Are Labour MPs accused of antisemitism because they are keen on ending tax-avoiding practices in the UK?

Are Labour MPs accused of antisemitism because they are keen on ending tax-avoiding practices in the UK?

Are Labour MPs accused of antisemitism because they are keen on ending tax-avoiding practices in the UK?

Rebecca-Long-Bailey-antisemitism-I-think-honourable-members-of-all-sides-of-this-house-have-come-to-agree-that-tax-avoidance-should-is-something-that-should-be-fought


It appears that the British establishment has found the perfect formula to remove MPs who demand tough actions on British tax-dodging practices – accuse them of antisemitism!

Following recent antisemitism accusations directed at Rebecca Long-Bailey for retweeting an interview with actor and Labour supporter Maxine Peake, now six other Labour MPs are also being accused of being antisemitic.

The new political assassination list of Labour MPs under the pretext that they’re being antisemitic, include:

  • Ed Miliband, the former Labour party leader;
  • Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP For Barking;
  • Nia Griffith, the Shadow Welsh Secretary;
  • Stella Creasy, the Labour MP for Walthamstow;
  • Wes Streeting, the Labour MP for Ilford North; and 
  • Keir Starmer, the current Labour party leader.

Although some of the accused Labour MPs might have condemned Israel’s breach of human rights in the past, they’ve all demanded the end of tax-avoiding practices in the UK!

Rebecca Long-Bailey’s view on tax-avoidance

As Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury Long-Bailey, in 2016, opposed the Finance Bill in Parliament, saying:
“I think honourable members of all sides of this house have come to agree that tax avoidance is something that should be fought.”

Ed Milliband’s view on tax-avoidance

Former Labour party leader, Ed Miliband Leader pledged that Labour government would put UK tax havens on blacklist unless they end their system of secrecy, claiming:  
“A Labour government is not going to have endless consultation and dithering. We are going to give six months to these tax havens to agree to publish a register of beneficial ownership, and if they do not act we will recommend to the OECD that they are put on a blacklist.”

Margaret Hodge’s view on tax-avoidance

Labour party MP, Margaret Hodge, in 2017, argued that the Paradise Papers showed there is one rule for the super-rich and another for everyone else when it comes to paying tax and that these practices should come to an end, claiming:  
“I was quite taken aback by that story [of the Queen’s tax arrangements] because what it demonstrated was that the advisors… feel that it’s such an accepted practice to hide your wealth and avoid legitimate taxes that they didn’t think twice about doing it. It never occurred to them that it would tarnish the Queen’s reputation. That demonstrates the extent to which it is in the DNA of the establishment really, and that’s what we’ve got to change.”

Nia Griffith’s view on tax-avoidance

Labour party MP, Nia Griffiths, in 2015, called for the same standards tax should apply to all, concluding that:  
“Nobody likes paying tax, but we all want our services, such as the NHS, to be there when we need them. Above all, we want fairness. We have an expectation that we should all pay our taxes, whoever we are. We want the same standards to be applied to all. It is damaging for honest businesses to face competition from corporations that are not paying the tax that they owe. Horrifying revelations about HSBC accounts in Switzerland have been made this week. Instead of its clients being encouraged to pay the tax that they owed, they were being issued with credit cards to enable them to spend the money without it being identified. That is utterly shameful behaviour on the part of the individuals and the banks, and how many more are there like them? Even more shocking is the fact that the Government were told about HSBC back in 2010, but nearly five years later only one of the 1,100 people involved in the tax irregularities has been prosecuted. That is disgraceful. Cheating the Inland Revenue is never acceptable, but it is particularly galling when councillors up and down the country are agonising over how to manage their severely reduced budgets, and having to decide whether to cut help for special needs children or care for the elderly.”

Stella Creasy’s view on tax-avoidance

Labour party MP, Stella Creasy, in 2017, tabled legislation to try to tackle tax avoidance in the UK, stating that:  
“We have another opportunity this coming week to finish what Osborne started. Parliament can act by supporting my amendment to the finance bill at its report stage on Tuesday 31 October. With cross-party support already building for it, this Halloween it’s time to give those overseas companies not paying their taxes a real nightmare.”

Wes Streeting’s view on tax-avoidance

Labour party MP, Wes Streeting, in 2016, called for a serious shift the focus onto radical tax reform that would end tax avoidance, stating that:  
“Those who believe that public anger is motivated by envy fundamentally misunderstand the mood of the nation. British people have a basic belief in fair play. It’s not high earnings that people resent, it is that too many high earners and corporations get to effectively determine their marginal tax rate when the majority of us do not. It’s time to grapple with the complexity of our tax system to build confidence that we’re all paying our fair share.”

Keir Starmer’s view on tax-avoidance

Leader of the Labour party, Keir Starmer, five months ago, promised to clamp down on tax avoidance, particularly of large corporations, tweeting: 
“Increase income tax for the top 5% of earners, reverse the Tories’ cuts in corporation tax and clamp down on tax avoidance, particularly of large corporations. No stepping back from our core principles.”


It appears that the British tax-dodging elite is keen to end the political career of Labour MPs who frequently criticised the Tory government for not clamping down on tax-avoiding practices or threatened to end them by accusing them of antisemitism.

Similar to facilitating Brexit to protect their tax-free assets from the EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive and the European Court of Justice, the British tax-dodging elite is using antisemitism accusations to silence Labour MPs who are keen to end tax-avoiding practices in the UK.

Britain has the worst COVID-19 recovery rate in the world

Britain has the worst COVID-19 recovery rate in the world

Britain has the worst COVID-19 recovery rate in the world

Britain has the worst COVID-19 recovery rate death toll in the world Boris Johnson Rory Stewart


Back in March, Rory Stewart criticized Boris Johnson for making the wrong decisions in his ‘herd immunity’ response to the coronavirus.

Referring to successful COVID-19 strategies adopted in China, South Korea and Denmark, the former Tory leadership candidate accused the British PM of irresponsibly blaming the scientific judgment for the appalling way the British government handled the pandemic crisis:
“Personally, I think it is irresponsible of politicians to keep suggesting that this is a question of science. It gives them a bit of cover, puts the blame on the scientists, but the judgement is ultimately a political judgement,”

There’s something utterly upsetting about the way the current Tory government under Boris Johnson has dealt with the COVID-19 outbreak.

Insofar, with an estimated 41,783 COVID-19 deaths, the UK has the third-highest death toll in the world behind the US and Brazil.

However, the British government and mainstream media declines to discuss UK’s COVID-19 recovery rate.

The sad truth is about the lethal incompetence of the Tory party in dealing with the COVID-19 lies in the fact that insofar, this government managed to recover only 1,283 people out of the 297,342 infected, whereas 41,783 have died.

To comprehend this gross incompetence in the way that Matt Hancock and Boris Johnson handled the COVID-19 outbreak, one needs to compare UK figures of other countries with similar numbers of people infected.

At the time of writing this piece, the John Hopkins University, which monitors the number of people infected, recovered and died in each country, indicates the UK has the worst recovery rate in the world.

Here’s the current state of affairs of handling the COVID-19 per each country, listing the most infected ones:

 InfectedRecoveredDeaths
USA2,094,069561,816115,732
Brazil867,624469,14143,332
Russia528,267279,5366,938
India332,424169,7989,520
UK297,3421,28341,783
Spain243,928150,37627,136  
Italy236,989176,37034,345

Out of the top 7 infected countries in the world, at only 0.43% recovered out of the 297,342 infected, the UK managed has the lowest percentage of the people recovered from COVID-19:               

  • UK – 0.43% recovered out of the 297,342 infected; 
  • USA – 26.83% recovered out of the 2,094,069 infected
  • India – 51.08% recovered out of the 332,424 infected;
  • Russia – 52.92% recovered out of the 528,267 infected;
  • Brazil  54.07% recovered out of the 867,624 infected;
  • Spain  61.65% recovered out of the 243,928 infected;
  • Italy    74.42% recovered out of the 236,989 infected;

A very important aspect is the ratio of deaths compared to the number of people recovered, whereby UK is leading the pack with only 1 recovered per 300 who have died, whereby Italy managed to recover 17 per 1 person who has died from COVID-19:

  • UK – 0.03 recovery ratio compared to deaths;
  • USA – 4.85 recovery ratio compared to deaths;
  • Italy – 5.14 recovery ratio compared to deaths;
  • Spain – 5.54 recovery ratio compared to deaths;
  • Brazil – 10.83 recovery ratio compared to deaths;
  • India – 17.84 recovery ratio compared to deaths;
  • Russia – 40.29 recovery ratio compared to deaths;

Of course, this is still at the early stage of the virus outbreak to determine the Tory performance in dealing with the COVID-19 outbreak, however, if one compares it to other countries, the UK is the only country in the world, whereby the number of deaths surpasses the number of people recovered.

Democracy is great because one reaps what one sows, including the pointless death of family relatives whom the Tory government have let down in the past and now when faced with such a fatal pandemic.

The virus appeared almost four months ago in China, but the incompetent Tories didn’t bother to either secure protective gear for all NHS staff or enough ventilators for British people and prepare for this pandemic, which is why we are only the country in the world with the highest number of deaths compared to the number of people recovered from COVID-19.

The Ultimate Role of a Memorial

In the past, a lot has been done to review the impact of memorials in various societies, because they represent victory or defeat, the end of a war or of injustice, or glorification or honouring of the sacrifice of life.

Often it is only the speeches at an annual commemoration at a memorial site that recalls the victim’s sacrifice – whereas it should be the memorial itself that recalls and pays tribute to the sacrifice. Memorials convey diverse messages to society.

The impact may be clear, unclear, or inconsistent due to the lack of understanding of the desired reality it aims to represent.

In the introduction to the book Monuments and Memory, Made and Unmade, writers Robert S. Nelson and Margaret Olin give a definition of the purpose monuments tend to satisfy:
‘… the desire to commemorate, to mark a place, to represent the past to the present and future, to emphasize one narrative of the past at the expense of others, or simply to make the past, past.’ (Nelson & Olin 2003: 2)

Nelson and Olin see memorials as serving the purpose of commemorating, determining, representing, repaying or making the past, a past. The abovementioned approaches represent valuable perspectives towards defining a memorial’s role, as it may relate to all of the victims, both combatant and civilian.

When reflecting upon martyrdom, it is also essential to take into account the reasoning that pushes a person or a number of people to sacrifice themselves.

Said simply: what was the inspiration behind the sacrifice we are commemorating?

Why does a person sacrifice oneself, if not for overcoming a serious social situation, in order to create an opportunity for a new future, stripped from the past?

The sacrifice of oneself is done in order to terminate a certain way of life during a certain period, in order to start a new sequence of events.

If we bear in mind that a fighter fights to bring about change, then we understand the purpose of a memorial and what Nelson and Olin speak of when they call for letting the past be past and for embracing the change, now, in order to be able to live with new circumstances.

This claim is especially valid if we take into account the phenomenon that eventually accompanies the construction of a memorial: its removal.

This happened in Kumrovec, where, on 27 December 1994, Tito’s statue was destroyed; then in Baghdad on 9 April 2003, Saddam Hussein’s statue was brought down; and more recently, in Gori, Georgia, a Stalin statue was removed in 2010, on 28 June.

Although statues are very authoritative and can commemorate a certain person or a group, their removal or destruction aims at diminishing people’s belief in what they represent and the inspiration they were supposed to give to society, in order to make way for new social beliefs – whether benign or destructive.

Even though the memorial dedicated to Rosa Luxemburg2 and fellow revolutionary, Karl Liebknecht, built in 1926 by architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, was not based on their physical attributes, it was still toppled by the Nazis in 1933. (Werner 2000: 20)

Instead of choosing to represent the physical attributes of Luxemburg and Liebknecht, Mies created a memorial consisting of many boxes, which symbolised the coffins of the dead.

The boxes were made from used bricks that were reminiscent of the wall in front of which the couple was executed. (Sudjic 2005: 25)

Therefore, knowing that this memorial was impartial in its design, but based on the beliefs of Luxemburg and Liebknecht, its commemorative nature and subject was an obstacle to the Nazi regime that followed and the future they envisaged for Europe and the entire world.

Ultimately, memorials in their double-faceted existence (construction/destruction), instead of serving to bring the past closer to us, also are there to alert or inspire society on the changes associated with building the future of that society.

This way, memorials largely represent a tool of social beliefs, serving the political goals of certain parties for acceptance by the public in a certain period.

References

Libeskind, Daniel, Breaking Ground, (London: Penguin Books, 2005)

Nelson, Robert S. & Margaret Olin, Eds, Monuments and Memory (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2003)

Sudjic, Deyan, The Edifice Complex: How the Rich and Powerful Shape the World, (London: Penguin Press, 2005)

Werner, Blaser, Mies van der Rohe (Berlin: Birkhauser, 1997)

Woods, Lebbeus, War and Architecture, (New York: Princeton, 1993)

Deconstructive Interpretations of Memorials

In terms of the degree of closeness between the family members and the memorials, there is a clear gap between them – a gap not experienced by others, since a memorial alienates family members, turning them into products of mass consumption or branding because family members do not experience the same feeling as they do when visiting their loved ones at the family gravesites.

In different societies, the presence of memorials perhaps represents a vision that incorporates both remembrance and renewal, focusing on the past and the sacrifice that was needed is necessary, which was the case with the competition to rebuild New York’s Ground Zero after the Twin Towers’ destruction from September 11 terrorist attacks.

Despite the participation of renowned world architects such as Zaha Hadid, Richard Meier, Rem Koolhaas, New Yorkers did not like the suggestions for Ground Zero.

This tough blow to the competition organisers and participants happened afterwards; before a hall full of residents and relevant authorities, one of the evaluation committee members raised the following questions, ‘What should be the goal here? … Is it to erase the memory of what has happened? That everything will be the same as it was before? … One needs a more profound indication of memory.’ (Libeskind 2005: 30, 31)

These were the words of the Berlin Jewish Museum architect, Daniel Libeskind, who, as an evaluator, put doubts in the minds of those present that day about the purpose of the Ground Zero’s development concepts. It was August 2002 when the first plans to rebuild Ground Zero were made public, and when Libeskind raised the issue of remembrance. He then added that it was necessary, ‘a dramatic, unexpected, spiritual insight into vulnerability, tragedy, and our loss. And we need something that is hopeful.’ (Libeskind: 31)

Due to popular demand, the competitors were asked to resubmit their proposals; at the same time, the Libeskind Studio was asked to compete with its own proposal for Ground Zero. Since the proposal from Libeskind Studio was genuinely linked with the past and the tragedy of 9/11 it was the preferred submission by the selection committee and New Yorkers.

Thus, it was awarded the right to plan the development of New York’s Memorial Museum Site.

However, though the Libeskind Studio proposal was based on the past, the aim was not to rebuild buildings similar to the Twin Towers.

On the contrary, the proposal uses the footprint of the original Twin Towers to create waterfalls surrounded by trees and a green area that, instead of rekindling the bitter memories of thousands of deaths during that fateful September, represents a source of life.

The trauma that New Yorkers went through resurfaces every 9/11 anniversary. Libeskind’s proposal transforms the area into a spot where the past is always present; however, the Ground Zero area is embraced by signs and sources of life, sending a message that society will not return to the past, but rather will rejoice in the future with this location – instead of reflecting the horror – representing life and peace.

The American architect Lebbeus Woods, during his research and preparation of pro-posals for post-war Sarajevo, suggests moving away from rebuilding and bringing the war-damaged buildings back to their original state.

He states that, ‘Wherever the restoration of war-devastated urban fabric has occurred in the form of replacing what has been damaged or destroyed, it ends as parody, worthy only of the admiration of tourists.’ (Woods 1993: 10)

Woods calls for embracing of past occurrences through his distinct approach, focusing on ways to patch up the material damages in the war-damaged buildings.

Instead of complete reconstruction and restoration of damages, Woods proposes covering them with construction materials different to the ones used to originally construct the building. Woods calls these wounds, scars or cuts. (Woods: 19)

Buildings can withstand war wounds because they don’t have feelings. On the other hand, in a society where war wounds are still fresh, dealing with the past is much harder than dealing with the future.

However, there is a local perception that the, ‘human being is stronger than stone’ and it refers to the ability or inability of these two elements to return to their previous state. When a stone cracks or breaks it can never return to its initial state, whereas a person, on the other hand, has a self-healing power enabling him to repair the wounds of body or soul, created by inhumane actions during war.

But if stone or the building, in the case of Sarajevo, doesn’t have a natural self-healing power and cannot return to its previous state, then why do people continuously try to implement what is not in the building’s nature?

In different parts of the world, post-war societies continuously deny the past that the buildings tell about, restoring them to the state they were before the war.

Covering war-wounded buildings accentuates the remembrance of war, so that in a way, for example, the people of Sarajevo, themselves, do not have to carry the war wounds.

For the first time a new approach towards post-war architecture has been taken, for Woods has offered a new way of dealing with the past where the past is not rewound (reconstructed), but instead marked (partially supplemented).

References

Libeskind, Daniel, Breaking Ground, (London: Penguin Books, 2005)

Nelson, Robert S. & Margaret Olin, Eds, Monuments and Memory (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2003)

Sudjic, Deyan, The Edifice Complex: How the Rich and Powerful Shape the World, (London: Penguin Press, 2005)

Werner, Blaser, Mies van der Rohe (Berlin: Birkhauser, 1997)

Woods, Lebbeus, War and Architecture, (New York: Princeton, 1993)

“THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH” – CHAPTER FOURTY

“Hello boss!” Sekretaresha barged in without knocking, placing a takeaway cup and a brown bag on Isa’s desk. “What’s this nasty smell?”

“It’s silicone!” Isa replied.

“Which one had her boops done?” Sekretaresha asked. “Jenny or Liz?”

“None of them! Over the weekend, we had some workers applying new silicone sealant to our windows.” Isa replied. “Besides, I don’t think that neither Lucy nor Jenny is dumb enough to have one.”

“Are you sure about that?” Sekretaresha asked in an overly confident tone. “Last week, I bumped into Jenny and Liz having a chat in the kitchen, doing their usual meaningless conversation complemented by their meaningless gesticulation. Jenny was ranting on about her diet. Then Jenny asked Liz if she could see that she lost 5kg, and guess what was Liz’s reply?”

After Isa indicated that he had no idea by shrugging his shoulders, Sekretaresha mimicked Liz’s reply, “Oh dear, how am I supposed to see something, if it’s no longer there!” 

Isa laughed hysterically, before replying, “Plastic surgery is a waste of time for insecure people who thrive on pleasing and improving others eyesight instead of their own!”

“Aha! But you keep forgetting something!” Sekretaresha replied enthusiastically. Plastic surgery is the only investment that no one can take away from you, even after you die.”

“Meaning what?” Alexander replied perplexed, lifting up his head.

“Meaning that you could buy your dream car and enjoy it for several months, before you die from a heart attack. You can’t bring along your car to your grave, now can you?”

“No, I guess you can’t.”

“But, if you have your nose, boops or bottocks done, you can take them to your grave and this is why plastic surgery is the best investment you could ever have!” Sekretaresha replied with a cheeky smile on her plump lips, before dashing off to her desk.

By the time the sun reached its lunchtime position, Isa’s boss, Mr Kryprokurori, the Chief Prosecutor knocked and walked inside Isa’s office with a brand new yellow file case tucked under his arm. As he entered the office, Kryprokurori’s face frowned as he swung his right hand in front of his nose, as one does to move an annoying fly buzzing around one’s head, “Would you mind, if open the window?” Kryeprokuri asked, and pointed his index finger towards Isa’s dish.“I have to dash off to an important meeting and I don’t want my clothes smelling whatever that is!”

“It’s chicken curry, sir,” Isa replied before looking up at his boss opening the window, “Would you like some, sir?” 

“Thank Isa! I’m good,” Kryprokuri replied, shaking his  bald head glistening under the sunset. “You just go ahead. I’m sorry, didn’t realise it’s lunchtime.”

Isa  shrugged happily and resumed finishing his lunch, whilst his boss observed him silently. Despite his bald head, Kryeprokurori looked under fifty. Due to his immaculate white teeth whenever he smiled he looked younger than Isa. Kryeprokurori could not keep his eyes from Isa’s plate. 

“It’s fifteen minutes past lunchtime, but I wasn’t able to return earlier. Today’s court proceeding consumed most of my lunchtime and-”

“Yes, I know! Your assistant told me that you were running late. It’s the beach knife attack case, isn’t it?”

“Yes, it is!” Isa replied.

“So! Who is it coming along?”

“It looks like the defendant will accept the deal for five years imprisonment , with a possibility of parole after three years!”

“Very good!” Kryeprokurori sighed, his black eyes skittishly darting around Isa’s office while Isa was tidying up his desk.

Isa’s office grew tiny due the packed with additional cabinets and trunks lined up against every single wall. A tidy row of cardboard boxes of files were stacked beneath the window sills. The large desk with a large computer screen and pile of yellow file holders, and two chairs occupied the central area, reducing a significant amount of free space. All in perfect order, everything was neatly arranged and despite it being claustrophobic, Isa’s office was free of clutter.

As Isa lifted the last remains of his plate with his plastic spoon, Kryprokurori asked, “Finished?”

Isa nodded, still chewing on his last bite placing the aluminium dish inside the shiny metallic bin.

Krye Prokurori, turned from the window of the office thinking, tapping the index finger against his pouting lips. Behind him, above the softly tinted glass that took up the entire external wall of Isa’s office, you could notice a stretch of rusted idle cranes. When Isa finished straightening a pile of papers on his desk, Kryeprokurori walked towards Isa, threw the file folder on his desk, before sitting down opposite him. He lifted his shiny brown shoes and landed them over the edge of Isa’s tiny desk, swinging them sideways. 

“They have assigned you to that case. It’s a very sad and a solid case, which,” Kryeprokurori paused, and shot up his hand and scratched his gray immaculate head. “Never mind! Just read it and I would be grateful if you could prepare a brief report by Friday. You think you could do this for me?”

“Which case is that?”

“The one that was assigned to you this week. The drunken driver killing the nurse on Rruga Street.”

“I’m familiar with the case,” Isa replied excitedly. “I’ve already started on it, so you shall get the report tomorrow morning.” 

“Great, thanks!” Kryprokurori said and left.

With a long, grunting sigh Isa pulled out a blue file from the wooden shelve, with his fist holding a pen ready to make his own annotations, working on it until 11 pm when he printed five pages and slipped them into a white envelope. He hummed to himself as he locked his office. He dropped the envelope on the desk of Kryeprokurori’s assistant, before hopping in the elevator and the the empty streets to reach his home.

“THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH” – CHAPTER THIRTY

Two bulky Presidential Guards walked up to Alexander and stationed themselves behind him, rushing him to him to leave the conference room. Alexander picked up a pile of papers that managed to collect slid from his right hand and first they spilled over the table then onto the floor. He tried to get around the table to fetch them, but the Presidential Guard grabbed him left hand and sighed, “Sir, I’m afraid we shall have to leave right away. There’s much point in losing a life over a bunch of papers.”

Isa looked back at him with a worrying stare that lasted a second before nodding and heading towards the opened door.  

The security guards herded them down towards the end of the long corridor in two groups. Two security guards accompanied the first group, Isa and his two consultants rushing behind him. The second group, consisting of six religious clerks and three security guards, trailed the first group at a respectful length. One of them, a nervy chap with black tattoos over his arms and neck, with a red face that looked like it came out of a hot oven, sneaked between the Imam and the Priest. He grabbed Priest’s left arm, leaned towards him and whispered softly to his ear, “Excuse me Father, I hope  you don’t mind me asking what the fuck just happened-“

“Mind your language, young man!” The Priest snapped, lifting his finger, towards the camera mounted on the ceiling.

“I’m sorry, Father!” The security guard stepped back, composed himself with a deep breath, his fury diminished, whispering slowly, “What was that dickhead up to this time? The producers are going manic!” 

Then the priest turned around, pointing his finger towards Isa’s back, “That lunatic over there is trying to turn us into messiahs!”

“What!” The security asked, shrugging his shoulders.

“He demanded from us to jointly write a new Holy Scripture.” The Imam replied, scratching his beard.

“And if you don’t comply?” The security guard asked nervously, tapping the priest’s shoulder.

“That bloody infidel, will propose an end to religious practices, close religious institutions and subject the entire world to communism again.”

“He must have gone mad again! If Christianity is banned, what the fuck am I supposed to with my arm?” The security guard grounted, stretched his left arm towards the priest, tapping his hairy index finger against his tattoo.

“We’ll resist the idea and try to bring some sense into that crazy mind of his.” The Priest replied and then after Isa disappeared behind the closed laminated doors, ten paces away from them, he raised his voice. “This is intolerable! Just because religion deprived him from getting laid with his sweetheart, divorced his parents, that lunatic no right to turn up and to deprive the entire world from religious services.”

The shortest security guard, walking discreetly behind them burst out laughing loudly his fat ass off. His flabby buttocks danced to the sound of his baritone laughter that echoed in the corridor. The priest, the imam and the security guard standing between turned around looking at him as he extended his palm towards them in an apologetic manner.

The priest walked towards him, and asked him, poking his index finger onto his protruding chest “The entire world who listened to that lunatic said today is currently boiling over and you find this funny?”

The security guard struggled to sustain his laughter “I’m so sorry,… , Father,… that’s not,… funny!”

The blond security guard walked up to his colleague grabbing him by his shoulders, pushing them away and closer several times, “Then why in the hell are you laughing for?”

The short security guard lifted his hands up and pushed the his colleagues hands away from his shoulder, and after composing himself, he replied, with a smirk still hanging on his face, “I mean no disrespect, but having never experienced sex with another woman, the priest isn’t necessarily the most qualified person to judge others when they can’t get laid with the woman they love! Besides, his chick was really hot, but a priest would never be able to understand that!”

The blond security guard rubbed the black curly hair of his short colleague,“Thank you for showing others what I’ve got to put with you. Priests are allowed to have sex with their wives, provided they get married before becoming a priest.”

“But, this is one,isn’t one them! He doesn’t have a ring on his wedding finger” The short security replied, pointing his hand towards the Priest,”The the closest that he ever got to a pussy was the day he was born!”

“Mind your language, boy!” The Priest objected, looking at him square in the eye with a frowning face.

“Yes, you damn motherfucker! Mind your language when you speak to a Priest!” The blond security guard stepped between the two, pushing his chest against his colleague’s flat nose.    

The radio clipped to the blonde security guard’s bulletproof vest went ballistic, “This is Alfa. Zulu, where the heck are you?” 

“This is Zulu. Will be down there in twenty seconds!” The blonde security guard replied instantly, and then turned to the priest, “We need to move now, but please Father, please be careful once you’re down there. After the other priest’s reaction, the producers are very angry at the way the meeting has gone today.”

“THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH” – CHAPTER TWENTY

Months away from his graduation, Alexander announced to his parents he intends to propose to Eva. After receiving their blessing, Alexander called Eva and asked her to meet him by the orange tree where their lips first made contact. After receiving her confirmation, Isa called Shoki to inform him that he has a big announcement to make and asked him if they could meet tomorrow. 

When he turned up at the bistro, he lifted his head searching for his friend through shaded tables outside. Bearing a broad smile on his face, Shoki shouted his name. Isa turned around to face him, seated next to the large window bearing the cafe’s green logo. Isa rushed across the terrace paved with tiny concrete blocks and the isle, between the rows of empty seats. It was the furthest table on his right next to the outdoor movable fencing, constructed of peeling charcoal finish wooden grates and slightly obscured by the dense leaves of a lemon tree planted in wooden slatted boxes.

Once he arrived at the table adjacent to his seated friend, Isa gave him a friendly pat on his companion’s left shoulder, pinched some roast peanuts from the tiny transparent bowl next to a green beer bottle and seat on the chair, facing Shoki. “How’s it hanging, Shoki?” 

“Thanks to that stunning girl sitting there,” Shoki replied, lifting his chin towards a crowded table next to the cafe’s entrance. “It’s standing up and eager to get wet!”

“That’s not what I meant!” Isa replied sharply, and after failing to trace a smile on his face that would complement his odd, but funny remark, he asked, “Then why the gloomy look? I’m not late, am I?”

“Yes, Mr Rolex!” Shoki replied and paused to look at his watch. “In fact, you’re thirty-seven seconds early, and perhaps it’s time to send you back to Switzerland to get you serviced.” 

“If someone needs checking for sticking to correct time, then you are the ideal candidate! You’re always running late.”

“You rely on God to take care of your things. I’ve got to take care of things myself.”

Rather than objecting, Isa laughed with a sour expression in his face. 

“Mi Amigos, every time you call me to announce something exciting and bring that ‘I am so happy face‘, I know something awful is about to happen,” Shoki expressed his concern, lit up his cig, and after inhaling two puffs he asked, with ‘pay attention to my words’ kind of tone, “So, what’s the latest fuck-up you are about to do? Give up studying law and study something that will turn you into a delusion expert… perhaps, an Imam?”

Isa laughed hysterically, and after he calmed down, he replied, “You know that would kill my Dad, who insists I should study law like he did. Although I disagree with him, he thinks that I could serve my God much more by working in a court than at a Mosque.”

“It’s good to know that at least one of your parents is sane!”

“Perhaps he might be sane, but he is also extremely miserable!” Isa replied, boasting with confidence.

“Of course he’s miserable! After all, every day he deals with humans, your God’s biggest mistake.”

While Isa kept on swinging his head, indicating his disapproval, a tall waitress propped up. Her tight black velvet dress, plain and yet reflecting the light whenever she moved, ran down to her knees. A thin black necklace sparkled between her breast and the white v-neck blouse. She carried a plain order pad on her left hand and funny looking pen with a pink fluffy bit at the end. Her dyed blond hair hung tight against her skull.

 “Would you like something from the bar?” She asked, handing Isa the menu. “It’s happy hour, so Margarita, Pina Cola-”

“Stop wasting your breath on him!” Shoki intruded, “My friend is committed to waste his life away without tasting a single cocktail so that he could begin a proper life after he dies.”

After the plum lips on the waitress’ face opened wide, as if she just chewed a super spicy Jalapeno pepper, Shoki added, “Since my friend often speaks to his imaginary friend, called God, it might be illegal for you to serve him alcohol, so could you please bring the little boy a glass of milk instead and another Margarita for me!”

“I don’t want milk! I’ll have some water, please.” Isa objected. “Please don’t pay any attention to him. He’s a funny chap, but sometimes an absolute hell to talk to. When he was six, he had cardiac surgery, and it seems that the surgeons forgot to place his heart back on him.”

“Come on, mi amigos! Water is for washing stuff, not for drinking!”  

The waitress unleashed an amused glance at Isa’s defiant smile before she turned back and walked away towards the bar without saying a word.

“So?” Isa asked, still the defiant smile hanging over his face. 

“Don’t look at me like that! How fucked are you? Your life is about living it, and not about living for the day you’re going to die.” Shoki reasoned. “Death is the antonym of life, catch my drift?”

“I didn’t invite you over to explain to you life and afterlife.” Isa reacted abruptly, looking at his watch. “I’ll have to leave in nineteen minutes, and forty-six minutes I have to meet Eva, so let’s go back to my big announcement.”

“Of course! If you don’t meet your General Eva exactly at eight o’clock to properly coordinate the attack, it will lead to the pointless death of many of her soldiers.”

 “What are you on about?” Isa asked.

The waitress returned with a margarita and a bottle of water resting on her black tray. After placing them over the oak table, she attacked Shoki with a cheeky smile and reminded him that the happy hour will end in eighteen minutes.

Immediately after the waitress migrated towards the table next to the cafe’s entrance, Isa torrented his big announcement at Shoki, “I don’t have much time, so we could discuss your issues with Eva another time! In eighteen minutes, I will be asking Eva for her hand.”

 “Why? Is your right hand sick and tired of masturbating you?”

“Unlike you, who enslaves your hands to ejaculate your sperm, because you can’t get laid, I’m not allowed to masturbate.”

“Who told you this? Your imaginary friend?”

“Of course not! The Imam told me this.” Isa replied firmly.

“Yeah, right! Imams are allowed to get married and get laid. Have you ever tried asking a Priest who can’t get married or get laid? I’m pretty sure that masturbation is the closest they can get to God.”

“Can we start talking about my marriage, instead of my mastubation?” Isa asked, before gulping down his water. 

“As you said earlier, I’m no expert in marriages, so could we go back into talking about something I’m very good at – masturbtion!”

Briefly, they Isa began his monologue, informing his friend of his intentions, then placed the payment on the table and left the cafe. He stopped at the supermarket to fetch a baguette, packaged blue cheese, white cheese, red apples, white grapes, strawberries, green olives, chilled champagne and a set of four champagne glasses. After waiting impatiently at the till, he placed the goods inside his plain cotton bag and dashed off outside, heading towards his rendezvous place.

“THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH” – CHAPTER SEVEN

Since his early childhood years, Isa did become a miracle – a miracle of an outstanding stupidity and stupendous parenting gone horribly wrong. Most toddlers have occasional tantrums, but Isa was an exceptionally talented drama queen, a spoiled brat whose frequent defiance against his parent’s wishes were well worth an Oscar. Isa’s mother, Nona and father, Ati struggled with their resilient child. Throughout the first three months of his attendance in the nursery, Isa’s face was moisturised by beads of tears flowing out of his brown eyes. Every morning he pleaded with his mother not to leave him at the nursery. Then, one morning, as Nona handed a tiny grey rucksack to Isa’s teacher standing on the other side of the nursery’s entrance door, Isa firmly clenched her feet. Nona tried to explain to Isa that every child hates their kindergarten in the first days, but later will hate leaving it.  “You are in the good hands of Miss Mesuese. The two of you will get on fine.”

“But, we won’t!” Alexander complained. “She’s constantly telling me what to do as if I’m one of her toys.”

“That is a cruel observation, Isa!” Nona replied firmly.“ You should apologise, right now!”

“You see! That’s exactly what she does to me, all the time.” Alexander confessed. “She constantly tells me what to do, as if she is my mother.”

Miss Mesuese was looking at him with a compassionate smile, clinching on his grey bag with her right hand. Nona stood up, and as she was about to leave, she apologised to the teacher. Nona held out her hands and bent over to forcefully engulf Isa’s tiny body into her arms. Alexander resisted and pushed her with his small grubby hands, looking down. Miss Mesuese tapped Nona’s left shoulder. After straightening her body, Nona left the entrance lobby and walked towards Ati, her husband waiting for her in his car. Nona stepped inside the car and closed the passenger door without saying a word.

After noticing Nona’s frowning face, Ati tried to reason with her.  “Don’t you stress yourself over this, Nona!”

 “But, I do not want to see him traumatised,” Nona confessed.

“Unless you are contemplating Isa’s premature death, there’s no escape from seeing him traumatised,” Ati concluded, and then laughed. “After all, he will eventually get married one day!”

A week later, Isa immersed himself into massacring strawberries at his nursery. Isa’s face was smeared with red juice as if he didn’t realise that fruits are for eating and not for face painting. Isa grabbed the empty plastic bowl and walked towards his teacher. Once he got within arms’ reach for her teacher, he pulled her red leather skirt.

The teacher turned around and asked.  “What’s the matter, Alex?”

“Could I have some more?” Alexander asked, lifting up his yellow bowl.

“What’s the magic word?”

“Abracadabra!” Alexander replied.

What a fucking loser! I’m not making this shit up. He really said it. 

The teacher laughed embarrassingly, covering her mouth with her long-slim fingers and tipped her head to the right. After she calmed down, she bowed towards Alexander. She stretched out her left index finger, holding it upwards and swinging it like a metronome pendulum.

“Did I say something wrong?” Alexander asked, glancing up at his teacher and seeking some guidance.

“No!” the teacher replied instantly, and after a brief hesitation, she added. “Your reply is ludicrously flawless, but that’s not the magic word I was looking for!”

“Hocus Pocus?” Alexander took another wild guess.

The teacher laughed again before replying.  “Wrong again! It’s more like Hocus Pleasus!”

Global education platform, my arse! This kid doesn’t even know the difference between the magic word for tricking others and for attaining something. Yet, miraculously, the future of mankind depends on him. Oddly enough, the nursery was called Bright Kids Nursery.

“THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH” – CHAPTER TWELVE

Ati wiped his narrow lips with a napkin. He extracted a Maduro cigar out of his corded jacket’s inner pocket and set it burning with a match. He inhaled two puffs, unleashing a dense white smoke covered his face and with his eyebrows raised, glanced up towards Alexander’s curious look, and replied, “Yes, that’s true!”

He spoke in a low, flat voice, looking down at the fluid red liquid as he spun the wine glass clockwise once in a while. After grabbing a sizeable ceramic ashtray, in which he dropped the matchstick, Ati headed for the patio doors, opened them and looked up at the stars.

“Dad, will Lokin’s father be free soon?” Alexander asked.

“I don’t know, Alexander. Most probably, he will be sent home. Lokin is a good kid, and he deserves to grow up with his father by his side.” Ati replied, after turning around with a seamlessly grave face.

“But surely a declaration of love for someone can’t be a criminal offence, Dad. Lokin’s father didn’t hurt or offend anyone else by declaring his affection for God!” Alexander objected as he raised his head, revealing his wide chestnut eyes that radiated scrupulous alertness.

“You’re right, my son. But to maintain unity and brotherhood among mankind, Communism didn’t permit any divisions among its constituents. Communism scorned God’s existence and banned people from practising their religions,” Ati replied.

His mother promptly interjected, reminding Alexander that his steak was getting cold, and then continued. “Your dad is very fond of Communism and is well-positioned under the regime. He’s a well-respected judge, earns a decent salary, and enjoys many privileges. So, his affection for Communism shouldn’t surprise you.”

“Alex, your mum is right. Eat your food while it’s warm,” Ati agreed, drinking up the wine leftovers in his glass. “But, you should never forget that communism provided free education for every human being, liberated women from the suppressive religious indoctrination, and ended the prominent hypocrisy of the individual land ownership.”

“Why is land ownership, such hypocrisy?” Nona blasted.

Ati collapsed in laughter and could not cease giggling for a while.

“Please, stop laughing and answer my question!” Nona broke out savagely. 

After he managed to calm down himself and clear out his throat, Ati replied, turning towards Alexander, “Your mother is fortunate to not have married a fellow Muslim husband, who wouldn’t hesitate to turn her into a ninja, by placing a niqab over her head, because their God demands it!”

A thinly sliced potato chunk disappeared into Isa’s mouth before asking his father. “What’s the harm in believing in God?”

Ati stepped into the porch and left his cigars outside on top of the ceramic ashtray. He sat in his chair and dipped another piece of his steak into a yellow sauce. His face produced a smile of superiority visible on the muscles of his cheeks as he replied. “What matters to God is whether humankind obeys Its commandments. And though your mother might disagree with me, until Communism emerged, humans failed to fulfil God’s commandments.”

“Alex, don’t listen to your dad,” Nona intruded, adding. “This is nonsense.”

Ati reacted quickly. “Unlike any other system, Communism remained truthful to the Holy Scriptures. Communists delivered Christianity without God, whereas Capitalists delivered a God without Christianity.”

“Come on, Ati! That’s not true, and you know it,” Nona replied sharply.

Ati ceased nibbling the beef for a while and riveted an astounding stare with lifted eyebrows on Nona, expressing his discord. “But it is true, Nona. Capitalism allowed Christian believers to practice their religious rituals, but not Christianity! Communism was the only system that was coherent with the laws of Moses. For example, God forbade land ownership in perpetuity, did It not?”

“Yes, It did!” she confirmed, her voice slithering down a notch as though she were conversing with herself.

“Did the God-worshipping countries forbid the eternal ownership of land?” Ati continued his crucifixion.

Unwilling to accept Ati’s emphatic opinion, Nona sank back at her chair and replied reluctantly by lowering her head. 

“You see, they didn’t. It was the God-denying Communists who put an end to the everlasting ownership of land. Didn’t God forbid giving out loans with interest?” Ati asked again.

Instead of replying, Nona retreated into herself. She mutely pierced the roast potato on her plate with her fork and cut it into four pieces before sprinkling salt onto them. 

“Did the God-worshipping countries prohibit loans with interest? No, they did not! It was the Communist countries that created national banks, and instead of subjecting its citizens to interest rates, the banks charged only administrative costs!” Ati cried out, taking a handsome swig of his wine. “You see, my dear wife, Communism was the only political system which put God’s laws into practice.”

“Alright, Ati,” Nona added in a faltering, childlike voice. Her half-hearted tone indicated that she wasn’t eager to engage further into the discussion, if Ati would demand an epitome to her earlier argument. “I admit that there might have been just a couple of God’s instructions that were accomplished by the Communist syst—”

“Just a couple?” Ati interrupted sternly with unhesitating assurance. “Did you forget the one whereby God demanded that the king shall not acquire an excessive quantity of gold and silver? Unlike the current world leaders in the God-welcoming democratic countries, who became enormously wealthy, Communist leaders did not attain extreme wealth.” 

“That might be true, but Communist leaders enjoyed many privileges,” Nona objected firmly, as she leaned back, flashing a defiant glance at her husband.

“Yes, that’s true, but they did not have millions stocked in their safes or in foreign banks. After they died, no wealth was passed on to their families. You see, Alex, the Communists were the only ones who fulfilled the laws of God and produced a system devoted to Its commandments.”

Nona observed her son timidly, refraining from engaging further. Ati angled his face towards Alexander’s and blasted out with full confidence. “In fact, Karl Marx was the Messiah who was promised by the Holy Scriptures.” 

“Hahahahahaha!” Nona erupted into a fit of laughter, holding her ribs with her hands. “I have always loved your sense of humour!”

“What is so funny?” Ati asked.

“How can you claim that he was the Messiah when he denied God’s existence and rejected religions?” Nona interrogated, still laughing.

“The Holy Scriptures foresaw that the Messiah would bring new laws and unite the people, something that Marx ultimately achieved. He produced new laws and unified many different nations and races around the world, beyond territorial borders,” Ati replied before unleashing another question. “Who else has achieved this in the past?” 

“But you still haven’t answered my question,” Nona persisted.

“The Messiah’s task was to unite humankind, right? Do you honestly believe that the Messiah would be able to deliver the global brotherhood if all these different religions and sects continued to exist?” Ati pursued his discourse.

“Dad, what is a Messiah?” Alex asked, in a puzzled, lost way.

“The Messiah allegedly is the one anointed by God to bring peace to the world and end all wars. According to many religious scholars, he would be sent to Earth and would implement the laws of Moses. It was the God-denying Marx who brought the laws of Moses into practice by ending land ownership in perpetuity, interest on financial loans, and creation of wealthy leaders. Not the God-worshipping capitalists in the US.” Ati replied, pouring himself more wine before passionately persisting with his rhetoric. 

 “Ah, I knew it. There you go again with the USA, a place whereby people enjoy the highest level of democracy and freedom. It is the richest and most developed country in the world.” Nona objected in a breathless voice.

“THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH” – CHAPTER EIGHT

A week after this disastrous initiative was unveiled in New York, a committed blonde Euronews reporter travelled to different capitals of the world across five continents. She chased and harassed random people to establish whether there is a global consensus on the UN Convention on the Secret of the Divine Civilisation. She had this annoying habit of walking behind them, passing them over, and then abruptly swinging around to thrust the mike towards them, scaring the hell out of them!

In Dusseldorf a young chap, wearing a shiny grey suit over a striped tie, holding a coffee cup on his right hand and a pink newspaper on the left one replied, “Come on, man – you must be out of your mind! That convention is a piece of shit,” he paused to look around and added. “Look, humans are humans, and they have enormous talent in screwing things. Hitler also promised great things, and we all know how it turned out in the end.”

A grey-bearded man replied, standing in front of the Eiffel Tower.

“Being French, this convention of unifying the world will not change much. Europeans are already united!”

In Cairo, an older woman with a scarf over her head answered.  “ I am 68 years old and will not live long enough to see it through.”

A young female in Madrid replied.  “It’s a splendid initiative, and I hope that it gets adopted because anything is better than a nuclear war!”

A fruit seller in a Dubai market exclaimed.  “There are different human races throughout the world. I look different from you. Allah, the Merciful One wanted us to be different and live differently. If the Merciful One would have wanted us to live in the same way, all united, he would have made us identical to one another.”

A taxi driver in New York reacted.  “Come on, man. The world is a cruel place because humans made it so. And you expect another human to fix it? Forget it, man!”

An electronics shopkeeper in Lagos objected.  “What is there to think about? It will never happen because our corrupt leaders will never endorse it. Don’t you read newspapers? Officially they all state that although they’re committed to doing everything it takes to establish peace, they claim that the proposed strategy is nothing more than a utopia.”

At Rio sandy beach, a slender and suntanned female in an orange bikini reflected.

“It would be wonderful if it accomplishes its objective. However, I doubt that it will because that’s just the way the world works.”

Standing in the Piazza del Plebiscito in Naples, next to ten rows of sunglasses hanging on a metallic wire mesh, a chubby young man laughed uncontrollably, shaking his tits off and spraying dandruff over his black shirt. He took something like seven seconds or more to calm down, before he spoke out with his elongated Italian accent, throwing his hands in the air.

“Seriously! Are you actually getting paid for asking such silly questions? Out of respect, I’ll just forget that you asked me this stupid question and pretend that you asked me something meaningful, like; if I would like to go out with you tonight, or how much a pair of these lovely sunglasses cost?”

An older man sitting on a park bench in Beijing replied.  “First, we had communism, and now my country is gradually being dragged into capitalism, messing up my generation, which is lost in this process. I am delighted that I won’t live long enough to experience another one of these atrocious transitions.”

While the delegates of the forthcoming UNESCO General Conference assembled to decide how to proceed with the proposed convention, around ninety thousand people thronged to rally their support for the Convention of The Secret of Divine Civilisation. The Place de Fontenoy opposite the UNESCO headquarters in Paris was packed with big banners with various inscriptions, such as.  “Let’s give truth a chance”.  “We are one”.  “Les Nations Unies – UNIR!” and “Say yes to change!”

“THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH” – CHAPTER TWO

“THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH” – CHAPTER TWO

I remember watching this scene with my father on the BBC News, while waiting for our takeaway pizzas to arrive. I was eighteen at the time and very annoyed by the Iranian President’s hoarse voice. Who knows how many cigarettes he invested to produce such an irritating voice. Listening to mad crowds chanting Save Iran, Save the World! isn’t exactly something one looks forward to hearing on a dull rainy Sunday, a day in which people are supposed to relax.

I was trying to work out if what I thought just happened has actually happened, so I asked my father.

“Is there going to be another war?”

“Don’t you have anything smarter to do than to ask me something so silly?” Dad replied with an undeterred confidence, as he faded out the voice from the TV screen nagging at his ears.

“But, this mean guy looks like he means it!”

“What do you know about people meaning what they say?” He asked with a light, reassuring smile.

“Well, for starters he was sweating and shouting like a madman, I mean this guy needs professional help.”

“Politicians nowadays follow animal laws! Just like a pack of stray dogs select the loudest and strongest as the leader of their pack, people also vote the loudest and the one that appears the fiercest! He’s just barking to win over the hearts of his people, and you shouldn’t worry much about it!” He concluded before resuming to scribble over his crossword.

However, neither the conflicting sides nor the anti-war protesters across London, Paris, and New York concurred with my Dad’s calm assessment of the Iran situation. To protect the oil wells of Saudi Arabia and Qatar from a possible attack by Iran, the US and the UK sent out 32 battleships in the Persian Gulf and stationed them along its southern coastline. Although the barking of the Iranian President burned no oil wells, it flamed up the price of oil! Everyone was rushing to buy and stock oil. Within four weeks, the value of the US$ rose by fifteen per cent! Following extensive and heated debates in Vienna, OPEC increased the oil output by thirty per cent, and US$ gradually deflated to its value before the infamous speech at the Azadi Square. Although crammed by biggest battleships on earth, the situation in the Persian Gulf remained relatively calm. Then, some Iranians, who probably watched too many Hollywood action films, attempted to kidnap the personnel of the US Embassy. They failed to complete their mission impossible, because Iran’s Republican Guard intervened, wounded five, and arrested the other nine, who later on, ended up being prosecuted for being American spies.

Another US attempt to endorse a new UN Security Council resolution on Iran failed because China and Russia again declined to attend another UN Security Council meeting. The Russian President issued a brief statement, saying. “The world leaders will soon gather at the UN General Assembly session in New York. Only after the voices of all nations are heard, we’ll meet at the UN Security Council and decide on future steps to resolve the Iran crisis. In the meantime, I urge Iran and the US to refrain from action that could threaten world peace!”

Following this statement, the verbal war drums echoing from Washington and Tehran got their well-earned break. It didn’t last long, though! Heated debates ensued at the next UN General Assembly session. Once the Iranian President tortured the mikes at the General Assembly with his hoarse voice, lamenting the end of the world as the only defensive means against the US aggression! According to him, neither the US nor the world population has done enough to demonstrate their support for Iran’s holy right to decide over its fate.

For fuck’s sake! This guy must be allergic to microphones or cameras, triggering a severe brain malfunctioning. How does this guy expect to gain the hearts of the world population, while threatening them, he will deliver apocalyptic climate disaster, if the world didn’t comply with demands? I’ve come across many morons in my lifetime, but this guy probably pushes in the top three.

Onto the next contestant for the Moron of the Year Award – the Russian President. He spoke at length about the cold war, revealing his comprehension about the crucial moment that secured the peace deal between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev at the Reykjavík Summit in 1985, but in a rather angry tone.

“Both of them were able to put aside their egos and differences so that we could enjoy a peaceful world. The current US/Iran crisis isn’t about their nuclear capacity! No, my honourable delegates! This crisis is instigated by the world’s largest natural gas reserves, located in the Persian Gulf, which Iran refuses to trade in US$! President Nixon is responsible for the current crisis in Iran because it was he who decided to end the backing of US$ with the Federal gold reserves. To prevent deflation of its currency, the White House forced oil producers to trade their oil exclusively in US$!” At this point, the US delegation stood up and left the General Assembly Hall, followed by their counterparts from the UK and Saudi Arabia, but this didn’t seem to bother the Russian President. He resumed reading and no longer appeared upset. He was raging with anger, shouting out his words in a similar way an army major addresses his soldiers. “The White House is well aware that the world’s oil reserves will run dry in 2067, and is now keen to preserve the future value of its currency by forcing countries, such as Iran and Qatar, who have shared ownership of the world’s largest gas reserve, to trade their gas in US$ too! If the White House thinks that the Kremlin is just going to sit and watch them, as we did in Iraq or Libya and instigate a war in Iran, then this will be a costly mistake with severe and irreversible consequences. Our failure to act will destroy the Russian economy. If the US intervenes in Iran, then the Russian people will have only two options, die from hunger or die in a war? If the US makes even the slightest attempt to impede Iran’s sovereignty, then I would like to remind you that Russians are a proud nation, which would rather die in the battlefield than die from hunger! Thank you for listening to the Russian concerns!”

Holy shit, man! This isn’t funny anymore. Those slim microphones protruding out of the wooden speaking stand must be releasing some invisible fume that drives people mad! Death, war, apocalypse, ..?

Twenty or so minutes later, the US President appeared on the screen, speaking about the violations of human rights and lack of democracy in Iran. He went on ranting for two minutes before he stopped reading his notes. He removed his tinted reading glasses, revealing his sleepless eyes, dyed with red lines around his blue irises, as they contacted his audience. In an instant, his face red, so red as if somebody just sandpapered it, before addressing his audience in a furious full-blooded raging voice. “Since my Russian counterpart decided to speak openly, I now feel much obliged to do the same. The Russian President revealed to the world that in thirty years they’ll end up controlling the world’s gas reserves and consequently the world. The US will never allow this to happen! I want to be clear, and I want the world to know that if the Kremlin thinks that the White House will sit and watch them turn into the only superpower that will dominate the world, they are wrong!” He paused briefly to inhale a deep breath and then his words thundered out of long speakers fixed to the wooden walls. “THE US WILL DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO PREVENT THE RUSSIANS IN BECOMING THE WORLD’S PHARAOHS, RULING OVER THE WORLD. AND IF A NUCLEAR WAR IS WHAT IT TAKES TO PREVENT THIS, THEN THE US WILL NOT HESITATE IN DOING SO!”

While I was contemplating on which one out of the three, the Iranian, the Russian or the US president deserves the Moron of the Year Award, my father got up from his chair, shouting with index finger pointed at the screen. “FUCKING CUNTS! YOU FUCKING CUNTS! YOU ARE GOING TO FUCK-UP THE WORLD AGAIN!”

“Mind your tongue, Dad!” I protested.

“You mind your ears, son!” He replied promptly. “I’m just following my therapist’s instructions.”

My father used to be a relatively well-mannered gentleman. But after his business went bust, profound grief reigned over him that sunk him into depression. He became a plant, a spiritless being, void of laughter or anger. Then one day, his psychologist encouraged him to express himself freely, and my Dad’s vocabulary expanded significantly with vulgar expressions.

“I know what your therapist has told you, but could please express yourself using something a bit more civilised?”

“Like what, Benjamin? Scum?” Dad countered back. “No, my dear boy. Scum are the journalists of the mainstream media who know why wars happen, and although it is in their job description, they decline to inform others regarding the real reason behind them. They’re the layer of dirt over the blood that these cunts will spill!”

“Alright, Dad, I give up! Did you take your medication today?” I asked.

“Yes, I did! But that no longer matters,“ my father replied, lifting his index finger towards the screen again. “This quarrel is going to have legs, and its footsteps will tremble the world!”

“But, six months ago you said-”

“I know what I said! But, back then, I wasn’t aware that the oil will dry out so soon and that the largest gas reserves are located in the Persian Gulf. The future of the US and Russia depends on that gas resource, and these bunch of control freaks will stop at nothing to assume control over it!” My father completed his sentence and turned up the volume to listen to the President of the European Council, Ms Derikur Keshtu after she turned up on our TV screen.

SHARING IS CARING:

FOLLOWING IS CARING:

ABOUT NOLAN JAZIMREG:

Nolan Jazimreg Reveals Proof of God's Existence and Brexit Tax Avoidance Scam

Nolan Jazimreg is a London-based author of “The Inconvenient Truth”, a highly controversial dystopian novel, which reveals profound insights into how hatred infiltrates us and oppresses our adeptness to live a contented life by revealing the existential proof of God, heaven or hell.

Having undergone an unconventional life journey, Nolan Jazimreg developed a bipolar condition, experiencing setbacks that transcended him into a parallel spiritual realm.

His ability to see beyond the “veil”, enabled Jazimreg to initially comprehend the tax-avoidance scam that is driving the UK out of the EU and expose it to over 300,000 people who read his insights on the mass deception behind Brexit!

Similar to the content featured on this blog, Jazimreg hopes that his lousy and bold writing style, featured in his novels, will enlighten its readers with exciting insights on human nature, God, heaven and hell!

Therefore, if you happen to know a daring publisher who is concerned about the grim days that lie ahead and still believes that books can change our world, please don’t hesitate to forward to them the following link, which features the first chapter of Nolan Jazimreg’s “The Inconvenient Truth”:

 https://the-inconvenient-truth.com/the-inconvenient-truth-chapter-one/

The Design Factor of Deconstructive Architecture

Architecture has to constantly evolve and question its established perceptions and principles of working in order to deliver inventively and exiting architectural creativity.

If an architect is preconceived to be a designer then we should interrogate the nature of the word design. The word design derives from two French words de and Signum, which in “The Chambers Dictionary” prefix de stands for off, and the word Signum is translated as a mark.

Thereby, the word design reflects the process in which one steps off a mark which literally means taking something away from a sign.

The word designer does not stand for reproducing the sign and its essence is not for it to follow a consistent path, which in effect constitutes that the incentive of the designer, which is not in being faithful in reproducing icons from the past but instead to create new icons.

In relation to the above statement, a deconstructive architect corresponds more to the essence of the conception of design when a Classical or a Modernist architect be true to taking away the signage by actually producing a signature building true to their values constantly throughout their career?

The heterogeneous and un-repetitive buildings are without a doubt one of the principal characteristics of Deconstructive Architecture.

This associated quality in Deconstructive Architecture is what confuses when one tries to define it.

The concept of conceiving genuine and not so familiar spaces distinguishes deconstructive architecture from other movements, whereas Palladio found his professional enlightenment in symmetry contrary, to challenge their shape, mode or a way of using it?

Technology is rapidly changing in order to accommodate the challenging needs of the user yet architecture still remains a servant to the geometrical parameters of the equipment/ furniture inhabiting the space without transforming them to suit the needs of the user.

The danger of such practice is that the architect either becomes a client by ignoring the design process and knowing exactly what it would look like once the brief is read or follows the client’s vision.

This criticism by Mark Wigley in 1998 has also noted that modern with rigidity in decorative features, Mies did so in detailing of constructive materials in a non-decorative manner, therefore, both the Classicist and Modernist architects have pledged their work to certain etiquette.

However, a deconstructive architect does not adapt his project to a common architectural formula but instead, he/she responds to the non-architectural elements, such as history, events, site context, and etc, because every deconstructivist project depicts different tangents related to its humanistic and sentimental values Deconstructive Architecture cannot be marginalized into a simple definition.

Classical architecture strived upon the production period of building ditto of the decorative ornaments.

Modernist architecture is similar; however, in opposition to the Classicist achieving purity in a building enchanted them.

Both of the aforementioned movements focused primarily on the building process. Deconstructive Architecture in comparison to the movements it bypasses dedicates its attention to the experience of a building after it becomes inhabitable.

One of the colours authentic to Deconstructive Architecture is the focus of the human experience of a space. The same consideration for the sentimental element can be traced in the writings of the Soviet Constructivists.

Constructivists maintained the perception of what the building should shelter but also invoke feelings to the user, hence a building should shelter but an architectural building should create an experience.

Another characteristic of the featured architecture is about displacement that is also identical to Constructivists’ beliefs. Displacement in itself is a condition that every progressive society absorbs.

Architecture is no exception and it cannot progress without its preconceived theories being challenged continuously.

In this respect, Deconstructivist architects have been successful in providing new insights into the theoretical aspect, whereas Modernists architects objected to the present decorative elements in the Classical architecture, Deconstructivists homologues routed their attention to the missing elements of architecture.

Whilst Modernist architects justified their purpose in successfully replacing the ornaments favoured by the Classicists, the deconstructive trajectory relies on displacement, one which, supplements architecture with additional values.

Therefore, Deconstructive Architecture cannot be mistaken for having destructive motives; a view already affirmed by Jacques Derrida should be understood as an elevating discourse.

This is done by reinscribing the established norms of architecture, another element implied by Derrida to be consistent in Deconstruction.

The process of reinscription constitutes in reinterpreting architectural elements. In the past architectural ideas were conveyed through drawings as a primary means of communication.

Deconstructivists consider verbal communication as equally as important as the graphical one in expressing their intentions, an architecture filtered through Deconstructivism no longer depends on the power of the lines but its strength is found in the interpretation of the ideas conceiving the spaces.

Due to this aspect, the image of an architect is no longer envisioned to be one of an individual with technical competence only producing working drawings. Through Deconstructive discourse, the architect’s position has changed into a literary profession.

Deconstructivists similar to Constructivists do not build buildings but rather they assemble the building’s elements together, whereby deconstructive buildings have no symmetry and do not facet ornamental values nor do they aim to provide purity.

Deconstructive architecture does not lie within a certain artistic ideology but it responds to its immediate spaces individually but is a tailored architecture, a process of obtaining a deconstructive building is parallel to producing a tailored jacket.

Deconstructive construction is similar to the tailored suits, which consist of elements that prior are sown individually and after assembled together.

The above are the characteristics of Deconstructivist Architecture but they are never applied in the same way, not even in the many works associated with an individual architect and therefore as it is constantly evolving the process true to an art form, architecture is again reconstituted to the status of art discipline.

The poignant story associated with architecture is the forty years of wait for it to become free to create, instead of copying and spreading a particular ideology obedient to a particular belief instead of architecture users, whereby Soviet constructivists and deconstructive philosophers have both played a major role in order for deconstructive architecture to surface.

The Constructivists are credited for the roots of the tree of deconstructive architecture and Derrida for securing the means under which it would flourish. Deconstruction presents a movement closer to a human being, by not defining the rules of life and conduct.

Deconstructive Architecture is not a style, but a tool that analyses a style and searches for ways to enrich it and does not serve the colonial appetite of massively spreading an ideology of a particular time or civilization. It looks for ways to help a building achieve its aims.

Deconstructive Architecture does not turn a building into a slave serving a particular style.

Deconstructive Architecture does not aim to create iconic buildings. It attempts to create memorable experiences in them.

Deconstructive Architecture does not claim which the correct way to do architecture. It only alludes to the ways it could be.

Deconstructive Architecture does not celebrate stones, brick, mortar or steel. It celebrates life in spaces confined by materials.

Deconstructive Architecture is not a closed chapter. That is why its architecture will continue to excite shock, horrify and inflict a reaction.

Architects on Deconstructive Architecture

Architects on Deconstructive Architecture

Deconstructive Architecture

Before Deconstructive Architecture the parameters of the static body have been the primary factor in determining a space.

Before Deconstructive Architecture the evaluation of functionalist theory and its application in modern architecture has been conducted by Lebbeus Woods in the year 1997:
“All designed space in fact pure abstraction, truer to the mathematical than to any human function” [Woods, 1997: 23].

Woods refers to the untruthful pledge that architects claim that each design has been shaped to follow a human “program” by using the repetitive Cartesian rules of geometry. Woods questions how could the claim (function follows form) when in the past rectangular space have been ideal for office work, bedroom or a butcher.

How can it be that the same rectangular shape is ideal to housework, sex/ sleep, or chopping of the meat? Surely the above human activities differ in the choreographic movement of the body in performing the functions, yet identical forms of spaces envelop them.

One could argue that the rectangular form seems to correspond more with the equipment/ furniture shape than the actual human factor. This displacement raises another fundamental question regarding the responsibility of an architect; Is the nature of an architect to surrender to the appliance’s deterrents or is it the movement in architecture has become overtaken by an ideology of providing pure and décor stripped building but that they have lost the consideration of function:
“The modern movement attempted to purify architecture by stripping off the ornament of the classical tradition to reveal the naked purity of the functional structure beneath. Formal purity was associated with functional efficiency. But the modern movement was obsessed by an elegant aesthetic of functionalism, not by the complex dynamics of function itself” [Johnson, Wigley, 1988: 16].

Wigley argued that modernist architects were at the same time attempting to conduct themselves faithfully to the pure aesthetics of the building by claiming to serve the dynamics of the function.

According to Eisenman, the human factor was considered to be the origin around which the buildings have been conceived for the past five centuries. The parameters of the body have been the primary factor in determining a space, however, this space has failed to respond to the spiritual side of one’s body:
“… [for] five centuries the human body’s proportions have been a datum for architecture. But due to developments and changes in modern technology, philosophy, and psychoanalysis, the grand abstraction of man as the measure of all things, as an originary presence, can no longer be sustained, even as it persists in the architecture of today. In order to effect a response in architecture to these cultural changes, this project employs an other discourse, founded in a process called scaling” [Eisenman, 1998: 70].

Peter Eisenman has also raised his doubts regarding the corresponding aspect of architecture to the actual event that it houses, present at Deconstructive Architecture.

In a lecture titled “Strong Form, Weak Form”, whilst arguing his reason for the need of displacing architecture, Eisenman compares other art disciplines to architecture. Eisenman exemplifies the freedom of poetry and music in becoming what it transpires to be. In return, architecture fails to evolve and with the cause identified by Eisenman is the overwhelming presence of reality impacted by the past:
“The question is, why do we want to displace architecture today? Why is it necessary to separate function and structure from symbolism, meaning, and form? Because in the past architecture always symbolized reality. In other words, while language was one kind of reality, poetry another, music another, architecture was perhaps the ultimate condition of reality, because it dealt with physical facts, with bricks and mortar, house and home. It was the physical place, the fundamental condition of reality” [Noever, 1999: 34].

Eisenman indicates that by architects focusing on the actual technological consideration in a building they have ignored the feelings of the occupier and were not even tempted to challenge them as it can be achieved in the other art forms.

In 1991 at Columbia University Bernard Tschumi delivered a lecture titled “Six Concepts” [Tschumi, 1996: 230], whereby he elaborates the truthfulness of the modernist architects in relation to use, arguing that modernists were preoccupied more with the appearance, driven by the rejection of ornaments whilst ignoring the function factor in a building.

The traces of the overwhelming presence of pure aesthetics in cubic volumes found in modern architecture compile the argument in doubting their affiliation to the activity it houses, not visible before Deconstructive Architecture.

Bibliography

Auge, M., (1995): Non-Places an introduction to the anthropology of the post modernity. Verso, London.

Benjamin, A., ed. (1988): Deconstruction in Architecture. Architectural Design, 58, no. 3/4, London.

De Certeau, M., (1984): The Practice of Everyday Life. Trans. Steven Rendall, University of California, Berkeley.

Derrida, J,. (1976): Of Grammatology. Trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Johns Hopkins UP, Baltimore.

Eisenman, p., (1988): “Eisenmanesie”. V: Architecture + Urbanism, Vol. Extra edition, August. p.:70.

Jencks, C., ed. (1992): The Post-Modern Reader. Academy Editions, London.

Johnson P., Wigley, M., (1988): Deconstructivist Architecture. The Museum of Modern Art, New York.

Leach N., ed., (1997): Rethinking Architecture; A reader in Cultural Theory. Routledge, London.

Noever, P., (1999): Architecture in Transition; Between Deconstruction and New Modernism. Prestel, Munich.

Ryan, M., (1982): Marxism and Deconstruction: A Critical Articulation. Johns Hopkins UP, Baltimore.

Tschumi, B., (1996): Architecture and Disjunction. MIT Press, London.

Woods, L., (1997): Radical Reconstruction. Princeton Architectural Press, New York.

SHARING IS CARING:

FOLLOWING IS CARING:

ABOUT NOLAN JAZIMREG:

Nolan Jazimreg Reveals Proof of God's Existence and Brexit Tax Avoidance Scam

Nolan Jazimreg is a London-based author of “The Inconvenient Truth”, a highly controversial dystopian novel, which reveals profound insights into how hatred infiltrates us and oppresses our adeptness to live a contented life by revealing the existential proof of God, heaven or hell.

Having undergone an unconventional life journey, Nolan Jazimreg developed a bipolar condition, experiencing setbacks that transcended him into a parallel spiritual realm.

His ability to see beyond the “veil”, enabled Jazimreg to initially comprehend the tax-avoidance scam that is driving the UK out of the EU and expose it to over 300,000 people who read his insights on the mass deception behind Brexit!

Similar to the content featured on this blog, Jazimreg hopes that his lousy and bold writing style, featured in his novels, will enlighten its readers with exciting insights on human nature, God, heaven and hell!

Therefore, if you happen to know a daring publisher who is concerned about the grim days that lie ahead and still believes that books can change our world, please don’t hesitate to forward to them the following link, which features the first chapter of Nolan Jazimreg’s “The Inconvenient Truth”:

 https://the-inconvenient-truth.com/the-inconvenient-truth-chapter-one/

Principles of Contemporary Architecture

Principles of Contemporary Architecture

Principles of Contemporary Architecture

Principles of contemporary architecture endeavour to construct by the deconstructing and then reconstructing.

A viable example of the aforementioned principles of contemporary architecture supposition could be considered the interpretation of the “street” and “place” by Michel de Certeau.

In the article “Answering The Question: What Is Postmodernism”, Jean-François Lyotard insists on breaking away from repetitiveness in justifying the essence of the post-modern society emphasized by Jean-François Lyotard:
“Finally, it must be clear that it is our business not to supply reality but to invent allusions to the conceivable which cannot be presented… The answer is let us wage war on totality; let us be witnesses to the unpresentable; let us activate the differences and save the honour of the name” [Jencks, 1992: 149].

In decoding postmodernism calls for a war on totality, Lyotard states that the mission of the current generation is not in providing that which the society expects to be accomplished but instead to provide allusive inventive solutions.

Lyotard’s appeal to the post-modern generation to displace this repetitive, visionless creative culture has also been emphasized in the year 1988 by Elias Zenghelis in his attempt to portray the current aesthetics in architecture, assembled in the text that holds the title “The Aesthetics of the Present”:
“It is the settings where a sequence of displacements activate the imagination (like those in complete sentences that offer a large number of conclusions) and animate the inanimate. With the economy and simplicity of its means, it takes very little to pass from the implicit to the explicit. When architecture achieves this, it becomes an intense and pleasure giving experience. This experience, involving our minds and our senses is the measure of its beauty” [Benjamin, 1988: 67].

Zenghelis adopts the act of displacement as an improving factor when applied to architecture, outlining that those displacements achieve beauty only when they avoid being subjected to a generic way of pursuit.

Instead, Zenghelis argues that those displacements become lucrative only when they focus on immediate parameters of a subject processed.

Is an architect supposed to reflect his favourite buildings throughout his work or is he supposed to actually produce his own great buildings?

Out of all of the deconstructivist architects, Tschumi could be considered as one who has constantly warned that if we do not displace the architectural precedent values or methodologies the profession is exposed to a threat of it evaporating.

In the year 1975 Bernard Tschumi in the “Architectural Paradox”, classifies displacement as a central theme to the survival of the architectural profession.

Because the reduced control by the architect over the construction process is on the increase, Tschumi draws his attention to the grounds of the cause, and according to Tschumi architecture is saved from extinction only when it architects stop corresponding to society’s image of a building:
“So architecture seems to survive only when it saves its nature by negating the form that the society expects of it. I would therefore suggest that there has never any reason to doubt the necessity of architecture, for the necessity of architecture is its non-necessity” [Tschumi, 1996: 47].

The Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, designed by Frank Gehry, is perhaps the most valid testimony to the above claim. Frank Gehry has conceived an unorthodox approach by defying the rules of the metric handbook and rejecting the convention of symmetry synonymous with traditional design.

This resulted in revised principles of contemporary architecture being widely published in architectural and non-architectural prints available at the local newsagent.

In the text “On the Razor’s Edge” written in 1989, Coop Himmelblau clearly portrays the displacement of common associations as an important factor in their identity. The challenges in perceiving various elements differently to random logic.

Prix argues that their architecture does not rely on traditional perceptions in confining how a building would look, but in searching less obvious new ways to enrich it:
“When we speak of ships, others think of ship wreckage.
We, however, think of wind inflated white sails.
When we speak of eagles, the others think of a bird.
We, however, are talking about the wing span.
When we speak of black panthers, the others think of predatory animals.
We, however, think of the untamed dangerousness of architecture.
When we speak of leaping whales, the others think of saurians. We, however, think of 30 tons of flying weight.
We won’t find architecture in an encyclopaedia.
Our architecture can be found where thoughts move faster than hands to grasp it” [Noever, 1999; 20].

The replacement of the normative generic association to a specific subject with a related fragment is crucial to the work of Coop Himmelblau. Dealing with a ship instead of its association to ship wreckage, Himmelblau is interested in wind inflated white sails or an eagle instead of portraying it as a bird, Himmelblau draws attention to wingspan.

But apart from the attempt to revive the status of an architect in a society the act of displacement is also considered as a form of criticism towards the inconsistencies that the manifestos of the past ideologies have created.

Bibliography

Auge, M., (1995): Non-Places an introduction to the anthropology of the post modernity. Verso, London.

Benjamin, A., ed. (1988): Deconstruction in Architecture. Architectural Design, 58, no. 3/4, London.

De Certeau, M., (1984): The Practice of Everyday Life. Trans. Steven Rendall, University of California, Berkeley.

Derrida, J,. (1976): Of Grammatology. Trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Johns Hopkins UP, Baltimore.

Eisenman, p., (1988): “Eisenmanesie”. V: Architecture + Urbanism, Vol. Extra edition, August. p.:70.

Jencks, C., ed. (1992): The Post-Modern Reader. Academy Editions, London.

Johnson P., Wigley, M., (1988): Deconstructivist Architecture. The Museum of Modern Art, New York.

Leach N., ed., (1997): Rethinking Architecture; A reader in Cultural Theory. Routledge, London.

Noever, P., (1999): Architecture in Transition; Between Deconstruction and New Modernism. Prestel, Munich.

Ryan, M., (1982): Marxism and Deconstruction: A Critical Articulation. Johns Hopkins UP, Baltimore.

Tschumi, B., (1996): Architecture and Disjunction. MIT Press, London.

Woods, L., (1997): Radical Reconstruction. Princeton Architectural Press, New York.

SHARING IS CARING:

FOLLOWING IS CARING:

ABOUT NOLAN JAZIMREG:

Nolan Jazimreg Reveals Proof of God's Existence and Brexit Tax Avoidance Scam

Nolan Jazimreg is a London-based author of “The Inconvenient Truth”, a highly controversial dystopian novel, which reveals profound insights into how hatred infiltrates us and oppresses our adeptness to live a contented life by revealing the existential proof of God, heaven or hell.

Having undergone an unconventional life journey, Nolan Jazimreg developed a bipolar condition, experiencing setbacks that transcended him into a parallel spiritual realm.

His ability to see beyond the “veil”, enabled Jazimreg to initially comprehend the tax-avoidance scam that is driving the UK out of the EU and expose it to over 300,000 people who read his insights on the mass deception behind Brexit!

Similar to the content featured on this blog, Jazimreg hopes that his lousy and bold writing style, featured in his novels, will enlighten its readers with exciting insights on human nature, God, heaven and hell!

Therefore, if you happen to know a daring publisher who is concerned about the grim days that lie ahead and still believes that books can change our world, please don’t hesitate to forward to them the following link, which features the first chapter of Nolan Jazimreg’s “The Inconvenient Truth”:

 https://the-inconvenient-truth.com/the-inconvenient-truth-chapter-one/

Deconstructive Thinking in Architecture

Deconstructive Thinking in Architecture

Deconstructive Thinking

The very existence of deconstructive thinking liaises with the actual presence of normative thinking and if the claims of its destructive nature are true then this could pose a threat to Jacques Derrida’s concept.

“But the nature of deconstructive thinking is not to set out to destroy what has been taught in the past but instead to develop and revisit those values by analysing them in detail, hence the description deconstruction. The general assumption of a house is that it is constructed of walls, floors, ceilings, living room, bathroom, and bedrooms. Deconstruction is concerned with the in-between of those already established attachments of the house more than dealing with issues that have already been established. In philosophy, the matter under the spotlight has evolved around providing generalised answers to questions troubling humanity. In the past, we were accustomed to establishing something as true or definite. Deconstructive thinking scans through those predetermined thoughts and values by challenging them to be interpreted in a new form” [Ryan, 1982: 1].

Michael Ryan’s diagnosis of the Deconstructive movement offers more insight into the subject by describing it as investigative of the dominant principles applied in the widely accepted movements. It analyses previously established macroscopic issues through microscopic lenses focusing in detail on a particular treatment of an architectural element or theory and explores modernist views that have been undermined as trivial and underrated.

Derrida’s strategy has been considered by many to be one of the destruction of the past ideologies. Deconstruction’s existence lies in the very existence of perceived absolute structures.

The very existence of deconstruction liaises with the actual presence of normative thinking and if the claims of its destructive nature are true then this could pose a threat to Derrida’s concept.

How can it pursue its interrogative discourse when, by destroying them in the process, it no longer has any scene left to investigate?

Furthermore to ascertain the non-destructive nature of deconstruction, Derrida in “Of Grammatology”, has affirmed that the deconstructive movement acknowledges certain established views. It does not carry the tendency of destructing but in looking for different ways of non-customary forms of recuperating it: “The movements of deconstruction do not destroy structure from the outside. They are not possible and effective, nor can they take accurate aim, except by inhabiting those structures. Inhabiting them in a certain way, because one always inhabits, and all the more when one does not suspect it. Operating necessarily from the inside, borrowing all the strategic and economic resources of subversion from the old structure, borrowing them structurally, that is to say without being able to isolate their elements and atoms, the enterprise of deconstruction always in certain ways falls prey to its own work” [Derrida, 1976: 24]

Derrida argues that the featured discourse inhabits the established structures in order to look for ways for it to be complemented with an improving aim.

Deconstructivism and Constructivism share a common approach that art should not be held hostage to the certain ideologies adopted collectively.

Both movements consider any predetermined means of conduct in arts to be a handicap.

The appeal by Gabo and Pevsner [Bann, 1999: 8] to free art from guidance under a certain set of rules true to a particular ideology has been confirmed by another publication in the magazine Block that was published in 1924.

The article “What Constructivism Is?” reflects the characteristics true to this movement, the Deconstructive Thinking.

Yet again it displays the fact that constructivism relies upon accepting the problems of construction but it also admits that the problem occurring rarely appear to be the same.

It also confirms that it is dedicated to life, which is, of course constantly changing, therefore, the means of tackling it needs to be adapted accordingly and not through a certain system that has been established in the past. Although since the year 1920 the constructivists were very specific in their demands to release art from the right or the wrong judgments of accomplishing it and appealed for it to evolve freely, it was not until the 70’s that their objections gathered momentum.

For five decades in its existence, the constructivist conveyance to be true to the subject and not to a certain universal methodology remained embraced only by the Eastern European academics and artists.

_________

Bibliography

Auge, M., (1995): Non-Places an introduction to the anthropology of the post modernity. Verso, London.

Benjamin, A., ed. (1988): Deconstruction in Architecture. Architectural Design, 58, no. 3/4, London.

De Certeau, M., (1984): The Practice of Everyday Life. Trans. Steven Rendall, University of California, Berkeley.

Derrida, J,. (1976): Of Grammatology. Trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Johns Hopkins UP, Baltimore.

Eisenman, p., (1988): “Eisenmanesie”. V: Architecture + Urbanism, Vol. Extra edition, August. p.:70.

Jencks, C., ed. (1992): The Post-Modern Reader. Academy Editions, London.

Johnson P., Wigley, M., (1988): Deconstructivist Architecture. The Museum of Modern Art, New York.

Leach N., ed., (1997): Rethinking Architecture; A reader in Cultural Theory. Routledge, London.

Noever, P., (1999): Architecture in Transition; Between Deconstruction and New Modernism. Prestel, Munich.

Ryan, M., (1982): Marxism and Deconstruction: A Critical Articulation. Johns Hopkins UP, Baltimore.

Tschumi, B., (1996): Architecture and Disjunction. MIT Press, London.

Woods, L., (1997): Radical Reconstruction. Princeton Architectural Press, New York.

Introduction to Deconstructive Architecture

Introduction to Deconstructive Architecture

Deconstructive Architecture

The year 1998 marked a turning point in the very essence of architecture by announcing the arrival of new architecture – the Deconstructive Architecture.

Philip Johnson and Mark Wigley from the curator’s standpoint presented the exhibition about Deconstructive Architecture, entitled “Deconstructivist Architecture”.

At the aforementioned event held at the Museum of Modern Art in New York the public had a chance to observe the work of seven architects; Zaha M. Hadid, Peter Eisenman, Bernard Tschumi, Coop Himelblau, Daniel Libeskind, Frank O. Gehry and Rem Koolhaas.

The architectural projects featured at the aforesaid exhibition have been summarized with the generic brand of “Deconstructivist Architecture”.

In his attempt to draw a universal perspective that describes Deconstructivist Architecture, Johnson claimed that this new rising architectural tide did not respond to a particular style, nor is obedient toa specific set of rules and it does not constitute a movement [Johnson, Wigley, 1988: 7].

Taking the above suppositions by Johnson into consideration, one remains puzzled upon facing the following question; what is the criteria that the curators embraced when selecting the projects that are the correct representation of Deconstructivist Architecture?

Both the curators have emphasized that the architecture housed in the MOMA’s exhibition seventeen years ago, is linked to the Soviet modern movement drawn from 1920. Wigley does admit that Deconstructivist Architecture is devoted to the principles adopted by the Constructivists. Yet he claims that the featured architecture does not share or have a common aesthetic.

In a lecture delivered in Columbia University in February 1991, Swiss architect Bernard Tschumi recognized the fact that many architects who are considered to be deconstructivist refuse to be associated with a style and do not accept the deconstructivist prefix attached to their work.

In order to underpin the reason that causes this refusal of belonging to a certain style, Tschumi refers to the aims of deconstructive thinking. Tschumi claims:
“…deconstructivism was born – immediately called a ‘style’– precisely what these architects had been trying to avoid. Any interest in poststructuralist thought and deconstruction stemmed from the fact that they challenged the idea of a single unified set of images, the idea of certainty, and of course, the idea of an identifiable language” [Tschumi,1996: 251].

Tschumi endorses his reasoning with the argument that whilst the deconstructive architecture true to deconstructive philosophy is supposed to question the established and unified methodology of thinking, how it can still serve its purpose if in turn, it becomes a style.

However, upon deciding what work is eligible to represent the Deconstructivist Architecture, Johnson and Wigley in determining the decisive factor have not implicated the above statement.

At what point does an architect begin or end to generate Deconstructive Architecture?

According to de Certeau, a place is something fixed and determined and therefore is planed. When movements are introduced to a place, the later becomes a space alongside its variations in their behaviour.

“A space exists when one takes into consideration vectors of direction, velocities, and time variables. Thus space is composed of intersections of mobile elements. It is in a sense articulated by the ensemble of movements deployed within it. Space occurs as the effect produced by the operations that orient it, situate it, temporalize it, and make it function in a polyvalentunity of conflicting programs or contractual proximities… In contradistinction to the place, it has thus none of the univocity or stability of a proper. In short, space is a practiced place” [De Certeau, 1984: 117].

Architectural creativity has in the past relied upon the technological aspects of a building, whereby the human factor has been paid little attention by the architects.

Marc Auge has also outlined by remains in the dynamics of the location since a place with activity concludes into space. Auge draws attention to the dynamics of space as its primary element and not the architectural elements. “Benjamin implies that in its repetition or rather in its revisit, the deconstructive mind enters with an exploratory vision searching for meanings in things that were previously considered as trivial. He also claims that philosophy has been confined within its borders in defining the subject of its interest. Under deconstructive vision adding related issues that have been not so visible is expanding these borders” [Auge, 1995: 81].

Auge concludes that a place becomes a space only if a dynamic activity takes place.

Bibliography

Auge, M., (1995): Non-Places an introduction to the anthropology of the post modernity. Verso, London.

Benjamin, A., ed. (1988): Deconstruction in Architecture. Architectural Design, 58, no. 3/4, London.

De Certeau, M., (1984): The Practice of Everyday Life. Trans. Steven Rendall, University of California, Berkeley.

Derrida, J,. (1976): Of Grammatology. Trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Johns Hopkins UP, Baltimore.

Eisenman, p., (1988): “Eisenmanesie”. V: Architecture + Urbanism, Vol. Extra edition, August. p.:70.

Jencks, C., ed. (1992): The Post-Modern Reader. Academy Editions, London.

Johnson P., Wigley, M., (1988): Deconstructivist Architecture. The Museum of Modern Art, New York.

Leach N., ed., (1997): Rethinking Architecture; A reader in Cultural Theory. Routledge, London.

Noever, P., (1999): Architecture in Transition; Between Deconstruction and New Modernism. Prestel, Munich.

Ryan, M., (1982): Marxism and Deconstruction: A Critical Articulation. Johns Hopkins UP, Baltimore.

Tschumi, B., (1996): Architecture and Disjunction. MIT Press, London.

Woods, L., (1997): Radical Reconstruction. Princeton Architectural Press, New York.

According to Michel Barnier, without a firm UK commitment to fight tax avoidance, there is no Brexit trade deal

According to Michel Barnier, without a firm UK commitment to fight tax avoidance, there is no Brexit trade deal

According to Michel Barnier, without a firm UK commitment to fight tax avoidance, there is no Brexit trade deal

Michel Barnier To Boris Johnson No Brexit Trade Deal Without Fighting Tax Avoidance

Michel Barnier’s demands the UK’s compliance with Level Playing Field and Sustainability requirements, such as fighting tax avoidance, but Boris Johnson is keen to expand tax-avoiding practices by establishing new tax-free ports in the United Kingdom.

Brexit trade deal talks between the chief negotiator Michel Barnier and the British Prime Minister Boris Johnson haven’t produced the desired outcome for both entities.

After meeting the EU negotiating team, spearheaded by Michel Barnier, in 2018, the European Parliament’s TAX3 secretariat produced a document that highlights the ultimate aim of Brexit negotiations between the EU and UK, concluding that:
“The objective is that the UK will abide by the tools adopted at EU level to fight tax evasion/avoidance.”

According to Michel Barnier, the UK will no longer be able to enjoy preferential treatment, as it used to as a member of the European Union:
“We will not allow a third country, the UK, to dictate the conditions of access to our own market for British goods, services, data, employees and businesses. We wish to remain sovereign, and will set the conditions of access ourselves.”

Following the third round of negotiations for a new partnership between the European Union and the United Kingdom, Michel Barnier voiced his concern regarding UK’s lack of ambition in negotiations, because Boris Johnson’s government failed to engage in ‘real discussion’ on the topic of “level playing field”:
“That said, with the exception of some modest overtures, we failed to make any progress on any of the other more difficult topics. Despite its claims, the United Kingdom did not engage in a real discussion on the question of the level playing field – those economic and commercial “fair play” rules that we agreed to, with Boris Johnson, in the Political Declaration.”

Michel Barnier is confined to developing his negotiations with his British counterparts by European Council’s Recommendation Document for the opening of negotiations for a new partnership with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which consists of the Level Playing Field and Sustainability.

A section within Level Playing Field and Sustainability requirements includes a concise demand for United Kingdom’s commitment to cooperate and fight against tax avoidance practices, as follows:

D. Taxation

  1. The envisaged partnership should recognise and commit the Parties to implementing, the principles of good governance in the area of taxation, including the global standards on transparency and exchange of information, fair taxation, and the OECD standards against Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS). It should ensure that the United Kingdom applies the common standards applicable within the Union and the United Kingdom at the end of the transition period in relation to at least the following areas: exchange of information on income, financial accounts, tax rulings, country-by-country reports, beneficial ownership and potential cross-border tax planning arrangements. It should also ensure that the United Kingdom applies the common standards applicable within the Union and the United Kingdom at the end of the transition period in relation to the fight against tax avoidance practices and public country-by-country reporting by credit-institutions and investment firms.
  2. The envisaged partnership should reaffirm the Parties’ commitment to curb harmful tax measures, taking into account the G20-OECD BEPS Action Plan. They should also ensure that the United Kingdom reaffirms its commitment to the Code of Conduct for Business Taxation.

Therefore, in order for the UK to secure a trade deal with the EU, the British government must fight tax avoidance by implementing global standards on transparency and exchange of information, fair taxation, and the OECD standards against Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS), based on G20-OECD BEPS Action Plan.

Unfortunately, according to this article, protection of British tax-avoiding practices from the new EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive and the mighty European Court of Justice (ECJ), which did a fine job in preventing tax avoidance within its member states, is the main reason why David Cameron called the EU referendum and why Tory Brexiters campaigned to leave the EU!

Boris Johnson is keen to expand tax-avoiding practices by establishing new tax-free ports in the United Kingdom, and it seems that the British government isn’t keen on committing the UK to Michel Barnier’s Brexit trade deal demand to comply with Level Playing Field and Sustainability requirements, such as fighting tax avoidance.

Boris Johnson failed to trick Jeremy Corbyn into an early general election and deliver Brexit

Boris Johnson failed to trick Jeremy Corbyn into an early general election and deliver Brexit

Boris Johnson failed to trick Jeremy Corbyn into an early general election and deliver Brexit

LABOUR LEADER ACCUSSES BORIS JOHNSON AND THE CONSERVATIVES OF USING BREXIT TO TURN THE UK INTO A TAX HAVEN

Boris Johnson decided to have an early general election, because he had a cunning plan – to deliver Brexit by dissolving the British parliament, and without elected MPs, the prime minister would be free to take the UK out of the EU, with or without a deal!


Thanks to Gina Miller, in early 2017, the Supreme Court decided that the prime minister can’t use monarchical powers to force through a Brexit deal without first getting the consent of the British parliament:

“ The article 50 process must and will involve a partnership between Parliament and the Executive. But that does not mean that legislation is required simply to initiate it. Legislation will undoubtedly be required to implement withdrawal, but the process, including the form and timing of any legislation, can and should be determined by Parliament not by the courts. That involves no breach of the constitutional principles which have been entrenched in our law since the 17th century, and no threat to the fundamental principle of Parliamentary sovereignty.”

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0196-judgment.pdf

Therefore, the Supreme Court’s decision explicitly states that it is up to the British people to decide whether to leave or stay in the EU, but it is up to the British parliament to determine how we leave and not the British prime minister!

Boris Johnson’s cunning plan to deliver Brexit by dissolving the parliament

Failing to secure the consent of British Parliament, Boris Johnson had a cunning plan by having an early general election, and create a situation whereby due to the lack of MPs to endorse his Brexit, he could legally take the UK out of the EU on his own!

Claiming that the bill, which forces him to ask for an extension to the Brexit deadline if no deal had been agreed left him unable to negotiate a deal with the EU, Boris Johnson wanted the British MPs to agree to an early general election on 15 October, saying:

“In my view and the view of this govermment there must now be an election on Tuesday October 15 and I invite [Jeremy Corbyn] to respond to decide which of us goes as prime minister to that crucial council on Thursday October 17.”

The prime minister justified his decision for an early general election on 15 October, because according to him it is “completely impossible for the government to function if the House of Commons refuses to pass anything the government proposes”.

“In my view and the view of this government there must now be an election on Tuesday October 15 and I invite [Jeremy Corbyn] to respond to decide which of us goes as prime minister to that crucial council on Thursday October 17.”

https://www.ft.com/content/9bf49fcf-dfaa-3450-8d8b-bcab822b9813

Boris Johnson’s plan failed because the opposition realised that without a British Parliament, Boris Johnson would take the UK out of the EU on 31 October without having to secure the mandatory consent from the dissolved British Parliament.

Jeremy Corbyn exposes Boris Johnson’s conniving plan

Mr Johnson’s conniving plan was exposed by Jeremy Corbyn who claimed that:

“The offer of an election today is a bit like the offer of an apple to Snow White by the wicked queen. What he’s offering is not an apple of even an election but the poison of a no-deal. So Mr Speaker I repeat what I said last night. Let this bill pass and gain royal assent. Then we will back an election so we do not crash out with a no-deal exit from the EU.”

https://www.ft.com/content/9bf49fcf-dfaa-3450-8d8b-bcab822b9813

Boris Johnson decided to have an early general election, because he had a cunning plan – to deliver Brexit by dissolving the British parliament, and without elected MPs, the prime minister free to take the UK out of the EU, with or without a deal!

To achieve his cunning Brexit plan, Boris Johnson needed two-thirds of all MPs to vote in favour of his motion.

However, 298 MPs voted for the motion and 56 against, which was 136 short of the number needed to dissolve the British Parliament!

Therefore, Boris Johnson’s cunning plan to deliver a no-deal Brexit by dissolving the British parliament has failed!

“THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH” – CHAPTER ONE

“THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH” – CHAPTER ONE

Completed in 90,000 words, The Inconvenient Truth is a thrilling spiritual fiction that is yearning to be published and placed on the bookstore shelves, alongside Herman Hesse’s Siddhartha.

What starts out as a tremendously benevolent effort to avert the nuclear war between Russia and the US over the largest gas reserves in the Persian Gulf unite the humankind, the Convention on the Secret of Divine Civilisation gradually becomes a devastating initiative that threatens the mere existence of the United Nations. The convention’s aim is to acquire a unifying world constitution from Isa Iri. However, his idyllic life on the picturesque island of Cisroc ends when his country immerses into an ethnic war and his Muslim mother splits up from his Orthodox father. Isa suffers a nervous breakdown, whereby hysterically, he condemns God and the human race, prompting social unrest across the world. Faced with ultimatums from seventy-two countries to discontinue their membership, the UN looks likely to abolish this Convention at its next General Assembly session. Six months ahead of this crucial event, Isa experiences enlightenment, revealing profound insights into the way hatred infiltrates us and oppresses our adeptness to be happy.

This mesmerising story based on my bipolar experiences will instigate a thorough appraisal of your preconceived assumptions about happiness, freedom, democracy, religion, God, heaven and hell.

BLIMEY!

Humankind is at it again, doing what it does best – fucking everything up.

Forty-three years ago, the United Nations, (the United Nutcases to sane people), instigated this marvellously obscene idea, worthy of a Nobel Prize for stupidity.

Following effective negotiations between China, Russia, UK and EU, Iran began its civilian nuclear enrichment program, exceeding the initially agreed caps, which triggered an immediate response from the US President, who threatened Iran with military action” “From the originally agreed 3.67% uranium enrichment level, Iran has now increased its capacities to 36.75%! Iran will soon be capable of producing its first nuclear warhead. My message to Tehran is clear. We are committed to making the world a safer place, and unless Iran immediately stops its uranium enrichment program, the US and our allies will!”

Within two days, the Kremlin hosted the leaders of Iran, Russia and China. They issued a joint statement, warning the US to back off. At a press conference, the Russian President accused the US President of spreading inflammatory fake news, adding, “For Iran to develop a nuclear warhead, it needs enriched uranium of at least 90%, and we made sure that Iran’s enrichment capacities of 40% are well below that! China and Russia will not allow another violation of international laws, and we’ll protect our ally Iran from any foreign military aggression.”

The next day, six Chinese and fourteen Russian warships, including four nuclear submarines, one of which had the Iranian President on-board, sailed towards the Persian Gulf, prompting the US to call an urgent meeting of the UN Security Council. China and Russia declined. The President of China tweeted. “For a very long time, the big five acted as Gods, determining the fate of smaller countries without listening to their voices! The UN security council will reassemble at the next UN General Assembly session in September after the voices of all UN member states are heard!”

Since their anticipated UN Security Council meeting didn’t happen, the White House assembled the leaders of NATO member countries at its Headquarters in Brussels to discuss the next course of action on Iran. After intensive talks, the leaders of NATO member states could not agree on an allied military action against Iran. Besides the US, the UK and five new member states, the remaining ones refused to engage their forces in a military conflict with Iran.

Meanwhile, the Iranian President disembarked on the Iranian soil and headed to address his supporters at Azadi Square. Clenching the neck of the black microphone with his right hand, the Iranian President thanked its allies for defending Iran’s sovereign right to provide electricity to its citizens. He paused briefly, holding a copy of a Holy Quran above his head. As frenetic chants Allahu Akhbar broke out, the President kissed the holy book, opened it, and then read out the verse Al-Qur’an 4:135, ”O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even if it be against yourselves, your parents, and your relatives, or whether it is against the rich or the poor!”

Wild roars of rage ensued, much louder than the previous time, repetitively crying out Allahu Akhbar. The President stretched out his left hand, towards the crowd, appealing for calm. Once the religious delirium ended, he added, “I would like to appeal to the world, and in particular to the American people, to respect God’s will by preventing their government from attacking Iran. We don’t want war and I’m sure this is the wish of most Americans too. I urge the American people to rise against the imperial thirst of the US government for the liquid energy resources of other nations and-”

Marg bar Āmrikā, Marg bar Āmrikā,… The Iranians began their traditional chant, wishing death to America. Once again, the President appealed for calm, his voice booming from the speakers, “Please! Please!…” 

Once the crowd quieted down, he continued, “We don’t want death to anyone, including the American people! What we want is for the people on this planet to stand up against another US aggression. The entire world should know that if America attacks Iran, their action will not go unpunished with grave global consequences for the entire world! We might not be able to defeat the US military.” The President paused briefly and then upping his fist, he shouted, “BUT, WE CAN, AND WE WILL DESTROY AMERICAN ECONOMY BY ANNIHILATING-”

At this moment the entire crowd broke into hysterical repetitious shouts, Death to America, complemented by the heavy stomping of their feet. Some were burning the US flags, others ripping the printed pictures of the US President. Surely, a US drone flying over them dropping the lovely US$ upon them would instantly end an orgasmic ejaculation of their overwhelming hate for the US.

As the US hating delirium faded out, the Iranian President proceeded with his speech, “My message to the world today is the following one, please help us to refrain the US from another Muslim bloodshed. However, if the world no longer cares for the Muslim people, Iran has no other means to defeat our enemy, but to create an environmental catastrophe by annihilating all the region’s oil reserves, Iran’s and those of the neighbouring countries! Muslim blood was spilt over our lands because of our oil. Since the depletion of our oil is the only way to protect the Muslim people from another American occupation, then Iran will not hesitate to embark on this holy mission of destroying all the region’s oil reserves!”

To protect the oil wells of Saudi Arabia and Qatar from a possible attack by Iran, the US and the UK sent out 32 battleships in the Persian Gulf and stationed them along its southern coastline. Although the speech of the Iranian President didn’t lead to the obliteration of the region’s oil wells, it flamed up the price of oil, because everyone was rushing to buy and stock oil. Within four weeks, the value of the US$ rose by 15%! Following extensive and heated debates in Vienna, OPEC increased the oil output by thirty per cent, and US$ gradually deflated to its value before the infamous Azadi Square speech. Although crammed by biggest battleships on earth, the situation in the Persian Gulf remained relatively calm. Then, some Iranians, who probably watched too many Hollywood action films, attempted to kidnap the personnel of the US Embassy. They failed to complete their mission impossible, because Iran’s Republican Guard intervened, wounded five, and arrested the other nine, who later on, ended up being prosecuted for being American spies.

Another US attempt to endorse a new UN Security Council resolution on Iran failed because China and Russia again declined to attend another UN Security Council meeting. The Russian President issued a brief statement, “The world leaders will soon gather at the forthcoming UN General Assembly session in New York. Only after the voices of all nations are heard, we’ll meet at the UN Security Council and decide on future steps to resolve the Iran crisis. In the meantime, I urge Iran and the US to refrain from action that could threaten world peace!”

Following this statement, the verbal war drums echoing from Washington and Tehran got their well-earned break. It didn’t last long, though! Heated debates ensued at the next UN General Assembly session. Once the Iranian President tortured the mikes at the General Assembly with his hoarse voice, lamenting the end of the world as the only defensive means against the US aggression! According to him, neither the US nor the world population has done enough to demonstrate their support for Iran’s holy right to decide over its fate.

For fuck’s sake! This guy must be allergic to microphones or cameras, triggering a severe brain malfunctioning. How does this guy expect to gain the hearts of the world population, while threatening them, that unless they didn’t comply with demands he will deliver an apocalyptic climate disaster? I’ve come across many morons in my lifetime, but this guy probably pushes in the top three candidates for the Moron of the Year Award.

Onto the next contestant for the Moron of the Year Award – the Russian President, who reminded the attending delegates of the cold war and the peace deal between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev at the Reykjavík Summit in 1985, in a rather angry tone, “Both of them were able to put aside their egos and differences so that we could enjoy a peaceful world. The current US/Iran crisis isn’t about their nuclear capacity! No, my honourable delegates, this crisis is instigated by the world’s largest natural gas reserves, located in the Persian Gulf, which Iran refuses to trade in US$! President Nixon is responsible for the current crisis in Iran because he decided to end the backing of US$ with the Federal gold reserves. To prevent deflation of its currency, the White House forced oil producers to trade their oil exclusively in US$!”

At this point, the US delegation stood up and left the General Assembly Hall, followed by their counterparts from the UK and Saudi Arabia, but this didn’t seem to bother the Russian President. He resumed reading and no longer appeared upset, but raging with anger, shouting out his words in a similar way an army major addresses his soldiers. “The White House is well aware that the world’s oil reserves will run dry in 2067, and is now keen to preserve the future value of its currency by forcing countries, such as Iran and Qatar, who have shared ownership of the world’s largest gas reserve, to trade their gas in US$ too! If the White House thinks that the Kremlin is just going to sit and watch them, as we did in Iraq or Libya and instigate a war in Iran, then this will be a costly mistake with severe and irreversible consequences. Our failure to act will destroy the Russian economy. If the US intervenes in Iran, then the Russian people will have only two options, die from hunger or die in a war? If the US makes even the slightest attempt to impede Iran’s sovereignty, then I would like to remind you that Russians are a proud nation, which would rather die in the battlefield than die from hunger! Thank you for listening to the Russian concerns!”

Holy shit, man! This isn’t funny anymore. Those slim microphones protruding out of the wooden speaking stand must be releasing some invisible fume that drives people mad! Death, war, apocalypse, ..?

Twenty or so minutes later, it was the turn of the next contestant for the Moron of the Year Award, the US President who addressed the General Assembly delegates ranting about Iran’s violations of human rights and lack of democracy. He removed his tinted reading glasses, revealing his sleepless eyes, dyed with red lines around his blue irises, as they contacted his audience. In an instant, his face red, so red as if somebody just sandpapered it, before addressing his audience in a furious full-blooded raging voice. “Since my Russian counterpart decided to speak openly, I now feel much obliged to do the same. The Russian President revealed that in thirty years they’ll end up controlling the world’s gas reserves and consequently the world. The US will never allow this to happen! I want to be clear, and I want the world to know that if the Kremlin thinks that the White House will sit and watch them turn into the only superpower that will dominate the world, they are wrong!” He paused briefly to inhale a deep breath and then his words thundered out of long speakers fixed to the wooden walls. “THE US WILL DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO PREVENT THE RUSSIANS IN BECOMING THE WORLD’S PHARAOHS, RULING OVER THE WORLD, AND IF A NUCLEAR WAR IS WHAT IT TAKES TO PREVENT THIS, THEN THE US WILL NOT HESITATE IN DOING SO!”

Most world leaders appealed for restraint and resolvement of the Iran crisis through dialogue. Wearing a light-blue suit, which complemented her striking deep-blue eyes, accentuated by her pale and expressionless face, the President of the European Council emphasised a grave apprehension about the previous World Wars and their devastating impact on European people.  “Similar to many countries represented here today, we have also ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention that sets out the binding obligations for protecting those in need. Since its ratification, Europeans have provided a safe sanctuary for them, regardless of their ethnicity, race or religion. We pride ourselves in dutifully fulfilling our obligations that stem from this convention, reflecting our European values and cultural identity. However, we can no longer remain indifferent to the countries represented here, which don’t comply with the Refugee Convention and don’t provide a sanctuary for displaced emigrants upon entering their territories. Consequently, the European Union is at a critical point. Do we adhere to our grandfathers’ ideal to unify the world through the United Nations or our fathers’ vision to unite the world through the European Union? Therefore, to ensure our coherent engagement within the United Nations, this organisation urgently needs to reform itself. While we appeal to all nations to refrain themselves from acts of violence or threats, the European countries will not participate in any military action that will please the imperial appetites of either Kremlin our the White House! We want peace, not war, and to achieve this, we must demonstrate or unreserved commitment towards establishing an independent UN reform task force, which would provide concrete recommendations for overcoming the recent Iran crisis! Considering the imminent threat of another devastating world war looming over us, I urge the General-Secretary to process my request at the end of tomorrow’s session, by asking the UN member states to cast their vote on our proposed initiative. Thank you for your attention, understanding and support!”

BBC BREXIT LIE EXPOSED: The EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive will have an impact on British tax-dodging practices

BBC BREXIT LIE EXPOSED: The EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive will have an impact on British tax-dodging practices

BBC BREXIT LIE EXPOSED: The EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive will have an impact on British tax-dodging practices

BBC Brexit narrative is wrong that the EU Tax Avoidance Directive will not have huge implications on wealthy British tax-dodgers is wrong because according Nigel Farage if we remained in the EU, tax-avoiding offences would be ruled by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), instead of British courts.


The BBC Brexit narrative is that the EU Tax Avoidance Directive will not have huge implications on wealthy British tax-dodgers is wrong because if we remained in the EU, tax-avoiding offences would be ruled by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), instead of British courts.


BBC BREXIT NARRATIVE ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE EU ANTI TAX AVOIDANCE DIRECTIVE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM


Since 2016, this blog strived to inform others about the tax avoidance scam perpetrated by Tory Brexiters, but most of the mainstream media kept the EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive away from the British public, including the British Public Broadcaster, which lacked a comprehensive BBC Brexit narrative on this subject. 

However, since prominent individuals such as actor and writer David Schneider, Labour MP David Lammy and TV presenter Terry Christian also tried to inform others regarding the Brexiteers’ aim to prevent the implementation of the EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive in the UK, the British public broadcaster, finally decided to address this issue, dismissing those claims through a new BBC Brexit narrative.

Rather than obtaining independent interpretations regarding the impact of the EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive in the UK from various tax experts, the BBC decided to have its own assessment on this matter, claiming that the new measures:
“… are, in fact, all already part of UK law. A small number of them will not come into effect until 1 January, but that would have happened anyway whether or not the UK was a member of the EU… So it’s hard to find anything happening in January 2020 to these rules that looks significant enough to influence the speed at which some people might want to leave the EU.”

However, David Cameron and Nigel Farage happen to disagree with the BBC Brexit discourse that EU Anti Tax Avoidance doesn’t have rules that look significant enough to influence the speed at which some people might want to leave the EU.

Four years ago, Mr Cameron requested from the President of the European Council to exclude offshore trusts from the EU’s new Anti Tax Avoidance Directive:

“David Cameron intervened personally to prevent offshore trusts from being dragged into an EU-wide crackdown on tax avoidance, it has emerged. In a 2013 letter to the then President of the European council, Herman Van Rompuy, the prime minister said that trusts should not automatically be subject to the same transparency requirements as companies.”

Addressing the EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive at the European Parliament, seven years ago, Mr Farage accused the EU Commission of attempting to “drive a wedge between the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the Caymans”, adding:
“There’s a great degree of unity here this morning, a common enemy: rich people, successful companies evading tax, which of course is a problem, avoiding tax, which is not illegal, but it gives this whole chamber this morning a high moral tone and, as Mr Barrasso says, it’s all about the perception of fairness.”

If BBC’s claim is correct about the EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive not having huge implications on British tax-dodging practice, then why:
1. David Cameron requested from the President of the European Council to exclude offshore trusts? or
2. Nigel Farage accused the EU of driving a wedge between the United Kingdom and its tax havens?

Although new EU measures that aim to prevent tax avoidance were partially included in the UK law, their difference lies in the:
1. Territorial jurisdiction; and
2. Institutional jurisdiction.


BBC BREXIT NARRATIVE IS WRONG BECAUSE THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE EU ANTI TAX AVOIDANCE DIRECTIVE IS DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE INCLUDED IN BRITISH LAW

The rules set out in the Article 5 of EU’s Anti Tax Avoidance Directive are similar to the ones set out in the British law, because they will be also imposed on capital gains generated in the territory of the Member State of origin.

The new EU tax rules will be levied on certain cross-border transfers of assets, tax residence or business carried out by the permanent establishment within the EU or in the third-country context, upon transferring:
1. assets from its head office to a foreign permanent establishment;
2. assets from a permanent establishment in a Member State to a foreign head office or permanent establishment;
3. tax residence to another country; or
4. business carried on by its permanent establishment in a Member State to another country—all in so far as the Member State of exit loses the right to tax due to the transfer.

Nonetheless, contrary to the BBC Brexit narrative, you’ll discover there’s a minor detail that distinguishes the UK anti-tax avoidance measure from the new ones endorsed by Brussels, which terrified the British tax-dodging elite and it has to do with the difference between their territorial jurisdictions.

Technically, the British tax havens are still considered part of Great Britain, which is why tax avoidance in the UK is deemed legal, but they aren’t part of the EU!

Therefore, if the UK remained in the EU, the EU’s Controlled Foreign Company (CFC) rules would force EU-operating subsidiary companies of large corporations registered in tax havens to pay their taxes on profits generated in any EU member states.

According to the Independent, Rupert Murdoch’s News International has paid virtually no tax in the past 10 years, despite racking up net profits of nearly £1bn since 1986 and although in 1995 his newspapers, including the Times and the Sun, earned £779m in the year to the end of last June alone, his company paid only £8.3m tax.

Therefore, if were to remain in the EU, under the EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive, Rupert Murdoch’s the UK registered companies would be forced to pay their due taxes according to profits generated in the UK, irrespective of the financial standings of his corporation registered elsewhere.

Controlled foreign company (CFC) rule:  to deter profit shifting to a low/no tax country.


BBC BREXIT NARRATIVE IS WRONG BECAUSE THE INSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION OF EU ANTI TAX AVOIDANCE DIRECTIVE IS DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE INCLUDED IN BRITISH LAW

The other and most important difference between the UK and the EU anti-tax avoidance measures, which BBC Brexit narrative fails to mention, is that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the new EU directive, which is why prominent Brexiteers are desperate to keep it out of the UK!

ECJ will ensure that all EU member states implement its new Anti Tax Avoidance Directive and bring an end to the tax-avoiding practices by the EU citizens or businesses, which poses a real threat to wealthy tax-dodgers whom the British courts failed to prosecute in the past.

According to the BBC, the British government has already transposed the new EU measures, Controlled Foreign Company, Exit Taxation and Anti-Hybrid Rules.

However, according to the British government, the EU measures on Controlled Foreign Company and Exit Taxation rules, are due to come to effect on 1 January 2020, which is why Boris Johnson is so keen to leave the EU as soon as possible.

Outside the EU, tax-avoiding offences would be trialled at British Courts, which in the past have failed to prosecute any of the wealthy tax-dodgers, including the individuals exposed by the Panama Papers in 2016.

Four years have passed since Panama Papers exposed tax-dodging practices by Michael Ashcroft, retired Member of the House of Lords, Tony Baldry, former Member of the House of Commons, David Davies, former Chief Scientific Adviser to the Ministry of Defence, Michael Mates, former Member of the House of Commons and Pamela Sharples, Member of the House of Lords, but British courts failed to prosecute them for their tax offences.

If we were to remain in the EU, under the recommendation of the European Commission, tax-avoiding offences would be trialled at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) a credible institution, renowned for forcing giant corporations to pay their due taxes, hence the strong opposition by prominent Brexiteers.

It appears that prominent Brexiteers disagree with ECJ’s rulings that corporations should pay their due taxes in the same manner that smaller businesses do, which is why they publicly opposed ECJ’s jurisdiction over the UK.

In 2016, ECJ ruled that Apple must reimburse the Irish state a record €13bn to make up for what is considered to be unpaid taxes over a number of years.

In 2019, ECJ ruled that automaker Fiat Chrysler must pay back about $33 million in taxes that it saved by carving out a deal with Luxembourg.

Ultimately, the chair of the BBC Trust, Rona Fairhead has been urged to resign by an influential British MP (but again, not prosecuted by British courts, after the second grilling of HSBC’s bosses over the bank’s alleged role in widespread tax avoidance through its controversial Swiss branch, therefore, it’s hardly surprising why the BBC is keen to silence claims that links Brexit to the EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive.

This is how a Tory Brexiter & ERG member rigged our EU referendum

This is how a Tory Brexiter & ERG member rigged our EU referendum

This is how a Tory Brexiter & ERG member rigged our EU referendum

Dominic Raab suggests that Brexit Tories are doing well on the postal votes and provided a clue for the way ERG member rigged the British democracy

Peter Lilley, a prominent Tory Brexiter and ERG member was a senior non-executive director of Idox Group, the company that was in charge of processing almost 1/5 of the total votes counted at the EU referendum.


Postal voting in the United Kingdom before an ERG member took charge of Idox Group

According to the UK Election Statistics: 1918-2019: A Century of Elections by the House of Commons, before the ERG member, Peter Lilley became the senior non-executive director of Idox Group, the percentage of postal votes was relatively low, never exceeding 5%:

  Number of postal ballot papers issuedCovering envelopes returned before close of pollPostal votes Numberincluded in count % of all postal ballot papers issuedPostal votes as % of total
19451,219,5191,032,6881,018,32983.5%3.9%
1950507,717478,038466,34791.9%1.6%
1951831,877756,967742,57489.3%2.5%
1955595,000526,904515,59386.7%1.9%
1959692,827612,231598,55986.4%2.1%
1964818,901723,927707,63686.4%2.5%
1966617,481528,006513,04183.1%1.8%
1970731,249639,674625,35585.5%2.2%
1974Feb743,441645,080628,90784.6%2.0%
1974Oct1,075,131875,324850,10579.1%2.8%
1979847,335714,892691,96981.7%2.2%
1983757,604643,634623,55482.3%2.0%
1987947,948818,349793,06283.7%2.4%
1992835,074714,895692,13982.9%2.0%
1997937,205764,366738,61478.8%2.3%
20011,758,0551,402,0731,402,07379.8%5.0%
20055,362,5014,110,0393,963,79273.9%12.7%
20106,996,0065,818,8535,596,86580.0%18.8%
20157,592,7356,516,2286,302,07383.0%20.5%


As a matter of fact, the percentage of postal votes in UK general elections didn’t increase much until 2002, after a Tory Brexiter and ERG member, Peter Lilley became a senior non-executive director of Idox Group, the private company contracted by the British government to process postal votes in the UK, whereby the postal votes enjoyed a significant increase from:

– 5.0% in 2001 to 12.7% in 2005;

– 12.7% in 2005 to 18.8% in 2010; and

– 18.8% in 2010 to 20.7% in 2015.

Idox Group was also contracted by the British government to manage the postal votes received and counted at the EU referendum in 2016.

33,551,983 British voters voted at the EU referendum, and acccording to the UK’s Independent Fact Checking Charity – Full Fact, instead of the 8,500,000 postal ballots issued during the EU referendum, only 86% or around 7,310,000 postal votes were counted in the final vote.

In terms of percentage, out of the total votes counted at the EU referendum, 21.79% were postal votes.


Peter Lilley, a Tory Brexiter and ERG member

Coincidentally, Tory MP Peter Lilley, the senior non-executive director of Idox Group was also an ERG member and supportive of the Eurosceptic pressure group Leave Means Leave.

Surely this is a apparent conflict of interest, whereby Peter Lilley, a prominent Brexiter and ERG member was a senior non-executive director of Idox Group, the company that was in charge of processing postal votes counted in the EU referendum, whereby 1,190,000 ballot papers issued were not included in the final count in the EU referendum.

How could the British government allow a company with a senior non-executive director who backed Brexit in the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum to be in charge of verifying postal votes at the EU referendum?

The postal votes are neither issued nor verified by the government or the electoral commission, because this process was outsourced to Idox Group.

Over the past years, Idox Group has been entrusted with managing postal votes in the UK, including the Independence Referendum in Scotland, the EU Referendum and general elections to issue ballot papers to British voters and verify them before issuing them to the Electoral Commission.

Postal voting agents representing political candidates are entitled to be present at the opening session of postal votes to supervise the verification process of the postal votes received.

However, postal voting agents representing political candidates are entitled to verify only the postal votes that are presented to them by Idox Group and they can’t verify either whether they are the authentic ones or include all the postal votes issued by British voters.


The postal votes in the EU referendum were rigged and illegal

According to David Hencke, Idox Group have broken the law because they bypassed the verification procedures in the counting of postal votes in the 2015 General Election:
“Another acquired subsidiary of Idox, Opt2Vote, was found to have broken the law by ignoring legal verification procedures in the counting of postal votes in the 2015 General Election following a complaint by a count observer. An analysis by the elections watchdog, the Electoral Commission, upheld the complaint stating that postal voting counts in Birmingham, Sheffield, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Fife, Dundee, Aberdeen, Ayrshire, Moray, Scottish Borders, Angus and Clackmannanshire did not comply with the law.”

Yet, despite Electoral Commission’s conclusion that postal votes managed by Idox’s Opt2Vote in 2015 General Election didn’t comply with the law, the following year Idox Group is contracted to manage the postal voting in the EU referendum.

According to the Electoral Commission’s “Part B – Planning and organisation Referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union: guidance for Counting Officers” people associated with referendum campaigns are not allowed to be a part of processing postal votes.

According to the EU referendum rules set out by the Electoral Commission, Idox Group broke the electoral law because its senior non-executive director, Mr Peter Lilley is an ardent Brexiteer who is keen to leave without a deal and EU rules campaigned at the local University, which he admitted in an interview for Brexit Central when asked about the his most memorable moment during the referendum campaign:

“When at a debate at my local university, the vote swung from 75% pro-Remain before the debate to 55% pro-Leave after hearing the arguments – which of course most students had been sheltered from throughout their education.”

Therefore, according to the Electoral Commission, Idox Group broke the EU referendum electoral law by keeping Peter Lilley employed because he was a referendum campaigner in connection with the referendum!


Despite breaking the electoral law, Idox group was contracted to process postal votes in 2019 General Elections

Idox Group broke the electoral law, however, this didn’t stop Boris Johnson’s government to contract them to manage postal voting in the 2019 General Election, hence the impressive Tory result.

According to Byline Times, by giving a lucrative contract to Idox Group without competitive tendering to revamp the management of the electoral register in extraordinary circumstances for the 2019 General Election, Boris Johnson’s Government breached EU rules, which requires that any construction and works tender above £663,450 should be put out to competition law, through public procurement.

Considering that Jeremy Corbyn managed to increase the Labour membership to a record high and that the number of young voters prone to vote against Brexit has increased since the EU referendum, one would have expected fewer voters to endorse Boris Johnson’s “Get Brexit Done” campaign.

It looks like the Cabinet Office’s decision to break the law by contracting postal voting to Idox Group was a good decision for the Conservative party because, according to Dominic Raab, Tories did well on the postal votes in the 2019 General Election:

This was also confirmed by the BBC’s political editor, Laura Kuenssberg, who stated that postal votes that are in are looking pretty grim for Labour:

The mission of every private company is to satisfy their clients and Idox Group did an outstanding job in delivering a satisfying electoral result for their client – the Conservative Party.

This is how a Tory Brexiteer and ERG member rigged our democratic vote in the EU referendum and Idox Group continued to do so in our 2019 General Election.

Watch James O’Brien explain why the British newspapers owned by wealthy tax-dodgers are so desperate to leave the EU

Watch James O’Brien explain why the British newspapers owned by wealthy tax-dodgers are so desperate to leave the EU

Watch James O’Brien explain why the British newspapers owned by wealthy tax-dodgers are so desperate to leave the EU

President Nicholas Sarkozy our message is clear, countries that remain tax havens will be shunned by the international community which led to the EU referendum

Ever since he announced his U-turn on the EU referendum in 2013, David Cameron spent his time exclusively in the company of executive officials of the British pro-Brexit press, which according to James O’Brien, are owned by wealthy tax-avoiding billionaires who felt threatened by the new EU Directive intended to bring an end to their tax-avoiding practices.


According to Press Gazette throughout 2013, 2014 and 2015, Mr Cameron and George Osborne intensified their discussions with the pro-Brexit press.

“Of the 23 meetings between October 2014 and September 2015, eight were with News Corporation executives, five with the BBC or BBC Trust and four with Telegraph Media Group.”

As someone who campaigned to remain in the EU, one might have expected that Mr Cameron would coordinate his campaign and meet with the pro-EU press, such as the Independent, Guardian, Financial Times, etc.

Instead, Mr Cameron spent most of his time in the company of the executive officials of the pro-Brexit press, as follows:

News Coorp., which controls The Times, The Sunday Times and The Sun

  1. February 2015, Mr Cameron met with Robert Thomson, News Corporation chief executive, general discussion
  2. July 2015 – Mr Cameron met with Robert Thomson, general discussion

Telegraph Media Group, which controls The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph

  1. February 2013 –  Mr Cameron met with Murdoch MacLennan, Guy Black (with John Witherow and Lionel Barber), to discuss Leveson Report
  2. April 2013 –  Mr Cameron met with Aidan Barclay, general discussion
  3. September 2013 –  Mr Cameron met with Murdoch MacLennan (with Tony Gallagher and Ian MacGregor), general discussion
  4. November 2013 –  Mr Cameron met with Sir David Barclay, Telegraph owner, dinner
  5. May 2014 –  Mr Cameron met with Aidan Barclay, general discussion
  6. October 2014 – Mr Cameron met with Aidan Barclay (with Fizzy Barclay), dinner
  7. January 2015 –  Mr Cameron met with Aidan Barclay, general discussion

Express newspapers, which controls the Daily Star and Daily Express

  1. October 2013 –  Mr Cameron met with Richard Desmond, general discussion
  2. January 2015 –  Mr Cameron met with Richard Desmond, general discussion

Daily Mail

  1. October 2014 –  Mr Cameron met with Lord Rothermere (with Paul Dacre), chairman and owner of Daily Mail and General Trust, dinner

The tax avoidance scam behind Brexit is also emphasized by James O’Brian:

“Then we come back to Britain where he have voted to undertake Brexit in large part at the behest of non-domiciled billionaires like Lord Ashcroft and the two brothers who own the Telegraph, who have their own Channel Island. They also own the Ritz.”

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/hear-tax-avoidance-avoiders-papers/

David Cameron is a classic Jekyll & Hyde example, publicly campaigning to remain in the EU and secretly spending most of his time with people who campaigned to leave the EU.

On March 25th of 2015, Members of European Parliament representing Mr Cameron’s party, UKIP and DUP voted against EU’s plans to crack down on corporate tax-dodging, by making companies report where they make their profits and pay taxes.

“From Britain, Conservative, UKIP, and DUP MEPs voted against the report, though many did not show up or not vote.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/these-are-the-british-meps-who-voted-against-plans-to-crack-down-on-corporate-tax-evasion-a6982271.html

Even Mr Farage’s UKIP, the party who rambled on as being the only UK party to speak out for Britain’s little people, in the European Parliament, instead of the people they pledged to represent, they voted to protect the vested interests of the wealthy elite, who refuse to pay their tax contributions.

Apparently, Mr Farage also tried to avoid paying his taxes through an offshore trust fund.

“The 49-year-old paid a tax adviser to create the Farage Family Educational Trust 1654 in the tax haven – which he intended to channel funds through.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ukip-leader-nigel-farage-admits-1972988

Reflecting on Supreme Court’s decision that the British Parliament must decide whether or not to trigger Article 50, Mr Farage revealed the crucial aspect of his Brexit campaign, stating:

“Well, we would be half-Brexiting is my guess – is that legally we may get out of some aspects of EU membership, but if we stay in the single market, we finish up with all our businesses being regulated somewhere else and indeed a court in Luxembourg that can overrule our own Supreme Court and if that happens it will a supreme act of betrayal.”

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37861487

The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg is responsible for ensuring that EU directives are interpreted and applied in the same way in every member state, including EU’s Anti Tax Avoidance Directive.

For comprehensive insights on the tax avoidance scam driving the UK out of the EU, please visit Nolan Jazimreg’s other site:

Tax-dodgers are greedy crooks who will eventually receive long imprisonment for robbing their nation, but only in the UK, most of them are rewarded with noble titles, Lord, Dame, Sir, etc.

_________

Not to miss out on future posts, you could follow me on:

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/The-Inconvenient-Truth-102332134573699/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/NolanJazimreg

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/nolanjazimreg/

Here is a sneak preview of the opening chapter of Nolan Jazimreg’s “The Inconvenient Truth”:

Will Boris Johnson deliver Brexit on 31 October to avoid the transposition of the EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive into British law?

Will Boris Johnson deliver Brexit on 31 October to avoid the transposition of the EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive into British law?

Will Boris Johnson deliver Brexit on 31 October to avoid the transposition of the EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive into British law?

Boris Johnson admits that due the EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive and European Court of Justice he can't protec tax dodging practices in the UK

Boris Johnson is keen to break the British law and deliver Brexit on 31 October, because if the UK doesn’t leave the EU before December, then the British government has to adopt new regulating laws to complete the full transposition of the EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive!


Why is Boris rushing the UK out of the EU on 31 October?

Boris Johnson claimed that he would rather ‘die in a ditch’ than request an article 50 extension before 31 October! 

In fact, as the this article explains, Boris Johnson faces a tough Brexit dilemma:

  • Die in a ditch without delivering Brexit on 31 October; or
  • Die in prison for delivering Brexit on 31 October,

Johnson hoped to have an early general election, but after a majority of MPs declined to support his motion, a No. 10 spokesman attacked Jeremy Corbyn, saying:

“Jeremy Corbyn has voted to wreck the negotiations, to delay Brexit until 2020 at least, to hand over billions if Brussels demands it, and to stop the public having a vote until after Brexit is delayed again. Corbyn does not trust the people. He wants to cancel the referendum result and stop the people having a say. The Prime Minister trusts the people and thinks they should decide who goes to Brussels on 17 October to negotiate – and he will get us out on 31 October with or without a deal.”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7434881/Emily-Thornberry-confirms-Labour-block-early-general-election-Monday.html

Whilst the No. 10 spokesman raises the issue of handing “over billions if Brussels demands it”, he failed to mention the tiny detail that if the UK doesn’t leave before the 1 January 2020, then the British government has to transpose the EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive into the British law, thus enabling the British government to generate an additional £20 billions a year from tax-dodgers!

If Brexit isn’t delivered before 2020, then the UK has to transpose the EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive into British law!

On 29 May 2017, the European Council adopted the amended anti-tax avoidance directive, the amended anti-tax avoidance directive, introducing the rules to tackle hybrid mismatches with the tax systems of countries outside the EU, which obliges its member states to implement the directive into their national law by 1 January 2020.

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/anti-tax-avoidance-package/

This is also confirmed by Her Majesty’s Treasury, which confirmed that by 01 January 2020, the British government has to transpose the EU’s Anti Tax Avoidance measures into British law.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/548794/response/1319005/attach/html/3/Scan.pdf.html

Therefore, unless Boris Johnson manages to deliver Brexit well before 01 January 2020, the Brexiteers’ tax avoidance con will be dead, because once the EU measures are enacted, it takes a courageous politician to propose or vote in favour of their removal!

The EU is already aware of the British drive to protect the tax-dodging practices from the EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive!

German Greens MEP Sven Giegold said: 

“Brexit must become an exit from British tax dumping. The rejection of the Brexit agreement by the British House of Commons has made the modalities of the Brexit even more incalculable. However, it is clear that any future agreement between Britain and the EU must put an end to tax havens in the UK’s overseas territories. The practice of zero tax on company profits in essentially all British overseas territories must no longer be exploited for international tax dodging.”

https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/news/uk-tax-reform-must-be-condition-eu-post-brexit-trade-accord-say-meps

Dutch deputy prime minister, Lodewijk Asscher who happens to be Dutch Labour (PvdA) party leader, also issued a stark warning to the British government:

“If you and I pay taxes, so should the large enterprises. Let’s fight the race to the bottom for profits taxation together which threatens to come into existence if it is up to the Conservative UK government. This will affect all Europeans, as it deteriorates our support for our social security system and leaves ordinary people to bear the costs. This is why I propose to come to a new trade agreement with Great Britain, but only if we can agree firmly upon tackling tax avoidance and stopping the fiscal race to the bottom.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/14/netherlands-will-block-eu-deal-with-uk-without-tax-avoidance-measures

Therefore, if Boris Johnson fails to deliver Brexit before 2020, the British tax-dodging elite, including the Russians who supported the Leave campaign could no longer avoid paying their taxes !

More information on Brexit’s tax avoidance scam is provided in the link below:

The European Commission’s letter on UK’s Controlled Foreign Companies policy that Brexiteers don’t want you to read

The European Commission’s letter on UK’s Controlled Foreign Companies policy that Brexiteers don’t want you to read

The European Commission’s letter on UK’s Controlled Foreign Companies policy that Brexiteers don’t want you to read

The Dutch deputy PM Lodewijk Asscher on post-Brexit EU trade deal rejects a Brexit deal without a firm commitment to tackle tax avoidance

According to the European Commission, the UK tax legislation on Controlled Foreign Companies (CFC) is not compliant with the scheme’s compatibility with the internal market.

Following EU’s decision to combat tax avoidance within its member states, the European Commission demanded from the British government information regarding the legislative framework that prevents Controlled Foreign Companies (CFC) from avoiding tax through profit shifting and found that the UK tax legislation is not compliant with scheme’s compatibility with the internal market.

On 26 April 2013, the Commission requested the UK authorities to provide information on the reform of its Controlled Foreign Company rules that had entered into force on 1 January 2013;

On 11 March 2014, the Commission requested additional information from the UK authorities on the non-statutory CFC-clearances granted based on the reformed CFC rules;

On 4 June 2015, further specific information was requested on certain individual non-statutory CFC-clearances related to the reformed CFC provisions.

A final request for information was sent on 19 December 2016.

The UK government provided all the requested information to the European Commission.

Following extensive correspondence and review of the British legislation, on the 26 December 2017, the European Commission expressed its doubts regarding the UK’s “scheme compatibility with the internal market”.

Here’s the European Comission’s full conclusion:
“In light of the foregoing considerations, the Commission’s preliminary view is that Chapter 9 (“Exemptions for profits from qualifying loan relationships”) effective as of 1 January 2013 seems to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU and the Commission has doubts at this stage as to the scheme`s compatibility with the internal market. The Commission has therefore decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU with respect to that measure and requests the UK to submit its comments within one month of the date of receipt of this letter. The Commission wishes to remind the UK authorities that Article 108(3) TFEU has suspensory effect, and would draw attention to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/158986, which provides that all unlawful aid may be recovered from the recipients. The Commission warns the UK that it will inform interested parties by publishing this letter and a meaningful summary of it in the Official Journal of the European Union. It will also inform interested parties in the EFTA countries which are signatories to the EEA Agreement, by publishing a notice in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, and will inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority by sending a copy of this letter. All such interested parties will be invited to submit their comments within one month of the date of such publication.”

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/271690/271690_1940938_12_2.pdf

Therefore, according to the European Commission, the UK’s Controlled Foreign Company rules that aim to combat tax-avoidance are based on individual interpretations, rather than the legal one!

The European Commission’s verdict is based on the fact that the UK offers preferential state-aided tax preferential treatments to certain companies that generate a certain profit, which in effect, facilitates tax avoidance the UK:
“(89) At this stage, the Commission has not been able to identify any grounds for justifying the preferential treatment granted by the Group Financing Exemption that could be said to derive directly from the intrinsic, basic or guiding principles of the reference system or that is the result of inherent mechanisms necessary for the functioning and effectiveness of the UK CFC regime73 . At this stage, there appears to be no justification within the reference system why (deemed) nontrading finance profits meeting the objective tests given under Chapters 5 should not be considered as artificially diverted if derived from non-UK group companies.” 

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/271690/271690_1940938_12_2.pdf

This means that while hard-working British people will be subjected to full taxes in post-Brexit Britain, while wealthy owners and shareholders of foreign companies don’t have to without Controlled Foreign Company!

The European Commission’s letter provides the answer to why the Russians funded the leave campaign, and why Jacob Rees-Mogg moved its investment fund to Ireland ahead of Britain’s exit from the EU, because, under the current UK law, foreign companies enjoy preferential tax treatment.

https://www.indy100.com/article/jacob-rees-mogg-brexit-tory-mp-eu-investors-london-dublin-twitter-response-8783421

Brexiteers campaigned to leave the EU so that the British people could take back control, but as this article explains, it appears that in post-Brexit Britain, rather than the British people, the foreign companies will be controlling the UK!

Watch Nigel Farage condemn the EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive at the EU Parliament

Watch Nigel Farage condemn the EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive at the EU Parliament

Watch Nigel Farage condemn the EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive at the EU Parliament

Watch-Nigel-Farage-defend-British-tax-dodging-practices-by-condemning-the-EU-Anti-Tax-Avoidance-Directive-at-the-EU-Parliament-for-driving-a-wedge-between-UK-and-British-havens

For someone who complained about the overcrowded hospitals and schools throughout his Brexit campaign, portraying himself to be on the side of “the little people”, it does seem strange that Nigel Farage and his UKIP MEPs happen to have continuously protected the vested interest of the tax-avoiding companies rather than the British hard-working people, whom he claimed to represent.


WHY THE NIGEL FARAGE’S SUDDEN RELUCTANCE TO SUBJECT BRITISH BUSINESSES TO ECJ’S RULINGS?

After the Supreme Court ruled that it’s up to the Parliament and not the government to trigger Article 50, Nigel Farage revealed the pivotal aspect of his Brexit campaign:
“Well, we would be half-Brexiting is my guess – is that legally we may get out of some aspects of EU membership, but if we stay in the single market, we finish up with all our businesses being regulated somewhere else and indeed a court in Luxembourg that can overrule our own Supreme Court and if that happens it will a supreme act of betrayal.”

It seems that Mr Farage’s primary Brexit aim is the protection of British businesses from Luxembourg’s European Court of Justice (ECJ) and not immigration or the wellbeing of the struggling British working class!

When the Republic of Ireland decided to offer preferential tax rates to Apple, in August 2016, ECJ ruled that it amounted to illegal state aid as it allowed Apple to pay substantially less tax on profits recorded in Ireland than other companies.

Thanks to ECJ, which forced the Irish government to recover €13.1 plus interest of €1.2 billion, the Irish people will now enjoy improved infrastructure, public healthcare and education!

The Irish case illustrates how the ECJ is determined to ensure equality and that no company or individual enjoys preferential tax treatments, including tax-dodgers!

As of next year, the EU member states will implement its new Anti Tax Avoidance Directive and bring an end to the tax-avoiding practices by the EU citizens or businesses.

ECJ is responsible for making sure that all EU directives and regulations are implemented within its member states!

As of next year, the EU member states will implement its new Anti Tax Avoidance Directive and bring an end to the tax-avoiding practices by the EU citizens or businesses.

ECJ is responsible for making sure that all EU directives and regulations are implemented within its member states!

If the UK were to remain in the EU, in a similar way to the Apple case in Ireland, ECJ would order the British government to collect taxes from corporations, such as Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, which has channelled profits through subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda.

However, Mr Farage seems to disagree with EU’s and ECJ’s determination to enforce equality by ending the preferential treatment of individuals or companies, including tax-dodging, through the European Commission’s Anti Tax Avoidance Directive!

The European Parliament reconvened on 21 May 2013 to discuss the EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive, ahead of the European Council meeting, which was due to take place the next day.

Mr Farage defended the British tax-dodging practices and accused the EU of creating barriers between the UK, and the British tax havens through their new Anti Tax Avoidance Directive:
“There’s a great degree of unity here this morning, a common enemy: rich people, successful companies evading tax, which of course is a problem, avoiding tax, which is not illegal, but it gives this whole chamber this morning a high moral tone and, as Mr Barrasso says, it’s all about the perception of fairness. Because there is the added bonus of course that it drives a wedge between the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, and the Caymans.”


NIGEL FARAGE, A KEEN DEFENDER OF BRITISH TAX-DODGING PRACTICES

In fact, this isn’t the only time Mr Farage opposed EU’s efforts to clamp down on tax-dodging practices!

On 13 April 2016, UKIP MEPs voted against EU plans to crack down on corporate tax dodging, by forcing companies to report where they make their profits and pay taxes.

Most individuals behind the Leave campaign have been implicated in tax-dodging practices and Mr Farage is no exception because according to the Mirror, Mr Farage avoided paying his taxes by setting up an offshore fund in the Isle of Man:

  • February 2003 Farage, his brother Andrew Farage and a third director set up commodity trading firm Farage Limited.
  • August 2003 A document filed at Companies House stated that Nigel Farage owned no shares in Farage Limited and the Farage Family Educational Trust 1654 owned 33 shares.
  • May 2004 Another document filed at Companies House stated that Nigel Farage owned 33 shares in Farage Limited and the Farage Family Educational Trust owned none.
  • October 2004 Farage was appointed company secretary of Farage Limited.
  • February 2006 Farage resigned as director of Farage Limited but remained as company secretary.
  • February 2011 Nigel Farage resigned as company secretary of Farage Limited.
  • March 2011 HM Revenue & Customs filed a petition at the High Court to wind up Farage Limited.
  • July 2011 Farage Limited went into a “voluntary arrangement” to pay off its debts by 2017.

Mr Farage complained about the overcrowded hospitals and schools throughout his Brexit campaign, portraying himself to be on the side of “the little man” and accused Remainers of being elitist, but in fact, it was Farage the one who consistently protected the vested interest of the wealthy tax-avoiding elite rather than the British hard-working people, whom he claimed to represent. 

In 2016, Nigel Farage Ukip’s has ruled out publishing his tax return in response to increased interest in the tax affairs high profile politicians.

When faced with questions from MEPs over offshore tax haven links, Farage’s Brexit Party chairman, Richard Tice claimed that he doesn’t know who’s behind offshore firms that own a large stake in his family business.

Therefore, our public services aren’t overstretched because of tax-paying EU immigrants, but because of tax-dodging Brexiteers, such as Nigel Farage and Richard Tice, who refuse to pay their due taxes in the UK!

As this article explains, the new EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive becoming an EU law, it’s hardly surprising why tax-dodging Brexiteers opposed EU laws and ECJ, the EU court responsible for ensuring that EU laws, including the new anti-tax avoidance measures, are implemented among all its member states.

Boris Johnson’s contempt for the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over tax-dodging practices in the UK

Boris Johnson’s contempt for the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over tax-dodging practices in the UK

Boris Johnson’s contempt for the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over tax-dodging practices in the UK

According to Boris Johnson and Downing Street any future partnership must not involve any kind of alignment or ECJ jurisdiction.

Prominent Brexiteers like Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and Jacob Rees-Mogg have repeatedly proclaimed that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) threatens the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and British courts, but declined to inform British voters that ECJ also threatens the tax-dodging practices within EU member states, similar to the Apple case in Ireland.


ALL TAX-DODGING MEDIA TYCOONS USED THEIR NEWSPAPERS TO CONVINCE THE BRITISH PUBLIC TO VOTE LEAVE

Prominent pro-Brexit newspapers are owned by tax-dodging individuals who avoid paying tax in the UK, such as:

1. The Sun newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch who avoided paying his taxes by setting up his companies in the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands.

2. The Telegraph newspaper owned by David and Frederick Barclay who avoided paying their taxes by registering as residents of Sark island, located in the Channel Island tax haven.

3. The Daily Mail newspaper owned by Lord Rothermere who avoided paying his taxes by inheriting the Daily Mail through an offshore trust set up in the Channel Island tax haven and is registered as “non-dom”.

4. The Express newspaper previously owned by Richard Desmond who avoided paying his taxes by setting up a company in a Luxembourg tax haven.

Throughout their Leave campaign, Brexiteers convinced the British public that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) infringes the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, but failed to mention how.

According to a Downing Street spokesperson:
“The PM reiterated that we wanted a broad free trade agreement covering goods and services, and co-operation in other areas. The PM was clear that the UK would not extend the implementation period beyond December 31st, 2020; and that any future partnership must not involve any kind of alignment or ECJ jurisdiction. He said the UK would also maintain control of UK fishing waters and our immigration system.”


THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE UK AND THE EU ANTI-TAX AVOIDANCE MEASURES

Prominent Brexiteers like Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and Jacob Rees-Mogg have repeatedly proclaimed that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) threatens the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and British courts!

Regrettably, as this article explains, before the EU referendum, they declined to inform British voters that ECJ threatens the tax-dodging practices within EU member states, such as the Apple case in Ireland.

The “Exit Taxation” rules set out in Article 5 of EU’s Anti Tax Avoidance Directive are similar to the ones set out in the British law.

Nonetheless, you’ll discover there are two minor details that distinguish the UK “Exit Taxation” from the EU “Exit Taxation”, which terrified the British tax-dodging elite and it has to do with the difference between their territorial jurisdictions.

Technically, the British tax havens are still considered British, therefore if someone avoided paying their taxes by transferring their capital gains there, they aren’t obliged to pay the TCGA 1992’s exit charge, because their assets haven’t left the British territory.

The British overseas territories are part of Great Britain, but not part of the EU, therefore, if the UK remained in the EU, the EU exit tax would have been collected before they get transferred to the British offshore tax havens, which are not part of the EU!

THE BREXITEERS’ SUDDEN HATRED FOR THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE

The other difference between the UK and the EU anti-tax avoidance measures is that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the new EU directive, which is why prominent Brexiteers are desperate to keep it out of the UK!

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/theresa-mays-our-future-partnership-speech-in-full/

According to the BBC:

“The EU court in Luxembourg interprets EU law to make sure it is applied in the same way in all EU countries and settles legal disputes between national governments and EU institutions. Member states are required to comply with the court’s rulings, and may be fined if they do not do so.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35630757

After all, it was ECJ that ordered Ireland to recover €13.1 billion in tax from Apple and ECJ, and thank to this institution, the Irish people will be enjoying improved infrastructure, public healthcare and education!

Starting from the year 2019, the ECJ will ensure that all EU member states implement its new Anti Tax Avoidance Directive and bring an end to the tax-avoiding practices by the EU citizens or businesses.

After the Supreme Court’s ruling that it’s up to the Parliament and not the government to trigger Article 50, Nigel Farage revealed the pivotal aspect of his Brexit campaign, which involves ECJ:

“Well, we would be half-Brexiting is my guess – is that legally we may get out of some aspects of EU membership, but if we stay in the single market, we finish up with all our businesses being regulated somewhere else and indeed a court in Luxembourg that can overrule our own Supreme Court and if that happens it will a supreme act of betrayal.”

In her Brexit speech, Prime Minister May confirmed that she is going to fulfil Mr Farage’s ambition of freeing Great Britain from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg:

“The second hard fact is that even after we have left the jurisdiction of the ECJ, EU law and the decisions of the ECJ will continue to affect us… But, in the future, the EU treaties and hence EU law will no longer apply in the UK.”

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/theresa-mays-our-future-partnership-speech-in-full/

Upon this, Boris Johnson victoriously claimed that:
“A huge intellectual effort went into creating this language by which we could somehow ensure that… our courts, our Supreme Court, our House of Commons, could overturn judgements of the European Court of Justice if we felt, if Britain felt, that they were in some way capricious or if they were going beyond the Treaty.”

Boris Johnson confirmed that due to the new EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive, Tory Brexiteers’ vision for the UK as a global tax haven can’t be delivered:
“We could do free ports, if the UK leaves the European Union as scheduled on 31 October. It would be a massive boost to this economy, but only once we come out. I will have about six of them, by the way. We should definitely be doing freeports and tax-free zones. They have delivered around the world. I think there are around 130 countries that have them. We don’t, because of our membership of the EU. And there are plainly areas that would benefit from them.”

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1149795/tory-leadership-news-boris-johnson-latest-jeremy-hunt-free-port-brexit

The reason behind the Russian donations to the Leave.EU campaign

The reason behind the Russian donations to the Leave.EU campaign

The reason behind the Russian donations to the Leave.EU campaign

Margaret Hodge reveals the reason behind Russian donations to the Leave.EU campaign

This Tory government is trying to deliver a no-deal Brexit and turn the UK into the biggest tax haven on earth, which is the sole reason behind Russian donations to the Leave.EU campaign.


According to the Guardian, Arron Banks is under investigation over alleged £8m Russian donations to the Leave.EU campaign, he might have received from Russians to deliver Brexit:
“The investigation centres on allegations the £8m provided to the campaign involved money from a “non-qualifying or impermissible company” based in the Isle of Man, and that Banks, Bilney and others involved in BFTC, Leave.EU and others sought to cover up the origin of the funding.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/01/arron-banks-referred-to-agency-over-suspected-offences-in-brexit-campaign

According to the Guardian, Alexander Udod, a Russian diplomat who invited Banks to meet the ambassador at his Kensington mansion, but also the Moscow businessman Siman Povarenkin, who was trialed for tax-avoiding offences.

However, according to Washington Post, the sources of Banks’ funding behind his donations to the Leave.EU can’t be traced because of his offshore registered companies:
“Thanks to Banks’s extensive use of tax havens and shell companies, it has never been entirely clear where all of that money came from — or even whether all of it was really his. Some of it, he says, comes from an insurance company he owns. Some comes, supposedly, from “diamond mines.” All of it is spread among dozens of companies based in Gibraltar, the British Virgin Islands and the Isle of Man, according to documents revealed in the Panama Papers, among other things, as well as Britain.”

According to Reuters, in 2011, wealthy Russian tax-dodgers avoided paying up to $221bn of their due taxes, which accounts for at least 43.8% of the Russian GDP.

According to the IMF, nearly five times as much Russian money is invested in the British Overseas Territories (BOTs) compared to their assets held in the UK, accounting to at least £34 billion of Russian money is currently invested in the BOTs or 12% of all Russian money invested outside Russia.

Russian tax avoidance was also reiterated by Margaret Hodge, a Labour MP who called for transparency on British tax havens:
“We would know who owns what and where and we would be able to follow the money. We would be able to root out corruption and crime. In the last 10 years, £68bn flowed out of Russia into the overseas territories because they are secret jurisdictions. That is seven times as much money as has come into the UK.”

The United Kingdom is the world’s most significant player when it comes to corporate tax-dodging because out of the top 10 countries that allow multinationals to avoid paying billions in tax on their profits, four are British overseas territories and this is the reason Russian donations to the Leave.EU campaign.

According to an index published by the Tax Justice Network , the United Kingdom is actually by far the world’s biggest facilitator of corporate tax dodging, helping funnel hundreds of billions of dollars away from the tax man, which is probably why Arron Banks received Russian donations to the Leave.EU campaign.

British overseas territories constitute 25% of the top 10 countries that allows multinationals to avoid paying billions in tax on their profit, which have “single-handedly” managed to create global corporate tax-dodging system which loses an estimated £395bn to avoidance.

The British tax haven territories are responsible for around a third of the world’s corporate tax avoidance risk, mounting up to almost five time the amount of the next greatest contributor, the Netherlands.

The UK managed to break down the global corporate tax system with an estimated £395bn of taxes lost to tax-avoiding practices.

The Tax Justice Network lists the world’s top ten ranked tax havens, in which British tax havens rank the highest:

1 The British Virgin Islands;

2 Bermuda;

3 Cayman Islands;

4 Netherlands;

5 Switzerland;

6 Luxembourg;

7 Jersey;

8 Singapore;

9 Bahamas;

10 Hong Kong.

According to the Independent, the British affiliated tax havens are responsible for around a third of the world’s corporate tax avoidance risk:

“The amount dodged globally each year is more than three times the NHS budget or roughly equivalent to the entire Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Belgium.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-corporate-tax-avoidance-havens-justice-network-dodging-a8933661.html?fbclid=IwAR1jj4XXGbhNbTgyck5uKsASuhJkk40X437Yq3qhg2u0sOpJ7_FsLO9VTDE

Under the current Tory government, the UK is gradually turning into a tax haven, it is hardly surprising that the Russian oligarchs supported the Leave campaign!

If the UK remained in the EU, then British government would have had to implement the EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive, which would bring an end to tax-dodging practices by the wealthy Russian individuals or businesses residing or operating in the UK, hence the Russian donations to the Leave.EU campaign.

Tax-dodgers are greedy crooks who will eventually receive long imprisonment for robbing their nation, but in the UK, most of them are rewarded with noble titles, Lord, Dame, Sir, etc.

Watch David Cameron describe the EU Financial Transaction Tax as madness

Watch David Cameron describe the EU Financial Transaction Tax as madness

Watch David Cameron describe the EU Financial Transaction Tax as madness

David Cameron calls EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive and EU financial tax madness

If the UK wants to leave the EU with a deal, then the British government must match Europe’s standards on tax transparency and bring an end to tax-dodging practices, which is why the current Tory government want to deliver a no-deal Brexit!


In January 2012, David Cameron sent a scathing message to European leaders, urging them not to implement the proposed financial transaction tax describing it as “madness”.

Speaking about EU’s proposed financial transaction at the World Economic Forum in Davos, David Cameron called the EU financial transaction tax as madness, conceding that:

“By taking bold decisions to get to grips with the debt, Britain has shown it is possible to earn credibility and get ahead of the markets… Even to be considering this at a time when we are struggling to get our economies growing is quite simply madness… Let me be clear. To those who think that not signing the treaty means Britain is somehow walking away from Europe let me tell you, nothing could be further from the truth,” he said. “Britain is part of the European Union. Not by default but by choice.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/cameron-eu-financial-tax-would-be-madness-6295396.html

Greens/EFA Member of the European Parliament expressed their concerns regarding the UK’s role in what was called “financial secrecy services”, which are vital to tax-dodging practices, demanding from the 27-strong EU bloc should challenge the UK over its tax haven activities after it leaves the EU to match Europe’s standards on what they call “tax transparency.”

At a parliamentary hearing organised by the Greens/EFA group, MEPs urged the EU to prevent the UK from “evolving towards a tax haven on the EU’s doorstep.

UK Greens MEP Molly Scott Cato, who represents the South West England and Gibraltar, was among those who attended the conference in Parliament, whereby she declared:

‘With some of the key Brexit players having interests offshore there is a real risk to the European Union if they are left in control of British finance policy after Brexit. The Greens in Europe will insist that the global tax avoidance industry centred in the City cannot be allowed into the EU through the backdrop… Matching Europe’s standards on tax transparency must be a condition of any future trade deal.”

https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/news/uk-tax-reform-must-be-condition-eu-post-brexit-trade-accord-say-meps

Another participant, German Greens MEP Sven Giegold said:

“It is clear that any future agreement between Britain and the EU must put an end to tax havens in the UK’s overseas territories. The practice of zero tax on company profits in essentially all British overseas territories must no longer be exploited for international tax dodging. In a future outside the EU, the UK must continue to have an effective state aid framework since this instrument can also be used to fight aggressive tax dodging. Special tax deals for non-UK residents with income abroad (“non-dom”) are unfair tax competition and must be abolished. The EU must challenge the UK’s tax haven activities and make a reform of the tax system a condition of any future trade agreement with the UK,” he added.

https://sven-giegold.de/conference-brexit-and-tax-havens/

As “Panama Papers” revealed, half of the 240,000 shell tax-dodging companies used by the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca were incorporated in the British Virgin Islands.

Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands are also on an EU list of uncooperative tax jurisdictions.

UK’s HMRC figures from 2015-16, showed they were unable to collect nearly 6%, of tax due in Britain amounting to almost £34bn loss in tax revenues.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hmrc-annual-report-and-accounts-2015-to-2016/hmrc-annual-report-and-accounts-2015-16-executive-summary

The message from Brussels is clear!

If the UK wants to leave the EU with a deal, then the British government must match Europe’s standards on tax transparency and bring an end to tax-dodging practices, which is why the current Tory government want to deliver a no-deal Brexit!

Watch Jacob Rees-Mogg oppose EU tax policies, which aim to ensure the fiscal stability of its member states

Watch Jacob Rees-Mogg oppose EU tax policies, which aim to ensure the fiscal stability of its member states

Watch Jacob Rees-Mogg oppose EU tax policies, which aim to ensure the fiscal stability of its member states

Jacob Rees-Mogg opposed EU tax policies and Daniel Hannan admits that the purpose of ERG is to establish tax havens in the UK

While everyone appears to be confused about recent Tory Cabinet resignations over May’s Brexit Plan, Jacob Rees-Mogg’s amendments reveal that the ultimate objective of his Brexit campaign is to avert the EU’s meddling into our taxing system, tax-dodging practices and tax havens!


JACOB REES-MOGG IS A FIERCE OPPONENT OF INITIATIVES THAT AIM TO TAX THE WEALTHY ELITE!

Here’s a summary of Jacob Rees-Mogg’s speech, recently presented at Churcher’s College, Petersfield, which has been issued by European Research Group (ERG):
“Key passages were pulled out under headlines such as “The government’s tone on Brexit needs to fundamentally change”, “Close alignment [with the EU after Brexit] is unacceptable” and “The UK cannot stay in the Customs Union.”

Contrary to the initial claims by his fellow Brexiteers who didn’t reject the possibility of remaining in the Customs Union after the UK has left the EU, Jacob Rees-Mogg rejects this possibility.

Most of the British people and businesses would benefit immensely from remaining part of the Single Market and the Customs Union, however, this doesn’t apply to wealthy tax-dodging individuals or companies!

If the UK leaves the EU but remains in the Single Market or the Customs Union, then the British government would have to implement the new EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive, which is why Jacob Rees-Mogg opposed May’s Brexit Plan!

According to the Express, Jacob Rees-Mogg was furious with Theresa May because:
“BRUSSELS is planning to impose EU tax policies on the UK and its overseas territories after Britain leaves the bloc in March 2019 in a move branded a “punishment” by Jacob Rees-Mogg.”

Jacob Rees Mogg seems to disagree with EU’s efforts to make the wealthy tax-dodging elite pay their long-overdue taxes, which is why he campaigned to leave the EU.

However, the leaked documents by the European Parliament’s TAX3 secretariat revealed that May’s Brexit agreement will force the UK to align its tax policies with Brussels’ endeavours to end tax-avoiding practices because it states that:
“The objective is that the UK will abide by the tools adopted at EU level to fight tax evasion/avoidance, namely Code of Conduct on Business Taxation, Exchange of Information Directives (DAC) including Country by Country Reporting between tax authorities, Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD).”

Upon realising this, Jacob Rees-Mogg went furious, attacking the Prime Minister and the EU, siding his ERG members and British MPs to vote against Theresa May’s Brexit plan, saying:

“This is part of a punishment Brexit and only serves to reiterate why it’s so important we leave. We need to free ourselves from such an uncompetitive structure before it is too late.”

Jacob Rees-Mogg is keen on protecting the sovereignty of the tax-dodging elite from EU’s Anti Tax Avoidance Directive, which is why he proposed amendments to May’s Brexit plan, which according to him would respect “the will of the people”, by demanding the termination of any future cooperation between the British and EU tax authorities:
“The critical amendment adopted by the government on Monday stated that HM Revenue & Customs could not collect duties or VAT on goods on behalf of the European Union unless there was a reciprocal arrangement. The Brexiteers believed that would kill off the customs plan because they expect Brussels would reject such a measure.”

Oddly enough, Jacob Rees-Mogg believes that the British people, who voted to leave the EU, did so because they don’t want the EU meddling in British tax affairs, such as the British traditional tax-avoiding practices.

In fact, every time the EU tried to tax the wealthy elite, Jacob Rees-Mogg opposed them!

In 2011, EU tried to protect the financial sector from the future financial crisis by imposing a financial transactions tax on financial institutions rather than spending taxpayers’ money to bail out failing banks and Jacob Rees-Mogg opposed them, saying:

“We must be robust in opposing it and we must not let the European Union get its grubby little hands on it.”

Jacob Rees-Mogg is also the chairman of the ERG, a secret organisation that has no website, and even though its members are determining our future, their names are unknown to the British public.

In a BBC 5 live interview, Daniel Hannan, a Conservative Party politician and one of the founders of ERG, claimed that his goal when establishing the European Research Group was to turn the UK into an “offshore haven, the Hong Kong to their China”.

All the British MPs who happen to also be ERG members have continually undermined the efforts by the British government or the EU to clamp down tax-avoiding practices, by voting against them!

All ERG members voted against giving the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority duties to combat abusive tax avoidance arrangements, including by ascertaining and recording the beneficial ownership of trusts.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-04-19c.857.0

If the UK leaves the EU but remains in the single market or the customs union, then the British government would have to implement the new EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive, which is why they are so keen to leave the EU without a deal.

“THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH” – CHAPTER TEN

Completed in 90,000 words, The Inconvenient Truth is a thrilling spiritual fiction that is yearning to be published and placed on the bookstore shelves, alongside Herman Hesse’s Siddhartha.

What starts out as a tremendously benevolent effort to avert the nuclear war between Russia and the US over the largest gas reserves in the Persian Gulf unite the humankind, the Convention on the Secret of Divine Civilisation gradually becomes a devastating initiative that threatens the mere existence of the United Nations. The convention’s aim is to acquire a unifying world constitution from Alexander Kushtetuta. However, his idyllic life on the picturesque island of Cisroc ends when his country immerses into an ethnic war and his Muslim mother splits up from his Orthodox father. Alexander experiences a nervous breakdown, whereby hysterically, he condemns God and the human race, prompting social unrest across the world. Faced with ultimatums from seventy-two countries to discontinue their membership, the UN looks likely to abolish this Convention at its next General Assembly session. Six months ahead of this crucial event, Alexander experiences enlightenment, revealing profound insights into the way hatred infiltrates us and oppresses our adeptness to be happy.

This mesmerising story based on my bipolar experiences will instigate a thorough appraisal of your preconceived assumptions about happiness, freedom, democracy, religion, heaven and hell. 

Before the beginning of second part of documentary, I called Jade. It rang seven times, and it terminated the call by itself. I walked towards the orange plastic bowl placed on the kitchen worktop to check if the chicken has defrosted. Not quite there yet. So I turned around and walked towards the fridge to top-up my empty wine glass with the chilled Sancerre, hearing a ringtone from the living room. I frantically placed the cork back into the Sancerre bottle, put it back in the fridge and answered the call. It was Jade.

“Hello, Milo,” she said.

“Jade, I can’t hear you! There’s a lot of noise in the background. Is everything all right out there?”

“Wait second. I am walking away from the crowd. It’s crazy out here. There are around three-hundred-thousand people in Hyde Park, singing, dancing and kissing. Are you still watching the documentary?”

“Yes,” I replied.

“And?”

“Well, I have only seen the first part which just finished. The beginning was great – the pace was gripping and dynamic.” I shared my remarks on the documentary, seized the wine glass and drank two sips from it.

“But? There is always a “but” with you.” She laughed nervously.

“I think the end of the first part was a bit rushed. I feel that the description of the four ousted Alexanders was too vague.” I bluntly replied.

“We were told to focus primarily on the Alexander of UNESCO’s Divine Civilisations Channel 2. His life is featured in PART 2. Since two of the Alexanders are still alive today, the producers insisted that the documentary would only outline the reasons for the termination of their broadcast.” Jade explained.

“Precisely, my point. I want to know what happened to them. So, two Alexanders are now dead… Is it the drug addict?” I enquired.

“No. It was the chronic alcoholic. He died three years ago from liver cirrhosis.” Jade answered and added in a rush. “Baby I’ve gotta go back now.”

“Ok, but first please tell me what happened to the nationalist and the drug addict.” I insisted eagerly, like a little child.

“Well, isn’t it evident? The nationalist became a politician who fiercely opposed Alexander’s constitution. He is currently working as a legal officer at the Kulanjab Municipality.” Jade screamed her reply as the noise in the background began to amplify.

“And what happened to the drug addict?” I desperately persevered in my efforts to understand what happened to the one that was regarded as the ‘world’s favourite boy’.

Jade became almost inaudible, and the call terminated soon afterwards, as the documentary reappeared on the screen. I placed the wine glass on top of the old oak coffee table. Similar to he background bustling had just successfully terminated our conversation, this tiny coffee table had, on many occasions, achieved the same result.  Every time the words “old coffee table,” poured out of her mouth, it killed the mood, leading to a celibate life. You see, that table has been in my family for over fifty years. I think it fits well into our small living room, but Jade is very keen to replace it with a new one.

She browses the internet for a new coffee table and every month, presenting them to me with a pleading facial expression. The raised eyebrows and widened eyes never last too long, though. Much to her dismay, I refuse to part from the oak table. Then, her eyebrows sink into a frown and remain that way for the rest of the week as a tense silence reigns.

When Jade and I decided to move in together into a new flat, my architect friend, James insisted that I hire an interior designer to salvage our relationship. According to James, many couples are estranged by their different perceptions of the dream house. He informed me that a surprising number of couples end up divorcing, because of irreconcilable differences in their expectations regarding their new habitat. James said that compared to the costs involved in divorce proceedings, hiring an interior designer or an architect to design your new home is a sound investment. At the end of the day, it’s easier to blame the interior designer or the architect if your home fails to meet your expectations than blame to Jade or vice versa.

Obviously, we didn’t act on his advice. Last time we initiated the discussion about the coffee table; Jade got really worked up and began praising women for keeping the world’s economy alive. She reminded me that the world ought to be grateful that women exist today because if it were up to men, many businesses would have gone bust by now. Of course, I tried to prove her otherwise about our contribution to the economy, but before finishing I could finish my sentence, Jade started angrily stipulating that the industries of cars, sports, prostitution and gambling are the only ways in which men have proved to contribute to the economy in the past.  She reminded me that all the places that deprive the rights of women have weak economies. She concluded her stereotypical climax and rapidly retrieved into the bedroom without saying a word. I knew that that would be one of those nights I would spend cursing the clock in our bedroom, for its incessant ticking. My recollection of this dark time was cut short by my phone – a message from Jade containing the following: “Sorry darling. I should be home in two hours. We’ll continue our discussion over dinner. XXX.”

I went to the kitchen and pulled out a bag of salt and vinegar crisps from the overhead cupboard. The white wine is a master at getting you hungry, and I craved some snacks. So I also filled a small ceramic bowl with green marinated olives and returned to the sofa, which Jade had chosen.

_________

Not to miss out on future posts, you could follow me on:

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/The-Inconvenient-Truth-102332134573699/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/NolanJazimreg

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/nolanjazimreg/

Boris Johnson failed to trick Jeremy Corbyn into an early general election and deliver Brexit

Will Boris Johnson leave the EU without a deal and use Brexit to turn the UK into a tax haven?

Will Boris Johnson leave the EU without a deal and use Brexit to turn the UK into a tax haven?

LABOUR LEADER ACCUSSES BORIS JOHNSON AND THE CONSERVATIVES OF USING BREXIT TO TURN THE UK INTO A TAX HAVEN

It appears that Boris Johnson’s government is keen to create tax-free ports in the UK, which is why he is determined to leave the EU without a deal and use Brexit to turn the UK into a tax haven.


JEREMY CORBYN ACCUSED THE CONSERVATIVES OF USING BREXIT TO TURN THE UK INTO A TAX HAVEN

Similar to this article, which highlights that Brexit is a tax avoidance scam perpetrated by Tory Brexiters, in 2017, Jeremy Corbyn accused the Conservatives of using Brexit to turn the UK into a tax haven:
“Britain is going to change as a result of leaving the European Union. The question is how. The Conservatives want to use Brexit to turn our country into a low wage tax haven.”

In the past, UK has enacted laws to exempts UK’s wealthy elite from paying their due taxes by setting up tax havens in British Overseas Territories, depriving the British people of their national wealth, such as public funds.

Hard-working British people are forced to pay their taxes, while members of the wealthy elite, such as Hugh Grosvenor, 7th Duke of Westminster, a billionaire landowner of the estate that sprawls across the pricey London neighbourhoods of Mayfair and Belgravia, avoid paying due taxes by setting up an offshore trust.

Hugh Grosvenor, 7th Duke of Westminster who inherited his father’s £9bn worth estate should have paid his inheritance tax and increase the British national wealth by £4.4bn but declined to do so, because the British government and courts aren’t keen on ending tax-avoiding practices in the UK!

If the British government was committed to ending tax-avoiding practices in the UK, then the British people wouldn’t undergo harsh austerity measures or Brexit, which is why when the European Commission presented the first draft of its Anti Tax Avoidance Directive, Boris Johnson and his Ministers campaigned to leave the EU to consequently preserving the British way of life, which is tax avoidance by the wealthy elite!


TORY VISION OF USING BREXIT TO TURN THE UK INTO A TAX HAVEN

As early as 2011, prominent Tory Brexiteer, Jacob Rees-Mogg oppossed the EU Financial Transaction Tax, expressing his admiration for the Singapoore tax haven:

This was reiterated again in 2012 by the then Tory treasurer, Lord Stanley Fink who called for tax law changes that would turn the UK into a tax haven, stating:
“I don’t see why the UK should not compete for jobs that at present are going to the Cayman Islands. I lobbied George Osborne when the Tories were in opposition. I have long felt that the British government loses jobs to tax havens by allowing the Revenue to have these rather archaic rules.”

Lord Stanley Fink was a director of three firms which have subsidiaries or a parent company in the Cayman Islands, Luxembourg and Guernsey, and is renowned for being the godfather of the hedge fund industry, amassing to an estimated personal fortune of £180m.

Jacob Rees-Mogg’s hedge fund, Somerset Capital Management, is managed via subsidiaries in the tax havens of the Cayman Islands and Singapore and according to the Guardian, the prominent Tory Brexiteer and European Research Group (ERG) member defended his tax-dodging practices by using such tax havens by saying:
“I do not believe people have any obligation to pay more tax than the law requires.”

Sharing his vision for the post-Brexit UK, Mr Johnson hinted that if he becomes British Prime Minister, he’ll turn parts of the UK into Singapore-style tax-free zones, otherwise known as Free Ports, areas where taxes and tariffs do not apply, which means you can import goods, store them and re-export them without pestering UK tax collectors.

Eighteen months after Jeremy Corbyn accused the Tories of using Brexit to turn the UK into a tax haven, Boris Johnson confirmed that his opponent was right again by claiming that he favours low tax regimes:
“We could do free ports, if the UK leaves the European Union as scheduled on 31 October. It would be a massive boost to this economy, but only once we come out. I will have about six of them, by the way. We should definitely be doing freeports and tax-free zones.”

Even Boris Johnson confirmed that due to the new EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive, Tory Brexiteers can’t turn the UK into a global tax haven, stating:
“I think there are around 130 countries that have them. We don’t, because of our membership of the EU. And there are plainly areas that would benefit from them.”

The British Prime Minister and his pro-Brexit cabinet ministers campaigned to leave the EU because, according to them, that’s the only way to restore the sovereignty of the British Parliament, but it seems that Brexit isn’t about the sovereignty of the British Parliament because if that was the case, Boris Johnson would have never even considered proroguing it!

Therefore, the leave campaign is a Tory Brexiters orchestrated tax avoidance scam, which needs Brexit to turn the UK into a tax haven and protect the British wealthy tax-dodgers from the EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive and ECJ!

For detailed insights about how the new EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive led to Tory Brexiteers’ urge to use Brexit to turn the UK into a tax haven, please read this post

Tory Brexiteers endorsed Brexit after Brussels decided to end tax-avoiding practices within EU member states

Tory Brexiteers endorsed Brexit after Brussels decided to end tax-avoiding practices within EU member states

Tory Brexiteers endorsed Brexit after Brussels decided to end tax-avoiding practices within EU member states

David Cameron announced that he wants to exempt British companies from EU Directives such as Anti Tax Avoidance Directive which led to EU referendum and Brexit

The biggest advantage of remaining in the EU is the new Anti Tax Avoidance Directive endorsed by Brussels, which would bring an end to ongoing tax-dodging practices, however, throughout his EU referendum campaign David Cameron declined to convey this to British and this why we ended up with Brexit.


To convince the British people to vote remain, Mr Cameron should have informed them that by staying in the EU, without Brexit his government would have had to implement EU’s Anti Tax Avoidance Directive by enacting new laws that would ensure the collection of due taxes from everyone, including our tax-dodging billionaires.

However, throughout his political career, Mr Cameron wasn’t keen on ending extreme austerity measures by collecting taxes from the wealthy elite registered in tax havens.

Every time the EU undertook momentous actions to end tax-avoidance amongst its member states, Mr Cameron responded by issuing his momentous announcements regarding the EU referendum.

In January of 2013, Brussels produced a concrete action plan for a new EU directive that would end tax-avoiding practices amongst its member states, and within a month, Mr Cameron confirmed that he favours an EU-referendum, stating:

“And I want us to be pushing to exempt Europe’s smallest entrepreneurial companies from more EU Directives.”

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/eu-speech-at-bloomberg

Within that year, Mr Cameron undertook his first push to exempt Europe’s smallest entrepreneurial companies from more EU Directives, by requesting from the President of the European Council to exclude offshore trusts from the EU’s new Anti Tax  Avoidance Directive.

“David Cameron intervened personally to prevent offshore trusts from being dragged into an EU-wide crackdown on tax avoidance, it has emerged. In a 2013 letter to the then president of the European council, Herman Van Rompuy, the prime minister said that trusts should not automatically be subject to the same transparency requirements as companies.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/07/david-cameron-offshore-trusts-eu-tax-crackdown-2013

Mr Cameron announced the date for the EU referendum soon after the exact details of the EU’s AntiTax Avoidance Directive were revealed.

The European Commission presented its proposal for the AntiTax Avoidance Directive on January 28th of 2016, and within a month, Mr Cameron announced the date for the EU referendum.

Shortly afterwards, Theresa Villiers, Priti Patel, Michael Gove, Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Grayling, and John Whittingdale appeared at the Vote Leave headquarters, holding a banner with a slogan “Let’s take back control”. Speaking on behalf of six Tory Brexiteers, Grayling explained that they want to restore the sovereignty of the British nation.

Backed by The SunDaily MailSunday Times, Daily Express and Telegraph, which are owned by tax-avoiding media tycoons, Tory Brexiteers managed to protect the sovereignty of our wealthy tax-dodgers from the new EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive by securing sufficient Leave votes.

At Prime Minister’s Questions, Mr Cameron defended the offshore low tax rates, claiming:

“We’re happy to support blacklists but we don’t think we should draw up a blacklist solely on the basis of a territory raising a low tax rate – we don’t think that’s the right approach.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/international-blacklist-of-tax-havens-will-be-drawn-up-george-osborne-announces-a6986956.html

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country… It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”

Edward L. Bernays

In fact, ever since he announced his U-turn on the EU-referendum in 2013, Mr Cameron spent his time exclusively in the company of executive officials of the British pro-Brexit press, which are owned by wealthy tax-avoiding billionaires who felt threatened by the new EU Directive intended to bring an end to their tax avoiding practices.

According to Press Gazette throughout 2013, 2014 and 2015, Mr Cameron and George Osborne intensified their discussions with the pro-Brexit press.

“Of the 23 meetings between October 2014 and September 2015, eight were with News Corporation executives, five with the BBC or BBC Trust and four with Telegraph Media Group.”

As someone who campaigned to remain in the EU, one might have expected that Mr Cameron would coordinate his campaign and meet with the pro-EU press, such as the Independent, Guardian, Financial Times, etc. Instead, Mr Cameron spent most of his time in the company of the executive officials of the pro-Brexit press, as follows:

News Coorp., which controls The Times, The Sunday Times and The Sun

  1. February 2015, Mr Cameron met with Robert Thomson, News Corporation chief executive, general discussion
  2. July 2015 – Mr Cameron met with Robert Thomson, general discussion

Telegraph Media Group, which controls The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph

  1. February 2013 –  Mr Cameron met with Murdoch MacLennan, Guy Black (with John Witherow and Lionel Barber), to discuss Leveson Report
  2. April 2013 –  Mr Cameron met with Aidan Barclay, general discussion
  3. September 2013 –  Mr Cameron met with Murdoch MacLennan (with Tony Gallagher and Ian MacGregor), general discussion
  4. November 2013 –  Mr Cameron met with Sir David Barclay, Telegraph owner, dinner
  5. May 2014 –  Mr Cameron met with Aidan Barclay, general discussion
  6. October 2014 – Mr Cameron met with Aidan Barclay (with Fizzy Barclay), dinner
  7. January 2015 –  Mr Cameron met with Aidan Barclay, general discussion

Express newspapers, which controls the Daily Star and Daily Express

  1. October 2013 –  Mr Cameron met with Richard Desmond, general discussion
  2. January 2015 –  Mr Cameron met with Richard Desmond, general discussion

Daily Mail

  1. October 2014 –  Mr Cameron met with Lord Rothermere (with Paul Dacre), chairman and owner of Daily Mail and General Trust, dinner

David Cameron is a classic Jekyll and Hyde example, publicly campaigning to remain in the EU and secretly spending time with people who campaigned to leave the EU.

On March 25th of 2015, Members of European Parliament representing Mr Cameron’s party, UKIP and DUP voted against EU’s plans to crack down on corporate tax-dodging, by making companies report where they make their profits and pay taxes.

“From Britain, Conservative, UKIP, and DUP MEPs voted against the report, though many did not show up or not vote.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/these-are-the-british-meps-who-voted-against-plans-to-crack-down-on-corporate-tax-evasion-a6982271.html

Even Mr Farage’s UKIP, the party who rambled on as being the only UK party to speak out for Britain’s little people, in the European Parliament, instead of the people they pledged to represent, they voted to protect the vested interests of the wealthy elite, who refuse to pay their tax contributions.

Apparently, Mr Farage also tried to avoid paying his taxes through an offshore trust fund.

“The 49-year-old paid a tax adviser to create the Farage Family Educational Trust 1654 in the tax haven – which he intended to channel funds through.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ukip-leader-nigel-farage-admits-1972988

Reflecting on Supreme Court’s decision that the British Parliament must decide whether or not to trigger Article 50, Mr Farage revealed the crucial aspect of his Brexit campaign, stating:

“Well, we would be half-Brexiting is my guess – is that legally we may get out of some aspects of EU membership, but if we stay in the single market, we finish up with all our businesses being regulated somewhere else and indeed a court in Luxembourg that can overrule our own Supreme Court and if that happens it will a supreme act of betrayal.”

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37861487

The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg is responsible for ensuring that EU directives are interpreted and applied in the same way in every member state, including EU’s Anti Tax Avoidance Directive.

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/126658.pdf

Of course, Brexiteers continue to argue that the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, attempted to block EU’s clampdown on tax avoidance.

However, once he became the President of the European Commission in 2013, Juncker’s institution has been actively engaged in drafting new legal framework to tackle the increasing and aggressive tax avoidance.

Compared to the British tax havens that are mostly used by the British greedy wealthy elite, Luxembourg serves as a tax haven for non-EU citizens and businesses.

Therefore, the EU’s new Anti Tax Avoidance Directive will not have much impact in Luxembourg or Malta, because it targets only individuals or businesses that generate profits from one of their member states.

In case you are still wondering about Mr Farage’s ambition, here’s what he had to say on the EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive at the EU Parliament and the way he defended tax avoidance of the wealthy Brits in the UK:

David Cameron failed to inform the British voters of the biggest advantage of staying, which is the EU’s new Anti Tax Avoidance Directive, because Tories are trying to deliver a no-deal Brexit and turn the UK into the biggest tax haven on planet earth!

The tendency of the British establishment to turn the UK into a Tax haven was also reiterated by Jeremy Corbyn:

“Britain is going to change as a result of leaving the European Union. The question is how. The Conservatives want to use Brexit to turn our country into a low wage tax haven.”

https://labourlist.org/2017/03/the-tories-want-to-turn-brexit-britain-into-a-low-wage-tax-haven-corbyn/

Post updated on 16 May 2020

Recently, the BBC’s fact check team revealed that the new measures included in the EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive are already transposed into the British Law, claiming that: 

“… it’s hard to find anything happening in January 2020 to these rules that looks significant enough to influence the speed at which some people might want to leave the EU.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/50168357?fbclid=IwAR26kWFFF1LvkZsh2Mh9Av2hfz8iF6OS_k1PicA_EkBz0GWCQWWkNb_xVfg

However, as this article explains, the BBC fails to mention that the fundamental difference between the British and the EU law lies in the territorial and institutional jurisdictions and as this article explains, they will have enormous implications for wealthy British tax-dodgers.

Outside the EU tax-avoiding offences would be trialled at British Courts, which have done nothing to prosecute wealthy tax-dodgers who were exposed by the Panama Papers.

Whereas if we were to remain in the EU, tax-avoiding offences would be trialled at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) whose jurisdiction is strongly opposed by prominent Brexiteers.

Watch James O’Brien explain why the British newspapers owned by wealthy tax-dodgers are so desperate to leave the EU

Is the new EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive the reason David Cameron decided to have the EU referendum?

Is the new EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive the reason David Cameron decided to have the EU referendum?

President Nicholas Sarkozy our message is clear, countries that remain tax havens will be shunned by the international community which led to the EU referendum

In 2012, David Cameron declared he is prepared to consider the EU referendum “only when the time is right” and his momentous announcements for the EU referendum happen to coincide with critical milestones in the development of the new EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive!


WHAT LED TO THE NEW EU ANTI TAX AVOIDANCE DIRECTIVE AND THEN THE EU REFERENDUM?

After the EU decided to bail out Greece from bankruptcy, the EURO exchange rate slumped, threatening the economic stability of the Eurozone.

In October 2010, Christine Lagarde, the French Finance Minister at the time, issued to the Greek authorities a spreadsheet containing roughly 2,000 potential tax evaders with undeclared accounts at Swiss HSBC bank’s Geneva branch, which accounted for an estimated €26 – €29 billion of the annual lost tax revenues.

The sheer scale of tax evasion and the inability of Greek authorities to end the practices prompted Brussels to take concrete action and in 2011, Nicolas Sarkozy issued a stark warning that tax havens would no longer be tolerated and countries that continue to protect them will be outcast from the developed economies:
“We don’t want any more tax havens. Our message is clear, countries that remain tax havens … will be shunned by the international community”

WHEN DID DAVID CAMERON CALL THE EU REFERENDUM?

In 2012, David Cameron declared he is prepared to consider the EU referendum, saying that it will happen “only when the time is right”!

His momentous announcements on the EU referendum coincide with the key milestones in the development of the new EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive, whereas:
• In 2013, the European Commission produced their action plan to clamp down on tax avoidance, and within a month, Mr Cameron announced that he changed his mind, stating that he favours an EU referendum and ”pushing to exempt Europe’s smallest entrepreneurial companies from more EU Directives.”
• In 2016, the European Commission produced the first draft of the EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive and within a month, Mr Cameron announced the date for the EU referendum.

WHY DID DAVID CAMERON’S REMAIN CAMPAIGN FAIL AT THE EU REFERENDUM?

After announcing the date for the EU referendum, Mr Cameron campaigned for the UK to remain in the EU.

However, one can’t help wondering why Mr Cameron didn’t inform the British voters that by remaining in the EU, the British government would have to implement the new EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive?

If he decided to inform the British voters that the EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive would end austerity measures and save the NHS, then surely a majority of British voters would have voted to remain.

But, then again the British voters were not supposed to know about EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive, because Mr Cameron, Brexiteers, the right-wing press and even the BBC declined to publicly discuss the implications of the EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive in the UK.

Unfortunately, Mr Cameron was fond of wealthy tax-dodging individuals, which is why in 2013, he wrote to the then-president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy requesting from him not to drag British offshore trusts into an EU-wide crackdown on tax avoidance.

In 2016, Panama Papers revealed that David Cameron inherited his £2.000.000 worth North Kensington house from his father, Ian Cameron a long term tax-dodger, who expanded his wealth by running an offshore fund in the Bahamas.

WHO SUPPORTED LEAVE CAMPAIGN?

Tax-dodgers are greedy individuals who couldn’t care less if the British people are being subjected to harsh austerity measures or about to lose their NHS

Yet, ahead of the EU referendum, they became extraordinarily patriotic and generous by donating vast amounts of money to the Leave camp.

According to the Business Insider UK, the long list of prominent individuals who donated generous amounts to the Leave campaign, and implicated in tax-avoiding practices, include:

• Lord Farmer who donated £300,000;
• Peter Cruddas who donated £350,000;
• Lord Bamford who donated £673,000;
• Crispin Odey who donated £873,288;
• Lord Edmiston who donated £1,000,000;
• Peter Hargreaves who donated £3,200,000;
• Arron Banks who donated £8,106, 375.

WHERE DID THE EU REFERENDUM TAKE PLACE?

According to the Guardian, the EU referendum took place in the UK,  whose tax authorities, in 2015, failed to collect an estimated £16,000,000,000 in taxes, out of which £12,000,000,000 were lost due to tax evasion or avoidance.

Tax-avoiding practices are legal in the UK, but the EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive, would force the companies to pay the exit charge whenever they removed their capital gains from the EU member state to another low tax jurisdiction.

The British overseas territories are part of the UK, but not part of the EU, which is why capital gains will be subjected to an “Exit Tax” before they are relocated to another tax jurisdiction outside the EU, such as British tax havens!

The most prominent Brexiteer, Nigel Farage also confirmed that if immplemented, the EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive would prevent British tax-dodgers from shifting assets into British tax havens without paying the “Exit Tax”!

When the EU Parliament discussed the EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive in 2013, Mr Farage accused the EU Commission of attempting to “drive a wedge between the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the Caymans”, adding:
“There’s a great degree of unity here this morning, a common enemy: rich people, successful companies evading tax, which of course is a problem, avoiding tax, which is not illegal, but it gives this whole chamber this morning a high moral tone and, as Mr Barrasso says, it’s all about the perception of fairness.”

HOW THE BRITISH ELITE MANAGED TO GET THEIR DESIRED OUTCOME AT THE EU REFERENDUM?

It seems that the British elite is fond of George Orwell’s “1984”, so they turned it into reality, whereby the invisible decision-makers, “The Party” turned our democracies into “Oceania” and MSM into “The Thought Police”, whose role is to inflict fear upon the British people.

Every time tax-free assets of the wealthy elite are threatened by the EU or British politicians, “The Thought Police”, also known as the right-wing media, infects the British people with the fear virus about an imaginary threat from subjects or individuals that are keen to deliver equality and social cohesion in the UK.

Prominent pro-Brexit newspapers are owned by individuals who avoid paying tax in the UK, such as:

The owner of the Sun newspaper, Rupert Murdoch who avoided paying his taxes by setting up his companies in the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/299543.stm

The owners of the Telegraph newspaper, David and Frederick Barclay who avoided paying their taxes by registering as residents of Sark island, located in the Channel Island tax haven.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-update-another-tax-haven-loophole

The owner of the Daily Mail newspaper, Lord Rothermere who avoided paying his taxes by inheriting the Daily Mail through an offshore trust set up in the Channel Island tax haven and is registered as “non-dom”.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jul/10/whos-who-britain-legal-offshore-tax-avoidance-james-dyson

The owner of the Express newspaper, Richard Desmond who avoided paying his taxes by setting up a company in a Luxembourg tax haven.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2012/panorama-truth-about-tax.html

In 1997, John Major was keen to collect land taxes from wealthy noble landlords and the right-wing press rather the Conservatives, their traditional party of choice, they endorsed the Labour party.

Twenty years later, Jeremy Corbyn promised to bring an end to tax-dodging practices from the wealthy elite, and despite the increase in the Labour membership, the right-wing press drove the British public to vote for prolonged tax-dodging, austerity measures and food banks.

In 2017, Jeremy Corbyn accused the Conservatives for using Brexit to turn our country into a tax haven:

“Britain is going to change as a result of leaving the European Union. The question is how. The Conservatives want to use Brexit to turn our country into a low wage tax haven.”
https://labourlist.org/2017/03/the-tories-want-to-turn-brexit-britain-into-a-low-wage-tax-haven-corbyn/

Tax-dodgers are greedy crooks who will eventually receive long imprisonment for robbing their nation, but in the UK, most of them are rewarded with noble titles, such as Lord, Lady, Sir or Dame.

Post updated on 16 May 2020

Recently, the BBC’s fact check team revealed that the new measures included in the EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive are already transposed into the British Law, claiming that: 
“… it’s hard to find anything happening in January 2020 to these rules that looks significant enough to influence the speed at which some people might want to leave the EU.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/50168357?fbclid=IwAR26kWFFF1LvkZsh2Mh9Av2hfz8iF6OS_k1PicA_EkBz0GWCQWWkNb_xVfg

However, as this article explains, the BBC fails to mention that the fundamental difference between the British and the EU law lies in the territorial and institutional jurisdictions and as this article explains, they will have enormous implications for wealthy British tax-dodgers.

Outside the EU tax-avoiding offences would be trialled at British Courts, which have done nothing to prosecute wealthy tax-dodgers who were exposed by the Panama Papers.

Whereas if we were to remain in the EU, tax-avoiding offences would be trialled at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) whose jurisdiction is strongly opposed by prominent Brexiteers.