler, or bad weather, or mice eating the cables of tanks etc.
The really interesting question is what would have happened had the Nazis never launched Barbarossa and just been content with domination of western, central and south-eastern Europe.
They’d have run out of oil?
Romania? Should have been enough provided they were settled on a peace and not a war economy.
Of course, the problem is that Nazism was an ideology that demanded permanent expansion and conflict.
If what we hear from the propagandists is true then I assume that post Brexit UK got shat on at the G7 whilst Ireland, as part of the EU, simply came, saw and conquered.
Is that true? Or.. was it slightly different?
Ireland. Lol. Normally I don't give enough of a shit about Ireland for it to register, on tax they are parasites that leech off the UK economy.
I know sod all about Ireland but it does have Google's European HQ and Microsoft Azure cloud datacentres. I'd not be writing off the Irish economy just yet. Even without corporation tax advantages, it has taken over Britain's role as the English-speaking bridge to Europe.
Google’s location is tax driven
The data centres are geographically based - it’s the shortest route for expensive undersea cables to the US
We commit to reaching an equitable solution on the allocation of taxing rights, with market countries awarded taxing rights on at least 20% of profit exceeding a 10% margin for the largest and most profitable multinational enterprises. We will provide for appropriate coordination between the application of the new international tax rules and the removal of all Digital Services Taxes, and other relevant similar measures, on all companies. We also commit to a global minimum tax of at least 15% on a country by country basis. We agree on the importance of progressing agreement in parallel on both Pillars and look forward to reaching an agreement at the July meeting of G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors.
The fact that Biden and the Democrats are now in power in the US was pivotal in getting this minimum level of corporate tax agreement amongst the G7.
The fact that 4 out of 7 of the G7 leaders are now from the centre left (or backed by the centre left in Italy's case), Biden, Macron, Trudeau and Conte and Merkel is in coalition with the centre left SPD also meant the pressure was on the UK and Japan as the only G7 leaders with fully centre right governments left to give in and agree and they seem to have done so.
Yeah - because of course the U.K. never leached off and exploited Ireland for centuries.
Oh wait .... it did.
Ireland did no more and no less than what all those British Overseas Territories were encouraged to do by the U.K. government when they could no longer sell bananas.
No doubt all those asset management companies set up in Dublin (like Rees-Mogg's one) will be rushing back home. Or maybe not.
Good to see British hypocrisy is still a thing.
It's not just the UK that has been getting ripped off. I dare say many national governments in the EU will be grinning about this as well.
They'll be grinning on the other side of their face if Ireland becomes relatively poor again and they have to fund it (again). Let's see how much extra tax revenue this actually disgorges rather than the hype.
If what we hear from the propagandists is true then I assume that post Brexit UK got shat on at the G7 whilst Ireland, as part of the EU, simply came, saw and conquered.
Is that true? Or.. was it slightly different?
Ireland. Lol. Normally I don't give enough of a shit about Ireland for it to register, on tax they are parasites that leech off the UK economy.
Yeah - because of course the U.K. never leached off and exploited Ireland for centuries.
Oh wait .... it did.
Ireland did no more and no less than what all those British Overseas Territories were encouraged to do by the U.K. government when they could no longer sell bananas.
No doubt all those asset management companies set up in Dublin (like Rees-Mogg's one) will be rushing back home. Or maybe not.
Good to see British hypocrisy is still a thing.
Yeah, I guess the crusades also give Islamists justification to commit acts of terror, by that logic.
Yeah: because passing laws to encourage companies to set up in a country (something which is the current British government's stated policy) is the same as acts of terrorist violence.
Of course it is. Silly me. Still I must have confused you with that other MaxPB who on this very forum not so long ago was praising Britain for speaking to pharma companies and others to lure them away from the EU and set up here because Britain was a much friendlier place with all those tax advantages it was offering for investment and research.
If only British hypocrisy could be bottled and sold, Britain would be the richest country in the world by far.
As always you miss the point. You said that Ireland leeching off the UK is justified because of historical actions. It's the same stupid argument Islamists put forwards when they try and justify acts of terrorism today based on the crusades.
On your other points, when have I ever advocated for a 0.75% effective tax rate and for companies to transfer profits from other countries into the UK to avoid paying it where the business is being generated? I'd very much like to see you find anything I've written in favour of that because it doesn't exist. I've always been in favour of low but fair taxes. Our 19% rate is a low but fair tax rate. Encouraging businesses to come to the UK to set up shop, create jobs, create value and export is absolutely something we need to encourage. If the government were pursuing companies to domicile themselves here for tax with brass plate companies like Ireland you'd absolutely see me call the out on it. To my knowledge the government doesn't do this and it expects companies who relocate to the UK to actually conduct business here. Not like Google who do almost all of their European business in the UK but book almost all of the profit in Ireland.
It is corporate welfare of the worst kind and the worst part is that Ireland doesn't even gain many jobs from it because it's the land of tax domiciled holding companies with brass plates.
Do I want companies to move to the UK? Absolutely. I want them here to create high value jobs, to create new and interesting products and services that we can export and to support the wider economy. No one in the world benefits from Apple paying a net rate of 0.75% corporate tax in Europe. Not a single fucking person.
No. You misunderstand as usual.
1. I don't think Ireland was leeching off Britain or being parasitic. I don't accept the premise that this was somehow Britain's money which Ireland was stealing. 2. Britain did exploit Ireland for centuries. 3. I hope these monopolistic companies get broken up and pay a proper rate of tax. I hope this agreement really works and it is the start of a process not the end of it. I think it far too soon to celebrate because the detail of exactly how these new laws will work matter and, so far (may be it's too soon) no-one has been able to answer my 4 questions above. 4. Brass plate companies: let's look at the way vast numbers of British registered companies are used in so many scams and by so many dodgy people to launder and hide money. Britain's record on clamping down on the abuses or to take steps to make the misuse of companies incorporated here is pretty poor frankly. It has an absolute brass neck criticising others on this score. So let's hear Rishi call that out. Or - even better - do something about it.
What a load of bollocks.
Can you please explain exactly what Apple Ireland are doing for their IP licencing to Apple UK/Germany/France/Italy?
The money is spent here, the business is carried out here (Apple UK serves as the functional HQ for Apple in Europe) and the tax is paid at a rate of 0.75% on Ireland.
You have got zero understanding of how these Irish tax dodges work, clearly and are now casting about to try and make it look like you do.
The reason these companies are so gigantic is because none of them pay any bloody tax which means they can sit on hundreds of billions in cash to then use to buy or destroy any competitors before they even become close to being a serious company. That's how Google maintain their monopoly, they buy smaller companies that might one day threaten their core business of search and advertising and becuase the company they are buying has no market share it doesn't come under the purview of competition authorities.
You need to get real about how these companies operate and just how much they are facilitated by Ireland. Without that tax deal Apple would have paid around £30bn on taxes to various countries across Europe over the last decade. Except they didn't, they got to keep their cash and become even bigger and crowd out the market to an even greater extent.
So that country you're so happily absolving becuase of historical actions by Britain is one of the major factors in these companies maintaining their monopoly status. They have got these billions to spare and snuff out the competition because they don't pay any tax in Europe.
Yeah - I know all that which is why I said from the start that I welcome these proposals and hope they go further. I am a little sceptical that they will work. But let's see.
Your point?
The reason the companies are not broken up is because the US has refused to take anti-trust action. A very great pity. Will this deal make this any more likely? I doubt it. A shame.
What I object to is your vituperative accusations against Ireland which are very similar to your vituperative accusations against landlords and similarly lacking in any actual analysis.
I will leave the last word to @Sean_F who put it very well upthread -
"Countries act in their best interest. I don’t blame the Irish for attracting multinationals with generous tax treatment or others for making life difficult for those multinationals."
Your understanding of the dynamic of digital companies is clearly very limited. Your understanding of how Ireland has facilitated the US giants (Luxembourg in the case of Amazon) is basically zero.
Ultimately you're blinded by your hatred of Boris and this government so you've chosen to take the opposing side, in this case the enablers of tax evasion. It's just a little bit sad.
I note the joint position by #G7 finance ministers on international corporate taxation. It is in everyone’s interest to achieve a sustainable, ambitious and equitable agreement on the international tax architecture.
I look forward now to engaging in the discussions at @OECD. There are 139 countries at the table, and any agreement will have to meet the needs of small and large countries, developed and developing.
Fuck them. Ireland are a parasite economy, ultimately what are they doing to do when this is implemented? Their objection can be ignored.
Yep, bollocks to them. They are partly the reason why this is coming into being
More likely it's the US wanting to get hold of the tax revenues. I am probably over-cynical but I wonder how much extra tax revenue countries like the U.K. will actually get from the likes of Google and co?
You are being cynical. The whole reason rishi held out for the digital services part was to avoid that situation where the US does fine but no one else does. It's taking aim at the likes of Apple, Google and others who use Ireland to shelter their UK profits from the taxman.
Let's see what it will mean in practice.
There's a touch of a "what a brilliant Budget!" going on at the moment. Followed by a more sober analysis days later I hope.
I hope it works. The companies are parasites - far more than Ireland (which is doing what any historically poor country will do - use whatever it can to its advantage, especially if this is at the expense of a larger neighbour which exploited and impoverished it over centuries) - and need to be taken several pegs or more.
Not just on tax either. They are far too powerful monopolies. Anti-trust action needs to be taken. What are the chances of that I wonder.
I’m surprised you’d turn a blind eye to Ireland’s culpability. It’s the same as a team leader permitting wrong doing because it makes a positive contribution to the P&L.
Facilitating tax minimisation through sweetheart deals is parasitic.
I'm not proud of all of the UK's record in Ireland but I'm also not responsible for it.
Ireland is the only country in the world to which the UK grants full rights, and it deserved a slightly more mature response on Brexit than it got.
Ireland was doing fine (I qualify for an Irish passport although have chosen not take it up at the moment) until Varadkar decided transitory political advantage trumped peace.
We commit to reaching an equitable solution on the allocation of taxing rights, with market countries awarded taxing rights on at least 20% of profit exceeding a 10% margin for the largest and most profitable multinational enterprises. We will provide for appropriate coordination between the application of the new international tax rules and the removal of all Digital Services Taxes, and other relevant similar measures, on all companies. We also commit to a global minimum tax of at least 15% on a country by country basis. We agree on the importance of progressing agreement in parallel on both Pillars and look forward to reaching an agreement at the July meeting of G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors.
The fact that Biden and the Democrats are now in power in the US was pivotal in getting this minimum level of corporate tax agreement amongst the G7.
The fact that 4 out of 7 of the G7 leaders are now from the centre left (or backed by the centre left in Italy's case), Biden, Macron, Trudeau and Conte and Merkel is in coalition with the centre left SPD also meant the pressure was on the UK and Japan as the only G7 leaders with fully centre right governments left to give in and agree and they seem to have done so.
Had we not the left the EU we might not have agreed it. While it’s not specifically an EU matter, we were always very wary of anything that smacked of tax harmonisation.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
Historically there hs been far more antisemitism in the Tory party.
Listen chummy.. we are talking now not 1800s its your party that is antisemitic.
I belong to no party, but am well aware as to which of the major parties contained significant apolgists for Hitler in the 1930s - and were keen to strike a deal with him. It was the same party which was still riddled with racists in the 1960s and 70s - and many of whose members openly sympathised with Apartheid in South Africa and Ian Smith's repulsive regime in Rhodesia. As late as 1997 the Tories had an MP who had called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged - a message which many Tories were happy to openly display on their T Shirts.
Maggie was responsible for getting rid of Ian Smith and installing Robert Mugabe, you should be praising her
This interview with Smith is fascinating I think. A lot of the Firing Line series on YouTube are worth watching if you like political interviews about politics rather than the politicians.
Ian Smith was electorally defeated in April 1979, before Thatcher was PM, leading to the shortlived country of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. The reality was that the Rhodesian regime had been been militarily defeated by the ZANU guerrillas before then.
It hadn't been militarily defeated by the ZANU guerillas it's just that it's strategic and economic position had become hopeless. It wasn't credible to resist them from a totally isolated position any longer given the geopolitical context.
Exactly. That is how a guerilla war ends, by making the continuation of the war impossible by the government.
Very much like the Peninsular campaign.
The war was winnable for the French, IMHO, and they came very close to winning it at the start of 1812, when they drove the Spanish out of Valencia and the Levante. But, they did not have the numbers to win it - and invade Russia at the same time. Had they focused just on Spain and Portugal, and committed perhaps another 50,000 soldiers (they had 350,000 at the beginning of 1812) they would have won - albeit at dreadful cost. Instead, they began withdrawing soldiers to fight in Russia, and the tide turned against them.
Marshal Suchet, who took Valencia, was easily the most talented of the French commanders, the only one who came out of Spain with his reputation enhanced, and probably not conincidentally, a man of utter ruthlessness and inhumanity. Guerilla campaigns are almost never sufficient to win, on their own. Almost always, the insurgents require the support of some external power.
Can you think of any examples where the insurgents have won on their own?
Haiti in 1804
That’s a good example, although many rebel leaders were ex-regular soldiers in the French army.
Yeah - because of course the U.K. never leached off and exploited Ireland for centuries.
Oh wait .... it did.
Ireland did no more and no less than what all those British Overseas Territories were encouraged to do by the U.K. government when they could no longer sell bananas.
No doubt all those asset management companies set up in Dublin (like Rees-Mogg's one) will be rushing back home. Or maybe not.
Good to see British hypocrisy is still a thing.
It's not just the UK that has been getting ripped off. I dare say many national governments in the EU will be grinning about this as well.
They'll be grinning on the other side of their face if Ireland becomes relatively poor again and they have to fund it (again). Let's see how much extra tax revenue this actually disgorges rather than the hype.
If what we hear from the propagandists is true then I assume that post Brexit UK got shat on at the G7 whilst Ireland, as part of the EU, simply came, saw and conquered.
Is that true? Or.. was it slightly different?
Ireland. Lol. Normally I don't give enough of a shit about Ireland for it to register, on tax they are parasites that leech off the UK economy.
Yeah - because of course the U.K. never leached off and exploited Ireland for centuries.
Oh wait .... it did.
Ireland did no more and no less than what all those British Overseas Territories were encouraged to do by the U.K. government when they could no longer sell bananas.
No doubt all those asset management companies set up in Dublin (like Rees-Mogg's one) will be rushing back home. Or maybe not.
Good to see British hypocrisy is still a thing.
Yeah, I guess the crusades also give Islamists justification to commit acts of terror, by that logic.
Yeah: because passing laws to encourage companies to set up in a country (something which is the current British government's stated policy) is the same as acts of terrorist violence.
Of course it is. Silly me. Still I must have confused you with that other MaxPB who on this very forum not so long ago was praising Britain for speaking to pharma companies and others to lure them away from the EU and set up here because Britain was a much friendlier place with all those tax advantages it was offering for investment and research.
If only British hypocrisy could be bottled and sold, Britain would be the richest country in the world by far.
The difference is that the UK is incentivising real economic activity (drug development) to take place in the UK. When Ireland does that (eg biological manufacturing in Cork) that’s fine. What is more troubling is structures that book the revenues and profits from economic activity *in other countries* in Ireland. That’s not creating value, it’s diverting the proceeds of someone else’s work
If what we hear from the propagandists is true then I assume that post Brexit UK got shat on at the G7 whilst Ireland, as part of the EU, simply came, saw and conquered.
Is that true? Or.. was it slightly different?
Ireland. Lol. Normally I don't give enough of a shit about Ireland for it to register, on tax they are parasites that leech off the UK economy.
I know sod all about Ireland but it does have Google's European HQ and Microsoft Azure cloud datacentres. I'd not be writing off the Irish economy just yet. Even without corporation tax advantages, it has taken over Britain's role as the English-speaking bridge to Europe.
Google’s location is tax driven
The data centres are geographically based - it’s the shortest route for expensive undersea cables to the US
iirc GDPR compliance in the face of looming Brexit was a big factor in data centre location: no point investing in Britain if that risks cutting you off from Europe.
That EU factor may replace Ireland's corporation tax advantage in attracting American investment because it is those high level jobs that are the real gain in pivoting from old Ireland's largely agrarian economy. Brass plates are less important because, of course, they do not pay much tax, which is why they are there in the first place, or generate local economic activity.
It is worth remembering that the greatest profit stealing trick in the world - the debt for equity one - is completely unaffected by this. Private Equity has, as always, paid its lobbyists well.
So long as the entity that is lending the money is off-shore (and therefore the interest income is untaxed), then unlimited sums of money can be efficiently diverted by the simple expedient of making sure interest payments equal pretax profit.
Tbh, I think the whole concept of the leverage buy out needs looking at. It's a complete scam.
It's a damning indictment of the Left in Britain that they weren't able to use the example of Man Utd to force change on leveraged buyouts. It's a nice trick to have an entity borrow money to buy itself on your behalf, but it basically diverts vast amounts of profit away from investment and into the hands of a small number of spivs and charlatans.
Yeah - because of course the U.K. never leached off and exploited Ireland for centuries.
Oh wait .... it did.
Ireland did no more and no less than what all those British Overseas Territories were encouraged to do by the U.K. government when they could no longer sell bananas.
No doubt all those asset management companies set up in Dublin (like Rees-Mogg's one) will be rushing back home. Or maybe not.
Good to see British hypocrisy is still a thing.
It's not just the UK that has been getting ripped off. I dare say many national governments in the EU will be grinning about this as well.
They'll be grinning on the other side of their face if Ireland becomes relatively poor again and they have to fund it (again). Let's see how much extra tax revenue this actually disgorges rather than the hype.
If what we hear from the propagandists is true then I assume that post Brexit UK got shat on at the G7 whilst Ireland, as part of the EU, simply came, saw and conquered.
Is that true? Or.. was it slightly different?
Ireland. Lol. Normally I don't give enough of a shit about Ireland for it to register, on tax they are parasites that leech off the UK economy.
Yeah - because of course the U.K. never leached off and exploited Ireland for centuries.
Oh wait .... it did.
Ireland did no more and no less than what all those British Overseas Territories were encouraged to do by the U.K. government when they could no longer sell bananas.
No doubt all those asset management companies set up in Dublin (like Rees-Mogg's one) will be rushing back home. Or maybe not.
Good to see British hypocrisy is still a thing.
Yeah, I guess the crusades also give Islamists justification to commit acts of terror, by that logic.
Yeah: because passing laws to encourage companies to set up in a country (something which is the current British government's stated policy) is the same as acts of terrorist violence.
Of course it is. Silly me. Still I must have confused you with that other MaxPB who on this very forum not so long ago was praising Britain for speaking to pharma companies and others to lure them away from the EU and set up here because Britain was a much friendlier place with all those tax advantages it was offering for investment and research.
If only British hypocrisy could be bottled and sold, Britain would be the richest country in the world by far.
As always you miss the point. You said that Ireland leeching off the UK is justified because of historical actions. It's the same stupid argument Islamists put forwards when they try and justify acts of terrorism today based on the crusades.
On your other points, when have I ever advocated for a 0.75% effective tax rate and for companies to transfer profits from other countries into the UK to avoid paying it where the business is being generated? I'd very much like to see you find anything I've written in favour of that because it doesn't exist. I've always been in favour of low but fair taxes. Our 19% rate is a low but fair tax rate. Encouraging businesses to come to the UK to set up shop, create jobs, create value and export is absolutely something we need to encourage. If the government were pursuing companies to domicile themselves here for tax with brass plate companies like Ireland you'd absolutely see me call the out on it. To my knowledge the government doesn't do this and it expects companies who relocate to the UK to actually conduct business here. Not like Google who do almost all of their European business in the UK but book almost all of the profit in Ireland.
It is corporate welfare of the worst kind and the worst part is that Ireland doesn't even gain many jobs from it because it's the land of tax domiciled holding companies with brass plates.
Do I want companies to move to the UK? Absolutely. I want them here to create high value jobs, to create new and interesting products and services that we can export and to support the wider economy. No one in the world benefits from Apple paying a net rate of 0.75% corporate tax in Europe. Not a single fucking person.
No. You misunderstand as usual.
1. I don't think Ireland was leeching off Britain or being parasitic. I don't accept the premise that this was somehow Britain's money which Ireland was stealing. 2. Britain did exploit Ireland for centuries. 3. I hope these monopolistic companies get broken up and pay a proper rate of tax. I hope this agreement really works and it is the start of a process not the end of it. I think it far too soon to celebrate because the detail of exactly how these new laws will work matter and, so far (may be it's too soon) no-one has been able to answer my 4 questions above. 4. Brass plate companies: let's look at the way vast numbers of British registered companies are used in so many scams and by so many dodgy people to launder and hide money. Britain's record on clamping down on the abuses or to take steps to make the misuse of companies incorporated here is pretty poor frankly. It has an absolute brass neck criticising others on this score. So let's hear Rishi call that out. Or - even better - do something about it.
What a load of bollocks.
Can you please explain exactly what Apple Ireland are doing for their IP licencing to Apple UK/Germany/France/Italy?
The money is spent here, the business is carried out here (Apple UK serves as the functional HQ for Apple in Europe) and the tax is paid at a rate of 0.75% on Ireland.
You have got zero understanding of how these Irish tax dodges work, clearly and are now casting about to try and make it look like you do.
The reason these companies are so gigantic is because none of them pay any bloody tax which means they can sit on hundreds of billions in cash to then use to buy or destroy any competitors before they even become close to being a serious company. That's how Google maintain their monopoly, they buy smaller companies that might one day threaten their core business of search and advertising and becuase the company they are buying has no market share it doesn't come under the purview of competition authorities.
You need to get real about how these companies operate and just how much they are facilitated by Ireland. Without that tax deal Apple would have paid around £30bn on taxes to various countries across Europe over the last decade. Except they didn't, they got to keep their cash and become even bigger and crowd out the market to an even greater extent.
So that country you're so happily absolving becuase of historical actions by Britain is one of the major factors in these companies maintaining their monopoly status. They have got these billions to spare and snuff out the competition because they don't pay any tax in Europe.
Yeah - I know all that which is why I said from the start that I welcome these proposals and hope they go further. I am a little sceptical that they will work. But let's see.
Your point?
The reason the companies are not broken up is because the US has refused to take anti-trust action. A very great pity. Will this deal make this any more likely? I doubt it. A shame.
What I object to is your vituperative accusations against Ireland which are very similar to your vituperative accusations against landlords and similarly lacking in any actual analysis.
I will leave the last word to @Sean_F who put it very well upthread -
"Countries act in their best interest. I don’t blame the Irish for attracting multinationals with generous tax treatment or others for making life difficult for those multinationals."
It's one of those irregular nouns, isn't it?
I run a competitive, business-friendly tax policy. You are a tax haven. He is an international parasite.
(And yes, the gloating about Ireland, together with the implication that they deserve what they've got coming because they didn't give us a unicorn, is pretty depressing. How much of you-know-what is down to a "we're a Great Power dontchaknow?" attitude?)
I note the joint position by #G7 finance ministers on international corporate taxation. It is in everyone’s interest to achieve a sustainable, ambitious and equitable agreement on the international tax architecture.
I look forward now to engaging in the discussions at @OECD. There are 139 countries at the table, and any agreement will have to meet the needs of small and large countries, developed and developing.
Fuck them. Ireland are a parasite economy, ultimately what are they doing to do when this is implemented? Their objection can be ignored.
Yep, bollocks to them. They are partly the reason why this is coming into being
More likely it's the US wanting to get hold of the tax revenues. I am probably over-cynical but I wonder how much extra tax revenue countries like the U.K. will actually get from the likes of Google and co?
You are being cynical. The whole reason rishi held out for the digital services part was to avoid that situation where the US does fine but no one else does. It's taking aim at the likes of Apple, Google and others who use Ireland to shelter their UK profits from the taxman.
Let's see what it will mean in practice.
There's a touch of a "what a brilliant Budget!" going on at the moment. Followed by a more sober analysis days later I hope.
I hope it works. The companies are parasites - far more than Ireland (which is doing what any historically poor country will do - use whatever it can to its advantage, especially if this is at the expense of a larger neighbour which exploited and impoverished it over centuries) - and need to be taken several pegs or more.
Not just on tax either. They are far too powerful monopolies. Anti-trust action needs to be taken. What are the chances of that I wonder.
I’m surprised you’d turn a blind eye to Ireland’s culpability. It’s the same as a team leader permitting wrong doing because it makes a positive contribution to the P&L.
Facilitating tax minimisation through sweetheart deals is parasitic.
What is the culpability? Precisely? What law has Ireland broken? What has Ireland done that no other country- including Britain - has not done or tried to do? Go on: let's have the details.
You are assuming that Britain had some automatic right to this money. It didn't. The tax laws in this country have long been structured in such a way as to make it attractive for companies to operate here. Other countries do the same. Some of those laws even benefited companies in the City. Britain is no stranger to doing sweetheart deals on tax with companies. Or to using its own tax havens to make itself attractive. Its complaint boils down to the fact that Ireland was better at it.
If Britain had been in the EU and this was a proposal from the Commission to alter Britain's tax laws so that the French, say, got more of our City tax revenues you and @MaxPB would be complaining bitterly.
Now the laws are being changed. Good. I hope they work. I will wait for the detail of what the laws will say rather than a press release which means jack shit in the real world.
I have no time for these big monopolistic companies who really are parasitic on the work of others and do not contribute to the societies in which they operate. But I can smell British hypocrisy about and condescension to Ireland a mile off.
The best example i know is Amazon (which I am well aware is Luxembourg not Ireland but it is a good example of the principle.
Many of the products you buy from Amazon came from Amazon EU Sarl which books the revenues and profits. The goods are sourced in the UK, warehouses in the UK, distributed in the UK to a UK customer. At no point does the economic activity touch Luxembourg. And yet all of the profits end up in Luxembourg which has offered Amazon a sweetheart deal on tax.
I have no problem with royalties, for example, to the country where IP is held because that reflects the value of previous work. But that doesn’t apply in this case.
So, for example, the deals Ireland did with Imclone and AHP are fine in my view because they involved real economic activity. The deal with Apple not so much.
Yeah - because of course the U.K. never leached off and exploited Ireland for centuries.
Oh wait .... it did.
Ireland did no more and no less than what all those British Overseas Territories were encouraged to do by the U.K. government when they could no longer sell bananas.
No doubt all those asset management companies set up in Dublin (like Rees-Mogg's one) will be rushing back home. Or maybe not.
Good to see British hypocrisy is still a thing.
It's not just the UK that has been getting ripped off. I dare say many national governments in the EU will be grinning about this as well.
They'll be grinning on the other side of their face if Ireland becomes relatively poor again and they have to fund it (again). Let's see how much extra tax revenue this actually disgorges rather than the hype.
If what we hear from the propagandists is true then I assume that post Brexit UK got shat on at the G7 whilst Ireland, as part of the EU, simply came, saw and conquered.
Is that true? Or.. was it slightly different?
Ireland. Lol. Normally I don't give enough of a shit about Ireland for it to register, on tax they are parasites that leech off the UK economy.
Yeah - because of course the U.K. never leached off and exploited Ireland for centuries.
Oh wait .... it did.
Ireland did no more and no less than what all those British Overseas Territories were encouraged to do by the U.K. government when they could no longer sell bananas.
No doubt all those asset management companies set up in Dublin (like Rees-Mogg's one) will be rushing back home. Or maybe not.
Good to see British hypocrisy is still a thing.
Yeah, I guess the crusades also give Islamists justification to commit acts of terror, by that logic.
Yeah: because passing laws to encourage companies to set up in a country (something which is the current British government's stated policy) is the same as acts of terrorist violence.
Of course it is. Silly me. Still I must have confused you with that other MaxPB who on this very forum not so long ago was praising Britain for speaking to pharma companies and others to lure them away from the EU and set up here because Britain was a much friendlier place with all those tax advantages it was offering for investment and research.
If only British hypocrisy could be bottled and sold, Britain would be the richest country in the world by far.
The difference is that the UK is incentivising real economic activity (drug development) to take place in the UK. When Ireland does that (eg biological manufacturing in Cork) that’s fine. What is more troubling is structures that book the revenues and profits from economic activity *in other countries* in Ireland. That’s not creating value, it’s diverting the proceeds of someone else’s work
Indeed, and those companies pay the 12.5% rate. Raising that to 15% isn't exactly a huge change. The reason they're squealing so much is that this closes off the sweetheart deals that allow companies to transfer profits and pay 0.75% rather than whatever the local rate is.
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
A big issue with military history is that so many primary published sources are written by soldiers eager to vindicate themselves and rubbish their colleagues.
Isn't that life?
The worst were probably the German generals after WW2, who asserted they’d have won the war but for Hitler, or bad weather, or mice eating the cables of tanks etc.
The really interesting question is what would have happened had the Nazis never launched Barbarossa and just been content with domination of western, central and south-eastern Europe.
They’d have run out of oil?
Couldn't they have got that from the Middle East and North Africa? Had they not gone to war with Russia they'd have been able to fight better in the MENA theatres.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
Historically there hs been far more antisemitism in the Tory party.
Listen chummy.. we are talking now not 1800s its your party that is antisemitic.
I belong to no party, but am well aware as to which of the major parties contained significant apolgists for Hitler in the 1930s - and were keen to strike a deal with him. It was the same party which was still riddled with racists in the 1960s and 70s - and many of whose members openly sympathised with Apartheid in South Africa and Ian Smith's repulsive regime in Rhodesia. As late as 1997 the Tories had an MP who had called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged - a message which many Tories were happy to openly display on their T Shirts.
Maggie was responsible for getting rid of Ian Smith and installing Robert Mugabe, you should be praising her
This interview with Smith is fascinating I think. A lot of the Firing Line series on YouTube are worth watching if you like political interviews about politics rather than the politicians.
Ian Smith was electorally defeated in April 1979, before Thatcher was PM, leading to the shortlived country of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. The reality was that the Rhodesian regime had been been militarily defeated by the ZANU guerrillas before then.
It hadn't been militarily defeated by the ZANU guerillas it's just that it's strategic and economic position had become hopeless. It wasn't credible to resist them from a totally isolated position any longer given the geopolitical context.
Exactly. That is how a guerilla war ends, by making the continuation of the war impossible by the government.
Very much like the Peninsular campaign.
The war was winnable for the French, IMHO, and they came very close to winning it at the start of 1812, when they drove the Spanish out of Valencia and the Levante. But, they did not have the numbers to win it - and invade Russia at the same time. Had they focused just on Spain and Portugal, and committed perhaps another 50,000 soldiers (they had 350,000 at the beginning of 1812) they would have won - albeit at dreadful cost. Instead, they began withdrawing soldiers to fight in Russia, and the tide turned against them.
Marshal Suchet, who took Valencia, was easily the most talented of the French commanders, the only one who came out of Spain with his reputation enhanced, and probably not conincidentally, a man of utter ruthlessness and inhumanity. Guerilla campaigns are almost never sufficient to win, on their own. Almost always, the insurgents require the support of some external power.
Can you think of any examples where the insurgents have won on their own?
Haiti in 1804
That’s a good example, although many rebel leaders were ex-regular soldiers in the French army.
Sure, deserters are always welcome.
The Irish war of independence 1919-21 would be another example
For a more recent one, Tito in Yugoslavia 1941-45. Some assistance from the Allies, but not a lot.
The secret of a successful guerilla campaign is to stay in the field. As long as you continue the fight, victory is possible, and often the war attracts external support.
Cornwallis won pretty much every battle in his Southern Campaign until his defeat at Yorktown, but was forced to retreat there to await evacuation.
If what we hear from the propagandists is true then I assume that post Brexit UK got shat on at the G7 whilst Ireland, as part of the EU, simply came, saw and conquered.
Is that true? Or.. was it slightly different?
Ireland. Lol. Normally I don't give enough of a shit about Ireland for it to register, on tax they are parasites that leech off the UK economy.
I know sod all about Ireland but it does have Google's European HQ and Microsoft Azure cloud datacentres. I'd not be writing off the Irish economy just yet. Even without corporation tax advantages, it has taken over Britain's role as the English-speaking bridge to Europe.
Google’s location is tax driven
The data centres are geographically based - it’s the shortest route for expensive undersea cables to the US
iirc GDPR compliance in the face of looming Brexit was a big factor in data centre location: no point investing in Britain if that risks cutting you off from Europe.
That EU factor may replace Ireland's corporation tax advantage in attracting American investment because it is those high level jobs that are the real gain in pivoting from old Ireland's largely agrarian economy. Brass plates are less important because, of course, they do not pay much tax, which is why they are there in the first place, or generate local economic activity.
Damn! They’re scary good to have predicted Brexit in 2009 when they located the data centres there
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
Historically there hs been far more antisemitism in the Tory party.
Listen chummy.. we are talking now not 1800s its your party that is antisemitic.
I belong to no party, but am well aware as to which of the major parties contained significant apolgists for Hitler in the 1930s - and were keen to strike a deal with him. It was the same party which was still riddled with racists in the 1960s and 70s - and many of whose members openly sympathised with Apartheid in South Africa and Ian Smith's repulsive regime in Rhodesia. As late as 1997 the Tories had an MP who had called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged - a message which many Tories were happy to openly display on their T Shirts.
Maggie was responsible for getting rid of Ian Smith and installing Robert Mugabe, you should be praising her
This interview with Smith is fascinating I think. A lot of the Firing Line series on YouTube are worth watching if you like political interviews about politics rather than the politicians.
Ian Smith was electorally defeated in April 1979, before Thatcher was PM, leading to the shortlived country of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. The reality was that the Rhodesian regime had been been militarily defeated by the ZANU guerrillas before then.
It hadn't been militarily defeated by the ZANU guerillas it's just that it's strategic and economic position had become hopeless. It wasn't credible to resist them from a totally isolated position any longer given the geopolitical context.
Exactly. That is how a guerilla war ends, by making the continuation of the war impossible by the government.
Very much like the Peninsular campaign.
The war was winnable for the French, IMHO, and they came very close to winning it at the start of 1812, when they drove the Spanish out of Valencia and the Levante. But, they did not have the numbers to win it - and invade Russia at the same time. Had they focused just on Spain and Portugal, and committed perhaps another 50,000 soldiers (they had 350,000 at the beginning of 1812) they would have won - albeit at dreadful cost. Instead, they began withdrawing soldiers to fight in Russia, and the tide turned against them.
Marshal Suchet, who took Valencia, was easily the most talented of the French commanders, the only one who came out of Spain with his reputation enhanced, and probably not conincidentally, a man of utter ruthlessness and inhumanity. Guerilla campaigns are almost never sufficient to win, on their own. Almost always, the insurgents require the support of some external power.
Can you think of any examples where the insurgents have won on their own?
Haiti in 1804
That’s a good example, although many rebel leaders were ex-regular soldiers in the French army.
Sure, deserters are always welcome.
The Irish war of independence 1919-21 would be another example
For a more recent one, Tito in Yugoslavia 1941-45. Some assistance from the Allies, but not a lot.
The secret of a successful guerilla campaign is to stay in the field. As long as you continue the fight, victory is possible, and often the war attracts external support.
Cornwallis won pretty much every battle in his Southern Campaign until his defeat at Yorktown, but was forced to retreat there to await evacuation.
Not only that but Georgia had returned to royal control and South Carolina wasn't far off either.
The American Revolution was defeatable in principle but probably not given the range of foreign allies weighing in against Britain.
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
A big issue with military history is that so many primary published sources are written by soldiers eager to vindicate themselves and rubbish their colleagues.
Isn't that life?
The worst were probably the German generals after WW2, who asserted they’d have won the war but for Hitler, or bad weather, or mice eating the cables of tanks etc.
The really interesting question is what would have happened had the Nazis never launched Barbarossa and just been content with domination of western, central and south-eastern Europe.
They’d have run out of oil?
Couldn't they have got that from the Middle East and North Africa? Had they not gone to war with Russia they'd have been able to fight better in the MENA theatres.
You need to assume they would have taken Egypt though
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
A big issue with military history is that so many primary published sources are written by soldiers eager to vindicate themselves and rubbish their colleagues.
Isn't that life?
The worst were probably the German generals after WW2, who asserted they’d have won the war but for Hitler, or bad weather, or mice eating the cables of tanks etc.
The really interesting question is what would have happened had the Nazis never launched Barbarossa and just been content with domination of western, central and south-eastern Europe.
They’d have run out of oil?
Couldn't they have got that from the Middle East and North Africa? Had they not gone to war with Russia they'd have been able to fight better in the MENA theatres.
War with the Soviets was inevitable, and both sides knew it, though Stalin was not wanting it in 1941.
While I have a long interest in military history, dating back to schoolboy games from SPI and Avalon Hill (as per @NickPalmer's book), there is more than a little suspect politics on military history websites and Social Media. Sometimes barely concealed "Noble Cause" enthusiasm, sometimes outright Neo-Nazism. Military History TikTok has some shocking BTL comments.
We commit to reaching an equitable solution on the allocation of taxing rights, with market countries awarded taxing rights on at least 20% of profit exceeding a 10% margin for the largest and most profitable multinational enterprises. We will provide for appropriate coordination between the application of the new international tax rules and the removal of all Digital Services Taxes, and other relevant similar measures, on all companies. We also commit to a global minimum tax of at least 15% on a country by country basis. We agree on the importance of progressing agreement in parallel on both Pillars and look forward to reaching an agreement at the July meeting of G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors.
The fact that Biden and the Democrats are now in power in the US was pivotal in getting this minimum level of corporate tax agreement amongst the G7.
The fact that 4 out of 7 of the G7 leaders are now from the centre left (or backed by the centre left in Italy's case), Biden, Macron, Trudeau and Conte and Merkel is in coalition with the centre left SPD also meant the pressure was on the UK and Japan as the only G7 leaders with fully centre right governments left to give in and agree and they seem to have done so.
If what we hear from the propagandists is true then I assume that post Brexit UK got shat on at the G7 whilst Ireland, as part of the EU, simply came, saw and conquered.
Is that true? Or.. was it slightly different?
Ireland. Lol. Normally I don't give enough of a shit about Ireland for it to register, on tax they are parasites that leech off the UK economy.
I know sod all about Ireland but it does have Google's European HQ and Microsoft Azure cloud datacentres. I'd not be writing off the Irish economy just yet. Even without corporation tax advantages, it has taken over Britain's role as the English-speaking bridge to Europe.
Google’s location is tax driven
The data centres are geographically based - it’s the shortest route for expensive undersea cables to the US
iirc GDPR compliance in the face of looming Brexit was a big factor in data centre location: no point investing in Britain if that risks cutting you off from Europe.
That EU factor may replace Ireland's corporation tax advantage in attracting American investment because it is those high level jobs that are the real gain in pivoting from old Ireland's largely agrarian economy. Brass plates are less important because, of course, they do not pay much tax, which is why they are there in the first place, or generate local economic activity.
Damn! They’re scary good to have predicted Brexit in 2009 when they located the data centres there
Yes, and no investment has been made since 2009, or has it? Of course, it works both ways, if UK capacity will be needed for public sector hosting post-Brexit.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
Historically there hs been far more antisemitism in the Tory party.
Listen chummy.. we are talking now not 1800s its your party that is antisemitic.
I belong to no party, but am well aware as to which of the major parties contained significant apolgists for Hitler in the 1930s - and were keen to strike a deal with him. It was the same party which was still riddled with racists in the 1960s and 70s - and many of whose members openly sympathised with Apartheid in South Africa and Ian Smith's repulsive regime in Rhodesia. As late as 1997 the Tories had an MP who had called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged - a message which many Tories were happy to openly display on their T Shirts.
Maggie was responsible for getting rid of Ian Smith and installing Robert Mugabe, you should be praising her
This interview with Smith is fascinating I think. A lot of the Firing Line series on YouTube are worth watching if you like political interviews about politics rather than the politicians.
Ian Smith was electorally defeated in April 1979, before Thatcher was PM, leading to the shortlived country of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. The reality was that the Rhodesian regime had been been militarily defeated by the ZANU guerrillas before then.
It hadn't been militarily defeated by the ZANU guerillas it's just that it's strategic and economic position had become hopeless. It wasn't credible to resist them from a totally isolated position any longer given the geopolitical context.
Exactly. That is how a guerilla war ends, by making the continuation of the war impossible by the government.
Very much like the Peninsular campaign.
The war was winnable for the French, IMHO, and they came very close to winning it at the start of 1812, when they drove the Spanish out of Valencia and the Levante. But, they did not have the numbers to win it - and invade Russia at the same time. Had they focused just on Spain and Portugal, and committed perhaps another 50,000 soldiers (they had 350,000 at the beginning of 1812) they would have won - albeit at dreadful cost. Instead, they began withdrawing soldiers to fight in Russia, and the tide turned against them.
Marshal Suchet, who took Valencia, was easily the most talented of the French commanders, the only one who came out of Spain with his reputation enhanced, and probably not conincidentally, a man of utter ruthlessness and inhumanity. Guerilla campaigns are almost never sufficient to win, on their own. Almost always, the insurgents require the support of some external power.
Can you think of any examples where the insurgents have won on their own?
Haiti in 1804
That’s a good example, although many rebel leaders were ex-regular soldiers in the French army.
Sure, deserters are always welcome.
The Irish war of independence 1919-21 would be another example
For a more recent one, Tito in Yugoslavia 1941-45. Some assistance from the Allies, but not a lot.
The secret of a successful guerilla campaign is to stay in the field. As long as you continue the fight, victory is possible, and often the war attracts external support.
Cornwallis won pretty much every battle in his Southern Campaign until his defeat at Yorktown, but was forced to retreat there to await evacuation.
Not only that but Georgia had returned to royal control and South Carolina wasn't far off either.
The American Revolution was defeatable in principle but probably not given the range of foreign allies weighing in against Britain.
I think we'd have won in 1776 if we'd advanced aggressively against George Washington and if we'd have blockaded the American ports properly to prevent arms and reinforcements from Europe getting in. But unfortunately we didn't have great strategists or generals in that war, unlike in the Seven Years War or the Napoleonic Wars.
Floyd Mayweather to beat Logan Paul (draw is void according to the rules in the small print) at 1/7 with Will Hill seems like free money. Logan Paul isn't a serious boxer, Mayweather is one of the best ever and still in good shape - and he doesn't seem like the type to not take this seriously. He destroyed Conor McGregor, a top MMA fighter, a couple of years back. Immensely hard to see Logan Paul actually winning by KO/TKO - and even at 1/7 I've taken the bet.
If what we hear from the propagandists is true then I assume that post Brexit UK got shat on at the G7 whilst Ireland, as part of the EU, simply came, saw and conquered.
Is that true? Or.. was it slightly different?
Ireland. Lol. Normally I don't give enough of a shit about Ireland for it to register, on tax they are parasites that leech off the UK economy.
I know sod all about Ireland but it does have Google's European HQ and Microsoft Azure cloud datacentres. I'd not be writing off the Irish economy just yet. Even without corporation tax advantages, it has taken over Britain's role as the English-speaking bridge to Europe.
Google’s location is tax driven
The data centres are geographically based - it’s the shortest route for expensive undersea cables to the US
iirc GDPR compliance in the face of looming Brexit was a big factor in data centre location: no point investing in Britain if that risks cutting you off from Europe.
That EU factor may replace Ireland's corporation tax advantage in attracting American investment because it is those high level jobs that are the real gain in pivoting from old Ireland's largely agrarian economy. Brass plates are less important because, of course, they do not pay much tax, which is why they are there in the first place, or generate local economic activity.
Damn! They’re scary good to have predicted Brexit in 2009 when they located the data centres there
Yes, and no investment has been made since 2009, or has it? Of course, it works both ways, if UK capacity will be needed for public sector hosting post-Brexit.
Investment in since 2009 built in incumbency.
There are good reasons why these businesses are in Ireland. Brexit is not one of them. I find it rather sad you have to shoehorn that in rather than looking critically at the reasons. It’s sloppy thinking
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
Historically there hs been far more antisemitism in the Tory party.
Listen chummy.. we are talking now not 1800s its your party that is antisemitic.
I belong to no party, but am well aware as to which of the major parties contained significant apolgists for Hitler in the 1930s - and were keen to strike a deal with him. It was the same party which was still riddled with racists in the 1960s and 70s - and many of whose members openly sympathised with Apartheid in South Africa and Ian Smith's repulsive regime in Rhodesia. As late as 1997 the Tories had an MP who had called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged - a message which many Tories were happy to openly display on their T Shirts.
Maggie was responsible for getting rid of Ian Smith and installing Robert Mugabe, you should be praising her
This interview with Smith is fascinating I think. A lot of the Firing Line series on YouTube are worth watching if you like political interviews about politics rather than the politicians.
Ian Smith was electorally defeated in April 1979, before Thatcher was PM, leading to the shortlived country of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. The reality was that the Rhodesian regime had been been militarily defeated by the ZANU guerrillas before then.
It hadn't been militarily defeated by the ZANU guerillas it's just that it's strategic and economic position had become hopeless. It wasn't credible to resist them from a totally isolated position any longer given the geopolitical context.
Exactly. That is how a guerilla war ends, by making the continuation of the war impossible by the government.
Very much like the Peninsular campaign.
The war was winnable for the French, IMHO, and they came very close to winning it at the start of 1812, when they drove the Spanish out of Valencia and the Levante. But, they did not have the numbers to win it - and invade Russia at the same time. Had they focused just on Spain and Portugal, and committed perhaps another 50,000 soldiers (they had 350,000 at the beginning of 1812) they would have won - albeit at dreadful cost. Instead, they began withdrawing soldiers to fight in Russia, and the tide turned against them.
Marshal Suchet, who took Valencia, was easily the most talented of the French commanders, the only one who came out of Spain with his reputation enhanced, and probably not conincidentally, a man of utter ruthlessness and inhumanity. Guerilla campaigns are almost never sufficient to win, on their own. Almost always, the insurgents require the support of some external power.
Can you think of any examples where the insurgents have won on their own?
Haiti in 1804
That’s a good example, although many rebel leaders were ex-regular soldiers in the French army.
Sure, deserters are always welcome.
The Irish war of independence 1919-21 would be another example
For a more recent one, Tito in Yugoslavia 1941-45. Some assistance from the Allies, but not a lot.
The secret of a successful guerilla campaign is to stay in the field. As long as you continue the fight, victory is possible, and often the war attracts external support.
Cornwallis won pretty much every battle in his Southern Campaign until his defeat at Yorktown, but was forced to retreat there to await evacuation.
Not only that but Georgia had returned to royal control and South Carolina wasn't far off either.
The American Revolution was defeatable in principle but probably not given the range of foreign allies weighing in against Britain.
I think we'd have won in 1776 if we'd advanced aggressively against George Washington and if we'd have blockaded the American ports properly to prevent arms and reinforcements from Europe getting in. But unfortunately we didn't have great strategists or generals in that war, unlike in the Seven Years War or the Napoleonic Wars.
I think the UK winning the American Revolutionary War is a really interesting counter-factual. I find it hard to believe that the independence movement wouldn't have continued and the US eventually split off - but it may surely have been a couple of decades (or even more) later and perhaps led to a very different world.
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
A big issue with military history is that so many primary published sources are written by soldiers eager to vindicate themselves and rubbish their colleagues.
Isn't that life?
The worst were probably the German generals after WW2, who asserted they’d have won the war but for Hitler, or bad weather, or mice eating the cables of tanks etc.
The really interesting question is what would have happened had the Nazis never launched Barbarossa and just been content with domination of western, central and south-eastern Europe.
They’d have run out of oil?
Couldn't they have got that from the Middle East and North Africa? Had they not gone to war with Russia they'd have been able to fight better in the MENA theatres.
War with the Soviets was inevitable, and both sides knew it, though Stalin was not wanting it in 1941.
While I have a long interest in military history, dating back to schoolboy games from SPI and Avalon Hill (as per @NickPalmer's book), there is more than a little suspect politics on military history websites and Social Media. Sometimes barely concealed "Noble Cause" enthusiasm, sometimes outright Neo-Nazism. Military History TikTok has some shocking BTL comments.
Serious military history is dominated by British, American, and to a lesser extent, Russian historians. Outside of very nationalistic circles, Spanish historians are frequently as disparaging about the Spanish regular army in 1808-14 as people like Napier and Southey were. The reason is that Spanish academia is filled with hostility to the Spanish army because of its record in the Franco era. And, I think in much of European academia, study of military history is seen as the preserve of extreme nationalists and fascists.
I note the joint position by #G7 finance ministers on international corporate taxation. It is in everyone’s interest to achieve a sustainable, ambitious and equitable agreement on the international tax architecture.
I look forward now to engaging in the discussions at @OECD. There are 139 countries at the table, and any agreement will have to meet the needs of small and large countries, developed and developing.
Fuck them. Ireland are a parasite economy, ultimately what are they doing to do when this is implemented? Their objection can be ignored.
Yep, bollocks to them. They are partly the reason why this is coming into being
More likely it's the US wanting to get hold of the tax revenues. I am probably over-cynical but I wonder how much extra tax revenue countries like the U.K. will actually get from the likes of Google and co?
You are being cynical. The whole reason rishi held out for the digital services part was to avoid that situation where the US does fine but no one else does. It's taking aim at the likes of Apple, Google and others who use Ireland to shelter their UK profits from the taxman.
Let's see what it will mean in practice.
There's a touch of a "what a brilliant Budget!" going on at the moment. Followed by a more sober analysis days later I hope.
I hope it works. The companies are parasites - far more than Ireland (which is doing what any historically poor country will do - use whatever it can to its advantage, especially if this is at the expense of a larger neighbour which exploited and impoverished it over centuries) - and need to be taken several pegs or more.
Not just on tax either. They are far too powerful monopolies. Anti-trust action needs to be taken. What are the chances of that I wonder.
I’m surprised you’d turn a blind eye to Ireland’s culpability. It’s the same as a team leader permitting wrong doing because it makes a positive contribution to the P&L.
Facilitating tax minimisation through sweetheart deals is parasitic.
What is the culpability? Precisely? What law has Ireland broken? What has Ireland done that no other country- including Britain - has not done or tried to do? Go on: let's have the details.
You are assuming that Britain had some automatic right to this money. It didn't. The tax laws in this country have long been structured in such a way as to make it attractive for companies to operate here. Other countries do the same. Some of those laws even benefited companies in the City. Britain is no stranger to doing sweetheart deals on tax with companies. Or to using its own tax havens to make itself attractive. Its complaint boils down to the fact that Ireland was better at it.
If Britain had been in the EU and this was a proposal from the Commission to alter Britain's tax laws so that the French, say, got more of our City tax revenues you and @MaxPB would be complaining bitterly.
Now the laws are being changed. Good. I hope they work. I will wait for the detail of what the laws will say rather than a press release which means jack shit in the real world.
I have no time for these big monopolistic companies who really are parasitic on the work of others and do not contribute to the societies in which they operate. But I can smell British hypocrisy about and condescension to Ireland a mile off.
Britain can be full of cant, but Ireland has its own kind of hypocrisy. Usually involves moral sneering and insecure sniping at the UK, even as Ireland leeches money from the world via its tax policies. MaxPB is right on this - a single division of Microsoft earned £300 BILLION in a year and - thanks to Ireland - paid zero tax to anyone
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
A big issue with military history is that so many primary published sources are written by soldiers eager to vindicate themselves and rubbish their colleagues.
Isn't that life?
The worst were probably the German generals after WW2, who asserted they’d have won the war but for Hitler, or bad weather, or mice eating the cables of tanks etc.
The really interesting question is what would have happened had the Nazis never launched Barbarossa and just been content with domination of western, central and south-eastern Europe.
Or if instead of taking Crete, generally reckoned to be strategically useless by historians, they'd used the resources to attack Malta and reinforce their and the Italians' forces in North Africa.
Yeah - because of course the U.K. never leached off and exploited Ireland for centuries.
Oh wait .... it did.
Ireland did no more and no less than what all those British Overseas Territories were encouraged to do by the U.K. government when they could no longer sell bananas.
No doubt all those asset management companies set up in Dublin (like Rees-Mogg's one) will be rushing back home. Or maybe not.
Good to see British hypocrisy is still a thing.
It's not just the UK that has been getting ripped off. I dare say many national governments in the EU will be grinning about this as well.
They'll be grinning on the other side of their face if Ireland becomes relatively poor again and they have to fund it (again). Let's see how much extra tax revenue this actually disgorges rather than the hype.
If what we hear from the propagandists is true then I assume that post Brexit UK got shat on at the G7 whilst Ireland, as part of the EU, simply came, saw and conquered.
Is that true? Or.. was it slightly different?
Ireland. Lol. Normally I don't give enough of a shit about Ireland for it to register, on tax they are parasites that leech off the UK economy.
Yeah - because of course the U.K. never leached off and exploited Ireland for centuries.
Oh wait .... it did.
Ireland did no more and no less than what all those British Overseas Territories were encouraged to do by the U.K. government when they could no longer sell bananas.
No doubt all those asset management companies set up in Dublin (like Rees-Mogg's one) will be rushing back home. Or maybe not.
Good to see British hypocrisy is still a thing.
Yeah, I guess the crusades also give Islamists justification to commit acts of terror, by that logic.
Yeah: because passing laws to encourage companies to set up in a country (something which is the current British government's stated policy) is the same as acts of terrorist violence.
Of course it is. Silly me. Still I must have confused you with that other MaxPB who on this very forum not so long ago was praising Britain for speaking to pharma companies and others to lure them away from the EU and set up here because Britain was a much friendlier place with all those tax advantages it was offering for investment and research.
If only British hypocrisy could be bottled and sold, Britain would be the richest country in the world by far.
As always you miss the point. You said that Ireland leeching off the UK is justified because of historical actions. It's the same stupid argument Islamists put forwards when they try and justify acts of terrorism today based on the crusades.
On your other points, when have I ever advocated for a 0.75% effective tax rate and for companies to transfer profits from other countries into the UK to avoid paying it where the business is being generated? I'd very much like to see you find anything I've written in favour of that because it doesn't exist. I've always been in favour of low but fair taxes. Our 19% rate is a low but fair tax rate. Encouraging businesses to come to the UK to set up shop, create jobs, create value and export is absolutely something we need to encourage. If the government were pursuing companies to domicile themselves here for tax with brass plate companies like Ireland you'd absolutely see me call the out on it. To my knowledge the government doesn't do this and it expects companies who relocate to the UK to actually conduct business here. Not like Google who do almost all of their European business in the UK but book almost all of the profit in Ireland.
It is corporate welfare of the worst kind and the worst part is that Ireland doesn't even gain many jobs from it because it's the land of tax domiciled holding companies with brass plates.
Do I want companies to move to the UK? Absolutely. I want them here to create high value jobs, to create new and interesting products and services that we can export and to support the wider economy. No one in the world benefits from Apple paying a net rate of 0.75% corporate tax in Europe. Not a single fucking person.
No. You misunderstand as usual.
1. I don't think Ireland was leeching off Britain or being parasitic. I don't accept the premise that this was somehow Britain's money which Ireland was stealing. 2. Britain did exploit Ireland for centuries. 3. I hope these monopolistic companies get broken up and pay a proper rate of tax. I hope this agreement really works and it is the start of a process not the end of it. I think it far too soon to celebrate because the detail of exactly how these new laws will work matter and, so far (may be it's too soon) no-one has been able to answer my 4 questions above. 4. Brass plate companies: let's look at the way vast numbers of British registered companies are used in so many scams and by so many dodgy people to launder and hide money. Britain's record on clamping down on the abuses or to take steps to make the misuse of companies incorporated here is pretty poor frankly. It has an absolute brass neck criticising others on this score. So let's hear Rishi call that out. Or - even better - do something about it.
What a load of bollocks.
Can you please explain exactly what Apple Ireland are doing for their IP licencing to Apple UK/Germany/France/Italy?
The money is spent here, the business is carried out here (Apple UK serves as the functional HQ for Apple in Europe) and the tax is paid at a rate of 0.75% on Ireland.
You have got zero understanding of how these Irish tax dodges work, clearly and are now casting about to try and make it look like you do.
The reason these companies are so gigantic is because none of them pay any bloody tax which means they can sit on hundreds of billions in cash to then use to buy or destroy any competitors before they even become close to being a serious company. That's how Google maintain their monopoly, they buy smaller companies that might one day threaten their core business of search and advertising and becuase the company they are buying has no market share it doesn't come under the purview of competition authorities.
You need to get real about how these companies operate and just how much they are facilitated by Ireland. Without that tax deal Apple would have paid around £30bn on taxes to various countries across Europe over the last decade. Except they didn't, they got to keep their cash and become even bigger and crowd out the market to an even greater extent.
So that country you're so happily absolving becuase of historical actions by Britain is one of the major factors in these companies maintaining their monopoly status. They have got these billions to spare and snuff out the competition because they don't pay any tax in Europe.
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
A big issue with military history is that so many primary published sources are written by soldiers eager to vindicate themselves and rubbish their colleagues.
Isn't that life?
The worst were probably the German generals after WW2, who asserted they’d have won the war but for Hitler, or bad weather, or mice eating the cables of tanks etc.
The really interesting question is what would have happened had the Nazis never launched Barbarossa and just been content with domination of western, central and south-eastern Europe.
They’d have run out of oil?
Couldn't they have got that from the Middle East and North Africa? Had they not gone to war with Russia they'd have been able to fight better in the MENA theatres.
War with the Soviets was inevitable, and both sides knew it, though Stalin was not wanting it in 1941.
While I have a long interest in military history, dating back to schoolboy games from SPI and Avalon Hill (as per @NickPalmer's book), there is more than a little suspect politics on military history websites and Social Media. Sometimes barely concealed "Noble Cause" enthusiasm, sometimes outright Neo-Nazism. Military History TikTok has some shocking BTL comments.
Serious military history is dominated by British, American, and to a lesser extent, Russian historians. Outside of very nationalistic circles, Spanish historians are frequently as disparaging about the Spanish regular army in 1808-14 as people like Napier and Southey were. The reason is that Spanish academia is filled with hostility to the Spanish army because of its record in the Franco era. And, I think in much of European academia, study of military history is seen as the preserve of extreme nationalists and fascists.
You'd have thought the French would do a fair bit?
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
Historically there hs been far more antisemitism in the Tory party.
Listen chummy.. we are talking now not 1800s its your party that is antisemitic.
I belong to no party, but am well aware as to which of the major parties contained significant apolgists for Hitler in the 1930s - and were keen to strike a deal with him. It was the same party which was still riddled with racists in the 1960s and 70s - and many of whose members openly sympathised with Apartheid in South Africa and Ian Smith's repulsive regime in Rhodesia. As late as 1997 the Tories had an MP who had called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged - a message which many Tories were happy to openly display on their T Shirts.
Maggie was responsible for getting rid of Ian Smith and installing Robert Mugabe, you should be praising her
This interview with Smith is fascinating I think. A lot of the Firing Line series on YouTube are worth watching if you like political interviews about politics rather than the politicians.
Ian Smith was electorally defeated in April 1979, before Thatcher was PM, leading to the shortlived country of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. The reality was that the Rhodesian regime had been been militarily defeated by the ZANU guerrillas before then.
It hadn't been militarily defeated by the ZANU guerillas it's just that it's strategic and economic position had become hopeless. It wasn't credible to resist them from a totally isolated position any longer given the geopolitical context.
Exactly. That is how a guerilla war ends, by making the continuation of the war impossible by the government.
Very much like the Peninsular campaign.
The war was winnable for the French, IMHO, and they came very close to winning it at the start of 1812, when they drove the Spanish out of Valencia and the Levante. But, they did not have the numbers to win it - and invade Russia at the same time. Had they focused just on Spain and Portugal, and committed perhaps another 50,000 soldiers (they had 350,000 at the beginning of 1812) they would have won - albeit at dreadful cost. Instead, they began withdrawing soldiers to fight in Russia, and the tide turned against them.
Marshal Suchet, who took Valencia, was easily the most talented of the French commanders, the only one who came out of Spain with his reputation enhanced, and probably not conincidentally, a man of utter ruthlessness and inhumanity. Guerilla campaigns are almost never sufficient to win, on their own. Almost always, the insurgents require the support of some external power.
Can you think of any examples where the insurgents have won on their own?
Haiti in 1804
That’s a good example, although many rebel leaders were ex-regular soldiers in the French army.
Sure, deserters are always welcome.
The Irish war of independence 1919-21 would be another example
For a more recent one, Tito in Yugoslavia 1941-45. Some assistance from the Allies, but not a lot.
The secret of a successful guerilla campaign is to stay in the field. As long as you continue the fight, victory is possible, and often the war attracts external support.
Cornwallis won pretty much every battle in his Southern Campaign until his defeat at Yorktown, but was forced to retreat there to await evacuation.
Not only that but Georgia had returned to royal control and South Carolina wasn't far off either.
The American Revolution was defeatable in principle but probably not given the range of foreign allies weighing in against Britain.
I think we'd have won in 1776 if we'd advanced aggressively against George Washington and if we'd have blockaded the American ports properly to prevent arms and reinforcements from Europe getting in. But unfortunately we didn't have great strategists or generals in that war, unlike in the Seven Years War or the Napoleonic Wars.
I think the UK winning the American Revolutionary War is a really interesting counter-factual. I find it hard to believe that the independence movement wouldn't have continued and the US eventually split off - but it may surely have been a couple of decades (or even more) later and perhaps led to a very different world.
I'd read plausible theories that the English civil war was a precursor to the American Revolution over a hundred years earlier.
They were quite literally the same sort of people backing the republican side in both.
Glorious June evening here in Regent's Park. Girls float by in summer dresses. The Nash Terraces look down on a thousand picnics. Rich men in blue linen shirts sun bathe outside the York and Albany.
Not far away, the armies of liberation chase the last occupiers from the suburbs; the whip-cracks of rifle-shots dwindle to nothing....
"Hundreds of students missed out on a jab as UCL clinic 'ran out of supplies' (Daily Telegraph)."
As DavidL and I amongst others have pointed out, we have become shit on the vaccine rollout. The past month has been piss poor given the need to jab fast.
We should be jabbing 1 million a day. We're barely averaging 150,000 1st jabs. It's not good enough.
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
A big issue with military history is that so many primary published sources are written by soldiers eager to vindicate themselves and rubbish their colleagues.
Isn't that life?
The worst were probably the German generals after WW2, who asserted they’d have won the war but for Hitler, or bad weather, or mice eating the cables of tanks etc.
The really interesting question is what would have happened had the Nazis never launched Barbarossa and just been content with domination of western, central and south-eastern Europe.
They’d have run out of oil?
I saw Andrew Roberts talk on just this issue, and his view is that if Hitler had thrown everything at North Africa, he would have gotten all the oil he wanted (don't forget that Egypt produced a decent amount of oil at the time), and could also have strangled the British Empire by controlling the Suez Canal.
"Hundreds of students missed out on a jab as UCL clinic 'ran out of supplies' (Daily Telegraph)."
As DavidL and I amongst others have pointed out, we have become shit on the vaccine rollout. The past month has been piss poor given the need to jab fast.
We should be jabbing 1 million a day. We're barely averaging 150,000 1st jabs. It's not good enough.
The G7 Communique is - of course - a complete joke, through which a coach and horses can be dragged.
20% profit tax on profits above a 10% margin.
Google, Apple and Microsoft will pay more, as they are high margin businesses.
While Amazon (which has a massive low margin consumer retail business) will not.
The consequence of this is that demand for high sale, low margin businesses is going to go through the roof to enable firms to get their profit margins down to around 10%.
AmerisourceBergen McKesson and the other drug distributors (operating margins 1.5%-2.0%, with tens of billions of dollars of sales) look ripe for purchasing.
"Hundreds of students missed out on a jab as UCL clinic 'ran out of supplies' (Daily Telegraph)."
As DavidL and I amongst others have pointed out, we have become shit on the vaccine rollout. The past month has been piss poor given the need to jab fast.
We should be jabbing 1 million a day. We're barely averaging 150,000 1st jabs. It's not good enough.
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
A big issue with military history is that so many primary published sources are written by soldiers eager to vindicate themselves and rubbish their colleagues.
Isn't that life?
The worst were probably the German generals after WW2, who asserted they’d have won the war but for Hitler, or bad weather, or mice eating the cables of tanks etc.
The really interesting question is what would have happened had the Nazis never launched Barbarossa and just been content with domination of western, central and south-eastern Europe.
They’d have run out of oil?
I saw Andrew Roberts talk on just this issue, and his view is that if Hitler had thrown everything at North Africa, he would have gotten all the oil he wanted (don't forget that Egypt produced a decent amount of oil at the time), and could also have strangled the British Empire by controlling the Suez Canal.
Hitler never wanted to win the war by beating the British Empire. He wanted peace with a neutral Britain, so he could fix on his real goal: destroying all the Jews in Europe - in particular, by invading Poland and the Soviet Union, with their huge Jewish populations. That's how he wanted to win his war
"Hundreds of students missed out on a jab as UCL clinic 'ran out of supplies' (Daily Telegraph)."
As DavidL and I amongst others have pointed out, we have become shit on the vaccine rollout. The past month has been piss poor given the need to jab fast.
We should be jabbing 1 million a day. We're barely averaging 150,000 1st jabs. It's not good enough.
Had the Novavax trial finished and that vaccine approved, had AZ done better on production issues, had the two adenovirus vaccines (AZ + J&J) not had blood-clot side effects in the young, we would have been a lot further ahead than we are. This is why it was important that the vaccine taskforce built a portfolio of different vaccines, so that we were not too reliant on just one or two.
My wife had her first Pfizer dose this morning, and it's obvious from the centre she went to (Lowland Hall at Ingliston) and the centre I had my first dose at (Pyramids Business Park, Bathgate) that there's a lot of spare capacity to perform vaccinations, if we ever get hold of the doses to do so before we're done.
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
A big issue with military history is that so many primary published sources are written by soldiers eager to vindicate themselves and rubbish their colleagues.
Isn't that life?
The worst were probably the German generals after WW2, who asserted they’d have won the war but for Hitler, or bad weather, or mice eating the cables of tanks etc.
The really interesting question is what would have happened had the Nazis never launched Barbarossa and just been content with domination of western, central and south-eastern Europe.
They’d have run out of oil?
I saw Andrew Roberts talk on just this issue, and his view is that if Hitler had thrown everything at North Africa, he would have gotten all the oil he wanted (don't forget that Egypt produced a decent amount of oil at the time), and could also have strangled the British Empire by controlling the Suez Canal.
Comments
Hardly exorbitant.
Facilitating tax minimisation through sweetheart deals is parasitic.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/01/wuhan-coronavirus-lab-leak-covid-virus-origins-china
Interesting thoughts from Thomas Franke
LOL....went for the caught behind that missed the bat by a mile, nearly got the LBW by accident.
Ireland is the only country in the world to which the UK grants full rights, and it deserved a slightly more mature response on Brexit than it got.
Of course it is. Silly me. Still I must have confused you with that other MaxPB who on this very forum not so long ago was praising Britain for speaking to pharma companies and others to lure them away from the EU and set up here because Britain was a much friendlier place with all those tax advantages it was offering for investment and research.
If only British hypocrisy could be bottled and sold, Britain would be the richest country in the world by far.
Marshal Suchet, who took Valencia, was easily the most talented of the French commanders, the only one who came out of Spain with his reputation enhanced, and probably not conincidentally, a man of utter ruthlessness and inhumanity. Guerilla campaigns are almost never sufficient to win, on their own. Almost always, the insurgents require the support of some external power.
The Indy obit of Smith isn’t that damning considering
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/lifeinfocus/life-focus-ian-douglas-smith-last-white-prime-minister-rhodesia-zimbabwe-a8754971.html
Equally Ireland can have no complaints if other countries actually do something about it.
You are assuming that Britain had some automatic right to this money. It didn't. The tax laws in this country have long been structured in such a way as to make it attractive for companies to operate here. Other countries do the same. Some of those laws even benefited companies in the City. Britain is no stranger to doing sweetheart deals on tax with companies. Or to using its own tax havens to make itself attractive. Its complaint boils down to the fact that Ireland was better at it.
If Britain had been in the EU and this was a proposal from the Commission to alter Britain's tax laws so that the French, say, got more of our City tax revenues you and @MaxPB would be complaining bitterly.
Now the laws are being changed. Good. I hope they work. I will wait for the detail of what the laws will say rather than a press release which means jack shit in the real world.
I have no time for these big monopolistic companies who really are parasitic on the work of others and do not contribute to the societies in which they operate. But I can smell British hypocrisy about and condescension to Ireland a mile off.
On your other points, when have I ever advocated for a 0.75% effective tax rate and for companies to transfer profits from other countries into the UK to avoid paying it where the business is being generated? I'd very much like to see you find anything I've written in favour of that because it doesn't exist. I've always been in favour of low but fair taxes. Our 19% rate is a low but fair tax rate. Encouraging businesses to come to the UK to set up shop, create jobs, create value and export is absolutely something we need to encourage. If the government were pursuing companies to domicile themselves here for tax with brass plate companies like Ireland you'd absolutely see me call the out on it. To my knowledge the government doesn't do this and it expects companies who relocate to the UK to actually conduct business here. Not like Google who do almost all of their European business in the UK but book almost all of the profit in Ireland.
It is corporate welfare of the worst kind and the worst part is that Ireland doesn't even gain many jobs from it because it's the land of tax domiciled holding companies with brass plates.
Do I want companies to move to the UK? Absolutely. I want them here to create high value jobs, to create new and interesting products and services that we can export and to support the wider economy. No one in the world benefits from Apple paying a net rate of 0.75% corporate tax in Europe. Not a single fucking person.
Root is the worst.
2. Actually you're wrong: Irish citizens living in the U.K. have more rights than British citizens post-Brexit. Britain had no right to demand anything of Ireland. Nor did Ireland owe it anything at all. Britain made its decision for its own reasons. Ireland took its own decisions for its own interests. The fact that they did not suit Britain is too bad.
Still, it is quite funny to have people talk about a "mature response" on Brexit from a country which signed deals it did not understand, then tried to pass laws to break those deals because according to its own chief negotiator the deal was rubbish.
Must be some new meaning of "mature" I'm not au fait with.
If Ireland wants to charge 0.75% tax on iPhones sold in Ireland that's their business. Destroying the tax base of the countries surrounding is why we have these new rules coming in. It's not just the UK that suffers. France, Germany, Italy and other European countries also take a huge hit when multinationals enjoy a strong business environment created by the state and then use tax sheltering to avoid paying for it.
Honestly, this feels like one of those moments where because you don't like the messenger you've decided that this must be bad and that Ireland are the virtuous party and must be right. Ireland are nothing more than a tax parasite in Europe, whatever the UK did to them hundreds of years ago is completely irrelevant.
Your statement in effect seemed to justify what was claimed to be poor actions by Ireland by engaging in whataboutery in reference to British actions, as though a poor action by one party justifies a poor action by another.
I don't see what is unreasonable in pointing out that argument is nonsense. British actions don't become ok merely because someone else does it, and Irish actions don't become ok just because Britain has done bad things too.
Whataboutery is whataboutery, whoever tries to use it.
I really don't see what that has to do with anything. For someone hot on standards and probity 'others were doing it too' seems an odd way to complain about the proposals to now, apparently, do something about it.
So nations are being hypocritical about it, so what? Are the proposals themselves fair seems to be what matters.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/06/maggie-haberman-is-right/
1. I don't think Ireland was leeching off Britain or being parasitic. I don't accept the premise that this was somehow Britain's money which Ireland was stealing.
2. Britain did exploit Ireland for centuries.
3. I hope these monopolistic companies get broken up and pay a proper rate of tax. I hope this agreement really works and it is the start of a process not the end of it. I think it far too soon to celebrate because the detail of exactly how these new laws will work matter and, so far (may be it's too soon) no-one has been able to answer my 4 questions above.
4. Brass plate companies: let's look at the way vast numbers of British registered companies are used in so many scams and by so many dodgy people to launder and hide money. Britain's record on clamping down on the abuses or to take steps to make the misuse of companies incorporated here is pretty poor frankly. It has an absolute brass neck criticising others on this score. So let's hear Rishi call that out. Or - even better - do something about it.
Can you please explain exactly what Apple Ireland are doing for their IP licencing to Apple UK/Germany/France/Italy?
The money is spent here, the business is carried out here (Apple UK serves as the functional HQ for Apple in Europe) and the tax is paid at a rate of 0.75% on Ireland.
You have got zero understanding of how these Irish tax dodges work, clearly and are now casting about to try and make it look like you do.
The reason these companies are so gigantic is because none of them pay any bloody tax which means they can sit on hundreds of billions in cash to then use to buy or destroy any competitors before they even become close to being a serious company. That's how Google maintain their monopoly, they buy smaller companies that might one day threaten their core business of search and advertising and becuase the company they are buying has no market share it doesn't come under the purview of competition authorities.
You need to get real about how these companies operate and just how much they are facilitated by Ireland. Without that tax deal Apple would have paid around £30bn on taxes to various countries across Europe over the last decade. Except they didn't, they got to keep their cash and become even bigger and crowd out the market to an even greater extent.
So that country you're so happily absolving becuase of historical actions by Britain is one of the major factors in these companies maintaining their monopoly status. They have got these billions to spare and snuff out the competition because they don't pay any tax in Europe.
The US has the State of Delaware - its very own onshore tax haven. Britain has any number of tax havens. Ditto the Nether lands. Etc.
All countries use tax laws to make themselves attractive. Ireland did it to a high degree for reasons of its own. I do not particularly approve - not because I dislike tax competition. I think that within reason that's a good thing.
But mainly because I think it dangerous to allow companies to grow into the sort of monopolistic super-companies we have today with far too much power over our lives. Far more should be done to break them up. Tax is the very least of the issues their growing monopolistic power raises. I notice that no-one has engaged with this aspect of my comments at all. Odd.
Glad to see a start has been made.
But spare me the outrage at Ireland's behaviour please. It sits ill coming from those ready to cheer a government willing to openly break its own laws and deals to get its own way.
I think it was a huge mistake to use NI to play games over Brexit, but it doesn't stop people trying.
So long as the entity that is lending the money is off-shore (and therefore the interest income is untaxed), then unlimited sums of money can be efficiently diverted by the simple expedient of making sure interest payments equal pretax profit.
Your point?
The reason the companies are not broken up is because the US has refused to take anti-trust action. A very great pity. Will this deal make this any more likely? I doubt it. A shame.
What I object to is your vituperative accusations against Ireland which are very similar to your vituperative accusations against landlords and similarly lacking in any actual analysis.
I will leave the last word to @Sean_F who put it very well upthread -
"Countries act in their best interest. I don’t blame the Irish for attracting multinationals with generous tax treatment or others for making life difficult for those multinationals."
And yet, they insisted on aligning themselves wholesale with the EU and trying to use its heft to crowbar the UK into the softest Brexit possible - out of some weird historical desire for revenge - rather than coming up with a genuine solution to reset the GFA so it worked for both communities.
They knew full what that risked if it went wrong. That's their fault and theirs alone.
Of course, the problem is that Nazism was an ideology that demanded permanent expansion and conflict.
The data centres are geographically based - it’s the shortest route for expensive undersea cables to the US
The fact that 4 out of 7 of the G7 leaders are now from the centre left (or backed by the centre left in Italy's case), Biden, Macron, Trudeau and Conte and Merkel is in coalition with the centre left SPD also meant the pressure was on the UK and Japan as the only G7 leaders with fully centre right governments left to give in and agree and they seem to have done so.
Ultimately you're blinded by your hatred of Boris and this government so you've chosen to take the opposing side, in this case the enablers of tax evasion. It's just a little bit sad.
shame on him
Weather glorious here, having our first BBQ/Braai of the summer.
For those interested in how the British defended it before air power became decisive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex3gyw7AWhs
That EU factor may replace Ireland's corporation tax advantage in attracting American investment because it is those high level jobs that are the real gain in pivoting from old Ireland's largely agrarian economy. Brass plates are less important because, of course, they do not pay much tax, which is why they are there in the first place, or generate local economic activity.
I run a competitive, business-friendly tax policy.
You are a tax haven.
He is an international parasite.
(And yes, the gloating about Ireland, together with the implication that they deserve what they've got coming because they didn't give us a unicorn, is pretty depressing. How much of you-know-what is down to a "we're a Great Power dontchaknow?" attitude?)
Many of the products you buy from Amazon came from Amazon EU Sarl which books the revenues and profits. The goods are sourced in the UK, warehouses in the UK, distributed in the UK to a UK customer. At no point does the economic activity touch Luxembourg. And yet all of the profits end up in Luxembourg which has offered Amazon a sweetheart deal on tax.
I have no problem with royalties, for example, to the country where IP is held because that reflects the value of previous work. But that doesn’t apply in this case.
So, for example, the deals Ireland did with Imclone and AHP are fine in my view because they involved real economic activity. The deal with Apple not so much.
The Irish war of independence 1919-21 would be another example
For a more recent one, Tito in Yugoslavia 1941-45. Some assistance from the Allies, but not a lot.
The secret of a successful guerilla campaign is to stay in the field. As long as you continue the fight, victory is possible, and often the war attracts external support.
Cornwallis won pretty much every battle in his Southern Campaign until his defeat at Yorktown, but was forced to retreat there to await evacuation.
https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/inside-microsofts-dublin-mega-data-center
The American Revolution was defeatable in principle but probably not given the range of foreign allies weighing in against Britain.
While I have a long interest in military history, dating back to schoolboy games from SPI and Avalon Hill (as per @NickPalmer's book), there is more than a little suspect politics on military history websites and Social Media. Sometimes barely concealed "Noble Cause" enthusiasm, sometimes outright Neo-Nazism. Military History TikTok has some shocking BTL comments.
Floyd Mayweather to beat Logan Paul (draw is void according to the rules in the small print) at 1/7 with Will Hill seems like free money. Logan Paul isn't a serious boxer, Mayweather is one of the best ever and still in good shape - and he doesn't seem like the type to not take this seriously. He destroyed Conor McGregor, a top MMA fighter, a couple of years back. Immensely hard to see Logan Paul actually winning by KO/TKO - and even at 1/7 I've taken the bet.
There are good reasons why these businesses are in Ireland. Brexit is not one of them. I find it rather sad you have to shoehorn that in rather than looking critically at the reasons. It’s sloppy thinking
Grotesque. Enough. Let it stop
They were quite literally the same sort of people backing the republican side in both.
Not far away, the armies of liberation chase the last occupiers from the suburbs; the whip-cracks of rifle-shots dwindle to nothing....
As DavidL and I amongst others have pointed out, we have become shit on the vaccine rollout. The past month has been piss poor given the need to jab fast.
We should be jabbing 1 million a day. We're barely averaging 150,000 1st jabs. It's not good enough.
Typical Boris.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/coronavirus-news-covid-nepal-variant-cases-vaccine-news/
Never change you self hating clowns.
20% profit tax on profits above a 10% margin.
Google, Apple and Microsoft will pay more, as they are high margin businesses.
While Amazon (which has a massive low margin consumer retail business) will not.
The consequence of this is that demand for high sale, low margin businesses is going to go through the roof to enable firms to get their profit margins down to around 10%.
AmerisourceBergen
McKesson
and the other drug distributors (operating margins 1.5%-2.0%, with tens of billions of dollars of sales) look ripe for purchasing.
Three months ago we should have been piling on everything conceivable to ensure supplies ramp up. Foresight is part of leadership. Boris has neither.
Everything, everything, conceivable should have been done to ensure we jab a million a day.
Vaccinating 150,000 first jabs a day is quite simply not good enough.
This is piss poor oversight.
My wife had her first Pfizer dose this morning, and it's obvious from the centre she went to (Lowland Hall at Ingliston) and the centre I had my first dose at (Pyramids Business Park, Bathgate) that there's a lot of spare capacity to perform vaccinations, if we ever get hold of the doses to do so before we're done.