MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
UK beneficial ownership vote alarms Overseas Territories; financial services vital for several islands
A vote by the UK parliament to insist that Britain’s Overseas Territories introduce publicly available beneficial ownership registers by December 31, 2020, has sparked anger and dismay within these autonomous, mainly small island, jurisdictions. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThat's the way to do it...force these free loaders to declare Independence and free the UK from their financial burden...
Jul 04th, 2018 - 11:12 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Conduct your own foreign affairs and defend yourselves...it's not like they can't afford it...
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Jul 05th, 2018 - 12:03 am - Link - Report abuse +1“Force these ...to declare Independence”
Still trying to take end runs around mandatory UN Charter articles. I know its the Argentine way, but theres not a chance in hell, even if that was the UK's preference.
“but theres not a chance in hell, even if that was the UK's preference.”
Jul 05th, 2018 - 09:48 am - Link - Report abuse -2Merely your opinion based on what?
If the UK makes life difficult for these tax havens what do you suppose they will do...?
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Jul 05th, 2018 - 11:12 am - Link - Report abuse +1“Merely your opinion based on what?” The following, irrefutable mediatory international law. Ask and you will receive, how do like these apples?
Self-Determination Defined UN Charter
55. With a view to the creation ..and self-determination of peoples,
56. All Members pledge themselves ...for the achievement of the purposes set forth in Article 55.
73. Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for ..peoples have not yet attained .. self-government recognize the principle ..b. to develop self-government, ...“
ICJ and Self-Determination”
...opinion on Kosovo's declaration ...
”is that the right of self-determination, which the ICJ found to be jus cogens in the East Timor case, is a right of all peoples, not only of those in a colonial context. ... “
Western Sahara; “The validity of the principle of self-determination, defined as the need to pay regard to the freely expressed will of peoples, ...the subsequent development of international law in regard to non-self-governing territories, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, made the principle of self-determination applicable to all of them”
The Case Concerning East Timor and Self-determination
”By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of people ...”
The United Nations, Self-Determination and The Namibia Opinions
Missing the point as usual. If they don't like the new law they can CHOOSE to become independent, that is self determination and perfectly valid according to the UN.
Jul 05th, 2018 - 11:55 am - Link - Report abuse -1But I disagree they can perfectly well afford it. High GDP per capita != high GDP, and the costs they'd be taking on don't really scale to population. Independence is probably viable for some of them but not all.
DT
Jul 05th, 2018 - 12:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Missing the point as usual” Not at all, as I know all the options as I've been doing this a
l-o-n-g time. So don't tell your granny how to suck eggs.
As the operative statement was “Force these ...to declare Independence”
DemonTree
Jul 05th, 2018 - 12:35 pm - Link - Report abuse -1He never gets it does he...
We are all aware that the UK cannot ditch these dependants they have the right to choose in UN (Can be ignored by any Sovereign State) (So technically advisory) Law...
So making life difficult for the wealthy tax havens could force them to choose Independence and rid the UK of these financial liabilities...
He has been doing this a long time....wrongly...;-)
Was he just self-praising himself....oh dear that is some ego...
@Voice
Jul 05th, 2018 - 12:45 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Yup. But the thing is currently they only rely on the UK for defense, disaster relief etc, which is just a drop in the budget for us. If they don't declare independence then when this new law comes into force they'll soon be demanding subsidies from the UK taxpayer, thereby becoming much more of a financial liability.
And yeah, being wrong for a long time just makes it worse. I think Terry has spent so much time reading laws he's forgotten how normal conversation works... if he ever knew.
So much opining but at the end of day your unable to refute the facts on the ground.
Jul 05th, 2018 - 12:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Can be ignored by any Sovereign State” It cannot otherwise they would in breach of the Charter like Argentina.
I wonder if anyone could give any examples of a Sovereign State being in breach of the Charter and what were the consequences....
Jul 05th, 2018 - 01:15 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Perhaps we could start with Russia then perhaps the USA...
I wonder if these breaches were facts or opinions....
Spain is a better example. They handed their colony over to Morocco thereby denying them self determination. I don't think they even got a strongly worded letter.
Jul 05th, 2018 - 01:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Jul 05th, 2018 - 04:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Keep opining, but still unable to show how your claim “Can be ignored by any Sovereign States” sets aside the Charter articles I have cited. So therefor, my factual claim overrides your attempted sophistry.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
“has spent so much time reading laws he's forgotten how normal conversation works...” Your conceded position is duly noted.
Glad to see you're back in your customary fawning posture, must be missing Jack?
Terry, are you hallucinating again? I haven't conceded anything. Please try and stay in touch with reality.
Jul 05th, 2018 - 05:27 pm - Link - Report abuse -1And how about replying to my example of Spain, a country that unilaterally disclaimed responsibility for their colony, thereby (according to you) taking an end run around mandatory UN charter articles. What exactly is stopping the UK doing the same?
DemonTree
Jul 05th, 2018 - 05:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The issue is between what is the legal or proper position, and your and another's speculation.
Between what is real and what might be. Which is absolutely without any merit given the multiple ICJ rulings in favour of self-determination and the UK's stated position.
“Currently, the only permanent member of the Security Council that recognises the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ is the UK”
Jurisdiction and Compliance in Recent Decisions of the International Court of Justice. Aloysius P. Llamzon
No, it's your speculation vs what actually happened when another country tried this. The UN tut-tutted and Spain continued on its way. I'm not saying it would necessarily be legal or wouldn't be against the UN charter, but countries break the rules all the time and nothing happens unless enough other (powerful) countries object to it.
Jul 05th, 2018 - 06:20 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Besides which, it's definitely not against the UN Charter to pass laws the NSGTs dislike in order to prod them towards declaring independence, which is what Voice was suggesting.
DemonTree
Jul 05th, 2018 - 06:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, it's you and your partner in crime's attempt to move the goal-posts. The only issue, is the suggestion that the UK attempt to override the Charter. Where there is not the slightest chance that will occur. What other countries did, has no relevancy, as the only components are the UK, her territories, and the prevailing international law.
What Voice was suggesting. “...force these .. to declare Independence and free the UK from their financial burden...” Which is clearly an illegal self-serving statement, by an Argentine apologist.
You are the one moving the goal posts:
Jul 05th, 2018 - 07:22 pm - Link - Report abuse -2““Can be ignored by any Sovereign State” It cannot otherwise they would in breach of the Charter like Argentina.”
I have shown you that it can and has been ignored by sovereign states. I agree the UK is unlikely to do it, but it's not impossible. What other countries did is extremely relevant, since if it has happened then clearly it is not impossible (duh).
“Which is clearly an illegal self-serving statement, by an Argentine apologist.”
Are you claiming there is no freedom of speech now? And I hope you're prepared to prove that Voice is Argentine.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Jul 05th, 2018 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“It cannot otherwise they would in breach of the Charter...I have shown you that it can and has been ignored by sovereign states”
Never said to contrary, the issue is would the UK do . My point is, it's absolutely inconceivable, given the history of the UK and her deference to ICJ and international law.
”...friends have suggested that we refer the matter to the International Court of Justice. Since Argentina does not accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the court, the issue cannot be referred for a binding decision without her agreement. We have never sought a ruling on the Falkland Islands themselves from that court, but we have raised the question of the dependencies on three separate occasions—in 1947, 1949 and 1951. Each time Argentina refused to go to the court. In 1955, the British Government applied unilaterally to the International Court of Justice against encroachments on British sovereignty in the dependencies by Argentina. Again, the court advised that it could not pursue the matter since it could act only if there was agreement between the parties recognising the court's jurisdiction. In 1977, Argentina, having accepted the jurisdiction of an international court of arbitration on the Beagle Channel dispute with Chile, then refused to accept its results. It is difficult to believe in Argentina's good faith with that very recent example in mind. There is no reason, given the history of this question, for Britain, which has sovereignty and is claiming nothing more, to make the first move. It is Argentina that is making a claim. If Argentina wanted to refer it to the International Court, we would consider the possibility very seriously. But in the light of past events it would be hard to have confidence that Argentina would respect a judgement that it did not like.”
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1982/apr/29/falkland-islands
”I hope you're prepared to pr
This story, which is very old by the way, is of little to no concern to us in the Falklands. Our cousins with the big offshore money industries are not too happy but it's not on our radar at all really because there will be little in the way of implications for us.
Jul 05th, 2018 - 09:38 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Jo Bloggs
Jul 05th, 2018 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Is of little to no concern to us in the Falklands” That was my take, as far as you were concerned as your not on anybodies radar.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
“I hope you're prepared to prove that Voice is Argentine.” Your bias is obstructing your reading comprehension, I never said he was.
“Are you claiming there is no freedom of speech now.” Never, but I'm certainly entitled to comment on a suggested breach of the UN Charter.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!