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

[Corrian]

....and it had to be withdrawn by the 9pm curfew - mills knew he only had a few minutes, unlike his geordie friend who spouted crap about swiss bank accounts for a whole bl**dy hour. I have to say I completely disagree with your view on Mills - he stood up for his own principles as a Tory MP, and a huge amount of work went into that happening by NTRT and Whitehouse.

Your right DP. Im not taking anything away from what the NTRT done, I think it's brilliant what they have done. It's just I'm so PI$$ed off right now. I guess Nigel only had 5 mins to try and get is point across and I was completely discussed how Gauke wrapped it all up at the end. How he got Nigel to withdraw when he had the support of the room, then cracked a few jokes to wrap it all up. That was shocking. I'm sorry I didnt mean to make them derogatory remarks....I've calm down a bit now. Sorry about that.

[javadude]

It's obviously a very unfamiliar process to most of us and I guess the light moments grate a bit when things are so serious for us. I thought what the MPs said in favour of the amendment was great and really appreciate them standing up for "the rule of law" especially Mr Mills. There were some very good points made in those few minutes.

[smalldog]

Swipe At Mr Mills

I cant believe what ive just heard, David Gaukes closing speech when he said about how rubbish the library committee was and that his member of Amber Valley might get to know more about it, (check player at 21:03:17) guess who is MP for Amber Valley, yep Nigel Mills! what a nasty swipe, sore point David, feel a bit threatened do we?

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

I cant believe what ive just heard, David Gaukes closing speech when he said about how rubbish the library committee was and that his member of Amber Valley might get to know more about it, (check player at 21:03:17) guess who is MP for Amber Valley, yep Nigel Mills! what a nasty swipe, sore point David, feel a bit threatened do we?

The same jibe came up last time around. Don't read too much into this. It's the same cr*p that you hear in Primary School playgrounds. Bully with a remit. I don't think Mills will be bothered. Unless Gauke starts to pay attention, Sir might just give him detention.

Q. What do you say to Mr. Gauke 12 months from now?
A. I asked for fries with that you muppet!

It's a game I'm afraid and it's not pretty.

[BolshieBastard]

Each to their own but not good news imvho. The amendment being withdraw means precisely that, it was withdrawn.

Again, likening this stage to your club agm where new rules are put forward and discussed. Someone proposes a change to one of the existing or new rules. After a debate, the proposed change is withdrawn or dropped. In other words, it doesnt make it to the rule book.

As for a probing amendment, it is used to seek assurances from Ministers about what the Bill's purpose or how the Government of the day intends to use the powers in the Bill.

Still, the Bill will be re drafted to include any accepted amendments and will go to Reporting stage in the HoC. This gives all members of The House chance to debate the Bill in its latest form and put forward any amendments so all is not lost.

[StellaFan]

What's the going rate these days for PMQ?

[smalldog]

Each to their own but not good news imvho. The amendment being withdraw means precisely that, it was withdrawn.

Again, likening this stage to your club agm where new rules are put forward and discussed. Someone proposes a change to one of the existing or new rules. After a debate, the proposed change is withdrawn or dropped. In other words, it doesnt make it to the rule book.

As for a probing amendment, it is used to seek assurances from Ministers about what the Bill's purpose or how the Government of the day intends to use the powers in the Bill.

Still, the Bill will be re drafted to include any accepted amendments and will go to Reporting stage in the HoC. This gives all members of The House chance to debate the Bill in its latest form and put forward any amendments so all is not lost.

I reckon (hoping!!) the reporting stage is where it will get interesting...

[nick4notax]

An excellent start

This represents a necessary step in a much longer process. Be kind to those MPs on our side! They are sticking their necks out for us and doing pretty well so far. It is indeed easy to misunderstand the tabling of an amendment then hear it being withdrawn. It's simply process, and that's it! Read up on it, eg: Probing amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyway, my spirits are up and so should yours all be. This represents a very positive step towards finally getting the justice we properly deserve and to have our returns judged by the law as it stood during the time the income was earned. And let's face it, we all worked bloody hard to earn it, 12-14hour days, etc. etc.

Good job Mr Mills & Whitehouse. I know it's almost midnight, but I feel a quick glass of Shiraz coming on

[BolshieBastard]

I reckon (hoping!!) the reporting stage is where it will get interesting...

Fingers, toes, and legs crossed!

[DaveB]

Each to their own but not good news imvho. The amendment being withdraw means precisely that, it was withdrawn.

Again, likening this stage to your club agm where new rules are put forward and discussed. Someone proposes a change to one of the existing or new rules. After a debate, the proposed change is withdrawn or dropped. In other words, it doesnt make it to the rule book.

As for a probing amendment, it is used to seek assurances from Ministers about what the Bill's purpose or how the Government of the day intends to use the powers in the Bill.

Still, the Bill will be re drafted to include any accepted amendments and will go to Reporting stage in the HoC. This gives all members of The House chance to debate the Bill in its latest form and put forward any amendments so all is not lost.

Just to clarify the legislative position on this. A probing ammendment is never intended to be accepted as an ammendment to the legislation under discussion, it's purpose is purely to stimulate debate on a particular aspect of the legislation being discussed. In this case the retrospection clause.

What has happened now is that the whole issue of retrospective tax around s58 has now been openly questioned in the house, and to a positive reception. This is a major step in the process of getting the act amended since the house now formally knows of the implications of this particular piece of legislation and now they know about it those members who wish to can formally take a position on it when it comes back for debate and formal amendments can then be tabled that are intended to be taken up.

This was the opening move in what will probably be a drawn out process of debate, review and ammendment for the bill and should in no way be seen as a defeat.

*disclaimer : I have no direct involvement in this, just an interest in Law and the legislative process.