BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[PlaneSailing]

Do we want to try and persuade the Treasury Committee to examine s.58 on the back of the JCHR investigation?

The remit of this select committee is described here. There is also a link to their most recent reports.
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamenta..._committee.cfm

Pros
1) There is the potential to generate more criticism of Treasury & HMRC handling of this.
2) They may have more influence over the Treasury than the JCHR.[/LIST]

Cons
a) They did examine BN66 last year but let the Government off the hook, so they may just try to cover their backsides.
b) The Chairman is reportedly a loyal Brownite, although he was very critical of Darling's recent budget.
c) The committee is made up of a majority of Labour MPs

Opinions?

Not sure how much good this will be. We did get them to force a
division on this last year when it was examined by the committee,
but as you point out, the Labour majority will always see them
through.

I have fired a request off to Lord Myners, on the back of the Lords
debate last month. I'm trying to get him to answer the right question
this time.

[seadog]

Not sure how much good this will be. We did get them to force a
division on this last year when it was examined by the committee,
but as you point out, the Labour majority will always see them
through.

I have fired a request off to Lord Myners, on the back of the Lords
debate last month. I'm trying to get him to answer the right question
this time.

On relflection it is proabaly too risky going for a select committee for the points DR raises.

Better to keep building up the criticism form other bodies about this retrospective legislation in the hope that the combuimned weight of all those who find it abhorrent will be enough to get it repealed.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

DR althought the JCHR criticise, does it stop there, is that all they can do about the abuse? Or do they actually have some teeth..? What concerns me about the JCHR slightly is that they can criticse Timms et al about not responding to this and that but are actually powerless to do anything about it. For instance can they propose a parliamentary member get struck off, or a piece of legislation gets revoked on the basis of non- compliance or is it a proverbial slap on the wrist?

Like most committees, ultimately they are toothless. All they can do is criticise and make recommendations. The Government don't have to cooperate or take any notice.

However, a highly damning report would severely undermine HMRC's case in the JR.

The Treasury are caught between a rock and a hard place, damned if they say something, damned if they don't. They have probably decided that "saying nothing" is the least worst option.

[PlaneSailing]

Next to badger....

Like most committees, ultimately they are toothless. All they can do is criticise and make recommendations. The Government don't have to cooperate or take any notice.

However, a highly damning report would severely undermine HMRC's case in the JR.

The Treasury are caught between a rock and a hard place, damned if they say something, damned if they don't. They have probably decided that "saying nothing" is the least worst option.

How about going to our various MEPs? Given that this is no doubt
headed to Europe at some point, and the Human Rights stuff stemmed
from Europe. Now we have the JCHR statement, we have a bit more
power to our elbows.

And it will give them all something to do beyond straightening bananas
and the like.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

How about going to our various MEPs? Given that this is no doubt
headed to Europe at some point, and the Human Rights stuff stemmed
from Europe. Now we have the JCHR statement, we have a bit more
power to our elbows.

And it will give them all something to do beyond straightening bananas
and the like.

I suspect I'm not alone in knowing very little about the workings of the European Parliament. Any idea what MEPs could actually do?

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

I suspect I'm not alone in knowing very little about the workings of the European Parliament. Any idea what MEPs could actually do?

Folks, in terms of MEP's, I don't know much about them or what influence they have but I'd suggest having a Powwow with Daniel Hannon (Tory). If you didn't see this scathing speech to Crash Gordon then you missed a blinder. It was one of the most hit YouTubes when it went public.

BTW, check out the "smirk" on Gordo's face as he gets creamed.

http://ragingtantrum.com/?p=1523

I'd guess that if you need someone to tell it the way it is and get some publicity, DH is your man. If it's time for someone to "rip 'em a new one", DH is the one to do it. Just need to find out if he wants to get behind this "breach" of the ECHR. Given he's a Tory, an MEP and can clearly put Gordo on the rocks, might be worth a go.

Personally, I've not seem an M(E)P do a speech like it since Maggie. Would like him to be the next PM.

Thoughts?

[nuffsaid]

I'd guess that if you need someone to tell it the way it is and get some publicity, DH is your man. If it's time for someone to "rip 'em a new one", DH is the one to do it.

I think the more in-house bickering we can cause the better.

Perhaps it's time we wrote to our MPs again?
Lets ensure they are all aware/reminded that the JCHR are also 'concerned' about the retrospective nature, and that they were not even consulted during its implementation.
Keep this potato hot and lets see how many of them accept the Timms ECHR fob-off.

Wind 'em up and let 'em go...

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

DH has been contacted

I think the more in-house bickering we can cause the better.

Perhaps it's time we wrote to our MPs again?
Lets ensure they are all aware/reminded that the JCHR are also 'concerned' about the retrospective nature, and that they were not even consulted during its implementation.
Keep this potato hot and lets see how many of them accept the Timms ECHR fob-off.

Wind 'em up and let 'em go...

Daniel Hannon duely emailed and asked to "contribute". Couldn't wait for "thoughts". Just watched his speech to Gordo and and I knew I had to bring this to his attention.

If you want to know what I said, PM me.

[OnYourBikeGB]

I think the more in-house bickering we can cause the better.

Perhaps it's time we wrote to our MPs again?
Lets ensure they are all aware/reminded that the JCHR are also 'concerned' about the retrospective nature, and that they were not even consulted during its implementation.
Keep this potato hot and lets see how many of them accept the Timms ECHR fob-off.

Wind 'em up and let 'em go...

Yep, I'd agree. I know my MP at first pretty much washed his hands after the Timms reply. When I wrote back to him, with a pretty scathing response to the Timms letter, he started to show more interest and asked I keep him informed. I think once MPs realise that there is more to this than just tax avoidance, and more importantly, there's some bigger guns very concerned about this legislation, they're more likely to make a noise on our behalf.

[PlaneSailing]

Vive l'Europe

I suspect I'm not alone in knowing very little about the workings of the European Parliament. Any idea what MEPs could actually do?

Well, the Human Rights legislation is their baby. It might cause further
embarssment to the Government to have yet another organisation
chasing them for answers.

I have a suspicion that Mr Timms et al may be stalling for time as they
know that in a years time they'll be out and this problem will
belong to some one else.

It seems he talks a good fight but, like all bullies, hides when it comes to the
crunch.