[BBC News] Government announces banks review

[Newsbot]

The British treasury reveals an independent review of the Isle of Man's offshore banks is to take place.

 

Source : http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/...man/7761902.stm

[oldmanxfella]

The British treasury reveals an independent review of the Isle of Man's offshore banks is to take place.

 

Source : http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/...man/7761902.stm

 

Its interesting that a report on Offshore Financial Centres delivered to the House of Commons Treasury Committe in June 2008 (before pre budget). Concluded

 

Recommendation 16

 

The Crown Dependencies are particularly vulnerable to political capture by the financial services industry. The Isle of Man can only operate because of subsidies amounting to more than £200 million a year provided to it by the UK; Jersey and

Guernsey are likely to run substantial government deficits as a result of tax changes adopted to comply with the EU Code of Conduct on Business Taxation. Neither gives indication of having contingency plans available to manage those budgets given the current likely down turn in their trade as the world financial crisis develops.

 

The UK government should:

 

• Make explicit the terms of its support for the Isle of Man government and make explicit its requirement that the Isle of Man comply with both the spirit as well as the letter of the EU Code of Conduct on Business Taxation in exchange for

that support;

 

• Require that each of the Crown Dependencies prepare contingency plans based on the premise that there will be no growth in their financial services sectors for the next five years;

 

• Make explicit that support will only be forthcoming for these territories if they are willing to comply with recommendations on transparency included in this report;

 

• Require that each Crown Dependency develop a plan to break its dependency upon financial services as the main source of its income and demonstrate the viability of doing so.

 

That course of action was suggested in June 2008 at the time the report was originally submitted. So I'm now confused at all the focus in the wake of the KSFIOM saga on a strategy that seems to have already been laid out and published months before?

 

Edited: The IOM actually comes out reasonably well across the whole report.

 

www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/OFCWrittenEvidence.pdf

[Gladys]

Why haven't we heard about that report before?

[pongo]

Edited: The IOM actually comes out reasonably well across the whole report.

 

www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/OFCWrittenEvidence.pdf

 

Phew. At first I was thinking it was an official or Parliamentary report.

 

It's Richard Murphy (again). Is he 100% credible?

[oldmanxfella]

Edited: The IOM actually comes out reasonably well across the whole report.

 

www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/OFCWrittenEvidence.pdf

 

Phew. At first I was thinking it was an official or Parliamentary report.

 

It's Richard Murphy (again). Is he 100% credible?

 

Regardless - they've taken it seriously and acted upon it from what I can see.

[Gladys]

Not really, have you ever joined in a debate on his website? His last vestige of debating skills is that he doesn't stick his fingers in his ears and sing 'la, la, I can't hear you'! Shame really, because a constructive debate would be, well, constructive.

 

So this report was not a UK Government commissioned report (White Paper or whatever) and although 'submitted' (which doesn't mean 'requested') has been put in the 'right to free speech' pile? That would correspond to a file I used in a previous existence called 'Correspondence with Individuals', but we referred to it as the Loony Letters File. Full of letters from individuals claiming to be the illegitimate offspring of this royal personage or that senior politician and seeking immediate answers as to why their rightful claim to, say, Vanuatu was being ignored. They often said they had copied these letters to the current Prime Minister and the Queen, which they probably had, but sending a letter to such an elevated person is not the same as receiving a reply!

[manxman2004]

Just been looking through dicks blog there, he really IS a "mass debater" isn't he!

[Albert Tatlock]

The terms of reference for the independent review 'British offshore financial centres' are here.

 

Note it says: 'The review will take account of Crown Dependencies’ and Overseas Territories’ respective constitutional relationships with the UK. Changes to the UK’s constitutional relationship with Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories are out of scope for the review.'

 

IMO this is wooly wording. 'Take into account' means 'take into consideration'. Consideration means 'careful thought; deliberation' - so I assume from that, although suggested changes to the constitutional relationship are clearly out of scope of this review, it does not necessarily mean that changes to the constitutional relationship will be out of scope for a government that has ordered the review.

[triskelion]

The terms of reference for the independent review 'British offshore financial centres' are here.

 

Note it says: 'The review will take account of Crown Dependencies’ and Overseas Territories’ respective constitutional relationships with the UK. Changes to the UK’s constitutional relationship with Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories are out of scope for the review.'

 

IMO this is wooly wording. 'Take into account' means 'take into consideration'. Consideration means 'careful thought; deliberation' - so I assume from that, although suggested changes to the constitutional relationship are clearly out of scope of this review, it does not necessarily mean that changes to the constitutional relationship will be out of scope for a government that has ordered the review.

I disagree, largely in that I don't think 'take into account' means 'take into consideration.' I think its more akin to 'bearing in mind.' In my opinion, what they are trying to say is that any work on the following:

 

"The review will work first with Crown Dependencies then Overseas Territories with significant financial centres to identify opportunities and current and future risks (and mitigation strategies) to their long-term financial services sector"

 

will have to be structured in such a way as to function within the existing constitutional relationships between the UK and the CDs and OTs.

 

I realise its really a somewhat grey semantic point, but I feel you've run with it in the wrong direction.

[Albert Tatlock]

The terms of reference for the independent review 'British offshore financial centres' are here.

 

Note it says: 'The review will take account of Crown Dependencies’ and Overseas Territories’ respective constitutional relationships with the UK. Changes to the UK’s constitutional relationship with Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories are out of scope for the review.'

 

IMO this is wooly wording. 'Take into account' means 'take into consideration'. Consideration means 'careful thought; deliberation' - so I assume from that, although suggested changes to the constitutional relationship are clearly out of scope of this review, it does not necessarily mean that changes to the constitutional relationship will be out of scope for a government that has ordered the review.

I disagree, largely in that I don't think 'take into account' means 'take into consideration.' I think its more akin to 'bearing in mind.' In my opinion, what they are trying to say is that any work on the following:

 

"The review will work first with Crown Dependencies then Overseas Territories with significant financial centres to identify opportunities and current and future risks (and mitigation strategies) to their long-term financial services sector"

 

will have to be structured in such a way as to function within the existing constitutional relationships between the UK and the CDs and OTs.

 

I realise its really a somewhat grey semantic point, but I feel you've run with it in the wrong direction.

I see your point to some degree, hence my use of the phrase 'wooly wording' - i.e. things are still not stated clear enough. Though bear in mind the definition of 'take into account' meaning 'take into consideration' is a dictionary definition - not mine.

 

Whilst I don't think that the review will actually lead to major constitutional change, I do suspect it will at least lead to greater influence being wielded under existing constitutional arrangements - and to enact this, decision makers in the UK need to be abreast of the facts, which I think this review is intended to provide. The resultant UK action may be in the form of, for example, more direct linkage of the FSC to the FSA, the enforced publication of company reports etc. to the FSA or inland revenue even - which I believe could be ordered under existing constitutional arrangements. In other words they already have the noose in place already, but need to understand via this review just how tight they can pull it under the existing constitutional position.

 

However, that said, with the termination of the health agreement I think all options are open at the moment. Changing the health agreement, which from 2010 will treat people resident on the Isle of Man and travelling to the UK the same as people from the USA etc. was a fundamental and very significant isolatery move on the part of the UK IMO. The NHS is very important to the majority of the people of the UK and the Isle of Man - it brings a sense of community and care common to all. Yes, whether it's about health or OFC's, to the current UK government it's all about money at the end of the day and clawing back as much as possible - but although money may be the current driver, I don't think the UK government, nor many of our own politicians, currently quite understand that in all of this they are actually severing some fundamental underlying practicalities of our ties to the UK. In other words they are not realising the consequences of the UK saying: 'stuff you, but God Save the Queen'.

 

I think the way Gordon Brown is going, it is he that should realise that if he continues on this path that it may be more of us islanders that actually start asking questions about the constitutional relationship - and 'what's actually in it for us anymore?'.

[John]

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/Former-FSA-...lead.4755184.jp

[Albert Tatlock]

[oldmanxfella]

Not really, have you ever joined in a debate on his website? His last vestige of debating skills is that he doesn't stick his fingers in his ears and sing 'la, la, I can't hear you'! Shame really, because a constructive debate would be, well, constructive.

 

So this report was not a UK Government commissioned report (White Paper or whatever) and although 'submitted' (which doesn't mean 'requested') has been put in the 'right to free speech' pile? That would correspond to a file I used in a previous existence called 'Correspondence with Individuals', but we referred to it as the Loony Letters File. Full of letters from individuals claiming to be the illegitimate offspring of this royal personage or that senior politician and seeking immediate answers as to why their rightful claim to, say, Vanuatu was being ignored. They often said they had copied these letters to the current Prime Minister and the Queen, which they probably had, but sending a letter to such an elevated person is not the same as receiving a reply!

 

I think you're referring to ex-local 'constitutional loony' Barrie Stevens who has also taken to posting great diatribes on Richards Blog; its great to see a crackpot being stalked by another crackpot!

 

I take your point on Mr Murphy, he's a tool but the submission intrigued me as they seem to have taken many of the suggestions and brought them into their proposed review of offshore centres anyway.

[Albert Tatlock]

Alan Bell is on MR's Talking Heads apparently - after 12pm.