,
10 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
This is an irresponsible article of which @DanielJHannan should be ashamed.
I pointed out yesterday some basic factual errors - typically for a certain class of Brexiteer, those errors were about Ireland.
(@DanielJHannan has deleted his replies to those points, but they were pretty feeble: a better response would have been to ask the Telegraph to correct the article.)
Much more serious though is this stuff. 
Suggesting that officials in important regulatory departments such as HMRC are deliberately out to get Leavers is something responsible politicians should be careful to avoid.
If there is evidence: take it to court or the Ombudsman so that the claim can be rigorously tested. If there isn’t: don’t go there.
Hannan’s “evidence”, btw, consists of a (to me) unsurprising HMRC ruling that a gift to a political cause - like a gift to a family member - will count as part of your estate for IHT purposes if you die within a certain number of years of the gift.
Comparing such a ruling with the treatment of Russian and Turkish dissidents by their governments is simultaneously silly, irresponsible, and deeply offensive to those dissidents (who, to put it gently, are having to deal with rather worse things than unfavourable tax rulings).
NB too the use of the old and dubious rhetorical trick - dating back at least to Mark Anthony’s “But Brutus is an honourable man” - of denying you are suggesting something (conspiracy by the state) while simultaneously hinting at it (cf the Russia/Turkey comparison).
Someone who self-describes as an old-fashioned Whig should reflect carefully about this descent into language typically used by the extremes of democratic debate. /end
