The Dead Zone (or, BP and the Oil Well That Keeps on Giving)

[tibilicus]

I'm sorry, is this all in reaction to the President saying "British Petroleum," or is there more to it?

Another notch to add to the belt of years of being degraded as a country in the name of the "Atlantic Alliance". Tell me, how would you feel to the relationship if you were on the other side of the ocean? In all fairness to Obama however he isn't worse than the last guy. It was a complete outrage that as millions marched in London in protest to a war that easily the majority of British people didn't want, our respective leaders were snuggling up on the sofa, claiming it was in both our countries interests.

As I said, I think the relationship is completely unhealthy and should be ditched. It's almost a totally one way thing. Then again, that's just my opinion. I'm sure many will feel differently but I cant help but feel this recent attempt by Obama to blame someone shows a complete lack of disregard for what's supposedly meant to be "Americas best ally". You are aware he's ringing Cameron today to give him a talking down? What exactly does that aim to serve other than appealing to what seems to be quite a healthy anti-British sentiment by some within the US who are more than happy to see us as culpable and responsible.

Maybe Obama should do his homework. There's nothing Cameron or any other British person can do. The majority of BP share holders are, surprise, surprise, are Americans.

[Ser Clegane]

I wonder, would anybody hesiate to call ExxonMobil or Chevron US companies?

No matter how global BP is - it is headquartered in the UK and I think it paid 6 billion USD of corporate taxes in the UK last year.
What would the raection have been if BP had decided 1 or 2 years ago to move headquarters to the US? would there have been an outcry about a "British" company leaving the country?

[tibilicus]

I wonder, would anybody hesiate to call ExxonMobil or Chevron US companies?

No matter how global BP is - it is headquartered in the UK and I think it paid 6 billion USD of corporate taxes in the UK last year.
What would the raection have been if BP had decided 1 or 2 years ago to move headquarters to the US? would there have been an outcry about a "British" company leaving the country?

Or maybe its to do with the fact phoning our PM to take action is futile because BP is a private country. Its irrelevant where the headquarters is, the only reason its still here is because BP could never be bothered to move it. And no, there wouldn't of been an outcry if BP did relocate to America. Over the last 20 years nearly all the major industries which were once state owned in this country have become privatised, usually being bought out by the far East. Most people don't seem to mind this and acknowledge that as companies become privatised, a burden is taken off the state and as responsibility for the company moves from the public into the hands of private investors, it means the state, as a whole, which Obama's phone call to the PM seeks to highlight, has no further responsibility for that company or its actions.

The only thing possibly connecting BP to the state is that a tiny majority of its shareholders are "ordinary people", encouraged by Mrs Thatcher to buy up shares as part of the "share-owning democracy". They account for a tiny % of the company however and most of their money has gone into pensions which will probably be hit quite heavy when the bill for BP's clean-up arrives.

[Ser Clegane]

The majority of BP share holders are, surprise, surprise, are Americans.

BP ownership structure December 31, 2009

(assuming the data is correct as BP apparently is not able to get its pie charts right...)

[KukriKhan]

BP ownership structure December 31, 2009

(assuming the data is correct as BP apparently is not able to get its pie charts right...)

Yanno what'd be funny? The White House sends 10 Downing a bill for BP cleanup, and The Brits mail back some of their US 30-year Treasuries - of which they are the #2 holders in the world (after China).

[Hosakawa Tito]

Yanno what'd be funny? The White House sends 10 Downing a bill for BP cleanup, and The Brits mail back some of their US 30-year Treasuries - of which they are the #2 holders in the world (after China).

Hehehe, I guess the hopey-changey honeymoon is over.

[tibilicus]

BP ownership structure December 31, 2009

(assuming the data is correct as BP apparently is not able to get its pie charts right...)

So the % difference in terms of companies/ institutions with a stake in BP is 1%.

All this still doesn't take away from my main point. What does the British Government have to do with this? Or do you believe somehow that because BP pays taxes to the UK government, the UK government some how has responsibility? When an individual pays taxes to the government does that make them responsible for the actions of the government? Or does that make the state responsible for actions of the individual as they pay taxes to the government?

The answer is no. Its privately owned and thus not our PM's responsibility. Obama needs to go find someone else to attack his fire at to help take the heat of the Gulf fishermen off his back. I heard there were some Chinese guys working on the rig when this all went off. Maybe we can blame them. Or here's a better idea. Keep to vocal criticism up on BP but leave the PM out of it. The last thing we need from the US is another b-slap to make us look even more incapable of forging our own direction as a country than we already are.

[Ser Clegane]

All this still doesn't take away from my main point. What does the British Government have to do with this? Or do you believe somehow that because BP pays taxes to the UK government, the UK government some how has responsibility? When an individual pays taxes to the government does that make them responsible for the actions of the government? Or does that make the state responsible for actions of the individual as they pay taxes to the government?.

OK, perhaps I am missing something here. Did Obama ask the British Government to take responsibility? From what I gathered in this thread and in the news the discussion was about Obama refferring to "British Petroleum" instead of just BP. The reaction here seemed to be that not only stopped BP referring to itself as British Petroleum but that it also actually should not be considered a British company. The latter is clearly wrong.

[tibilicus]

OK, perhaps I am missing something here. Did Obama ask the British Government to take responsibility? From what I gathered in this thread and in the news the discussion was about Obama refferring to "British Petroleum" instead of just BP. The reaction here seemed to be that not only stopped BP referring to itself as British Petroleum but that it also actually should not be considered a British company. The latter is clearly wrong.

He didn't ask them to take responsibility, but he is certainly looking to shift some of the blame onto them. What other reason does he have to phone "call me Dave"? As a general rule of thumb too, the Americans never ring us unless they want something.

[Ser Clegane]

He didn't ask them to take responsibility, but he is certainly looking to shift some of the blame onto them. What other reason does he have to phone "call me Dave"? As a general rule of thumb too, the Americans never ring us unless they want something.

I thought that call was a call that had been arranged anyway and that the BP situation would be one topic (especially as the tensions grew in the last days). Is there any source for "Obama calling Cmaeron about BP" (to shift blame to the British Government)?

There seemed to be some furor about the demand that BP should cut dividend to pay for the damage. Anything unreasonable about that?

[Beskar]

I thought that call was a call that had been arranged anyway and that the BP situation would be one topic (especially as the tensions grew in the last days). Is there any source for "Obama calling Cmaeron about BP" (to shift blame to the British Government)?

There seemed to be some furor about the demand that BP should cut dividend to pay for the damage. Anything unreasonable about that?

It greatly affects British pensioners who are dependant on the dividend.

So you are actively punishing poor old people.