BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[Vallah]

Nick Clegg is to ask the public to nominate laws and regulations they would like to see abolished.

...

BBC News - Nick Clegg calls for law repeal ideas

It's a stupid website, with people already taking the mick ("Repeal the law of gravity" being one I've seen) but somebody adding a section 58 idea on there couldn't hurt could it?

[Ninja]

Party Politics

My guess is if Gauke was put on the spot, he might argue that this is too important an issue to be decided politically. You might view this as a "cop out" but he would have a point.

If the new Government were to reverse the legislation, then it could trivialise the matter by making it just look like a difference of opinion/policy between them and Labour.

Also, suppose the coalition collapsed in a year's time and Labour got back in? There would be nothing to stop them reinstating s.58.

Ironically, if the Government reversed s.58 it would also let HMRC off the hook. It would give the impression that they, as an organisation, had simply got caught up in party politics.

The issues raised by s.58 are perhaps far too fundamental to be decided on the whim of politicians.

I mostly agree with you, however
1. Labour Re-instating S.58 (God forbid!) - Whilst it could happen, I can't see it happening when we get this legislation overturned. After all, they only railroaded it through committee because of their majority at the time, despite vehement opposition from Tories, LD's & professional bodies at the time (including Gauke!)
2. Letting HMRC off the hook - My own feelings (and I guess many other people on the forum) is that HMRC are no way 'off the hook', if we the Govt reverse S.58. I beleiev that HMRC were the driving force behind this, going so far as misleading Treasury ministers (What has Jane Kennedy said since?). IMHO, when (not if) S58 is overturned, then we (as a group) make it our business to go after (legitimately, of course) the individuals responsible in HMRC, and ensure that let them know that the fair-minded people of Britain will not put up with this abuse of power. Any pathetic excuse of getting 'caught up in party politics' doesn't wash with me!

[harrinp1]

It's a stupid website, with people already taking the mick ("Repeal the law of gravity" being one I've seen) but somebody adding a section 58 idea on there couldn't hurt could it?

I don't think gravity should be repealed but if they could reduce the sentence then it would help with the wife's diet

[seadog]

Response frm Gauke

(Someone asked me this morning, so I thought I'd reproduce some of it here. I would encourage everyone to read this.)

The retrospective nature of the clause is deeply troubling.

etc etc

For those reasons I am more convinced than ever that the retrospective nature of the clause is unacceptable.

DR
Has anyone written back to Gauke to confront him with the text of his original oppostion to S58 and to ask what has changed?

I know he has said its with the courts but that is only for the fine point of the JR on human rights not on the whole of his argument.

Reading his argument carefully he fully grasped the whole issue and its difficult to see how he could come up with a credible argument not to repeal the retrospective element of the bill.

Seadog

[IH8GordonB]

Gauke

DR
Has anyone written back to Gauke to confront him with the text of his original oppostion to S58 and to ask what has changed?

Seadog

I received a letter from David Gauke via my MP with the "can't do anything until the court action has run it's course" argument.

I can see how the government after big spending cuts and increases in taxation would want to distance themselves from repealling a law related to tax avoidance. Much better to let the courts say it's not legal and then repeal saying we told labour so when it was voted on.

I am therefore going to write back to Mr Gauke asking for clarification as to what will constitute closure of the legal action.

Obvious questions are:-

1. If we win in the court of appeal then will HMRC still seek to appeal further or will they let it drop. If they seek to appeal further then by definition the current UK government will be sponsoring them to support a law that they voted against whilst in opposition. They will no longer have the argument of saying it wasn't our legislation as they will be supporting it in court and clearly supporting retrospective taxation.

2. If we lose the court of appeal and take it directly to the European Courts, same question again. Will this government back retrospective legislation by allowing this to go to Europe and fighting against our case. If they do so then they send a message to the whole of Europe saying don't do business in the UK, you can't trust us or our tax system.

Let's see if they have any morals at all.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Clegg's invitation to suggest laws for repeal

I have added an entry for Section 58.

Section 58 Finance Act 2008 — HMG - Your Freedom

PS. the site is very slow but please persevere

[Taffia]

I have added an entry for Section 58.

Section 58 Finance Act 2008 — HMG - Your Freedom

PS. the site is very slow but please persevere

Got a letter back from my MP saying that he'd passed the latest (i.e. outside FOI) onto Gauke. Let's see what gives.

[Emigre]

The Great Repeal Act

I have added an entry for Section 58.

Section 58 Finance Act 2008 — HMG - Your Freedom

PS. the site is very slow but please persevere

Come on guys. It takes 4 more votes to get the top of the leader board on the Civil Liberties area of this site.

This is free publicity for our cause while others catch up.

[Taffia]

Come on guys. It takes 4 more votes to get the top of the leader board on the Civil Liberties area of this site.

This is free publicity for our cause while others catch up.

Vote cast. Who's next?

[smalldog]

Come on guys. It takes 4 more votes to get the top of the leader board on the Civil Liberties area of this site.

This is free publicity for our cause while others catch up.

finally!!! managed to get into the site, done...