Euro tax? Non Merci

The Indo report that the new EU President Herman Van Rompuy wishes to level new EU wide taxes to raise money directly for the EU.

“The financing of the welfare state, irrespective of the social reform we implement, will require new resources,” he said. “The possibility of financial levies at European level needs to be seriously reviewed.”

Europe has a much older population that Ireland and is dogged with chronic long term unemployment – Ireland with it’s dynamic young population (and Britain too) must not be put on the hook for these social debts. This effort must be resisted.

The Irish Deparment of Finance have insisted taxation remains a matter for member states, while British Tory MEP Leader Timothy Kirkhope insists –

Competition in Europe depends on member states being allowed to have competitive tax regimes

We replayed your Lisbon Treaty referendum, but most of us who voted yes did so on assurances that the Eurosceptics warning of such moves were wrong. If the EU attempts to reduce national sovereignty over taxation it will endanger the entire project.

  • igor

    Dont get too upset. Herman was selected so he could be ignored by all the other leaders. They want a European Treaty – but not one that works – its the European model.
    He will be treated as that kindly old uncle who sits in the rocking chair talking nonsense and dribbling. An expensive EC form of ‘care in the community’ for politicians

  • igor

    It just struck me that perhaps this EC Model could be the solution to our problems.

    Up front we could have a traditional assembly based upon the Good Friday agreement with all the old politicians there, spouting nonsense, reliving past defeats and victories and wrapped in all the old flags.

    Meanwhile behind it we could have a small cadre of unelected officials doing all the real work and taking the real decisions. Oh, let’s for example, call them the NIO or even the NIO / DFA

  • googoogaga

    They want to straighten our bananas!

    UP YOURS DELORS!

  • bona femina

    So we are going to have to pay for Europe failing to reform successfully their society’s to combat a low birth rate (instead choosing to outsource births to immigrants)?

    How in god’s name is this in any way fair. If we are going to pay for the greying of europe then we should only do it when they uild a fairer society that allows women to have kisd and a career. Any of you who have kids will see society here and europe is not yet child friendly – go to Norway and Iceland and Sweden and you’ll see the difference.
    So yes they can have tax money from Ireland but first build a woman friendly/child friendly society to meeet the solve the low birth rate rather than ignoring the problem. This is neo-lieralism gone mad.

  • Mack

    This is neo-lieralism gone mad.

    Nah, it’s socialism unleashed..

  • thedarknight

    “We replayed your Lisbon Treaty referendum, but most of us who voted yes did so on assurances that the Eurosceptics warning of such moves were wrong.”

    Are you serious? You believed them after their past behaviour? I assumed it was merely fear.

  • fair_deal

    “most of us who voted yes did so on assurances that the Eurosceptics warning of such moves were wrong”

    Consider the EU elites track record that was not a wise course.

  • Cliff

    What is VAT?

  • Mack

    Value-added-Tax. It’s a sales tax, typically included in the price of goods you buy. Currently 21% in the south and 15.5% (I think), in the UK.

  • DC

    15% here.

    M’on up yousens while the going’s good!

  • wild turkey

    “The financing of the welfare state, irrespective of the social reform we implement, will require new resources,” he said. “The possibility of financial levies at European level needs to be seriously reviewed.”

    ah, maybe i’ve missed something but i have always thought that decisions as to what resources to allocate to social welfare expenditure is made at the level of the separate and sovereign (ho ho) states of the EU. There is no EU wide level of social welfare provision, programmes or attendant expenditure

    Have I got that right Mack?

    if so, where is this fucker coming from citing the welfare state as a justification for an EU wide tax levy?

    time to nip this one in the bud toute de suite. todays pig is tomorrows bacon

  • Also the conspiracists are going to love that it was floated at Bilderberg.

  • Euro tax? Non Merci

    Mack, Haiku Herman is Flemish, so your title should really read ‘Euro tax? Neen dank u’.

  • Mack

    Horseman

    Should have checked that.

    Wild Turkey

    I’ve no idea what he’s got in mind. The EU does appear to take an interest in this area, but AFAIK spending on welfare provisions is outside their remit (so far, anyway).

    http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/analysis_structural_reforms/structural_reforms223_en.htm

  • Wilde Rover

    Mack,

    “Ireland with it’s dynamic young population (and Britain too) must not be put on the hook for these social debts. This effort must be resisted.”

    Resisted? You mean something like a strongly worded letter?

    “We replayed your Lisbon Treaty referendum, but most of us who voted yes did so on assurances that the Eurosceptics warning of such moves were wrong.”

    In the words of Darth Vader “I have altered the deal, pray I do not alter it further.”

    “If the EU attempts to reduce national sovereignty over taxation it will endanger the entire project.”

    I think this is Dave’s cue to saunter into the thread with a big bag of schadenfreude.

    Mark Dowling,

    “Also the conspiracists are going to love that it was floated at Bilderberg.”

    I recall a thread not too long ago where some commenters said that Bilderberg was just a bunch of senile old farts.

    It would seem the old fogies are not so far gone that they can’t contemplate the contents of your wallet.

  • Mack

    Wilde Rover –

    There’s been tax harmonisation moves afoot for sometime, they’ve been resisted pretty well so far. The EU does collect revenues from member states, but not directly, I’d be concerned about the notion of the EU welfare state combined with the potential for tax harmonisation. Just because the new President appears to want these things doesn’t mean he’ll get them though.

  • Mack,

    I wouldn’t worry – any move towards an EU tax would require another treaty. That won’t happen any time soon.

  • Seamus Murphy

    And Mack, I think if anything Van Rompuy wants to ‘levy’ new taxes as opposed to levelling them, which is a very different Euro debate. Been bugging me all weekend.

  • Mack

    Seamus, true – but sets a precedent. What’s to stop them deiciding to Levy a 10% corporation tax? Other countries could reduce their national corporation taxes accordingly. That would have the effect of leveling out differentials..

  • fair_deal

    “any move towards an EU tax would require another treaty”

    Depends how article 48 is interpreted

  • Guest

    agree with Fair deal on this.Article 48 was written with the idea in mind.

    “5. If, two years after the signature of a treaty amending the Treaties, four fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter shall be referred to the European Council.

    “7. Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or Title V of this Treaty provides for the Council to act by unanimity in a given area or case, the European Council may adopt a decision authorising the Council to act by a qualified majority in that area or in that case.”

  • Guest,

    Any move away from unanimity will always be subject to national veto. I can think of at least one country who won’t be voting in favour of an EU tax any time soon.

  • Guest

    Andrew,

    Indeed,The UK could veto any such move.But the Republic would could be forced through with Lisbon.
    Seedings!!

  • Guest,

    I have no idea what you mean. Lisbon applies to all EU states, and all EU states have a veto on taxation matters. How is Ireland’s position different from that of the UK?

  • Guest

    It may be a pedantic point in that the UK are very unlikely to support Eu tax powers in the near future,but a relevant point it remains.If all EU countries wished to adopt such a position except the UK, the UK could veto it by sheer fact of population and as a net contributor.In the case of Ireland being the only country to not wish to evolve those matters to Brussels the Lisbon treaty has a mechanism to bypass the Irish constitution.The EU project is at essence the economic pooling of France,Germany,and the UK.The Lisbon treaty may indeed have a mechanism for similarly bypassing any UK disagreement but in reality the EU would be tearing itself apart by using that mechanism against the British whilst the Irish retain no economic veto.

  • If all EU countries wished to adopt such a position except the UK, the UK could veto it by sheer fact of population and as a net contributor.

    No, the UK could veto it because it is written in black and white that all EU members have a veto. Ireland could just as easily veto it. The only way that national vetoes can be removed under Lisbon is if all member states agree, so any member state can veto getting rid of the veto.

  • Guest

    Andrew,

    “”“5. If, two years after the signature of a treaty amending the Treaties, four fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter shall be referred to the European Council.
    ” “7. Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or Title V of this Treaty provides for the Council to act by unanimity in a given area or case, the European Council may adopt a decision authorising the Council to act by a qualified majority in that area or in that case.””

    The Lisbon was written in such way as to deal with the “problem” of small countries.I have worked for a long time in and out of European circles and have been profoundly pro-Eu for all that time.But the Lisbon treaty has broken my faith in the project as a platform for good relations.It is now a embryonic superstate.It has now attained the powers to act as a state where majority overrides minority except in the case of “big” members disagreeing.

  • Guest:

    You haven’t refuted my statement.

    the European Council may adopt a decision authorising the Council to act by a qualified majority

    … and what mechanism does the European Council use to make such a decision?

  • Dave

    The better quote from Herman Van Rompuy is one where hw lets the Bilderberg cat out of the bag:

    “We are living through exceptionally difficult times: the financial crisis and its dramatic impact on employment and budgets, the climate crisis which threatens our very survival. A period of anxiety, uncertainty and lack of confidence. Yet these problems can be overcome by common efforts in and between our countries. [b]2009 is also the first year of global governance[/b], with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet. Our mission is one of hope, supported by acts and action.”

    Still, the Europhiles muppets will only believe that the Lisbon Treaty was “a tidying-up exercise” because, of course, the EU’s annual propaganda budget of 2.4 billion a year is well spent.

  • Guest

    Andrew,

    You have not refuted my statement.Mine is a quote from the Lisbon treaty which means the council decide how they decide.And yes,we have a veto if having a veto means you can quit the EU and be economically in the mearde.the mechanism is clearly set out in the treaty-a majority of the council.

  • Guest:

    Mine is a quote from the Lisbon treaty which means the council decide how they decide.

    Yes, but they decide that by unanimity, thus the veto stands.

    From Wikipedia:

    The passerelle clause

    The treaty also allows for the changing of voting procedures without amending the EU treaties. Under this clause the European Council can, after receiving the consent of the European Parliament, vote unanimously to:

    * allow the Council of Ministers to act on the basis of qualified majority in areas where they previously had to act on the basis of unanimity. (This is not available for decisions with defence or military implications.)

    * allow for legislation to be adopted on the basis of the ordinary legislative procedure where it previously was to be adopted on the basis of a special legislative procedure.

    A decision of the European Council to use either of these provisions can only come into effect if, six months after all national parliaments had been given notice of the decision, none object to it.

  • Guest

    This is the exact wording concerning the six months:
    “Any initiative taken by the European Council on the basis of the first or the second subparagraph shall be notified to the national Parliaments. If a national Parliament makes known its opposition within six months of the date of such notification, the decision referred to in the first or the second subparagraph shall not be adopted. In the absence of opposition, the European Council may adopt the decision.”

    Note this only pertains to first and second subparagraph.

    Actions taken on 5 and 7 are not subject to that clause.