The Tom Sawyer Principle (Politics)

[Mick Harper]

Another side note. Attempts to 'solve' the refugee problem are always interpreted as a desire to shuck off responsibility. This is kinda true. So when a hawkish populist refuses permission for a boatload of refugees to land he is castigated for brutishness -- as are the Italians who vote for him in droves (and for practically no other reason). And they are undeniably being brutes.They're rich and living in big houses, the refugees are in boats and dying. The problem though is that there are a hundred million people just like those folks on that boat and they will be heading for Italy, if Italy is letting them in, so the big houses may not be enough.

If we redefine the term 'refugee' to mean -- in this instance -- anyone who fled Syria in the last ten years, and we all stand shoulder to shoulder with Italy in taking them in, then the problem might be soluble, but I wouldn't bank on even that. Britain would have to take maybe half a million. Are we up for that? Or would we prefer to castigate the Italians for not taking in that boatload, maybe Syrians but probably not? If they don't let them in and, say, they are sent back to Libyan 'refugee' camps, the hundred million will be re-calibrating their prospects and it will soon be down to fifty million. If they drown, especially if there are a lot of kiddies, it'll be down to twenty million in no time. Before you know it, we'll be back to the days before Frau Merkel declared Germany (and therefore Europe) open to refugees, and the figure was zero.

So, lesson number one, if you refuse to define exactly what a refugee is, the number of refugees in the world is equal to the number of people who fancy having a shot at being rich and living in a big house. I suppose it is futile pointing out that the real Syrian refugees, for the most part, want nothing more than to return to their homes. If only we would bend our backs to help them with that rather than doing everything we can to keep the civil war going because we backed the losing side and don't want to admit it.

[Mick Harper]

On a side note to the side note. We always keep civil wars going as long as possible, whichever side we happen to prefer, by demanding constant ceasefires to allow emergency humanitarian aid to be brought in so nobody need ever give up. If anyone looks as though they might, we demand buses so they can regroup somewhere else, somewhere strategically superior, somewhere that will keep the civil war going for a little while longer.

[Mick Harper]

Asylum seekers are a variant of refugees. The latter tend to come in droves, the former singly, but either way they are all entitled to the protection of various international agreements that we are signed up to. Signed up to when
a) Europe was flooded with displaced persons of every description, none of whom were going to be allowed home any time soon, and nor have they been
b) asylum-seekers tended to be escapees from behind the Iron Curtain
c) the concept of economic migrants was so alien that while anybody in the British Empire had the right to permanent settlement in Britain, they were so little inclined to do so that we had to conduct recruitment drives to persuade them (Windrush etc).

Anybody who suggests that any of this might need revisiting is a populist bombast. However, when the actual provisions of the various international agreements are inconvenient i.e. asylum-seekers are the responsibility of any safe country they happen to be in, they are set aside. Thus if you are an asylum seeker in Calais, where there are identity cards and therefore an ordinary life is hellishly difficult, you are allowed to use illegal means multiple times to get into Britain, where there are no identity cards, and leading an ordinary life is a relative piece of piss, and still retain your asylum status. You will never, we promise on a stack of King James Bibles, ever be sent back to France.

[Mick Harper]

I am tremendously aware that I am a smug bastard sneering at the misfortunes of others. What I bring to the table is the awareness that this is part of the human condition and we don't like it. You cannot be smug and aware of the misfortunes of others, by definition. But you can be smug so long as you are doing everything in your power to ameliorate the misfortunes of others. Which means you are not really very likely to listen to me when I assure you you are actually making things worse. You are not being futile, you are being wicked.

Here endeth the lesson, and we will get onto the subject I was intending to address at the outset, offshore banking.

[Mick Harper]

But it's a big topic so let me wrap up this migrant business. Liberals should always remember they live in a democracy and while generally speaking there's no need to pay attention to the majority they can't be entirely ignored. Occasionally they hold the balance of power in your constant internecine quarrels. But enough about you, let's see what we can do for the migrants. This is the Magic Triangle

1. There is an infinite supply of people who'd like to live here
2. There is an infinite demand for people to come here to do jobs we don't want to do
3. Everybody hates foreigners apart from liberals who pretend they don't.

The triangle could be squared if we set up an arrangement whereby people who could reasonably pass for ourselves came here to do the jobs by the ordinary processes of supply-and-demand and then mostly went home again or stayed and became more British than the British, without us having to do anything about it, except we are leaving the EU on 31st October and these priceless people won't be allowed in any more.

This bizarre decision was taken largely because liberals wouldn't listen to the majority's complaints about uncontrolled migration. In fact the mere mention of the subject was ipso facto evidence of belonging to the majority and therefore not to be listened to. It is going to be difficult rescuing liberals from their folly but we must at least try otherwise we'll end up living in a country not run by liberals and I can assure you that is not a nice thing at all.

[Mick Harper]

So first things first, define migrants

1. We must abolish the category of 'refugees' and 'asylum-seekers'. There is no need to delve further into the question, neither category can reasonably turn up either at Dover or Heathrow. We might as well take advantage of being an island far, far away from places that may be producing refugees and/or asylum seekers. This will happily unleash an overwhelming desire to actually help refugees and asylum-seekers since we can no longer salve our conscience by letting a few in from time to time. In fact, were we to abolish the wasteful and mostly counter-productive concept of 'overseas aid' and devote the whole sum to it, we would work wonders and smell permanently of roses. Including to ourselves.

2. Everyone who turns up is now defined as an economic migrant bent on earning money here so the sole criteria for admittance should be "Yeah, okay, what's in it for us?" This is not racism, this is a job interview. But it does involve racism, so listen up.

[Mick Harper]

We might as well also take advantage of the fact that we are a multicultural country with an incredibly, if relatively, proud record of tolerance to people for whom the 'multi' bit applies. In other words anybody who does turn up will a) belong to one or other of the multi's and b) we will have a long and proud data store of how all their predecessors turned out. So use the damn thing. If you're an Australian, you're in; if you're a Somali, you're out. I didn't make the rules, you did.

[Mick Harper]

We can agree, I think, that offshore banking hides a multitude of sins. The two big questions are: would the sins continue without it and if not, what can we do about it? The first thing to observe is there's nothing that can be done about it in in the ordinary sense. Too many people in too many countries with too much power benefit from the practice to make 'reforming the system' anything other than piteous cries of "We're doing our best, don't go on about it." Prime Minister Cameron was the last one to promise to attack the problem vigorously but since he didn't arrest his dad his heart didn't seem to have been in it.

As we know, offshore banking used to be useful. I've never quite understood why. Yes, multinational people and multinational companies need multinational bank accounts. That's fine, go ahead. But is one of the nations the Turk and Caicos Islands? No, I thought not. So that must be for ... well, secrecy. Not confidentialty, note, that's provided as a sworn duty by every bank in every jurisdiction. But secrecy isn't. In fact every bank in every jurisdiction (even Switzerland nowadays) is sworn to non-secrecy. To turn details over to law'n'order on request. Even Turk and Caicos is but somehow it just doesn't have the resources what with offshore accounts outnumbering the local population by several orders of magnitude.

So we outlaw them. We close every single 'bank' in every single place that doesn't have a need for much of a local banking industry (the G7 will provide one). That will bankrupt my own little island home, Guernsey, but it will show my heart was in it. It won't solve the problem but it will be a start. You will know it's not a start the first time someone from the G7 says, "Of course, there must be exceptions..." No, pally, especially not in your case.

[Mick Harper]

Problems of Implementation No 1

Many of these offshore havens are British (eg Turks & Caicos and Guernsey) or similarly part of the G7. Presumably they can be closed down (given the will ... oh dear, but we'll be coming to that). Many are independent nations eg Luxembourg, Panama, Lichtenstein etc. which can’t. At least not by fiat. So, either they shape up or the G7 (better the G20) tells them that no money can get transferred to them from any G20 source. They can keep what they've got but they will wither on the vine. Pronto if I know anything about offshore creeps.

But they can’t shape up. That’s the problem. Irrespective of whether they would wish to, which they don’t. So they in turn get the torch treatment: “We have worked out how many banks you need for your own purposes, you can have them (chosen from our list) and you close the rest.” Whether this applies to local accountants, solicitors, realtors and football administrators is something that will have to be worked out.

[Grant]

Another solution is to get rid of corporation tax. Why should a company ever pay tax? People pay income tax and VAT and taxes on dividends. That's fine, but taxes on companies are just taxes on wealth creation. If there is no corporation tax no legitimate company will need to offshore funds.
After this abolition we could outlaw individuals from using tax havens.

[Mick Harper]

I have thought along the same lines except, all things being equal, companies should contribute to the services they use just as individuals do. It is when companies are used as cash cows that the problems start. Finance ministers soon discover that wealthy companies, just like wealthy individuals, have the power to strike back (or skedaddle, which is worse). Morality is rarely the issue (please note, left and right) only macht.

I agree our motto 'Don't bother trying to stop something that cannot be stopped' might be apropos in an era of over-mighty and fleet-footed multinationals but on the other hand, from our point of view, surely if they are not paying taxes, they might as well be in tax havens. What diff? Also I am not sure that individuals can be differentiated from companies but I like your thinking. I like that you're thinking.

[Mick Harper]

Problems of Implementation No 2

Despite getting most of the publicity it is not giant multinationals parking their dosh offshore that is the Big Problem. They are just carrying out entirely legal tax planning. So long as there are different tax jurisdictions, there will always be a Delaware or an Ireland offering this or that incentive to park their dosh with them. We know about that and if we are dumb enough to let Microcosm Inc argue that having a brass plate in Vaduz means they don't have to pay corporation tax in Britain, that's strictly down to us. It's the unaccountability that counts. There is no brass plate in Vaduz that reads Idi Amin Inc.

[Mick Harper]

Problems of Implementation No 2 (a)

Brexit might prove interesting. The EU presently contains one major sponsor of tax havens (the UK), one major tax haven (Luxembourg) and one minor one (Ireland). It has all sorts of historical, cultural and organic ties to local tax havens from Andorra via Monaco to Liechtenstein. All twenty-eight member states operate tax regimes that beggar-their-neighbours if it suits. All twenty-eight members are plagued by multinationals (including their own) who seem to be untaxable. All twenty-eight member states are plagued by citizens waltzing off with taxable income, not to mention the proceeds of crime.

On the other hand, the EU does have muscle. So tax-havenwise, would we be better off out than in?

[Mick Harper]

Problems of Implementation No 3

The harm done by offshore banking is from all the 'swilling about'. Multinationals do not swill their money about, they plonk it here, they plonk it there, they challenge you to do anything about it. Mostly you can't and, I presume, that will remain the case because they are bigger than you. They are bigger than all of us even if we did all get our act together. But we are bigger than the offshore creeps and, by all accounts, that's where the money is. And I mean trillions.

So what? Take someone like Phillip Green (please). Now he is at least hiding in plain sight, in Monaco. Actually it's Tina Green that's hiding in plain sight,. technically he hasn't got a bean so can come and go, do as he pleases, free as a bird, not a care in the world. Except having to be nice to Tina all the time but apparently that's worth a few hundred mill even though Phil is a bit of a lad by all accounts. Blimey, she walks in just one time and he really hasn't got a bean. But, as the saying goes, the rich inhabit a different world. The point is Phil thinks it's worth it. But those few hundred mill should by rights be ours. He puts up with it all to keep it all.

And the problem is they are prepared to put up with a lot even to get a little. His neighbour, Lewis Hamilton, doesn't mind the entire world thinking him a selfish twat so he can save some VAT on his airyplane. With those kinds of attitudes, it's not going to be an easy task. Unless we make it so.

[Mick Harper]

Problems of Implementation No 4

So let us suppose Monte Carlo is closed down along with all the other tax havens (as per above). We still wouldn't necessarily get the money. Tina and Lewis would move to Ireland or Luxembourg or wherever charges less tax than we do. And there will always be such countries. Now Tina and Lewis might not like living in Ireland or Luxembourg but Ireland and Luxembourg are well aware of this and will make sure their tax-residency laws reflect this. A stopover at Shannon should do it if it means 5% of their dosh.

Except Tina (not so much Lewis) made her dosh in and from Britain. This is surely the key. And Ireland is not the same as Luxembourg. Ireland is a real country with real fiscal problems, Luxembourg's just a brass plate whatever the Luxembourgeois think. In fact Luxembourg will go the extra mile to make sure Tina and Lewis go there and Ireland are left crying into their porter over their lost 5%. Too bad, paddies, but it wasn't your money in the first place, it was ours. So, is it a simple race to the bottom? What do we do when it isn't Luxembourg offering the incentives but Russia? Hold up! All the Russian moneybags are setting up shop in Britain! We are the bottom. What's going on?

Well, we're getting 0.5% of their money, that's what. I'd prefer the Russian state to get 30% of their money to be honest and not entirely for altruistic reasons. But some of it is Putin's money so is he going to sign Russia up to the new world order where everybody knows how much money he's stolen? Does everyone have to be signed up to make it work?