Prime Minister Boris Johnson is facing questions about the refurbishment of his flat on London’s Downing Street amid allegations from his former advisor.
Dominic Cummings said in a blog post on Friday that Johnson had “plans to have donors secretly pay for the renovation (of his flat)” calling that “unethical, foolish, [and] possibly illegal”.
Cummings said the refurbishment plans “almost certainly broke the rules on proper disclosure of political donations if conducted in the way he intended”.
3. Re the flat. The Prime Minister’s DOC has also made accusations regarding me and leaks concerning the PM’s renovation of his flat. The PM stopped speaking to me about this matter in 2020 as I told him I thought his plans to have donors secretly pay for the renovation were unethical, foolish, possibly illegal and almost certainly broke the rules on proper disclosure of political donations if conducted in the way he intended. I refused to help him organise these payments. My knowledge about them is therefore limited. I would be happy to tell the Cabinet Secretary or Electoral Commission what I know concerning this matter.
The charge is the latest in a string of allegations that Johnson and other Conservatives, including former Prime Minister David Cameron, blurred or broke rules relating to contacts with donors and business.
Opposition parties have picked up on the allegations ahead of local elections next month.
Downing Street claimed that Johnson paid for the apartment refurbishment but the opposition Labour Party said the prime minister needed to explain how he obtained the money.
“It is about integrity. It is about taxpayers’ money. Every day there is more evidence of this sleaze. Frankly, it stinks,” Labour leader Keir Starmer told the BBC on Saturday.
“Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
In his blog post, Cummings made other allegations including that the PM had tried to stop an inquiry into a leak of information about the second coronavirus lockdown because he heard it had involved his fiancée’s friend.
“I told him that he could not possibly cancel an inquiry about a leak that affected millions of people, just because it might implicate his girlfriend’s friends,” Cummings wrote in his post.
In a statement, Johnson’s Downing Street office said the prime minister had “never interfered” in the inquiry and that the government had “acted in accordance with the appropriate codes of conduct and electoral law” on issues involving the funding of the flat refurbishment.
Cummings, a former top advisor for Johnson, resigned in November.
He had become a controversial figure after driving 400 kilometres across the country during lockdown.
Cummings said he will answer questions about any of the issues he has raised when he appears before lawmakers on May 26.
The UK government is facing growing sleaze allegations largely linked to Cameron, who was prime minister between 2010 and 2016. A series of inquiries have been launched over Cameron’s lobbying role for Greensill Capital, which collapsed last month.
Dominic Cummings, the PM’s former chief adviser, hasdenied leaking text messages sent between the PM and businessman Sir James Dyson.
Several newspapers have speculated that Mr Cummings passed on the messages, first reported this week by the BBC.
But in his own blog, Cummings writes that he was “not directly or indirectly the source” of the leak – and questions the “competence” of the prime minister.
Asked whether he had blamed his former adviser for it, Mr Johnson said: “I don’t think people give a monkey’s, to be frank, about who is briefing what to who.”
The BBC – whose political editor Laura Kuenssberg first reported on the text messages on Tuesday – said it did not discuss the sources of stories.
For many people, they will be see through this entire fiasco as little more than a diversion.
The real questions apart from how public and accessible the contents of the British prime misters’ personal phone are and to the extent, it’s a guessing game to who leaked what from it are questions about the ministerial code, corruption, and now a clear case of national security and the monitoring of the prime ministers mobile phone.
David Cameron must be laughing in his shed while the attention is taken off him
In the 1000-word blog post, Mr Cummings also wrote that attempts to get a Conservative donor to secretly pay for lavish refurbishments of the Prime Minister’s Downing Street flat was “unethical, foolish, possibly illegal and almost certainly broke the rules”.
The blogpost was written in response to stories in three national newspapers that Mr Cummings was behind this week’s leak of text messages between the Prime Minister and businessman Sir James Dyson.
The leak revealed Mr Johnson had promised Sir James he would “fix” a tax issue for Dyson staff working to develop ventilators early on in the pandemic.
Cummings writes on his blog: “I was not directly or indirectly a/the source for the BBC/Kuenssberg story on the PM/Dyson texts.”
He adds: “I am happy to meet with the cabinet secretary and for him to search my phone for Dyson messages.”
Dominic Cummings continues: “I am happy for No 10 to publish every email I received and sent July 2019-November 2020 (with no exceptions other than, obviously, some national security/intelligence issues).”
He also calls for an “urgent parliamentary inquiry into the government’s conduct over the Covid crisis”, adding that he thinks Mr Johnson has fallen “far below” the standards of “competence” the “country deserves”.
Cummings promises to answer questions about “any” issues when he appears before a parliamentary committee on 26 May.
Earlier, Downing Street declined to comment on “speculation” that Mr Cummings – who quit his government job last November after a row over his role as the PM’s chief adviser – had leaked the texts.
On a visit to Derbyshire, Mr Johnson said anyone who thought there was something “dodgy or rum” in his dealings with Sir James Dyson was “out of their mind”.
But Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said the it was “increasingly obvious” the prime minister was involved in “sleaze”.
This is not just a failed IT system this is a failed justice system that ruined lives and sent innocent people to prison on mass
Convictions Overturned…
39 postmasters accused of theft by Post Office due to faulty IT system have convictions overturned
The appellants, some of whom were imprisoned for crimes they never committed, had been accused of theft and false accounting because of a faulty computer system.
In court, Sam Stein QC, the barrister representing several sub-postmasters, said the scandal had turned the Post Office “into the nation’s most untrustworthy brand”.
one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in English legal history, 39 people who were prosecuted after the Horizon IT system installed by the Post Office and supplied by Fujitsu falsely suggested there were cash shortfalls, had their names cleared on Friday.
Campaigners believe that as many as 900 operators, often known as subpostmasters, may have been prosecuted and convicted between 2000 and 2014.
The Post Office prosecuted more than 700 sub-postmasters, on average one a week, after a bug in the computer system Horizon led to financial shortfalls in branch accounts.
Following the convictions – including theft, fraud and false accounting – some former postmasters went to prison, were shunned by their communities and struggled to secure work.
Some lost their homes, and even failed to get insurance owing to their convictions. Some have since died.
They always said the fault was in the computer system, which had been used to manage Post Office finances since 1999.
In his written judgment, Lord Justice Holroyde, sitting with Mr Justice Picken and Mrs Justice Farbey, said of the 39 cleared: “Many of these appellants went to prison; those that did not suffered other penalties imposed by the courts; all would have experienced the anxiety associated with what they went through; all suffered financial losses, in some cases resulting in bankruptcy; some suffered breakdowns in family relationships; some were unable to find or retain work as a result of their convictions – causing further financial and emotional burdens; some suffered breakdowns in health; all suffered the shame and humiliation of being reduced from a respected local figure to a convicted criminal; and three … have gone to their graves carrying that burden.”
The human tragedy in all this is beyond measure
The Post Office settled the civil claim brought by 555 claimants for £57.75m – amounting to £12m after legal costs – without admitting liability, in December 2019.
In the high court, Mr Justice Fraser found the Fujitsu-developed Horizon system contained “bugs, errors and defects” and that there was a “material risk” shortfalls in branch accounts were caused by the system.
The 42 argued their convictions were unsafe because in light of evidence, including Fraser’s findings, the trial process must have been unfair and it was an affront to the public conscience for them to face prosecution.
The Post Office conceded the first ground in relation to the 39 who were cleared but only conceded the second in relation to four of them. The court cleared all 39 on both grounds but rejected three other appeals, which the Post Office had fully opposed, the judges concluding that the Horizon data was not central to those cases.
Holroyde said the Post Office, which brought the prosecutions itself, “knew that there were serious issues about the reliability of Horizon”.
He wrote: “The failures of investigation and disclosure were in our judgment so egregious as to make the prosecution of any of the ‘Horizon cases’ an affront to the conscience of the court.
“By representing Horizon as reliable, and refusing to countenance any suggestion to the contrary, POL [Post Office Limited] effectively sought to reverse the burden of proof: it treated what was no more than a shortfall shown by an unreliable accounting system as an incontrovertible loss, and proceeded as if it were for the accused to prove that no such loss had occurred.
“Denied any disclosure of material capable of undermining the prosecution case, defendants were inevitably unable to discharge that improper burden. As each prosecution proceeded to its successful conclusion the asserted reliability of Horizon was, on the face of it, reinforced. Defendants were prosecuted, convicted and sentenced on the basis that the Horizon data must be correct, and cash must therefore be missing, when in fact there could be no confidence as to that foundation.”
No one has ever been held accountable for the scandal, although in November last year, the Metropolitan police said it had opened an investigation into potential perjury by IT experts from Fujitsu, in relation to evidence they gave during the criminal trials.
The government has announced an inquiry into the scandal but the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance has demanded its terms of reference must be widened to include the Post Office’s role in the prosecutions, that it be put on a statutory basis to compel witnesses to give evidence under oath and removed from the sponsorship of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which owns the Post Office.
After the judgments, Boris Johnson welcomed the decision, and tweeted: “Lessons should and will be learnt to ensure this never happens again.”
The Post Office chairman, Tim Parker, expressed his sorrow for the impact on all affected and said it had “supported the overturning of the vast majority of convictions. We are contacting other postmasters and Post Office workers with criminal convictions from past private Post Office prosecutions that may be affected, to assist them to appeal should they wish.”
It’s an easy cop-out blaming the already vilified Brexit bogeyman who never minds playing the bad guy.
Downing Street has mounted a fightback against “sleaze” accusations by planting stories in Tory-supporting newspapers accusing the bogyman of Brexit Dominic Cummings of leaking Number 10 texts.
The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Sun quote unnamed Downing Street sources claiming Dominic Cummings leaked texts about tycoon Sir James Dyson and Saudi Arabia’s crown prince.
Both The Times and Daily Telegraph lead with the accusations: “Cummings accused of leaking No 10 texts. Downing Street sources claim former chief adviser released PM’s messages out of spite.”
And the Sun’s page-one headline, alongside photos of Dominic Cummings and the prime minister, is: “PM accuses ex-adviser of leaks. Boris: Dom’s a text maniac.”
Sky News Jon Craig seems to have the measure of this orchestrated diversion, asking the right questions after the reports were published, The Guardian seems to have gone along with the Downing street line: “In what appeared to be a coordinated attack on Cummings, along with the Telegraph, Times and Sun they reported the same criticisms from an unnamed insider accusing him of being ‘bitter’ about leaving government.”
Opposition MPs will claim Number 10 is attempting to divert attention from allegations of “sleaze” and “cronyism” against Boris Johnson and senior members of his government – and former prime minister David Cameron over his lobbying for Greensill Capital.
The reports in the three newspapers appeared shortly after the Bank of England and the Treasury published detailed records of attempts by David Cameron to lobby the Bank of England and the Treasury on behalf of Australian banker Lex Greensill.
The strongest attack on Cummings came in The Times, with claimed “No 10 source” quoted as saying: “Dominic is engaged in systematic leaking. We are disappointed about that. We are concerned about messages from private WhatsApp groups which had very limited circulation.
“The prime minister is saddened about what Dom is doing. It’s undermining the government and the party. It might be that Dominic feels bitter about what’s happened since he left – but it’s a great shame. Dyson was trying to do something for the good of the country.”
The Daily Telegraph claimed: “Mr Cummings has been fingered as the likely culprit in the leaking of messages between Mr Johnson and the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and separate texts between the Prime Minister and the businessman Sir James Dyson.
“The former adviser is understood to have had legitimate access to the text messages during his time working in government.”
The paper quoted an unnamed source as saying: “If you join the dots it looks like it’s coming from Dom. More than anything, the PM is disappointed and saddened by what Dom has been up to.
What legitimate access a government advisor would have to the prime minister’s private mobile phone is a question in itself. However, for the gullible and those wanting a quick end to this sleaze and corruption, it’s all too convenient to blame it on the bogyman of Brexit who for many fits the bill, guilty or not.
Lobbying, corruption, and cronyism needs to be investigated but when the prime ministers own text are leaked then the prime minister becomes a security risk
While an inquiry into the leaked text has been ordered this does not cover the security issues relating to the leak according to the Independent.
The prime minister’s official spokesperson said that the internal inquiry would be led by the Cabinet Office and is not intended for publication.
The national security adviser has not been asked to take part in the probe, and it is understood that neither the police nor security agencies have got involved.
Downing Street said that the inquiry will not consider a separate leak of text messages from Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman asking Mr Johnson to intervene in the proposed takeover of Newcastle United FC.
Mr Johnson’s spokesperson confirmed that the prime minister remains committed to his promise to MPs on Wednesday to release details of his contacts with Mr Dyson.
But he was unable to name a date for the release, saying only that it would happen “shortly”.
Soon after the leak on Wednesday, the spokesperson told a Westminster media briefing that there was no plan for a leak inquiry.
The failure to order an immediate probe prompted speculation in Westminster that the PM may believe he already knew who was being the security breach, but prefer not to risk further publicity by mounting an inquiry.
His spokesperson said today: “As usual, we keep these things under review and we have decided to undertake this internal inquiry.
The text messages, obtained by BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg from an unknown source, showed Boris Johnson agreeing to try to “fix” tax problems experienced by Dyson staff working on the development of ventilators in the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic last spring.
The Texts published by the BBC showed the prime minister promising Sir James he would “fix” an issue on the tax status of Dyson staff working in the UK during the pandemic.
Labour has said the messages are part of a pattern of government “sleaze”.
The PM said he made “no apology” for trying to get ventilators for the NHS.
Asked about the leaks, Mr Johnson’s official spokesman said: “We have instructed the Cabinet Office to look into this.”
Conventional wisdom would suggest in normal circumstances a text message between two people would remain private unless one or the other leaked that text, however, in these circumstances, it would not be unreasonable to believe nether Boris Johnson or James Dyson leaked the Text in question, therefore it would only leave us with the conclusion that a security breach has transpired.
A security breach involving the UK Prime minister this is clealy a natinal security issue. From the content of the text it is quite clear the Prime minister is not averse to discussing matters of state on his mobile phone therefore it must be in the public interest for an inquiry into not only whether the ministeral code was broken but if there has been a natinal security breach.
This may not be a Watergate moment but it’s certainty disconcerting that a prime minister has used his mobile to discuss issues of state and that information has leaked.
Most people will be forgiving on the issue of and question of tax, allowing Dyson’s employers to work in the UK to build life saving ventilators and not be penalized by a higher UK tax rate. The fact that no ventilated will do it is irrelevant. However, the conversation relating to this on a mobile phone is a matter for the ministerial code but security questions surrounding the British Prime ministers text and leaks thereafter to the public is an issue that affects national security. God forbid he uses his mobile phone to talk about security or does he?
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said the issue wasn’t about getting hold of ventilators but “whether those who are well known to the party, the Tory party, friends, etc who’ve got the prime minister’s number can access him and ask about tax breaks”.
He said people who could access the prime minister directly were in a “magic circle,” while others were left “outside”.
He urged the prime minister to “disclose all of the contacts that he’s had”.
Starmer, former DDP often boasts of his years in that position in one PMQs he declared: “When the prime minister has worked with the security and intelligence forces, prosecuting criminals and terrorists, he can lecture me.”
Maybe while rubbing shoulders with the security agencies Starmer should have picked up a few points like understanding security issues and not just the fallout from them. Starmer should not only be focusing on the sleaze but be asking how the contents of the prime minister’s phone ended up on the table of a BBC journalist.
Laura Kuenssberg should not give up her source but the security services should do their job and investigate the leak.
When there are only two people involved in a conversation and one of them happens to be the Prime minister as Boris Johnson stated the ‘First Lord of the Treasury‘ be it verbal or text then that conversation is leaked, question have to be asked about security and hacking.
This is not about Laura Kuenssberg source directly, there are other questions to answer, like why the Prime minister is disusing state business on an unsecure device and how that business was obtained by a third source along with what other information may or may not have been obtained.
An investigation would open up a few uncomfortable questions for Boris Johnson and other politicians that seem to think it’s ok to talk state affairs on their mobile phone irrespective of their security value.
Sources can still be protected but what about national security?
The main legislation governing the protection of journalistic sources is the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (CCA 1981). Section 10 provides that in a free and democratic society there is a need to protect journalists’ sources and presumes in favour of those journalists wishing to do so. There are however exceptions to this presumption where disclosure of the information will be deemed necessary. These are:
in the interests of justice;
in the interests of national security;
for the prevention of disorder or crime;
In the interests of national security
Where national security is concerned the necessity for disclosure of the source will be almost automatic. Keeping information concerning national security confidential outweighs the right to keep the source confidential.
This is because the people divulging information regarding national security will usually be those employed in government and therefore have an obligation of confidentiality. If someone in this position is willing to provide information to the press, they are not fulfilling their role as a trusted servant to the government and will need to be identified and removed from their position to protect national security.
Source protection, sometimes also referred to as source confidentiality or in the U.S. as the reporter’s privilege is a right accorded to journalists under the laws of many countries, as well as under international law. It prohibits authorities, including the courts, from compelling a journalist to reveal the identity of an anonymous source for a story.
The right is based on a recognition that without a strong guarantee of anonymity, many would be deterred from coming forward and sharing information of public interests with journalists, and to be fair no one needs Laura Kuenssberg to give up her source and nor should she, this is a matter for the security services no matter what downing street wants or is hiding but for the sake of our security someone should find out how the UK’s prime ministers communications have been leaked.
The Tax issue is none runner but the security issue really needs chasing.
‘We need you here’
At the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, the government asked companies, including Dyson, to help supply ventilators.
Sir James sought assurance from the Treasury that his workforce would not be hit with extra taxes if they came to the UK to help with the effort.
Having failed to get a response, he contacted the prime minister directly via text.
In the messages seen by the BBC, Mr Johnson told Sir James: “[Chancellor] Rishi [Sunak] says it is fixed!! We need you here.”
In a later text Mr Johnson said: “I am First Lord of the Treasury and you can take it that we are backing you to do what you need.”
In a statement, Sir James said he was “hugely proud” of Dyson’s actions in the pandemic.
He added that Dyson had not “any benefit from the project” and that the company had “voluntarily covered the £20m of development costs”.
“Not one penny was claimed from any government, in any jurisdiction, in relation to Covid-19.”
The big question: What else was on Boris’s phone and who had access, if not Johnson’s phone then how and who?
Russia announced on Thursday that it will withdraw troops near Ukraine and annexed Crimea, deeming its military exercises over.
Russia’s defense minister on Thursday ordered troops back to their permanent bases following massive drills in Crimea that involved dozens of navy ships, hundreds of warplanes and thousands of troops in a show of force amid tensions with Ukraine.
After watching the drills, Russian Defense Minister Shoigu declared the maneuvers over and ordered the military to pull the troops taking part in maneuvers in Crimea and western Russia back to their permanent bases.
“I consider the goals of the snap check of readiness fulfilled,” Shoigu said. “The troops have shown their defense capability and I decided to complete the drills in the South and Western military districts.”
Shoigu said the troops should return to their bases by May 1, but he also ordered to keep the heavy weapons deployed to western Russia as part of the drills for another massive military exercise later this year.
Shoigu said they should remain at the Pogonovo firing range in the southwestern Voronezh region. The sprawling range is located 160 kilometers (about 100 miles) east of the border with Ukraine.
The Russian troop buildup near Ukraine that came amid increasing violations of a cease-fire in Ukraine’s east has raised concerns in the West, which urged the Kremlin to pull its forces back.
Russia and Ukraine blame each other for the rise in violence
According to United Nations, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine has claimed over 13,000 lives since 2014. Around 24,000 people have injured in the conflicts.
Zelensky said in a statement that so far in 2021, 20 Ukrainian servicemen had been killed, and 57 got injured due to ceasefire violations. Both Russia and Ukraine are blaming each other for the rise in violence between Ukraine’s forces and Russia-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine.
The Russian military hasn’t reported the number of additional troops that have been moved to Crimea and parts of southwestern Russia near Ukraine, and it wasn’t immediately clear from Shoigu’s statement if all of them will now be pulled back.
The U.S. and NATO has said that the Russian buildup near Ukraine was the largest since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea and threw its support behind separatists in eastern Ukraine.
A tank of pro-Russian militants of self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic (Image:euractiv)
The Russian Defense Ministry said the maneuvers in Crimea involved more than 60 ships, over 10,000 troops, around 200 aircraft and about 1,200 military vehicles.
The exercise featured the landing of more than 2,000 paratroopers and 60 military vehicles on Thursday. Fighter jets covered the airborne operation.
Shoigu flew in a helicopter over the Opuk firing range in Crimea to oversee the exercise. He later declared the drills over, but ordered the military to stand ready to respond to any “adverse developments” during NATO’s Defender Europe 2021 exercise.
Last week, Russia has announced that it would close broad areas of the Black Sea near Crimea to foreign navy ships and state vessels until November, a move that drew Ukrainian protests and raised Western concerns. Russia also announced restrictions on flights near Crimea this week, arguing that they fully conform with the international law.
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba warned Tuesday that the Russian buildup across the border is continuing and is “expected to reach a combined force of over 120,000 troops” in about a week and urged the West to beef up sanctions against Moscow.
Moscow has rejected Ukrainian and Western concerns about the buildup, arguing that it’s free to deploy its forces anywhere on the Russian territory and charging that they don’t threaten anyone. But at the same time, the Kremlin sternly warned Ukrainian authorities against trying to use force to retake control of the rebel east, where seven years of fighting have killed more than 14,000, saying that Russia could be forced to intervene to protect civilians in the region.
Amid the tensions, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Wednesday signed a law allowing the call-up of reservists for military service without announcing a mobilization. The new law will allow to quickly equip the military with reservists, “significantly increasing their combat effectiveness during military aggression,” Zelenskyy’s office said in a statement.
It was viewed as a show of force amid tensions with Ukraine.
“The troops have demonstrated their ability to ensure a reliable defence of the country,” said Russia’s defence minister Sergei Shoigu in a press release, adding: “So I decided to complete the inspection activities in the southern and western military districts” bordering Ukraine.
Shoigu’s statement did not make clear, however, how many additional troops had been moved to Crimea – nor did he indicate whether all would be pulled back to their permanent bases.
There has also been an increasing number of violations of a ceasefire held in the region in recent weeks, as well as growing tensions between the two nations.
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba encouraged the West on Tuesday to strengthen sanctions against Russia as he expressed concerns of the continued build-up of troops.
Meanwhile, Moscow rejected the concerns as it warned Kiev against trying to re-take the rebel-held eastern region. It said such an operation could force Russia into an intervention to protect civilians.
The Russian Defence Ministry said the military drills in Crimea had involved 60 ships, more than 10,000 troops, 200 aircraft and 1,200 military vehicles.
More than 2,000 paratroopers practiced a landing with 60 military vehicles on Thursday alone, while fighter jets covered overhead.
Putin warns of tough Russian action if West crosses ‘red line’
Yesterday president Putin warned of tough Russian action if the West crosses the’ red line’ with Russia, saying such a move would trigger an “asymmetrical, rapid and harsh” response.
The warning came in his annual state of the nation address, amid heightened tension with the West over Ukraine, Belarus, and jailed Putin critic Alexei Navalny.
Mr Putin said Western powers were constantly trying to “pick on” Russia.
Police have detained nearly 100 Navalny supporters rallying in several cities.
Hundreds staged pro-Navalny protests on Wednesday in eastern cities including Vladivostok, Irkutsk and Krasnoyarsk. The authorities have declared them illegal.
The anti-corruption campaigner is being treated at a prison hospital in Vladimir, about 180km (112 miles) east of Moscow. He is on hunger strike and his allies say his life is in danger.
Tens of thousands of people took part in demonstrations that swept across Russia late on Wednesday in support of jailed Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny.
A woman argues with a police officer during a protest in support of jailed opposition leader Alexey Navalny in Siberian city Ulan-Ude.
Many people were apprehended before protests even began, including two top Navalny associates in the Russian capital. The Russian human rights monitoring project OVD-info said it had counted 1,004 arrests across the country by the time the St. Petersburg demonstration ended at 8:30pm CET, and 1,495 by 11pm.
Allies of the imprisoned Russian opposition leader had called for rallies in around 100 cities across Russia on Wednesday.
The demonstrations began at 7pm local time in each city, moving west across the country, and were arranged to coincide on the same day as Russian President Vladimir Putin’s annual address.
The protests in Russia’s two largest cities, Moscow and St. Petersburg, began under heavy police presence shortly after UN experts said Navalny should be evacuated for urgent medical treatment abroad.
Mr Putin focused most of his speech on Russia’s battle against Covid-19 and its plans to improve welfare and economic development.
But he accused the West of threatening stability in Russia and its ex-Soviet neighbours Belarus and Ukraine.
“The use of unjust sanctions is growing into something more dangerous: a coup attempt in Belarus,” he said.
He backs Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, who faces huge opposition since claiming re-election last year, in a vote widely condemned as rigged. The two presidents will hold talks in Moscow on Thursday.
On 17 April the Belarusian authorities announced that they had foiled a US-backed plot to assassinate President Lukashenko. Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) said it had detained two Belarusians allegedly involved in the plot.
The coup claim was dismissed by the exiled Belarusian opposition leader Svetlana Tikhanovskaya as a “provocation”.
Since last August’s disputed election, massive demonstrations in support of her have taken place, with thousands of protesters beaten up by police and detained.
Warning to West
President Putin said some Western countries were like jackals trying to please the US, just as a jackal behaves with the tiger Shere Khan in Kipling’s tale The Jungle Book.
“We don’t want to burn bridges, but if somebody interprets our good intentions as weakness, our reaction will be asymmetrical, rapid and harsh,” he said. “We’ll decide for ourselves in each case where the red line is.”
Tensions have been building over Ukraine, as reports say Russia has moved more than 100,000 troops close to disputed areas. Todays announcement will be seen as a welcome easing of growing tensions.
Russia warned the west against sending troops to Ukraine
On April 2, Russia issued a warning to the western countries and NATO against sending troops to Ukraine. Dmitry Peskov, Kremlin Press Secretary, said that any deployment of NATO troops in the region would “undoubtedly lead to further tensions” and that the Russian side would then “have to take additional measures to ensure their security,”
Ukraine to hold joint military drills with NATO
On April 3, Ukraine’s armed forces announced that they would begin joint military drills with NATO troops within a few months. Around 1,000 military personnel from at least five NATO member states will take part in the drills. The statement read, “In particular, defensive actions will be worked out, followed by an offensive in order to restore the state border and territorial integrity of a state that has been subjected to aggression by one of the hostile neighboring countries.”
Is Ukraine protected by Nato?
Not by treaty, as Ukraine is not a member. But Nato has close ties with Ukraine, which has received Western arms including US Javelin anti-tank missiles. So Russia knows that it risks provoking more Western military help for Ukraine.
President Zelensky has urged Nato to speed up Ukrainian membership. But the conflict makes it difficult for Nato to accept Ukraine under the 30-nation alliance’s current terms.
Nato’s Jens Stoltenberg said “it’s for the 30 members to decide when Ukraine is ready for Nato membership”. But he stressed Ukraine’s special partnership with Nato now, which a few other countries also have, including Sweden, Finland and Georgia.
“We reject the idea that Russia has a kind of veto on other countries deciding their sovereign path,” he said. The Kremlin has long warned Ukraine against joining Nato, and remains bitter that the three Baltic republics joined.
Nato is helping Ukraine’s military with modernisation, training and joint exercises, the Nato chief said.
It is very clear a Nato country on Russia doorstep would be a very unwelcome neighbour for Vladimir Putin and would not sit well with the massively patriotic Russian people.
United Nations human rights experts have strongly condemned a recent government-backed report into institutional racism, saying it offered “no evidence” to support its finding that the UK is not institutionally racist.
“In 2021, it is stunning to read a report on race and ethnicity that repackages racist tropes and stereotypes into fact, twisting data and misapplying statistics and studies into conclusory findings and ad hominem attacks on people of African descent,” the independent UN Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent said in a statement.
The UN group has called on the British government to “categorically reject” the findings of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities report, which was commissioned in the aftermath of last year’s Black Lives Matter protests. When the controversial report was released at the end of March, it was deemed a “whitewash” by racial equality advocates.
The report has several recommendations on closing racial disparities, but found no evidence of institutional racism and concluded the UK should act as a model for other “white-majority” countries.
Racism remains a problem, it says, but things like geography and socio-economic background had “more significant impact” on life chances than racism.
Policy experts at the time also pointed to glaring holes in its analysis. They said disparities — such as why ethnic minorities were disproportionately dying of Covid-19 as well as labor market discrimination — were explained away in the report by other factors, such as geography, living conditions and social income, while ignoring the role race played in determining those disparities.
Among other things, the Report blames single parents for poor outcomes, ignoring the racial disparities and the racialised nature of poor outcomes that exist despite an increased prevalence of single-parent families in every demographic. The Report’s conclusion that racism is either a product of the imagination of people of African descent or of discrete, individualised incidents ignores the pervasive role that the social construction of race was designed to play in society, particularly in normalising atrocity, in which the British state and institutions played a significant role.
The UN working group said that the report not only provided “no evidence” of its claim that the UK was not institutionally racist, but made “shocking misstatements and/or misunderstandings about data collection and mixed methods research,” and also attempted “to delegitimise data grounded in lived experience while also shifting the blame for the impacts of racism to the people most impacted by it.”
‘Reprehensible’
In the statement, the working group said racial disparities in the UK reflected “specific nodes of power and decision-making by employers, teachers, and others who dictate the opportunities and advantages available to people of African descent,” adding that “too often this decision-making reflects legacy mindsets of racial hierarchy.”
They also took aim at the report for attributing poor outcomes for some minority groups to family breakdown. “Therefore, the suggestion that family structure, rather than institutionalised and structural discriminatory practices are the central features of the Black experience is a tone-deaf attempt at rejecting the lived realities of people of African descent and other ethnic minorities in the UK,” the working group wrote.
Finally, the Report’s mythical representation of enslavement is an attempt to sanitise the history of the trade in enslaved Africans. This is a reprehensible, although not unfamiliar tactic, employed by many whose wealth came directly from the enslavement of others, ever since slavery was outlawed. Seeking to silence the brutal role of enslavers, the mind-numbing generational wealth they accrued, and the social capital and political influence they gained from exploiting black bodies is a deliberate attempt at historical misrepresentation. The Report’s sanitised version of history devalues the experiences, and deaths of millions of Africans who were violently uprooted, taken to the Americas where they were further exploited, brutalised and dehumanised.
It renders inconsequential, the fact, that for over 400 years, laws classified enslaved people in the Caribbean and their descendants as non-human, chattel, property, and real estate and social rhetoric and narrative evolved to rationalise, justify, and stabilise these injustices. They lost the basic human right to their legal identity and as such remained invisible in laws, legislation and policies. The cumulative result is racial inequality, structural invisibility, exclusion, and poverty. But more importantly, the Report fails to acknowledge how the legacies of enslavement continue to shape wealth disparities, social stratification and the experiences of people of African descent in Britain.
In response, a commission spokesperson stated that the UN had “grossly misrepresented the report’s findings, and appears to be a response to negative press coverage rather than the substance of its content.”
“The misleading claims they have made risk fostering division on the subject of race, rather than constructive discussion on the issues,” the commission’s spokesperson said, adding that they urge the British government to implement the report’s 24 recommendations.
The statement is issued by independent experts* of the Special Procedures of the United Nations Human Rights Council:Read here
Boris Johnson assured Sir James Dyson his employees would not have to pay extra tax if they came to the UK to make ventilators during the pandemic.
It is claimed that Boris Johnson personally assured Sir James Dyson that the billionaire inventor’s employees would not have to pay extra tax if they came to the UK to make ventilators during the pandemic
Sir James, whose firm is now based in Singapore, wrote to the Treasury to ask for no change in tax status for staff.
But in text messages sent in March 2020 – seen by the BBC – Sir James then went directly to the PM, with Mr Johnson replying: “I will fix it.”
The government said it did everything it could to get the right equipment.
And Sir James said it was “absurd to suggest that the urgent correspondence was anything other than seeking compliance with rules” and that his company did not receive “any benefit from the project”.
Labour called the revelations “jaw-dropping”, with shadow business minister telling the BBC: “Frankly it stinks that a billionaire businessman can text the prime minister and get an immediate response and, apparently, an immediate change in policy.”
Dyson, initially wrote to the Treasury but after not receiving a reply exchanged text messages with the prime minister in which Johnson pledged: “I will fix it tomo! We need you. It looks fantastic.”
The prime minister then texted him again, saying: “[Chancellor] Rishi [Sunak] says it is fixed!! We need you here,” according to the BBC.
When Dyson then sought a further assurance, Johnson replied: “James, I am first lord of the Treasury and you can take it that we are backing you to do what you need.”
Two weeks later, Sunak told the Commons Treasury committee that the tax status of people who came to the UK to provide specific help during the pandemic would not be affected.
The exchange took place in March 2020 at the start of the pandemic when the government was appealing to firms to supply ventilators amid fears of shortages.
On Tuesday, the culture secretary, Oliver Dowden insisted Johnson had acted correctly, given the context.
“James Dyson came forward with a proposal that didn’t benefit him and it certainly didn’t benefit the prime minister personally and said, ‘Look, if we can get our people across here and they’re not penalised for it, they’ll be able to help with a ventilator challenge,’” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
“That helped with the ventilator challenge. We massively increased the number of ventilators and as a consequence, saved possibly thousands of lives. I think it was the right thing to do in the middle of a national emergency.”
Asked whether the national emergency meant the ministerial code was suspended, meaning the prime minister could text a senior businessman without officials being present or a record of the exchange being kept, Dowden said: “The normal rules existed but we had to move at pace.”
The BBC reported that Dyson’s company later shared the texts with officials but it is unclear whether Johnson flagged the exchanges as the rules suggest he should.
A Whitehall source said Dyson did not text the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, directly and that the only correspondence received by the Treasury was official letters from Dyson’s holding company, Weybourne, asking Sunak for assurances on their tax status.
The Treasury later wrote back to confirm what Johnson had promised Dyson. Another Whitehall source said there was “a process to be followed” – a hint that the Treasury may not have been prepared to make similar informal assurances as Dyson received from No 10.
On 9 April, two weeks after the reported exchange of texts between Johnson and Dyson, Sunak told the Treasury select committee group that the tax status of people who came to the UK to provide specific help during the pandemic would not be affected.
Dyson told the BBC he was “hugely proud” of his firm’s response in “the midst of a national emergency”, and that he would do the same again if asked.
He said: “When the prime minister rang me to ask Dyson to urgently build ventilators, of course I said yes.
“Our ventilator cost Dyson £20m, freely given to the national cause, and it is absurd to suggest that the urgent correspondence was anything other than seeking compliance with rules, as 450 Dyson people – in UK and Singapore – worked around the clock, seven days a week to build potentially life-saving equipment at a time of dire need.
“Mercifully, they were not required, as medical understanding of the virus evolved. Neither Weybourne [Dyson’s holding company] nor Dyson received any benefit from the project; indeed commercial projects were delayed, and Dyson voluntarily covered the £20m of development costs.”
Dyson also said his company had not claimed “one penny” from governments in any jurisdiction in relation to Covid.
During PMQs, Boris Johnson came under attack for the apparent ‘Tax by text’ but used an argument and the moral high ground suggestion that lives needed saving and ventilators building.
At prime minister’s questions on Wednesday, Johnson was bullish about his response, saying: “I make absolutely no apology at all for shifting heaven and earth and doing everything I possibly could, as any prime minister would in those circumstances, to secure ventilators for the people in this country and to save lives.”
The SNP leader, Ian Blackford, said the prime minister must “publish all personal exchanges on these contracts before the end of the day”.
Johnson said: “There’s absolutely nothing to conceal about this and I am happy to share all the details with the house, as indeed I have shared them with my officials immediately.”
Starmer said the story showed the prime minister was “lobbied by a wealthy businessman and a close friend for a change in the tax rules. The prime minister responded, I’ll fix it.”
The Labour leader said the texts raised serious concerns about preferential treatment for those with the prime minister’s personal number. “How many other people with the prime minister’s personal number has he given preferential treatment to?”
He said that at the heart of the lobbying scandal, including the lobbying by David Cameron to Sunak on behalf of the now-collapsed Greensill Capital, were “people’s jobs and wasted taxpayers’ money.”.
He said thousands of jobs at Liberty Steel were on the line in Hartlepool and Rotherham following Greensill’s collapse. “The prime minister hasn’t fixed that, in fact he’s done nothing to help steel workers. Is it now quite literally one rule for those that have a prime minister’s own number, and another for everybody else?”
Johnson said Starmer was disparaging the ventilator challenge, of which Dyson was part, and had previously attacked the vaccines’ taskforce, both of which he said had delivered great results. Dyson’s ventilators were never approved for use in the NHS for Covid-19 patients.
‘“We take the tough decisions that are necessary to protect the people of this country and get things done,” Johnson said.
Starmer said there was “a pattern to this government” – referencing Cameron’s texts to Sunak and other ministers and officials and the informal drink between health secretary Matt Hancock and Cameron with Greensill’s founder.
“Every day there are new allegations about this Conservative government. Dodgy PPE deals, tax deals for their mates, the health secretary owns shares in a company delivering NHS services. Sleaze, sleaze, sleaze, all on his watch. With this scandal now firmly centered on him, how on earth does he expect people to believe that he is the person to clean this mess up?”
The number of lobbying scandals across Westminster has prompted multiple inquiries into Greensill and the accountability of ministers and officials, including an independent inquiry by corporate lawyer Nigel Boardman, ordered by No 10.
Ministerial code
The messages have come to light amid an ongoing row over lobbying in Westminster.
According to the ministerial code – a list of rules setting out the standards of conduct expected of ministers – “a private secretary or official should be present for all discussions relating to government business”.
And if a minister “finds themselves discussing official business without an official present” – such as at a social event or on holiday – “any significant content should be passed back to the department as soon as possible after the event”.
The code also says ministers “must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias” and that they should “act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner”.
But there is widespread concern about informal contacts and lobbying between government and business after the revelations that former Prime Minister David Cameron sent texts to the chancellor and other ministers on behalf of the failed finance firm Greensill Capital.
The ex-police officer filmed with his knee on George Floyd’s neck, sparking global protests against racism, has been convicted on all charges – second- and third-degree murder as well as manslaughter.
Former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin was convicted Tuesday on charges of murder and manslaughter in the death of George Floyd.
The jury of five men and seven women deliberated for four hours Monday afternoon and resumed deliberating Tuesday morning, according to the court. They were sequestered from the public during deliberations.
Chauvin, 45, had pleaded not guilty to second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter.
The deliberations began after three weeks of testimony in one of the most closely watched cases of the Black Lives Matter era.
The prosecution’s case against Chauvin featured 38 witnesses as they sought to show the former Minneapolis Police officer committed murder when he kneeled on the neck and back of Floyd, handcuffed and prone on the street, for 9 minutes and 29 seconds on May 25, 2020.
Prosecutors have repeatedly told jurors to “believe your eyes” and rely on the infamous bystander video of Floyd’s death.
“This case is exactly what you thought when you saw it first, when you saw that video. It is exactly that. You can believe your eyes,” prosecuting attorney Steve Schleicher said in closing arguments. “This wasn’t policing. This was murder.”
The defense called seven witnesses of its own — but not Chauvin himself, as he invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to testify.
Cheers of celebration outside court
As Judge Cahill leads the jurors through their final duties, we see footage of the public outside court celebrating and cheering the guilty verdict.
Inside, Derek Chauvin’s face remains almost expressionless beneath his mask.
Chauvin was taken into custody
Following a recommendation from prosecutors, Judge Cahill has revoked Chauvin’s bail.
He will remain in jail until he is sentenced. Chauvin was led from the court in handcuffs.
Judge announces sentencing in 8 weeks
After Judge Peter Cahill read and confirmed the verdict with the jury, he announced technical next steps, including scheduling sentencing in eight weeks time.
Cahill said the court would look at written arguments from Derek Chauvin “within one week” and issue factual findings on it. Then they will order a pre-sentencing investigation report, “returnable in four weeks.” That will be followed by a briefing on the pre-sentencing investigation report six weeks from now and “eight weeks from now we will have sentencing.”
The 12 jurors found Chauvin guilty of second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter in George Floyd’s death in May 2020.
It’s a ‘Made in America tax plan’. but it could help the worlds poor
The Biden administration has continued its charge to drive through international corporate tax reforms. Treasury Secretary Yellen’s call for an end to the race to the bottom. At the same time, the Biden administration released its ‘Made in America tax plan’.
Central to the ‘Made in America’ plan is the piece about changing the incentives for other jurisdictions, by encouraging a robust, global minimum corporate tax plan.
US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has signalled that the US is throwing its full weight behind a global minimum corporate tax rate – and framing this quite explicitly as an end to the race to the bottom.
This is a powerful narrative shift, in favour of tax justice. Once, the defenders of the race to the bottom wrapped themselves – unchallenged – in the mantle of “tax sovereignty”. Every state must have the freedom, they opined, to set the tax rules and rates they wished – regardless of the damage it might do to their neighbours. Anything else would be an unconscionable erosion of tax freedom…
The US plan to shake up the global tax system amounts to the “most radical rewrite of international tax rules” for more than a century and will have a “seismic impact” on a number of EU countries that act like ‘Tax Havens’ from Ireland to Luxemburg Biden’s Tax reforms will hit hard.
In 2018 The European Commission pointed out seven EU states with policies facilitating tax evasion: Belgium, Cyprus, Malta, the Netherlands, Ireland, Hungary and Luxembourg. This provoked the indignation of member states defending fiscal sovereignty.
“There are no tax havens in the EU, but it would be absurd to deny that there aren’t aggressive tax planning practices,” Pierre Moscovici, the Commissioner for economic affairs, said during the first hearing of the committee on financial crimes.
The EU has voted down constantly any real measures to stop Tax avoidance. November 2019 EU Tax avoidance draft bill failed in a Council vote, 12 EU countries reject the move to expose companies’ tax avoidance.
They include Luxembourg, Malta, Cyprus, Latvia, Slovenia, Estonia, Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, and Croatia. Sweden also voted against the proposed rule, but because its government feared that the directive might water down their higher standards on transparency.
The proposal would have forced firms to reveal profits made and taxes paid in each EU country. Read more…
Oxfam’s analysis finds that five EU member states – Cyprus, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta and the Netherlands – would be listed as tax havens if the EU criteria on Tax havens were applied to them.
These countries are referred to as tax havens because of the country’s taxation and economic policies. Legislation heavily favours the establishment and operation of corporations, and the economic environment is very hospitable for all corporations, especially those invested in research, development, and innovation.
Tax havens deprive countries and their citizens of hundreds of billions in pounds dollars and Euro’s, fuelling inequality and poverty.
Since 2014, a huge number of documents in the form of The LuxLeaks, The Panama Papers and Paradise Papers have revealed how powerful corporations and super-rich individuals are exploiting a rigged global system that allows them to avoid paying their fair share of tax. And it’s the world’s poorest people who pay the price.
Our world is not short of wealth. The size of the global economy has quintupled over the past 30 years. In 2020, its value reached nearly $88 trillion.
Yet, the gap between rich and poor gets wider, with a massive increase in wealth at the top, while the total wealth owned by those at the bottom is falling. Since 2015, the richest 1% have more wealth than the rest of the world combined.
Such extreme economic inequality is being fueled by an epidemic of tax evasion and avoidance that has reached an unprecedented scale.
While millions across the world live in poverty, rich individuals and companies, exploiting the secrecy provided by tax havens, are continuing to dodge their taxes, depriving the poorest countries from being able to provide vital services.
Although it’s said Joe Biden has a certain soft spot for Ireland that soft stop stops when it’s damaging the American economy. The US plan threatens a key economic advantage for Ireland — its 12.5 percent corporate tax rate.
The Biden plan, described as “seismic” in its potential impact, is seen as a dramatic shift, distancing the US from decades of prioritising the tax sovereignty of nations. The world’s largest economy has long resisted calls for the global treaties that tax reformers argued were needed to ensure that powerful multinational companies pay their fair share of taxes.
Under the plan promoted by Washington, set out in a document sent to 135 countries negotiating tax reforms at the OECD on Wednesday, tech companies and large conglomerates would be forced to pay taxes to national governments based on the sales they generate in each country, irrespective of where they are based.
The Biden administration also threw its weight behind work to establish a global minimum tax rate, which would see some of the world’s biggest economies agree on a minimum rate of tax on company profits.
The current rate of corporation tax in the US is 21%, compared with 19% in the UK and 12.5% in Ireland, one of the lowest among EU nations.
Of course, this will not affect the UK The Chancellor plans to raise corporation tax by 6% to a new 25% rate from 2023 raising an additional £22bn in revenues, it still beggars belief that Sir Keir Starmer opposed such a tax rise going against all accepted Labour economic and now it seems world thinking on corporation tax.
Countries could impose higher corporation tax rates, but not go below the agreed threshold. The agreement is designed to stop countries luring businesses by offering tax discounts.
This collapses the Irish economic model
The proposals are designed to tackle the very low rates of tax paid by the digital giant’s Google, Facebook and Apple, and major brands like Nike and Starbucks, which have become adept at using complicated webs of companies to shift profits out of major markets like the UK, where most of their revenues are earned, and into low-tax jurisdictions like Ireland Cyprus, Luxembourg, Malta and the Netherlands and the Caribbean. Economists estimate that the sums lost to exchequers around the world from profit-shifting have risen as high as $427bn (£311bn) annually.
Ireland is one of the biggest tax havens in the world according to a report in the Irish times, costing other countries almost $16 billion (€13.5 billion) in lost revenues each year, according to a major new report.
The UK-based Tax Justice Network, in its inaugural State of Tax Justice report published on Friday, ranked Ireland as the ninth worst offender in the world in terms of tax loss inflicted on other countries, and the fourth worst in Europe.
The report claimed to be the first study to measure thoroughly how much every country loses to both corporate tax abuse and private tax evasion.
It said countries are losing more than $427 billion in tax each year to international corporate tax abuse and private tax evasion.
Overall, $245 billion is directly lost to corporate tax abuse by multinational corporations, while $182 billion is lost to private tax evasion.
Tax lost by other countries due to Ireland was put at $16 billion, with $10 billion due to global private tax evasion and $6 billion from global corporate tax abuse.
The report said Ireland was responsible for 3.7 per cent of all global tax losses.
Tax competition
Tax competition is an emotive issue for politicians, however, who will often contort themselves in order to defend Ireland’s record.
But probably the vast majority of economists would agree with the World Bank’s Michael Keen and Jim Brumby who wrote in 2017 that “headline corporation tax rates have plummeted since 1980, by an average of almost 20%”.
For Keen and Brumby, a wide range of factors are responsible for this downward trend, but tax competition — countries undercutting one another on rates in order to lure multinationals — has certainly been one of them.
Within that 30-year window that Yellen spoke of, Ireland has become a poster boy for a model of development that hinges on its low corporate tax environment. Successive Irish governments slashed corporation tax rates throughout the 1990s, before introducing the world-famous 12.5% rate between 1999 and 2003, which remains in place, a cornerstone of the country’s model for attracting foreign direct investment.
Because of it, Ireland has punched well above its weight.
Figures from 2017, reproduced recently by the International Monetary Fund, suggest that Ireland’s share of total global foreign direct investment was about 2.5% in that year. That’s hugely disproportionate, given that the Irish economy accounted for just about 0.4% of world gross domestic product in that year.
It must be said that we’re not the worst offenders by any stretch, not even within Europe.
In Europe, Hungary offers a 9% rate. Luxembourg’s 17% standard rate combined with various sweetheart tax deals for individual companies mean that the tiny, land-locked country, with its 0.1% share of global GDP, enjoyed a whopping 12.8% share of world foreign direct investment in 2017.
Expressed as a percentage of its world GDP share, it means there’s an over 7000% gap between Luxembourg’s country’s share of global investment and the size of its output. In Ireland, it’s about 264%.
But as Bloomberg economist David Fickling wrote this week, “The trouble is, with Ireland running a 12.5% rate and the likes of the Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands not taxing corporate profits at all, it’s a race to the bottom that rich-country governments can only win by either drastically cutting spending or by shifting more and more of the fiscal burden onto the shoulders of middle-and working-class voters.”
Corporation tax receipts have been an extremely lucrative revenue stream for the Irish government, particularly over the past half-decade or so. Last year alone, the Exchequer took in €11.8 billion from corporation tax, roughly 20% of Ireland’s total tax take.
The bottom line is that proposed under BEPS could cost the Irish exchequer an estimated €2 billion per year.
Nevertheless, Minister for Finance Paschal Donohoe said this week that the OECD remains the best forum for discussing international tax reform.
“What Ireland and other countries will do is put forward their case within with the OECD, and we’ll work inside that process to try and influence an outcome that recognises the role of small economies in the global economy,” the Fine Gael TD said.
Other EU countries wont fair so good either
Walmart hid $76bn of assets in tax havens across the world, including $64.2bn managed by 22 different subsidiaries in Luxembourg, where Walmart has no stores, according to a study published in 2019.
The study, published by campaign group Americans for Tax Fairness and funded by the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, alleged that Walmart has “kept its tax haven subsidiaries secretive by burying mention of their existence”. Walmart denied the claims.
The authors claimed Walmart’s global empire keeps billions of dollars of assets away from the prying eyes of the taxman via a network of shell companies in Luxembourg, the Netherlands and a host of Caribbean countries known for their low taxes.
Taxpayers spend £11bn to top up low wages paid by UK companies
Research published by Citizens UK found that companies in the UK are paying their workers so little that the taxpayer has to top up wages to the tune of £11bn a year. The four big supermarkets (Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons) alone are costing just under £1bn a year in tax credits and extra benefits payments.
This is a direct transfer from the rest of society to some of the largest businesses in the country. To put the figure in perspective, the total cost of benefit fraud last year was just £1bn. Corporate scrounging costs 11 times that.
Worse, this is a direct subsidy for poverty pay. If supermarkets and other low-paying employers know they can secure work even at derisory wages, since pay will be topped up by the state, they have no incentive to offer higher wages.
None of this makes sense. We are all, in effect, paying a huge sum of money so that we can continue to underpay the 22% of workers who are earning below the Living Wage – the level at which it is possible to live without government subsidies. The only possible beneficiaries are business owners.
Walmart not only indirectly steals money from economies by not paying a fair share of tax Research published by Citizens UK found that companies in the UK don’t pay staff enough and therefore forcing them to rely on government assistance. ASDA, as well as other big supermarkets (Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons), are costing the taxpayer just under £1,000,000,000 a year in tax credits paid to top-up criminally low salaries.
When you visit any web site, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. Control your personal Cookie Services here.
