It isn’t remotely clear to me.
-
-
Replying to @DanNeidle @alexcobham and
UN World Bank IMF interagency task force 20 page report says it's unclear. http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Illicit-financial-flows-conceptual-paper_FfDO-working-paper.pdf … I really don't think there's a global/UN consensus on this that can't be unpicked
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MForstater @DanNeidle and
I'd very much welcome your making the case at github that the definition is unclear, or other than proposed in the draft.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @alexcobham @DanNeidle and
I'm not sure how I feel about this. How can I (or anyone) be welcome to make this case if the project's organisers have already declared that there is *no legitimate question* that can be raised on this point?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MForstater @DanNeidle and
The collaborative aspect is focused on, and exciting (to me) for the potential to strengthen the technical evaluation of methodologies and data, so that's where I really hope people will contribute most. But...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @alexcobham @MForstater and
But that said, the introduction is equally open to evidenced suggestions, contributions. I don't expect consensus, and as you say our views are well known, but the process should strengthen the analysis. All welcome!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @alexcobham @DanNeidle and
There is a difference though between saying that you don't expect consensus in a collaborative process, than saying at the outset that some views are illegitimate
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MForstater @DanNeidle and
Please don't misrepresent this. We're inviting comment, critique, contribution on draft chapters. Naturally these express views. (In the past, we have also expressed views.) We are deliberately seeking contributions from many competing views in many areas. These are very welcome.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @alexcobham @DanNeidle and
I am glad this project is taking place, and clearly part of the point of such discussions is that views can change. In June you (TJN/GATJ) said that there could be no legitimate question over whether the agreed SDG goal on IFFs included tax avoidance - is that still the position?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MForstater @DanNeidle and
On the narrow point: I am yet to see any compelling evidence against the well-documented case that multinational tax avoidance was understood as part of IFF, in the process of agreeing the SDG target. But still open to new evidence, of course.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Thanks for clarifying Alex. There is important difference I think between "we are open to new evidence and analysis on this point" and "No amount of (re)interpretation or (re)definition can raise any legitimate question over this point"
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.