This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/news/commentisfree/2016/apr/05/panama-papers-britain-house-order-cameron
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| The Panama Papers show why Britain needs to get its house in order | |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| Whoever leaked the information from the Panama-based company Mossack Fonseca has done for international tax regimes what the NSA leaker Edward Snowden did for international intelligence. As with the Snowden revelations, it took a fleet of assiduous journalists in half a dozen countries to start to make sense of the small print, but within hours of the first articles and broadcasts, a similar pattern emerged in the response. | Whoever leaked the information from the Panama-based company Mossack Fonseca has done for international tax regimes what the NSA leaker Edward Snowden did for international intelligence. As with the Snowden revelations, it took a fleet of assiduous journalists in half a dozen countries to start to make sense of the small print, but within hours of the first articles and broadcasts, a similar pattern emerged in the response. |
| The Nordics, broadly speaking, were up in arms; last night, Icelanders were out on the streets calling for the resignation of their prime minister. US officialdom tried to pretend that nothing had really happened, while doubtless rushing around to limit the damage behind the scenes. The initial British reaction was to seek, and find, villains abroad; associates of Putin, Chinese leaders’ in-laws, North Korean VIPs, and now a relative of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. The grassroots response in the UK was, meanwhile, whatever the English translation is of plus ça change. | The Nordics, broadly speaking, were up in arms; last night, Icelanders were out on the streets calling for the resignation of their prime minister. US officialdom tried to pretend that nothing had really happened, while doubtless rushing around to limit the damage behind the scenes. The initial British reaction was to seek, and find, villains abroad; associates of Putin, Chinese leaders’ in-laws, North Korean VIPs, and now a relative of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. The grassroots response in the UK was, meanwhile, whatever the English translation is of plus ça change. |
| Related: Tory donors’ links to offshore firms revealed in leaked Panama Papers | Related: Tory donors’ links to offshore firms revealed in leaked Panama Papers |
| As well it might be. The UK has long held a view of itself as superior to almost everywhere else, especially in matters of state-level ethics and law. A good portion of our aid budget is spent on anti-corruption programmes and lecturing others on respect for the “rule of law”. Ministers show the same condescension towards continental Europeans, especially southern Europeans, who are regarded collectively as more tolerant of corruption than we are. | As well it might be. The UK has long held a view of itself as superior to almost everywhere else, especially in matters of state-level ethics and law. A good portion of our aid budget is spent on anti-corruption programmes and lecturing others on respect for the “rule of law”. Ministers show the same condescension towards continental Europeans, especially southern Europeans, who are regarded collectively as more tolerant of corruption than we are. |
| Yet almost every year, the UK slips a little further down the international league tables of corruption, as compiled by the NGO Transparency International. When David Cameron and others talk – as they have done, at length – about the need to clean up international finance, make global companies such as Google pay their tax, and root out money-laundering worldwide, there is always snickering in the aisles. Some of the biggest havens of dirty money, they argue, are British overseas territories and the London property market. And until a UK government is prepared to remove the beam in its own eye, rather than wittering on about the motes in the eyes of others, our credibility as a country will be compromised. | Yet almost every year, the UK slips a little further down the international league tables of corruption, as compiled by the NGO Transparency International. When David Cameron and others talk – as they have done, at length – about the need to clean up international finance, make global companies such as Google pay their tax, and root out money-laundering worldwide, there is always snickering in the aisles. Some of the biggest havens of dirty money, they argue, are British overseas territories and the London property market. And until a UK government is prepared to remove the beam in its own eye, rather than wittering on about the motes in the eyes of others, our credibility as a country will be compromised. |
| All manner of arguments are presented as to why this cannot happen. The former attorney general, Dominic Grieve, asked this morning whether we really wanted to ruin the economies of British overseas territories, and insisted that their autonomy had to be respected – in the same way we had to respect the autonomy of Scotland. Well, it rather depends on your attitude to wealth built at least in part on dirty money and gaps in the law, doesn’t it? | All manner of arguments are presented as to why this cannot happen. The former attorney general, Dominic Grieve, asked this morning whether we really wanted to ruin the economies of British overseas territories, and insisted that their autonomy had to be respected – in the same way we had to respect the autonomy of Scotland. Well, it rather depends on your attitude to wealth built at least in part on dirty money and gaps in the law, doesn’t it? |
| Perhaps the most shocking aspect of the Panama Papers is less what they actually show – we sort of knew that – but what they indicate. This is just one company in one small jurisdiction. Such practices must be replicated many, many times over. The only fractional hint of progress in official UK attitudes may be that no one – at least that I have heard so far – has tried to maintain that what was going on in one company has no parallels closer to home. Doing anything about it, of course, is another matter. | Perhaps the most shocking aspect of the Panama Papers is less what they actually show – we sort of knew that – but what they indicate. This is just one company in one small jurisdiction. Such practices must be replicated many, many times over. The only fractional hint of progress in official UK attitudes may be that no one – at least that I have heard so far – has tried to maintain that what was going on in one company has no parallels closer to home. Doing anything about it, of course, is another matter. |