Lack of transparency. The research in this thesis has showed that one of the consequences of informality is the lack of transparency it can lead to. The lack of transparency in itself is not a formal obstacle for annulment but makes it more difficult to initiate an annulment process in practice. The democratic system in the EU provides for transparency to make it possible for the public and different institutions to hold policy makers accountable.233 By not concluding the agreements in a transparent way this can result in the policy makers are not being held responsible for their actions. When stating that informality leads to a lack of transparence this is based foremost on two scenarios which have been noted in this thesis. First, the parliament is kept out of the conclusion process by not being invited to consent on the agreement and by not 233 Judgement of the Court 24 June 2014, Parliament v Council (Mauritius), C-658/11, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2025, para. 81 and Xxxxx,‘ The EU-Turkey Statement: A Treaty that violates Democracy (part 2)’ being informed about the process. The Second scenario is the role the European Council had in the conclusion of the Statement.
Lack of transparency. The OECD (1998) points out that although low or nominal taxes are a necessary trait to identifying jurisdictions as tax xxxxxx, it is not sufficient. Low or nominal tax on income makes tax xxxxxx interesting to non-residents. It is, however, the combination with the second and third feature of the definition that makes tax evasion possible. The OECD (1998) explains that the lack of effective exchange of information is present when a jurisdiction acts in a way that halts the exchange of tax related information with other governments. As OECD (1998) points out, this can be facilitated through laws or “administrative practices” (OECD, 1998, p.22) followed in the jurisdiction. The OECD (1998) claims that the lack of transparency implies that other governments don’t have the opportunity to obtain information on how the laws in the jurisdiction are enforced. Once this is prevented by a jurisdiction, the lack of transparency is present. Harmful preferential tax regimes in OECD member and non-member countries: OECD (1998, p.27) lists four key factors to identify harmful preferential tax regimes:
Lack of transparency. The TPP encroaches on a broad range of issues—the environment, labor and jobs, food, health, access to medicines, and more. Despite the huge impact that the TPP would have on our lives, trade negotiators are developing TPP texts, or chapters, behind closed doors with very little public input. None of the texts are public, though a few have leaked. Moreover, nearly the only people apart from select TPP government officials with access to texts are more than 600 corporate representatives who serve as "official U.S. trade advisors." The text of the TPP must be released now so that we can have a real conversation about the effects of this pact on communities and the environment. The TPP and the Environment The chapters in trade deals devoted to the environment have a history of lacking meaningful enforcement. But they've been strengthened over the years, largely thanks to citizen-led advocacy by groups including the Sierra Club. This pressure led to the forging of a bipartisan consensus in May 2007 that set the minimum standards for environment, labor, and other provisions in our trade agreements. It is essential that the environment chapter of the TPP build on this progress. At the minimum, the environment chapter of the TPP must: be binding and subject to the same dispute settlement provisions as commercial chapters; ensure that countries uphold and strengthen their domestic environmental laws and policies and their obligations under multilateral environmental agreements; and include binding provisions to address the core environment and conservation challenges of the Pacific Rim region, such as a prohibition on trade in illegally taken timber, wildlife, and fish and a ban on shark finning and associated trade.
Lack of transparency. As mentioned, municipalities and developers negotiate developer obliga- tions prior to the moment in which the land-use regulations are brought into the public, formal decision-making process. So, until that time, not much – if any – publicity is given to the details of the developer’s initiative and the negotiations. After the negotiations, municipalities must publish a summary of the development agreement, but not the full document itself. In practice, the legal framework leaves room for municipalities to avoid disclosing important details.
