GFSC reconnects with the sector
Wednesday 20th October 2010, 2:29PM BST.
Director-general of the Guernsey Financial Services Commission Nik van Leuven, left, with keynote speaker Lord Hunt and, right, GFSC chairman Peter Harwood. (Picture by Adrian Miller, 1041823)
A ROOT-AND-BRANCH review of financial regulation in Guernsey is to be carried out, it has been revealed.
The Guernsey Financial Services Commission will appoint consultants to undertake the study in an attempt to re-establish the regulatory objectives of the commission.
Speaking yesterday just before the launch of the GFSC’s two-day presentation to members of the finance industry, director-general Nik van Leuven admitted the commission had become disconnected from the industry in recent times.
The two-day event, which will see a variety of keynote speakers, presentations and opportunities for industry representatives to meet and discuss issues with commission officials, is an attempt to engage with the industry in an informal setting, he said.
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. See below for subscription details.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
A root-and-branch review is of course welcome, but it falls far short of the necessary fully independent public inquiry into the clear regulatory failure that resulted in the collapse of a Guernsey-registered, GFSC-regulated bank in 2008.
A public inquiry must investigate the circumstances that led to the GFSC accepting unsubstantiated third-party assurances rather than carrying out its own due diligence and directing the bank to spread its risk.
The UK, the Isle of Man and even Iceland have conducted public inquiries into recent bank failures in their own jurisdictions. What is Guernsey waiting for?
Report abuse
The admission by the Director General that the GFSC had become disconnected from the industry beggars description. It is sad that such an eminent Guernsey professional should have to admit that the members of the commission have let the island down and possibly damaged its financial reputation. Hopefully the offshore consultants will be highly experienced in this field. If it’s deemed necessary to replace some of the Commission’s members, so be it. Sad but obviously necessary. The GFSC must, in the eyes of the world, be seen to be very, very much on top of their game. This island depends on its Finance industry, which needs to be controlled by strict regulations put in place by the Commission. Any weakness could prove to be absolutely disastrous.
Now that the problem is in the public domain, let’s hope this potentially dangerous situation is resolved swiftly.
Report abuse
NOt only did the GFSC take on board 3rd party assurances it flouted Basel 11 recommendations with regard to allowing upstreaming of money to third parties – Basel 11 recommends 10% however GFSC allowed LG to upstream 30% to Heritable Bank
Report abuse
The comment by Nik van Leuven admitting the commission has become disconnected from the finance industry in recent times, reflects very much the opinion of many Landsbanki Guernsey depositors who feel totally disconnected from the support they were expecting from the commission in protecting their savings.
With the UK government chasing every penny they can get from taxes due in offshore jurisdictions and the all time low of retail banks operating in Guernsey, the commission will have their work cutout in preventing further decline.
Confidence has got to be restored to ‘retail depositor needs’, whose priority is equally as important as those of the ‘banks needs’
Report abuse
The banks located on Guernsey have the power to make the Guernsey government change its legislation with regard to the depositors compensation scheme. Interesting. Such a shame, that those same banks never supported the Landsbanki Depositors when they lost access to their money placed on deposit in a Guernsey well regulated bank, Landsbanki. This goes to prove beyond any doubt now, that even the banks trading on Guernsey still don’t give a hoot about the security of an individuals deposit. Of course they don’t want a system which is like the UK where the compensation fund is front end loaded and fully funded. Why would they, when the Guernsey scheme is only up to £50,000 per depositor and then only limits the total payout in any 5 years period to just £100 million. Now tell me please, which banks in Guernsey only has £100 million on deposit. All depositors that are silly enough to keep any of their hard earned money in a Guernsey Bank, should be made fully aware that this scheme will not refund their money in full, unless the scheme is changed beyond recognition. And, as everyone now knows, the Government of Guernsey, will not act in anyway to help any depositor who may loose their money in a bank on Guernsey. After all, they wouldn’t want to use tax payers money would they. But it seems that they waste their tax payers money in many other ways, which too is beyond belief. Scandalous.
Guernsey as a once well regulated ‘offshore tax haven’ will soon be totally finished, with the European tax incentive now fully in place, where tax is either withheld at a very high rate or, an exchange of information is fully acted upon, with your country of residence , where you will be taxed upon those earnings of interest. Offshore banking for expatriates that reside in Europe is now a thing of the past. For those that work or reside outside of Europe, you must realize that Guernsey banks offer you less interest, on your deposit, than that being offered in others parts of the world where banks are better regulated and as such will not defraud you of your wealth. With Guernsey residents themselves, now clambering to bank “offshore” in the UK, to ensure that their hard earned savings will be fully protected, why would anyone want to bank on Guernsey
Report abuse
sorry guys, you are jumping on the wrong bandwagon. The “disconnect” of which he speaks has nothing to do with the LG situation, nor the completely unrealistic requests for an uncapped DP scheme.
He means that there has been a sense recently that the GFSC has moved to a more “computer says no” type of approach to regulation, rather than working with the industry to find solutions and to help generate business. That was one of its great strengths, and I am pleased to see that the GFSC is not so proud that it cannot accept that it could regain some of its former strengths in that area.
Report abuse
Dennis Bobbitt – interesting comment in your last paragraph, where you say that Guernsey will be finished because of the exchange of information to onshore countries of residence. From that I can only assume that you banked in Guernsey in order to hide from your onshore tax responsibilities. And you want sympathy and support?
Report abuse
TL
No, but the Landsbanki Guernsey fiasco and row over the disastrous commencement of the intrinsically flawed and woefully inadequate depositor compensation scheme have surely not helped to endear the GFSC to its stakeholders. Only a fully independent public inquiry can begin to restore confidence.
Report abuse
MJA – suggest you read a bit more about the original story. The “disconnect” is a different issue.
And there is no “row”. I don’t know anyone who thinks that a jurisdiction of this size could or should have an uncapped DCS.
Report abuse
Dennis Bobbitt
You seem to be under the wrong impression that retail offshore banking for expatriates in Europe makes up a key element of Guernsey’s banking industry. You are probably about 10 years about of date. The loss of that business would make minimal difference to Guernsey these days. Indeed, in my view it would be a positive thing for such business to disappear from here altogether for two reasons.
Firstly, without a retail offshore banking sector there is no need to have a retail compensation scheme (the main users of Guernsey’s banks, in terms of value of deposits held, are institutional and so a retail scheme based on £50,000 or £100,000 limits is totally irrelevant to them.
Secondly, retail offshore banking clients are far more likely than any other to be seeking not to declare their offshore income to their home tax authorities – something to which you clearly allude in your post. Guernsey simply does not need or want thousands of offshore clients with undeclared offshore bank accounts. That brings all kinds of risks to Guernsey which undermines all the good progress made on tax compliance and anti-money laundering in recent years, and we should actively discourage such business. I believe we are doing prescisely that already by declining to introduce the type of depositors’ compensation scheme which would make Guernsey more attractive to the offshore retail banking sector.
Report abuse
TL
The international financial media described it as a “row” between the Association of Guernsey Banks and the Guernsey authorities.
No-one is saying that Guernsey’s DCS should be uncapped. Not even the EU-wide scheme is uncapped. It is being raised to 100,000 euros (200,000 for joint accounts). There has to be a cap, realistically. It is the upfront payment that the Association is vehemently objecting to – nothing to do with a cap.
You don’t seem to be aware that British expats do not choose to bank in the Crown Dependencies. They have no choice but to do so because they are barred from opening or maintaining savings accounts in mainland UK, which would be infinitely preferable – and much safer.
Report abuse
MJA – you first said there was a row over the DCS being “intrinsically flawed and woefully inadequate”. But you now seem to be saying that the row is about the upfront payment. Which is it?
I know full well about the difficulties of expats banking onshore (although my understanding is that it is being fixed) but Dennis Bobbit raised the spector of tax evasion and seemed to be admitting to that being his motivation. I don’t assume that all expats fall into that category at all.
Report abuse
Why can’t Britsh Expats bank in the country they are living in? Why do they have to choose a Crown Dependency? Is it because they dont want to declare tax?
Report abuse
Nat
Could it be that they thought their money was safer in Guernsey?
Report abuse
TL. For your information I live in Australia and as such live outside of such exchange of information. But I have investments around the world and a such can see that Guernsey is, or will be soon, finished with being, as I said, a Tax Haven, be that Trusts, Companies or private deposits. I am pleased it will affect you if you live in Guernsey in the long term and yes, I will continue for as long as I live to give Guernsey as much coverage of its treatment of the Landsbanki depositors as I am able. Guernsey was wrong not to support the retail depositors many of whom were pensioners and lost their lifetime savings, so your cocky attitude will do nothing to stop people like me showing Guernseys for what its worth.
Report abuse
Dennis Bobbitt
You obviously know very little of Guernsey’s finance industry if you think that it depends on the business of the tax dodging Toms, Dicks and Harrys who have £50k in their account.
You carry on with your crusade cobber, quite frankly nobody is particularly bothered apart from your captive audience of fellow Landsbanki depositors.
Report abuse
Nat
No, it’s because they are barred from opening or maintaining savings accounts in the UK, which would be infinitely preferable. They naturally want to save in sterling and want their money to be as close to home as possible as most will return home eventually. UK banks and building societies direct them to the Crown Dependencies, which is as close to home as they can get.
Report abuse
TL
Reread what I wrote. I said the “row over the disastrous commencement of the intrinsically flawed and woefully inadequate depositor compensation scheme have surely not helped to endear the GFSC to its stakeholders”.
The “row” (quote from international financial press) between the bankers and the Guernsey authorities is over the commencement of a scheme that involves an upfront payment that they vehemently object to.
The second part of my sentence, “the intrinsically flawed and woefully inadequate depositor compensation scheme” is my assessment and that of many other depositors.
You then said: “I know full well about the difficulties of expats banking onshore (although my understanding is that it is being fixed)”
I’m afraid you’re wrong again. It has not been fixed and neither is it being fixed. Far from it. HM Treasury instructed the BBA to encourage its members to accept non-resident Brits as customers but the BBA merely posted some links on its website with most of the links leading to the Crown Dependencies anyway.
Report abuse
Dennis Bobbitt.
What a stupid comment in your post of 21st October “I am pleased if it will affect you if you live in Guernsey in the long term”. Hopefully you are only referring to TL. Some of the population, surprisingly were born and bred in Guernsey.
I understand the Australian tax authorities are even hotter on tax evasion. The fact that you say “live outside of such exchange of information” implies you are hiding money offshore! We have signed our TIA with Australia so beware they will be on to you
Report abuse
Stephen John
Why would Guernsey be safer than Australia (if we used Mr Bobbitt as an example)?
Mr Bobbitt
As Australia has a particularly fine banking system, maybe you were hiding your investments from the Australian tax man. If this is correct, TL is quite right in stating we don’t want people like you linked to Guernsey.
Report abuse
i for one am glad that the Greater Flemington Soccer Club is reconnecting with the sector, this should be an interesting development.
Report abuse
MJA
If you choose to live/work outside of the UK, then I’m not sure if you have a right to have a sterling bank account. You can’t have your cake and eat it.
But it is silly that UK rules forbid you having a UK account.
Report abuse
MJA – you can dissect your first post all you like but, to someone reading it, the natural interpretation was that the “row” related to your statement about it being inadequate.
But the key is that the row to which you refer is unconnected with the issue described in the article above, which was the point that I was making.
Dennis Bobbit – the Guernsey OFC may have once been about letting onshore individuals hide their money here, but it has not been about that for a long time. So no, Guernsey will not be finished. In fact, quite the opposite as Guernsey has been at the forefront of complying with international tax standards and has established a robust industry based on transparent corporate and trust vehicles. Certain other jurisdictions in warmer parts of the world have lagged behind on that score. The structures are known to the onshore authorities but are legitimately offshore. It does not work for onshore residents just trying to keep their assets out of sight, but it does work for genuine offshore investment business, which is continuing to grow despite the stagnation elsewhere in the world.
You have a gripe with Guernsey and please note that I have not commented upon that gripe itself. But don’t let your gripe on one issue lead you to tar everything here with the same brush. We are not one people with one voice or one point of view.
Report abuse
I of course disassociate myself from Dennis Bobbit’s comment that he is “pleased it will affect you if you live in Guernsey in the long term”, as I am sure other depositors will. This is all about calling for an independent public inquiry into the collapse of a Guernsey bank along the lines of those conducted in the UK and Isle of Man and nothing personal against the good people of Guernsey.
TL
No, the row refers to the AGB demanding the removal of the upfront payment requirement. Comments about “inadequate” etc refer to the scheme as a whole. Read it a third time and it will become obvious.
Report abuse
Nat thinks British citizens who go to live or work abroad do not have “a right to have a sterling bank account”! I’ve heard it all now.
Report abuse
Only a full independent inquiry will tell the real story of the sad state of the GFSC
And the sorry mess they have left the LG DEPOSITORS in.
Report abuse
“but it does work for genuine offshore investment business, which is continuing to grow despite the stagnation elsewhere in the world.”
It must be the offshore investment business that is growing rather than the investment, otherwise there would be no stagnation, hmm?
I wonder how that is happening?
Report abuse
Nat
You asked the question “Why can’t Britsh Expats bank in the country they are living in?”
I answered that general question.
If you wish to know why some other poster chose Guernsey and not Australia, you should ask that poster.
Report abuse
I am pleased that my comments have ruffled a few feathers, good. Just to to set the record straight and to enlighten you. I am no tax avoider, never have and don’t intend to start, after all there is no need to if you know here to live and where to invest. Firstly, I live in Australia on a visa 410, you look it up. It’s no longer available to new applicants. The visa is a special class and, a such the recipients of such a visa is never allowed to become a PR. In recognition of that, the ATO 4 year ago changed the tax rules to allow those that hold such a visa to earn income offshore of Australia without paying Australian tax. Tax is only payable on income earned within the shores of Australia.
Secondly, Australia looks after anyone who is a resident of Australia( no matter what status they have) to live with their income tax free if they choose to hold their money within a Suppuration wrapper and draw an active pension. I qualify on both counts. So why would I try and avoid paying tax when I am allowed to do it and encouraged to so by the government of Australia and the ATO.
Yes, I do pay some Australian tax but that is because I feel obliged to do so, as I live in such a great country and earn that money outside of my pension fund.
My money was only in Guernsey on hold for another investment opportunity when Landsbanki went to the wall. (Transferring money from a UK sold business to another investment.)The government of Guernsey never once helped the depositors in any way shape or form. So, I’m never going to stop blagging on about it until Guernsey does the right thing. Once I get my 32.5% still owed, they can do as they please.
Guernsey is a secretive society it seems, I fully acknowledge that some of the Guernsey depositors of Landsbanki show real courage but there are many who just sit in the back and say or do nothing. Such a shame as numbers would have made the government take responsibility and help that failed bank. You can say what you like to me, as I don’t care what you say or think about me. But think about all those people who lost every penny of their life savings and can never do what you or I can probably do and that make it again or have enough for it not to make a difference. Not everyone has the courage,ability or knowhow to make 10,20 or 100 thousand and put their saving back to where they were. Most, saved all their life to give themselves a better retirement and lost the lot. Some placed all their money in this bank after selling their house. I sold a UK business, which incidentally paid my full Uk tax on and got UK tax clearance to leave the country.
Guernsey should have done the right thing, like other countries of Europe did.
I find it strange however that my second post appeared on this website, as I posted in on a different website all together. So someone cut and pasted it here, this time this is my actual post to the Guernsey Press website. But the previous post was not. It is mine but was not posted by me here. Guernsey works in mysterious ways. Oh yes, I removed my money in a Guernsey based fund and recommend others do the same. Of course I know that retail deposits are only a small part of Guernsey financial market. There’d be smaller if I had my way. I’m working on it and, so are you, by blogging with me about it, keep it going, it’ll make Google news pages soon and the more who know about this debacle the better.
Cough up Guernsey or take the consequences.
Report abuse
In my view, both the Government of Guernsey and the GFSC failed to fulfill an adequate duty of care for savers in their jurisdiction as witnessed by the Landsbanki Guernsey debacle. Moreover, many of the savers who have suffered enormously are citizens of Guernsey.
Given this level of failure, I find it difficult to believe that they can be trusted to provide an adequate duty of care for the whole banking sector let alone ordinary savers.
Report abuse
Arnald – “It must be the offshore investment business that is growing rather than the investment, otherwise there would be no stagnation, hmm?”
If you think that the Guernsey OFC can single-handedly satsify the investment needs of the world’s major economies, then you are giving it more credit than it deserves!
Which must be a first ;-)
Report abuse
MJA, I don’t understand your comment? Do you believe that you have a right to a sterling bank account? If you do I think I’ve heard it all now.
Report abuse
Not really TL. I was laughing at your absurd claim about the success of “investment” business.
Last time I looked countries were on their knees, losing jobs, asset values and business. PE deals are dying a death and true employment creation investment is non existent.
Guernsey is primarily a secrecy jurisdiction that exists to make profits from tax avoidance. That’s what we’re good at. Anything else is small beer.
Report abuse
Nat
British citizens notify their UK banks of their overseas addresses when they move abroad to live or work – usually for a number of years before returning to the UK. They are then usually required (not requested) to move their current and savings accounts to the Crown Dependencies and the UK banks facilitates the transfer. However, according to you British citizens who go abroad have no right to hold sterling accounts – so I guess they will henceforth have to convert to dollars or euros, thereby incurring foreign currency transaction charges. You cannot be serious.
Report abuse
Arnald – of course there are problems in various economies, but it is a fact that the investment being channeled via Guernsey is increasing. It is a drop in the ocean compared to what is needed to get the world economy moving again, but it is there. Nothing absurd about that.
“primarily a secrecy jurisdiction” – nice one. Last time we discussed that, you failed to show any evidence to back up that assertion. I won’t bother asking again. The fact that you assume that Guernsey relies on hiding money just show how out of touch you are.
Report abuse
MJA, I think it’s you who can’t be serious! No one has a right to sterling bank account. If you wish to move to a non-sterling location, then that is your choice. No one is forcing you to move abroad, and currency risk (and foreign exchange charges) is something that comes with the territory. Would you demand to be paid in sterling as well?
If you don’t like it, then stay in the UK.
Report abuse
What I thought was telling was that Nick refused to apologise for anything and stated he wanted to be a world leader in regulation.
Poor examples of ‘gold plated’ or ‘tin plated’ regulation, what about silver?
Also if Guernsey wasn’t top of the regulatory pile, there would be a ‘race to the bottom’ what??
At least Horace had the balls to stand up and argue with him.
Another person, not sure who, asked ‘who regulates the regulator?’ There was no answer to that, just waffle.
I could go on, but lastly the ‘disconnect’ was never more apparent when Nick was speaking about the new website. For those that don’t know the GFSC in their wisdom made it inaccessible for those people using older browsers. He actually made fun of it, saying those people should get decent software. What? How arrogant was that??
Report abuse
TL
Stop showing your ignorance. It’s not about hiding a physical presence of money, but of obfuscating the flow of capital.
Not that hiding money doesn’t happen. It’s just dressed up with weasle words.
Hiding behind what is legal is no defence against the reality of how the global finance industry works for its own gain. We may ‘need’ that in Guernsey, but it does not negate valid criticism.
The recent Channel 4 Dispatches programme was very accurate.
Report abuse
Dennis Bobbitt
I hope you realise that comments and attitudes like yours do your fellow depositors in Landsbanki no favours at all when it comes to sympathy from Guernsey residents.
You also seem to be confused about the Landsbanki situation. On the one hand, you acknowledge that that you have made 62.5% of your funds back so far, yet on the other hand you refer to people having lost all their live savings in. If all depositors have received back 62.5% of their deposits then that means that they have lost a maximum of 37.5% (plus interest), which is hardly “all their live savings”, and as you well know, the liquidator has been predicting that 91% or 92% will be repaid eventually. So you MIGHT lose 8% or 9% (plus interest at such current paltry rates that its barely relevant).
I have some considerably sympathy for some of the Landsbanki depositors, but absolutely none for you with that attitude of yours.
Nat
You can be resident just about anywhere in the world and have a sterling bank account, in the same way that I can hold a Yen or US Dollar or Australian Dollar account. You are completely mistaken about this. Sterling exchange controls were abolished in 1972.
Report abuse
Arnald
I watched the Dispatches programme
Murphy was having a go,quite politely without ranting,at the Cabinet members who have money in offshore trusts
After a mild rebuke against Osborne he was asked “Is what he is doing illegal?” Murphy replied “Oh no,if it was illegal I’m sure he wouldn’t do it”
I reached for the off button but delayed for a while waiting to see if Murphy would appear in the next scene wearing a vicar’s dog collar
What a load of wishy washy tripe
Report abuse
Ray
It’s worse than that.
Murphy is one of the biggest hypocrites around. He criticised a UK minister for taking dividends in lieu of salary, yet his own accountancy/tax practice not very long ago was shown to be advising its clients to do precisely that! Mind you, hypocricy is rife where Murphy is concerned. He is wedded to the Guardian, yet when the Guardian Media Group was exposed for using a Cayman Islands structure for tax planning reasons he played it down. Of course he would – they are his mouthpiece for his bile!
Take a look at his website today…he has a thread on their talking about Half-Term Week and his reduced level of moderation as a result, but he goes on to make it crystal clear that right-wing commenters aren’t welcome. He is only interested in hearing from people like Arnald who clap and cheer from the touchline (or is that the congregation) whenever he attacks “offshore”.
The bloke has no credibility whatsoever but Channel also don’t help themselves by producing one-sided documentaries without any balance.
Report abuse
Bo Nidle
Just a small point of correction. The administrators for Landsbanki Guernsey have estimated a possible return of between 85 -91%, not 91 – 92%
Report abuse
Ray
Regardless of the rights or wrongs it was the same George Osborne who a short while ago was questioning the morality of tax avoidance.
Now, he has changed his stance on tax havens streesing the leaglsit iisues only.
So, Murphy might well have have been justified in making the original point.
Report abuse
Nat
That is precisely what often happens: Brits are relocated abroad and get paid in sterling. They are barred from maintaining or opening sterling accounts in the UK so they are forced to do so in the Crown Dependencies, which is as close to home as they can get. But you think they have no right to sterling accounts so they should stay in the UK!!!
As Bo Nidle rightly said above: “You can be resident just about anywhere in the world and have a sterling bank account, in the same way that I can hold a Yen or US Dollar or Australian Dollar account. You are completely mistaken about this. Sterling exchange controls were abolished in 1972.”
Report abuse
Thank you for pointing out my mathematical error of return so far, shows I’m not that bright. You are however, wrong about not being able to get reasonable rates on return of interest on deposit. Australia now pays 7.25% and in the last 8 months has been as high as 8%. To say that our loss’s will only be 8% over time is not the point. If you had 8% of your money stolen from you wouldn’t you be upset. Particular when you were constantly told by the Guernsey Government your money is safe in a well regulated financial industry. Clearly it was not well regulated and, your government was negligent is its duty of care. Otherwise it would have had an open and transparent full inquiry and not one hidden behind closed doors, which was a whitewash.
I am not after your sympathy now, its too late for that, if you all would have stood in our shoes two years ago then that would have been different. But no, the attitude we all got was you are all tax evaders. Which clearly as you can see from my own story was just not the case. Furthermore, one of the reasons that the UK banks did make it difficult for years for any expatriates to bank on the UK mainland, was to direct our cash and workings/ transactions though these so called tax haven islands. (Crown Dependencies) So as you all still have banks that remain open and you have a choice and not just one bank. If we all were allowed to have kept our UK banks most of us would now not be in this position of lost funds, whether that be 8% or 50% eventually. But an 8% loss in 6 years time, is not a real 8% loss, more like a 40% loss ,if one would have had that money and invested it at just 6-7% which is not unreasonable to surmise. So your 8% loss is just not nowhere near a true loss figure.
2,700 Guernsey individuals rely on the Guernsey banks for employment and they in turn rely on attracting funds from offshore to keep those individuals in work and pay local tax’s. So the comment about the odd Tom Dick or Harry with 50K maybe somewhat right but, every penny helps and as with the 120 million that Landsbanki was able to attract funds to, the average deposit was under that 50K. I would like to see every Tom Dick and Harry remove all their funds from Guernsey and their money from the funds which are located in Guernsey. That way you would be only left with your own Tom Dick and Harry to support your banks and the 2,700 jobs. Good thinking.
Now everyone is saying Guernsey has a £50,000 compensation scheme in place. What a joke that is. Even the local TV station said just last week, we now have a compensation scheme of £50,000. It should say that we have a compensation scheme up to £50,000 providing the deposit in that bank are not over £100 million and no other bank goes bust within the next 5 years. Clearly, like the well regulated banking industry blurb that your government constantly put out in its advertising previously, they now are happy for this misconception to be put out there. Knowing full well that it is not correct.
Report abuse
Bo Nidle
It’s not hypocritical to have once done something and then campaign against it. As for credibility, well you’ve shot yourselfin the foot. It is exactly someone who knows all the tricks that can comment best about them.
Anyhow, you spend far more time on there than I do. You seem to have an opinion on most of his comments.
Report abuse
Dennis Bobbitt
Some of your comments defy logic.
Firstly, the interest rates which you say you can get currently are clearly not sterling rates, but are presumably Aussie dollar rates. But I strongly suspect that your funds were held in sterling at Landsbanki. If the bank hadn’t collapsed then it seems logical that your funds would still be in sterling earning sterling rates. You can’t “claim” based on what else you might have done with that money. You could just as easily claimed that you would have invested the money in Perth real estate which has gone through the roof on the back of the commodities boom!
While it seems to be the case that you needed a non-UK bank account after leaving the UK (I still find this odd as I’ve had no difficulty opening UK bank accounts recently as a Guernsey resident), why not open it with the likes of HSBC, Lloyds or RBSI?
Finally you need to understand that around 95% of the business of Guernsey banks is non-retail. They hold institutional deposits from intermediaries such as trust companies, captive insurance companies and fund administration companies and, to the extent that they do hold private client deposits these are invariably for deposits of £500k-plus. A depositors’ protection scheme is irrelevant to such depositors and that’s why the local banks don’t want to fund a scheme for the offshore retail sector. It is such a small and irrelevant sector of the Guernsey banks as a whole and Guernsey would be far better off without the offshore retail sector at all. It doesnt contribute sufficient tax on profits or create enough jobs to justify all of the other banks needing to fund a depositor protection scheme with a £50k cap.
Report abuse
Arnald
If its not hypocritical then what is? Interesting that you don’t mention the Guardian matter…perhaps your dictionary has a different definition of hypocrite than mine.
And no, I don’t spend much time at all on Murphy’s blog. I do like to see what garbage he is writing about Guernsey on there (some of it is outrageous lies, especially about our relationship with the UK, which just undermines his ignorance) but I dont bother posting on there. There is simply no point when you see how he treats those who attempt to counter his ignorance.
But I do see the odd comment from you on there, egging him on and reinforcing your own ignorance in the process. If you are going to pick a role model then I would suggest you find one who actually knows his subject.
Murphy is history now that his Labour mates have been evicted from Downing Street. He’s had his day. He doesnt even blame Labour for the mess the UK economy is now in!
Report abuse
MJA and Bo Nidle
I think you may both mis-understand my posts. Of course there are no currency controls on sterling. That is my point! I cannot understand why people such as MJA keep going on about basically being forced to have a sterling bank account in a crown dependency, as if they have some civil right to a sterling bank account. If you decide to leave the UK to work in a foreign country, then that is your choice. If you make this choice, then you also make a choice to not be able to have a UK bank account. That is the choice you make.
If you still get paid in sterling, I think you’ll find you can still have it paid into a Euro/USD bank account. Yes, you will suffer some (probably excessive) charges, but this is the choice you made when you decided to work overseas. And as Bo Nidle points out, most banks would offer a sterling account anyway; my UK bank offers me both Euro and USD current accounts.
Report abuse
Bo Nidle
The gravatar never lies
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2010/10/04/islands-under-attack/#comments
scroll to the comments by “Rupert”. Judge for yourselves.
Murphy has got nothing to do with New Labour or The Guardian. I don’t understand why you think he does.
You need to actually READ a dictionary old chap. Are you suggesting that he is a practising tax avoidance adviser? You best raise that with him if you know more than I do.
Wasn’t it the banks and the regulators that made the UK deficit soar? Who advised Downing Street. Did the Tories oppose anything? No one was complaining when the finance industry was raking it in. Oh yeah, was it Gordon Brown that single handedly brought down the US property market, invented the financial instruments, the network of shadow banking and the culture of risk taking short termism?
Yes, the government at the time could have prevented the extremity of the collapse, but that would have meant not taking the kind of advice that leaders of financial and business groups kept feeding them. Aren’t you a member of the IoD, or GIBA/GIFA over here? Don’t the States take their advice? What happens if everything goes wrong? Will you blame the States for listening to those advices?
Get real. You eyes are starting to swivel.
Report abuse
Bo Nidle / Rupert
You have been caught with your pants down.
hehe
Report abuse
Nat
You missed the point again when you said that “MJA keepS going on about basically being forced to have a sterling bank account in a crown dependency, as if they have some civil right to a sterling bank account”.
It would be more accurate to state that British expats wish to retain sterling current and savings accounts in the UK. However, the moment they notify an overseas address they are required to move them to the CD operations of those same banks.
Of course you always have the option of CLOSING those sterling accounts, rather than moving them to the less safe havens of the CDs. But every other EU country permits its citizens to retain accounts in their home countries when they relocate abroad. Not enshrined in law but one of their most basic rights as a citizen, despite what Nat will inevitably argue. UK banks use AML/CFT rules to deny British citizens sterling bank accounts in their home turf – which is crazy because KYC requirements in the CDs are just as onerous as in the UK. This is something the European Commission will surely address sooner or later.
But there is another solution and that is Nat’s solution: everybody stays at home!
Report abuse
“http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2010/10/04/islands-under-attack/#comments
scroll to the comments by “Rupert”. Judge for yourselves.”
Looking at that discussion it is quite clear that Murphy has no understanding of our constitutional position, made a bold and inaccurate statement (that the UK can legislate for the CIs whenever it likes) and then, when challenged, refused to admit his mistake and simply entered into a childish game of “I’ve already answered/I cannot be bothered”. Quite a telling illustration of his character.
Report abuse
MJA, you really believe your statement…
“Not enshrined in law but one of their most basic rights as a citizen”
You need to get out more! Or perhaps look at the civil rights movements?
Why can’t you understand that by taking all the benefits of moving abroad you might have to slightly suffer by opening a non-GBP bank account and face a few extra bank charges?
Report abuse
TL
What do you think QC’s do then?
Report abuse
Arnald (and Paul)
I couldn’t possibly comment on the link, although I do know “Rupert’s” identity.
So Murphy has nothing to do with Labour then does he…let’s just say that its obvious that he’s had less contact with the inner circle of Government that he used to boast about prior to the April election. ‘Nuff said.
And he has no connections at all with the Guardian? Really? Pull the other one. That actually got exposed on his blog previously when he was taken to task by somebody (not Rupert) for his stance relating to Guardian articles while completely turning a blind eye to GMG’s tax planning in the Cayman Islands – he could hardly criticise them!
No, I’m not saying that he IS a tax avoidance advisor. I’m saying that he WAS. Past tense old boy – look it up. Makes his criticisms somewhat false, don’t you think? Do you think he’s handed back all his earnings from those activities which he now deems to be immoral, having sold his practice?
And that’s man who doesn’t believe that our constitutional relationship with the UK is valid, just because its 800 years old. Funny how that was also New Labour’s view until they got put right in no uncertain manner. What’s your view on our constitution then? Go on, surprise me, tell me that you disagree with Murphy even though that goes totally against the grain.
No Arnald, the Labour Government borrowed recklessly for many years to cause the deficit. The annual interest on UK government debt now exceeds the cost of running the Armed Forces! How exactly did the banks cause that? Brown ran the Treasury as Chancellor and then the country as PM, with Darling filling his shoes equally unimpressively. The buck stops with Brown. He created and fostered the environment which actively encouraged the banks to keep on lending. The banks couldn’t have done that without express Government approval. And yes, the US Government did exactly the same on that side of the Atlantic. Unlike Blair/Brown to blindly follow the Yanks of course – let’s just fight their wars for them in the Gulf.
You admit: “Yes, the government at the time could have prevented the extremity of the collapse, but that would have meant not taking the kind of advice that leaders of financial and business groups kept feeding them”. Crap government of the economy by the Government all the same, backed up by the Bank of England and its armies of economists.
And no, I’m not a member of IoD, GIBA or GIFA as it happens. Yes, the States does appear to take “advice” from those bodies. Quite logical really, seeing as the finance industry contributes around 70% of GDP, directly or indirectly, wouldn’t you say? It would be foolish for the States to ignore their knowledge, when only a handful of States members have any detailed knowledge of our main industry and they don’t have the back-up of “expertise” that the UK Treasury had. I think you’ll also find that the Guernsey banks aren’t into reckless lending either – totally different from the UK economy.
And finally no, my eyes aren’t “swiveling”. Why should they be?
Report abuse
TL
Very well said. It’s his blog and he’ll take his ball home if he gets challenged to the point where he’s backed into a corner.
He loses all credibility when he gets crucial facts wrong, such as our constitutional position, making precisely the same mistakes as New Labour (I wonder whether he or they started it). He then goes on to make all kinds of comments about the Crown Dependencies which further compounds his original mistake.
I’d love to see him go head to head with Roger Perrot on our constitution. Murphy would be eaten alive.
Report abuse
TL
Incidentally, did you read all 65 comments?
The assertion is made from realpolitik rather than from Magna Carta-lite, Treaty of King John tubthumping. I don’t know enough about it to possibly comment, but Murphy states that he talks to the people involved and that’s what they say.
Does Guernsey really believe it can do anything on the global stage without some UK conversation? We may have been under the radar for convenient reasons in the past, but we are not now.
Listening to Lyndon Trott it would seem that CLOSER ties are needed both with the UK and EU. That’s the reality.
Going on about 800 year old unwritten constitutional relationships with a system of governance hundreds of years out of date with the rest of the world says more about the argument provided rather than the understanding that we only do business BECAUSE of our larger neighbours, not in spite of.
When will these big-heads learn.
Report abuse
Murphy’s recent comments regarding taxing people who hold UK passports has got to be his most laughable yet.
In the end he has to resort to “school boy” comments once he realises his plans are pathetic and ill thought out.
As for his links to Labour, as he’s in the pocket of the unions one would have to suggest that he’s linked fairly strongly with Labour.
PS If you want a good laugh, read his recent comments on free markets…….
Report abuse
Nat
You said I should stay home but now you’re telling me to get out more. Make up your mind!
Report abuse
Bo Nidle
You said you didn’t comment on Murphy’s blog. You are probably the most vocal on there. Which is it?
Are you embarrassed about it?
As for the Guardian stuff: it was covered at length at the time, by them and everyone else and their dog. If I’m not mistaken, I don’t think there has ever been an argument against transparent offshore Trusts. That was the crux.
You seem to think that tax justice means wanting to ‘destroy’ things. No, it’s a campaign to stop destruction. I can’t talk for Murphy, but I do know aggressive tax abuse when I see it. I’ve seen it.
You support it.
Report abuse
Arnald, then I suggest that you do read up more on the subject. It is actually a fascinating issue and one which (contrary to Murphy’s assertions) is not based solely on what John I may have said 800 years ago, but is actually based rather more substantially on basic principles of international law, human rights and self-determination. Murphy has absolutely no basis for making that statement. The Kilbrandon Report didn’t even go that far, and that was outdated when it was written and has been greatly superseded by the increasing strength of human rights principles in international law. The idea that the UK can legislate over a people who have no right to elect representatives to Westminster is laughable in the 21st century.
I am surprised at you. With your interest in political issues, I would have thought you’d find the basis of our relationship with the UK both relevant and interesting. Recommended reading is “A Celebration of Autonomy – 1204-2004: 800 Years of Channel Islands’ Law” edited by Philip Bailhache.
Political and ecomonic expediency should not be confused with constitutional principles. Murphy made an incorrect statement about the latter and tried to defend it by talking about the former. The fact that he cannot distinguish between two separate concepts (or worse, that he chooses not to for the sake of an argument) is quite informative.
Report abuse
Arnald
Utter drivel.
With views like yours, maybe you and Dave Jones should have a chat based on his letter in today’s Press. Now that really would be worth seeing.
Report abuse
Keep going Arnald…you’re just confirming what we all know, which is that you are Murphy’s puppet and he’s got one hand up your behind. Which one are you, Sooty or Sweep? It looks like Murphy asked you to do his research on Guernsey’s constitution for him. In fact he seems to use you as his “reliable pulse” for what’s really going on in Guernsey – no wonder his impression of us is so inaccurate. Arnald-land seems to be twinned with Murphy-land.
I really can’t work out who is the biggest idiot – you for being taken in by him, or him for thinking that your views represent reality in Guernsey. Peas in a pod.
Report abuse
Bo Nidle / Rupert
You lack credibility.
You have now resorted to bare faced lies.
It’s a very ugly quality to possess.
What is wrong with putting your hands in the air?
Are you going to spout more lies or be a man instead of a red faced guilty little boy?
Very childish indeed IMO!
Report abuse
Bo Nidle
Drivel? The fact that you are constantly posting on there when you said you didn’t? And what do you know what I’ve seen? And where is your argument?
TL
I agree that the UK has no legislative power, but if it moves and requires us to move with it, it would be foolish not to do it. That’s why all the pomp and circumstance is a laughable sideshow. It’s happening now. For all the abuse I’m getting, I bet finance supports tying in with the EU, and with the UK. The options are just not there. We think we have a choice, maybe on paper (vellum more likely), but whatever Lords and Ladies may wish to decry the reality is that we’re a tiny dependent. It’s not so bad to admit to it. Why the resistance? It’s not as though we are standard bearers for progressive legislation on socio-economic principles. You know, 21st Century stuff.
As Lyndon said, we used to survive keeping our heads under the parapet (when we were a dirty tax haven), now we need to engage constantly if we want to be seen as a clean low-tax jurisdiction. From the comments here it sounds like we want to back in the dark ages.
Greg
Murphy advises the TUC on issues of how tax works in policy. Last time I looked the TUC, whilst noisy, was no friend to New Labour. So again, as with all your comments, nonsensical.
Tell me Greg, what do you know about the philosophy and operation of free markets? I’m always astounded by the assertion that tax havens are good for free markets. It’s my oldest angle on the subject, being left leaning, I always sought out why things are the way they are.
Without transparency, free markets do not exist. It is very, very simple. What’s funny about that?
For “schoolboy comments”, have you tried the right-wing blogs? It’s a bit like Viz.
Report abuse
Arnald
I think you will find that I said that Bo Nidle doesn’t comment on Murphy’s blog.
Don’t play semantics over the Guardian Group. They were avoiding tax using a Cayman Islands structure and Murphy “played it down” as you try to now. As I said – “hypocrite”.
What do you mean you “can’t talk for Murphy?”. That’s all you can do!
And no, I don’t “support aggressive tax abuse”. I support legitimate tax planning. I know the difference even if you and your puppetmaster don’t.
TL
Thank you – you saved me a job there! Couldn’t have put it better myself.
Report abuse
This is all very well – but to get back on-topic: are we all agreed that there is an urgent need for a root-and-branch review of the GFSC, preceded by a fully independent public inquiry into the clear regulatory failure by the GFSC that led to the collapse of a GFSC-authorised bank in 2008?
Report abuse
I always thought “Rupert” was “David”.
Report abuse
I’m going to break my usual rule of not bothering to reply to Arnald’s gibberish….
1. With your “left leaning” stance, i’d have thought you might know a little bit more about the way Labour is funded by the unions and how they have a big say in who is elected Labour leader. Perhaps a spot of home work for Arnald tonight? The internet should be a good starting point.
2. I’m not going to bother discussing free markets with you. I’m sure all you will do is repeat Murphy’s post like a pet parrot.
3. With regard to schoolboy comments, when Murphy’s absolute rubbish about taxing Guernsey residents who are able to live in the EU at UK tax levels was shown to be claptrap, he responded that Guernsey people should pay UK tax because the UK “protects us”. Very highbrow…
Report abuse
Paul (or is that Richard Murphy or Arnald)?
Er…where precisely have I lied? Where do I lack credibility? I’m truly intrigued. Am I being accused of hiding behind different pseudonyms? My word, that would be a real first for an online blog if it were true, wouldn’t it chaps?
Report abuse
Arnald – the reason that we got into this “laughable sideshow” is because you provided an interesting link to an argument put forward (and then defended strongly) by Murphy – i.e that the UK has the power to legislate for Guernsey against its wishes. He was not talking about political reality, he was talking about legal and constitutional power.
Do you not find it odd that someone can put forward a proposition so definitely, and defend it so strongly (to the point of insulting the challengers), when there is no basis for such a proposition?
If he can be so sloppy on such a fundamental issue, and so unwilling to correct his stance when given the opportunity, what faith can anyone have in the rest of his reasoning?
I note that you disagree with him though, so that is a relief.
Report abuse
Greg
Who knows? A lot of people apparently post under multiple pseudonyms on Murphy’s blog because they repeatedly get blackballed for daring to stand up to him when he spouts his drivel. Not something Arnald will have experienced there, I suspect.
Report abuse
I went off-topic questioning the assertion made by TL about Guernsey’s investment business is actually benefiting the wider world. That was then pounced on by Ray who mentioned the Dispatches programme, and then inflamed by Bo Nidle with an attack on Murphy’s MO.
I merely posted the link to Murphy’s blog to highlight that Bo Nidle is lying about his ‘non-posting status on Murphy’s blog’ by revealing that gravatars do not lie.
Blame jokester Ray and Bo Nidle.
Greg
I find it a tad disturbing that you think that someone who is interested in these issues can only be accused of copying someone else’s opinions.
Isn’t that what education is about? Or are you inferring that the only education is one that agrees with you?
And folk wonder why I could call this creeping corporatism. But I’m not so conspiracy minded.
TL
Are we constitutionally linked to the Queen of England, or not? How can treating our relationship to the Duke of Normandy who is the Queen of England, be separated in today’s modern world? It’s baffling. Business, I’m sure would like to know that we either are or aren’t.
There is a dichotomy of what Guernsey the island may want, and what the international finance centre based in Guernsey may want. Is the constitutional merger between democracy and private enterprise the way forwards? Or have I missed the bit where the two have different needs and directives?
Maybe if we had closer ties to the UK by eliminating the secrecy between the two, the Landsbanki depositors could have got clearer answers to their questions.
As it is there is only procedural blather and no sense of wanting the best for Guersey people to get back what they lost.
Report abuse
Greg
No,”David” is Mrs Meat,”Rupert” is Scarlett I think
Report abuse
Bo Nidle / Rupert
You barely deserve the recognition or a response.
Read what you have questioned & posted. What others have clearly answered, for your benefit, & you should see clearly how foolish you come across.
I can’t be bothered to argue with a little man who needs to be right to feel big about himself.
You clearly struggle with comprehending definitions.
Your problem.
Deal with it.
Report abuse
Greg
Further to free markets and your inability to answer my question.
I have just read Murphy’s blog entry.
I’m struggling to understand how it is anything other than orthodox reasoning.
Please explain your counter argument. I have a tendency to put words in people’s mouths. This time I shan’t.
Hey Paul, how does it feel to be me! And Murphy at the same time!
*shakes head in mock despair*
Report abuse
Paul (aka Arnald, aka Richard Murphy)
I know precisely what I have posted and questioned, and I most certainly do not look “foolish”. How do you reach that conclusion?
From what you appear to be saying, using pseudonyms on blogs is “not playing the game”. Well, let’s examine that shall we?
Firstly, your name may or may not be Paul. I strongly suspect that it isn’t. But whether it is or whether it isn’t, you are not disclosing your identity as “Paul” clearly also has a surname..
Secondly, “Arnald” also has a surname presumably, although many of us know that “Arnald” isn’t really Arnald at all. We know precisely who he is.
So, the whole use of pseudonyms is an accepted game. You and “Arnald” are also playing it, so climb down off your high horse and stop the double standards.
And, as previously pointed out, when Murphy blackballs posters left, right and centre for, basically, not being one of his disciples, the use of pseudonyms becomes unavoidable. For the record, I once used 6 different pseudonyms on his blog within around 3 months, 4 of which got blackballed after daring to counter his bare-faced lies about Guernsey’s finance industry, which I think were being fed and watered by “Arnald”.
One thing is clear though – its no longer worthwhile wasting time on Murphy’s blog – his time has been and gone.
Report abuse
I am quite flattered Arnald.
Report abuse
Arnald, I really don’t know what point you are making about our constitution.
“Are we constitutionally linked to the Queen of England, or not?” Of course we are.
“How can treating our relationship to the Duke of Normandy who is the Queen of England, be separated in today’s modern world?” Separated from what?
“Business, I’m sure would like to know that we either are or aren’t.” We are (or aren’t) what? If you mean your first question, then everyone knows that we are aligned with the English Crown so I don’t know why you raise this last question.
“There is a dichotomy of what Guernsey the island may want, and what the international finance centre based in Guernsey may want.” I agree that the two may not always be the same.
“Is the constitutional merger between democracy and private enterprise the way forwards? Or have I missed the bit where the two have different needs and directives?” How can you merge democracy with private enterprise??? Of course democratic principles are different from private enterprise. Are you saying that we should surrender our democratic freedoms and prostrate ourselves before Westminster just because most of our business comes via London? You normally stand up for the non-finance parts of the Island, but I suspect that Mr Le Noury of Torteval would hold his democratic freedoms to be fairly important. Democratic self-determination is the ultimate right to be defended. What the Island chooses to do with that right is a secondary issue. We may choose to have ties with the UK or Europe or whoever, but it must always be our choice and we should never forget that we have the power to make that choice (irrespective of what the consequences may be).
“Maybe if we had closer ties to the UK by eliminating the secrecy between the two” – By “the two”, do you mean democracy and private enterprise? If so, what secrecy can there be? A minute ago you were saying that it was a waste of time pretending that we had any democratic freedom at all and that we should accept that we are Westminster’s lapdog. It feels odd to be standing up for democratic freedom against you!
Report abuse
Bo Nidle
You said “And no, I don’t spend much time at all on Murphy’s blog. I do like to see what garbage he is writing about Guernsey on there …..but I dont bother posting on there.”
I proved, and now you admit, to having spent much time and you are one of the most frequent posters on there.
So why should anyone listen to you?
There’s only one me. Paul could be anyone. But you change your name and repeat the same things over and over, as if to give yourself support.
I never mentioned playing any game. But if honesty is a game, then you’ve lost.
Meanwhile, the GFSC is getting connected…
Report abuse
Sorry Arnald, I’ve already broken my self imposed rule of not arguing with you once on this thread and i’m not going to do it again. I’d rather take it up with Murphy himself, however as he’s got his kids on his hands and has limited time (which is fair enough) it’s probably not going to happen.
Report abuse
TL
But it’s not our choice, is it? It’s what finance needs, not what people necessarily want.
That’s my point.
Democracy goes out of the window.
No matter how people vote (a few hundred votes gets someone into the House), the major direction changes will happen because of the IFC, not because the representative with a few hundred votes decides. Even if a law is voted through, can you really say that the members would have any choice when it came to the finance industry’s standing?
Zero-ten is a case in point. Despite it never having been compliant – did anyone ask the Code of Conduct Panel? – because what was good for the IFC (and not necessarily for the taxpayer), it got voted through nearly unanimously.
I attended meetings in my workplace where we told EMPHATICALLY NOT to vote for anyone who questioned zero-ten.
It was a widespread phenomenon. Full page articles in this paper described the dystopic aftermath if voters elected candidates with a less finance-friendly approach.
There was no real choice.
Report abuse
Arnald
You just can’t help yourself can you, questioning why anyone should listen to Bo Nidle because of a petty squabble you’ve been having about the amount of time he or she does or doesn’t spend on Murphy’s website.
You then state that you allowed yourself to be told which way to vote in an election, and you’ve previously confessed to having no backbone regarding the circumstances in which you left the finance industry.
When it comes to reliability and morality, methinks you are not in a position to be casting aspersions.
Report abuse
Arnald – you are still not getting the point.
We are democratically self determining. We make our own laws and Westminster has no power to make laws for us against our consent and can only step in if there is a major breakdown of civil order.
Murphy argued until he was blue in the face that Westminster could do what it likes with us. He compared us to local government. He was fundamentally wrong and yet refused to admit it.
You are then said “the reality is that we’re a tiny dependent. It’s not so bad to admit to it. Why the resistance?”
Why the resistance? Because people have died for freedoms such as the one that you appeared willing to give up just because it may be the political reality.
Seemingly, you’d let us throw away our oars and coast with the tide of UK policy. I’d rather we kept our oars so that if we come to a point when we do not like UK policy we can change direction. I’m not saying it would be easy or pleasant, but the option is there.
Can you not see the difference? Murphy obviously cannot but then he has no love for the CIs and so has not reason to see it that way. I hope that you do.
Report abuse
Oh all this asserting that ‘he’s him and him’ or ‘he’s her but not him’ is getting very confusing. Hardly sure who I am now.
Arnald’s identity is, of course, The Everso Closely Guarded Line which we’ll never crack. Ah, then again……
Report abuse
TL – sorry, to clarify. It doesn’t really matter what our constitutional links are, things will happen regardless. Picking and choosing what we do or don’t adopt is blurred by the global reach of finance, and since finance is what determines Guernsey’s destiny, an 800 year old regal device becomes more and more meaningless.
That’s the drift.
Perrot could argue all he liked about this and that, the upshot will always be that we have to conform to our large neighbours if we want to prosper. So it’s all a bit of a sideshow.
Report abuse
Who’s Who
I understand your confusion, The Everso Closely Guarded Line, Fast Robert, Arnald, it’s enough to give you a Cardiac.
Perhaps Lawrence can shed some light on the situation?
Report abuse
The drift is that Murphy is willing to assert false propositions regardless of the facts and to agressively shout down anyone that challenges him.
Nice to see you being so glib about a fundamental nature of our Island’s being.
Report abuse
Arnald
I’ve only just stopped laughing at your 10.21 am post.
So what if I do post as one name on Murphy’s blog and under another name on this blog? Very hard to post more openly on Murphy’s blog when I kept getting blocked by him. Is that clear enough for you?
So what if I have two pseudonyms? I, under the guise of Bo Nidle, do not post (and have never posted) on Murphy’s blog – fact. Under multiple other pseudonyms I have posted on his blog. Is there against using pseudonyms and maintaining two separate persona? You asked Bo Nidle whether “I” had posted on Murphy’s blog. As Bo Nidle, I have not. Shall I use words with shorter syllables or can you actually cope with those?
And I rather think that the words “kettle” and “pot” would be appropriate to your comments. Its not long ago that “Arnald” ceased being “Laurence” and “Fast Robert” is it? And you were using more than one pseudonym at the same time then, weren’t you? Oh what a short memory you have.
Finally, I can at last agree with you on something. There is most certainly only one “Arnald”.
PS I’m watching your constitutional debate with TL with great interest. I don’t need to add to it because TL is walking all over you. He also knows the facts and deals with the facts, unlike you.
Report abuse
Who’s who
Phil
It’s not the name but the barefaced lie Bo Nidle told.
Phil
I didn’t vote. So you make that up as well.
As for my former employer, how is it dishonourable not to abide by compromise agreements?
You are out of your depth. You just make stuff up. Next you’ll be saying that public sector workers are on an easy ride. Vacuous!
Report abuse
I’ve just spent a fascinating half of my lunch break reading Murphy’s blog as refered to above.
What a lot of utter cock.
I loved Arnald’s comments that he was poorer than his parents and his children were going to be poorer than him.
Arnald – I’m actually begining to feel sorry for you. Seriously, if you want your kids to be better off I might be able to adopt them.
Report abuse
Arnald
Not a “barefaced lie” at all. You are obviously lacking brain cells if the sheer irony of your accusation is not lost on you. Its as if you are only being hypocritical if and when it suits you!
Report abuse
Bo Nidle. Are you bereft of your senses?
I have never not claimed to be anything other than those pseudonyms. It doesn’t really matter what I call myself. You have difficulty in yourself about it. I said you posted, you hide behind a pseudonym to say you haven’t. That’s just such a rubbish argument.
TL
I haven’t actually disagreed with you, you’ll notice. All I have said that REGARDLESS of our constitution, decisions are increasing;y made in order to service the IFC and not Guernsey. Do you think anyone in the business world gives a fig about what King said what when? It’s just so surreal to think that it does matter. I haven’t said we should cede anything, just that the view that we do things automonously is not the reality. It’s a veneer.
It’s hardly radical, and hardly worth the froth it’s created.
Regarding Murphy; you should see the stick he gets when he posts on the right wing sites. It’s quid pro quo. Are you balanced enough to see that? It’s the same people that post. That’s why he’s taken that stance.
Phil
Cardiacs are the greatest band ever, at least I am consistent. Nor ashamed.
You just write drivel and run away laughing at your own jokes. No depth.
Report abuse
Arnald
My apologies re the voting issue, however as someone who didn’t vote at all it is strange how you see yourself as a champion of democracy.
Again my apologies re your “compromise agreement”. It appears that you were willing to “compromise” on what it was you experienced during your time within the finance industry that must have been so terrible to leave you as scarred as it has.. But not so terrible as to be uncompromisable, I trust you were sufficiently compensated for your acquiescence.
Report abuse
Gilthead
Why? Give reasons.
As fewer people take more of the wealth then more people will lose out. Again, it’s basic orthodoxy. What’s so factually incorrect about that?
Or is it just name calling time?
Report abuse
Arnald – oh I have noticed that you have not disagreed, but you are making comments on a different point. Of course, if we want our OFC to continue to be the success that it is, we need to pay attention to what other jurisdictions want from us. That is a statement of the bleedin’ obvious.
But we never got into this constitutional discussion because of any doubts about that. We got into this discussion because I found it informative that Murphy could make such an obviously false statement about the UK’s legal and constitutional rights over us, and then defend it so agressively.
If he can be so wrong and yet so forthright on that issue…
Your first response on that point was – “I don’t know enough about it to possibly comment, but Murphy states that he talks to the people involved and that’s what they say.”
So either Murphy is willing to hear and accept garbage told to him by others that don’t know what they are talking about, or he is twisting the facts of what they did say, or he is just making it up.
If he can do that on such an obvious and clear cut issue where the true facts can easily be verified…
The crux of this discussion is not the constitutional debate at all. The crux is what it says about Murphy.
I don’t care how he is treated on right wing sites as I don’t frequent them and would probably find them as distasteful and full of rubbish as his own site. But if he wants to rule his playground like an 8 year old bully, just because he gets bullied in the next door playground, he won’t be winning any respect from many people.
Report abuse
TL
Readership is growing. Just because he can’t be bothered with the same handful of trollers doesn’t make it a bad editorial policy.
The comments are an unnecessary sideline to the blog.
Re constitution, but it IS what’s important. We can’t continually use our tie to the duke of normandy as a flag of convenience AND play with global markets WITHOUT being dependent on the UK and so the EU. It just doesn’t work in real life. The reason we are popular as a booking centre is precisely because we can access those markets, and are seen as a safe pair of hands and a satellite of the City. Not because of King bloody John.
Since Guernsey is now defined by its corporate reach, the value of a pithy constitution means nothing. The longer it goes on, the more enveloped we will become in the UK/EU until such a time where our legislative authority will be an emblem on the Lt Gvnrs best suit.
Since when have we ever defied the UK?
When have we flexed our autonomy and with what success? It’s just not realism. It may be true, but how much is it worth?
Guernsey is its IFC, that is our identity, that is how we are sold globally. Not the definition Lord whoever and Duke someone. Where the ire is coming from that Murphy asserts that the UK could legislate on our behalf. That’s what I don’t know. I do know that it doesn’t really matter.
Phil
I could have contested. But I didn’t want to. Hold the press. Big deal. What’s your point? It’s happened to many. I dislike the swagger of those that defend tax avoidance. Big deal.
You make much more of it than I do.
Report abuse
Arnald – I haven’t called you any names.
You also assume that I’ve attacked Murphy personally (or his views). Incorrect. I said the whole blog was pants – and it is. From start to finish. Pointless fanaticism counteracted by equally pointless arguments.
Best of luck with your world domination plans by the way.
Report abuse
Arnald, you seem to have repeated your earlier post without reading (or understanding) mine.
Quelle surprise.
Report abuse
Arnald
Re your 2.20pm posting, who exactly is “you”? You really don’t seem to be able to see the wood for the trees. And you go on to say “It really doesn’t matter what I call myself” – so which is it? Double standards or no double standards?
In your 3.46pm posting, you say: “The reason we are popular as a booking centre is precisely because we can access those markets, and are seen as a safe pair of hands and a satellite of the City. Not because of King bloody John.”
Now that really does highlight how much of a fool you are. If you think we are a “booking centre” then that’s completely exposed how deluded you are about our finance industry. In fact, it starts to explain why you make the riduculous comments that you do. “Booking centre ?” What on earth are you talking about? We aren’t Cayman or BVI you know.
And why do you think we “can access those markets”? Guess why – its precisely BECAUSE of our constitution independence from the UK and BECAUSE of our relationship with the EU under Protocol 3, both of which are possible because of King John in 1204.
Of course our constitution matters. I find it astonishing that you could make such a bizarre statement. Or maybe on second thoughts it doesn’t really surprise me at all.
Report abuse