No To Retro Tax – Campaign Against Section 58 Finance Act 2008

[smalldog]

BP - this isn't an amendment request per se - its a request that Gauke at least recognises that there's something amiss here and that he agrees to review it and effectively carry out an impact assessment in line with Rees Rules. As smalldog said earlier, it is indeed genius. Gauke would be a complete idiot (which I think he is anyway) to refuse a fair and reasonable request such as this, and I am quite certain, knowing what I now know, and in full possession of countless documents that prove HMRC's disgraceful conduct in relation to our cause, that such a review would uncover some extremely unsavoury facts, omissions, inactions and inconsistencies (which I like to call lies), and even perhaps gross perjury by members of HMRC (which would be a laugh)
At that point Gauke will look at the report and say "oh, maybe NTRT had a point - maybe this is why they would'nt go away, in fact maybe I was actually right in 2008 when I vociferously opposed section 58".
And combined with other things the Campaign is doing, a lot of people are going to end up with a lot of egg on their faces.
I for one am most delighted at the way Whitehouse and NTRT have handled this. Its very very clever.

and if he refuses (which in my view would be suicidal) then everyone will smell something very fishy indeed and people will say " why the refusal, are you trying to cover something up, surely if its all above board there is nothing to fear" get out of that gaukey!!! thats why its a cunning stunt (carefully typed)!

The final genius being, as Diesel says is that it gives him an opportunity to get out of this mess by saying "now ive reviewed all the facts Im going to reverse it", without losing face.

[Henrik]

Exactly what outcome do we want from our MPs re next week?

Seeing my MP this afternoon - exactly what do we want her to do for us regarding the amendment next week?

Is this going in front of a committee or is it on the floor of the House?

Many thanks

[Ninja]

Seeing my MP too

I also have the opportunity to see my MP this afternoon.

What should be asking specifically from him, apart from sympathy?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Henrik, Ninja -

It's going before the 2012 Finance Bill Committee.

Print off a copy of the amendment and take it with you and ask your MPs if they will urge the Minister David Gauke to support it.

House of Commons Amendments

DR

[Henrik]

What specifially do you mean by urge?

Henrik, Ninja -

It's going before the 2012 Finance Bill Committee.

Print off a copy of the amendment and take it with you and ask your MPs if they will urge the Minister David Gauke to support it.

House of Commons Amendments

many thanks


Many thanks
DR

Email or contact? Not sure how this works?

[Ninja]

Whitehouse advice

Email or contact? Not sure how this works?

Henrik

Speak to Carl at NoTo Retro.
He has some very good advice

[the great escape]

Yes, the Minister is Gauke.

The committee members can be found here:
House of Commons Public Bill Committee on the Finance Bill 2012-13 — UK Parliament

NTRT/Whitehouse have met a number of them in Westminster, and we have supporters from all 3 parties.

All members have been presented with the briefing material, and they have been sent a new briefing paper for Tuesday's debate.

So how do the sittings come into being? I assume that they keep arranging 'sittings' until they've been through the entire Bill. During those sittings you have the chance to say your bit. Or do they simply have a window of e.g. 3 months in which anyone can call for a sitting to discuss one or several points in the bill?

I'm interested to know if 'our sitting' has been called specifically to discuss the retrospective clause or is it simply that when they get to the relevent bit at one of the meetingds, Nigel Mills will time his run and deliver the NTRT sermon-on-the-mount.

[stuffed]

Transcripts?

Will we be able to access the full details on this "Notice of Ammendment" in terms of what all goes on and is said on the Tuesday?
Or is it all pretty private and not public record??

[BolshieBastard]

So how do the sittings come into being? I assume that they keep arranging 'sittings' until they've been through the entire Bill. During those sittings you have the chance to say your bit. Or do they simply have a window of e.g. 3 months in which anyone can call for a sitting to discuss one or several points in the bill?

I'm interested to know if 'our sitting' has been called specifically to discuss the retrospective clause or is it simply that when they get to the relevent bit at one of the meetingds, Nigel Mills will time his run and deliver the NTRT sermon-on-the-mount.

There isnt enough Parliamentary 'time' for all these bills to be discussed on the floor of the HoC. So, generally speaking, non high profile or run of the mill Bills are laid before the HoL instead. However, high profile Bills such as finance, defence or immigration will be laid before the HoC.

A bill's first 'reading' is normally just the name of the Bill being read out on the floor. It will then sometime later have a second reading and committe stage which is where this seems to be now. The 3rd and final reading of the Bill is when the HoC gets to vote for \ against the final draft of the Bills.

Once the bill is through the HoC, it is then sent to the HoL who can in theory make further amendments and \ or reject the Bill up to 3 times. However, the Government can then invoke the Parliament Act which allows them to pass a Bill even if it has been rejected 3 times by the Lords (and there is sufficient time left in the Parliamentary session).

Convention though is that the HoL never changes a finance Bill after a showdown between the two Houses in the early 20th Century so in this case, the HoL will NOT reject or change the final Bill.

HTH.

[the great escape]

There isnt enough Parliamentary 'time' for all these bills to be discussed on the floor of the HoC. So, generally speaking, non high profile or run of the mill Bills are laid before the HoL instead. However, high profile Bills such as finance, defence or immigration will be laid before the HoC.

A bill's first 'reading' is normally just the name of the Bill being read out on the floor. It will then sometime later have a second reading and committe stage which is where this seems to be now. The 3rd and final reading of the Bill is when the HoC gets to vote for \ against the final draft of the Bills.

Once the bill is through the HoC, it is then sent to the HoL who can in theory make further amendments and \ or reject the Bill up to 3 times. However, the Government can then invoke the Parliament Act which allows them to pass a Bill even if it has been rejected 3 times by the Lords (and there is sufficient time left in the Parliamentary session).

Convention though is that the HoL never changes a finance Bill after a showdown between the two Houses in the early 20th Century so in this case, the HoL will NOT reject or change the final Bill.

HTH.

So Whitehouse have primed the members of the committee with the materials ready to discuss the issue. Can we assume then that if the committee finds favour in our arguement, they'll take that arguement into the HoC with a view to securing an amendment...yes? It's not like we've only get one shot at it and gone straight to the voting stage.