Monthly Archives: September 2017

Military, NATO, Russia, United States

NATO chief says the world is now at its most dangerous

THE WORLD is more dangerous now than it has been for a generation, the head of NATO has said.

Jens Stoltenberg said terrorism, the crisis in North Korea and a newly-belligerent Russia under Vladimir Putin meant the political situation was more unpredictable than at any time in the past 30 years.

He said: “It is a more dangerous world… We have proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in North Korea, we have terrorists, instability, and we have a more assertive Russia.”

The secretary-general’s intervention, during a break from visiting British troops in Estonia, comes before the mobilisation of an estimated 100,000 Russian troops on the EU’s eastern borders.

Asked whether he had known a more perilous time in his 30-year career, Stoltenberg said: “It is more unpredictable, and it’s more difficult because we have so many challenges at the same time.”

From next Thursday, 14 September, over six days, Russian and Belarusian troops will take part in what is likely to be Moscow’s largest military exercises since the Cold War. An estimated 100,000 personnel will be active around the Baltic Sea, western Russia and Belarus without the supervision required under international agreement.

Meanwhile, North Korea has launched a ballistic missile over Japan, threatened the US Pacific territory of Guam and has tested a possible thermonuclear device, incurring the wrath of President Donald Trump.

Mr Stoltenberg, the former prime minister of Norway, would not comment on whether the US President’s bellicose threats to Pyongyang had exacerbated the current situation in south-east Asia.

He said: “I think the important thing now is to look into how we can create a situation where we can find a political solution to the crisis.

“At the same time, I fully understand and support the military message that has been implemented in the region… as they have the right to defend themselves.

“They have a right to respond when they see these very aggressive actions. I also support the presence of US troops and capabilities in Korea.”

Standard
Business, Economic, Government

HMRC investigating some £25billion in unpaid taxes

TAX AVOIDANCE

BIG businesses could be forced to pay up to £25billion of underpaid tax in a major crackdown on avoidance.

Some of Britain’s largest firms are being investigated by HMRC for potentially dodging £24.8billion of VAT, corporation tax and national insurance payments last year.

It is enough to fund the NHS for nearly three months.

The investigations highlight the scale of efforts by powerful companies to avoid paying their fair share.

HMRC’s probes have snowballed as public anger at fat cat greed grows. The amount of suspected uncollected tax from the year to March is 14 per cent higher than the previous 12 months.

It is 31 per cent more than two years earlier.

Law firm Pinsent Masons, which uncovered the figures, say this means the taxman’s large business directorate is taking a more zealous approach. But tax investigations are the first stage in a tug of war between the exchequer and business and there is no guarantee the money will ever end up in Government coffers.

If HMRC experts have suspicions, they can examine a company’s books and then amass enough evidence to demand it pays up.

But many firms refuse and appeal the decision, leading to lengthy wrangling in the courts. Pinsent Masons said: “HMRC is broadening its horizons and putting in a far wider range of transactions under scrutiny. We are seeing an increasing number of challenges to arrangements that would previously have been regarded as routine and perfectly acceptable.

“The figures represent the amount of tax HMRC considers is underpaid. Not all its investigations will actually result in more tax being paid.” It follows a harder stance on tax from the Treasury after a string of scandals including last year’s Panama Papers debacle, when it was revealed that thousands of well-known figures around the world were stashing their money in offshore havens.

In November, Chancellor Philip Hammond announced plans to raise an extra £2billion by 2020 through a crackdown on tax avoidance.

The law firm said the anti-avoidance efforts were aimed at squeezing employers so ordinary families did not feel the pinch.

“The Treasury faces an unenviable choice – either cut public expenditure and services, or squeeze taxpayers for more money.

“Increasing tax revenue through investigations is often the more politically palatable option, particularly when the focus is on large businesses.

“However, HMRC is putting the affairs of more and more companies under the microscope as a result, increasing the costs for those businesses.”

A so-called “Google tax” was introduced in 2015 to try to stop large firms shifting their cash to overseas havens, and big businesses will soon be ordered to publish their strategies for limiting payments to the revenue.

Around two-thirds of all large companies are under investigation at any one time, and disputes can drag on for decades.

The amount eventually handed to the authorities is typically half of what was initially calculated and asked for.

Big firms handed over a record £49.5billion of corporate tax in the last fiscal year, up 12 per cent on the previous 12 months.

A HMRC spokesman said: “Tax under consideration is not tax owed or unpaid, it’s an estimate of what might be at stake if we didn’t investigate.

“By effectively enforcing the rules, HMRC has since 2010 brought in £53billion that would have otherwise gone unpaid and collected over £8billion from large businesses last year alone.”

Standard
Britain, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

UK firms alarmed over Government crackdown on migrants

IMMIGRATION/BREXIT

BUSINESS leaders have clashed with the Government over Brexit following the pledge by Theresa May to curb the flow of cheap, low-skilled labour from Europe.

Business lobby groups reacted with fury to leaked Government proposals outlining a tough new immigration system after Britain leaves the EU.

Downing Street hit back, saying business needs to end its reliance on cheap migrant labour and do more to train British workers. Mrs May said ministers had a duty to curb immigration after last year’s EU referendum, and restated her pledge to slash net immigration to the “tens of thousands”.

But the Government was in disarray as Cabinet ministers, including Home Secretary Amber Rudd, Chancellor Philip Hammond and Business Secretary Greg Clark are understood to have concerns about slashing immigration from the EU too quickly.

Damian Green, the First Secretary of State and one of Mrs May’s closest allies, is also thought to have misgivings, and believes the plan can be toned down.

It has also emerged that FTSE 100 leaders have refused to sign a letter backing the Government’s Brexit strategy. Downing Street quietly asked executives to sign an open letter saying they wanted to “make a success of Brexit”, and welcoming the Government’s push for a transitional deal.

But this was not welcomed by some, with one executive reportedly saying: “There is no way we could sign this given the current state of chaos surrounding the talks.”

It is understood the letter, drafted by No. 10, was due to be made public as Mrs May tries to create support for the legislation going through Parliament about our EU withdrawal.

The row followed the leak of a Home Office document setting out plans to curb immigration from the EU after Brexit.

The Prime Minister said: “Immigration has been good for the UK, but people want to see it controlled as a result of our leaving the EU.

“The Government continues to believe it is important to have net migration at sustainable levels, particularly given the impact it has on people at the lower end of the income scale in depressing their wages.”

Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon said: “We have always welcomed to this country those who can make a contribution to our economy, people with high skills.

“On the other hand, we want British companies to do more to train up British workers, to do more to improve skills of those who leave our colleges. So, there’s always a balance to be struck. We’re not closing the door on all future immigration but it has to be managed properly and people do expect to see the numbers coming down.”

The document, which has caused uneasiness among some ministers, suggests low-skilled workers from the EU would only be allowed to stay for a year or two, and EU citizens would be barred from moving to the UK to look for a job. Ministers are also considering a ‘direct numerical cap’ on the numbers who come here from Europe after the UK leaves in March 2019.

Big businesses reacted angrily to the proposals. The chief executive of the British Hospitality Association said the proposals would be “catastrophic” for the industry, one which relies heavily on cheap EU labour.

The executive said: “We understand the wish to reduce immigration but we need to tread carefully and be aware of the unintended consequences – some businesses will fail, taking UK jobs with them.”

A spokesperson for the Confederation of British Industry, said: “An open approach to our closest trading partners is vital for business, as it attracts investment to the UK. It also helps keep our economy moving by addressing key labour shortages.”

The Institute of Directors said business leaders would not welcome the proposals and its members would be hoping for changes in the Government’s final position.

The National Farmers’ Union said a cut in migrant workers could cause “massive disruption” for the industry. Its deputy president said 80,000 seasonal workers a year are needed “to plant, pick, grade and pack over 9 million tonnes of fruit, vegetable and flower crops”.

But Migration Watch, a think-tank, said ministers were right to pressure businesses to wean themselves off cheap foreign labour.

In a statement, it said: “We want to encourage employers to train local people and make more of an effort to prepare for a time when there won’t be all these people coming in with readymade skills prepared to work for lower wages.”

The leaked document was a draft of proposals due to be published this autumn.

Sources said a further six drafts have since been produced and it has not yet gone to ministers for approval. Senior figures in Brussels raised concerns about the document.

Gianni Pittella, leader of a large group within the European Parliament, said it revealed the “nasty side of Theresa May’s Government”, adding: “Should the British Government follow the position outlined, it will certainly not help the negotiations. It adds uncertainty and confusion.”

German MEP Elmar Brok, an ally of Angela Merkel, said he was “shocked by the language and content of this paper”, adding: “I think we are in a situation that EU citizens are seen as an enemy for the UK. This is not an atmosphere where you can find solutions.”

. How other countries control their borders

In the United States immigration law provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 newcomers, with certain exceptions for close family members.

The Immigration and Naturalisation Act allows a foreign national to work and live lawfully and permanently in the States.

Each year it admits foreign citizens on a temporary basis. Annually, Congress and the president also determine a separate number for admitting refugees.

Immigration to the States is based upon the following principles: the reunification of families, admitting immigrants with skills that are valuable to the US economy, protecting refugees and promoting diversity. In Australia, a tough immigration points system is credited with keeping numbers under control while ensuring the economy has the skills it needs.

Extra points are given for factors such as experience, qualifications and age. But critics argue there is no guarantee it would bring numbers down, pointing out that Australia has proportionately higher immigration than the UK.

Since 1967, most immigrants to Canada have been admitted on purely economic grounds. Each applicant is evaluated on a nine-point system that ignores their race, religion and ethnicity and instead looks at age, education, skills, language ability and other attributes.

Standard