Not a specialist, or lawyer. But we took same approach on some big tax areas (ignored EU laws and used our own). We were hammered in the Courts, repaid poss £bn, changed laws and approach. So forgive me if I'm not convinced by opinion of one lawyer. Would want extended analysis.
-
The EU Directive allows for social & enviromental stds linked to product/service being directly procured, but not general group wide policies (of course Directives can be changed, but its not a straight parallel w current treatment of fairtrade and living wage)pic.twitter.com/ldHORMEt8j
And as Sarah Mark argued so clearly those rules are there for good reason. Its not just jobsworthiness, naysaying, bat-poo crazy neocons and neoliberals or what have you... so needs to be taken seriously.pic.twitter.com/2QCPewyzGl
-
-
Nah, harking back to some peak-Thatcher, values-devoid, Friedmanesque procurement era is not something to be celebrated. The world has moved on. Sarah's thesis strikes me as profoundly anti Social Enterprise, and surprised to see you laud it Maya
-
Paul - You say that times have changed, new EU rules allow public procurement to include environmental & social criteria. I agree and this is good. When i refer to these same rules you say is harking back to a past era??
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Supports my preference that you can tackle poor/undesirable employment practices (zero hours, etc) because relatively objective, relate directly to providing the service, and protects workers. The tax angle there to deter "tax dodging" looks too remote, much harder to establish.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
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.