[Article] Abolition of veto on taxes sought by Prodi

Victor

Is it time to take a break from the constant rewriting of treaties and agreements and see how things settle down? As it stands, we are asked to agree to things years ahead of when they are implemented and then as they are about to be implemented we are again asked to change them.

Is there an element of one-upmanship where every government want to have **the** great treaty during their presidency?

Abolition of veto on taxes sought by Prodi
From:ireland.com
Thursday, 18th September, 2003

The European Commission has outlined substantial changes it wants to Europe's draft constitution, including the abolition of the national veto on some tax matters and the retention of the right of every member-state to nominate a commissioner with full voting rights, writes Denis Staunton, in Brussels.

The Commission President, Mr Romano Prodi, said that all 20 commissioners wanted an inter-governmental conference next month to back the changes. "The Union's Constitution is a hugely important document. It will govern the way our Union functions for years to come. So it is crucial we get it right now," he said.

The Commission's proposals came three days after Sweden's rejection of the euro, which has raised fresh doubts in Brussels about the chances of the new constitution being approved in referendums around Europe. Mr Prodi said yesterday, however, that the draft constitution was not sufficiently ambitious and left too many policy areas that require unanimity among member-states.

"On certain well-targeted, detailed issues, progress simply has to be achieved unless we want people and businesses to suffer because of our inability to take decisions. Let me be very clear on this. If unanimity remains the rule in combating fraud and tax evasion, the Commission has nothing to lose - but companies and taxpayers might have a great deal," he said.

The Government has made clear that it will not sign up to any new constitution that abolishes the national veto on all tax issues. The Commission's proposal identifies a number of areas where majority voting should apply, including "taxation in connection with the operation of the internal market . . . combating fraud or tax evasion, measures relating to tax bases for companies, but not including tax rates . . . taxation in respect of the environment; certain aspects of social security . . . and the European public prosecutor's role in safeguarding the Union's financial interests".

Mr Prodi rejects a proposal in the draft constitution to allow each member-state to nominate a commissioner but to give only 15 commissioners the right to vote. In a reversal of his attitude during the Nice Treaty negotiations, Mr Prodi declared yesterday that a Commission of up to 30 members could function efficiently.

"There is no reason to assume a Commission of 25 or more members would necessarily be inefficient. Many national governments have more ministers than that. It all depends on how they are organised," he said.

bloggs

I would trust the people in Brussels before i would trust ANYONE in Lenister House!!!

Chaos-Engine

Originally posted by bloggs
I would trust the people in Brussels before i would trust ANYONE in Lenister House!!!

I can agree with you in alot of ways bloggs. Our politicans lack everything including democratic behaviour. But before anymore power is seeded to brussels I think perhaps we the people should be able to atleast have a say in the governments nomination of our commissioner..

Anyway
Back to the article

I think in may ways Prodi and the commission are right. Gisard wants this Constitution to be a treaty that will last 50 odd years with out the need for any further IGCs in that time. All this fighting over who will get to host the meetings is pure tourism and pride(e.g. during the Irish presidency in 2004 all the foreign ministers of Europe will be draged to Birr for meetings on Foriegn policy, etc etc)... I think that unanimity needs to be removed from the EU for it to function. At the moment is mal-functions like a bad federation. For federation it is. We share sovernty with the EU and we don't have full powers as a unitary state any longer. Why not standarise it and get this mal-functioned federation working properly and avoid moving into a confed/fed mix of madness.

I fon't favour tax harmonisation like the commission but i do favour democracy. Lets move toward it from all angles. Starting at local government

bloggs

Im actually infaviour of a federal europe, with perhaps governors appointed/elected to each member state, incharage of their running (this is probably 50-100 years off if it ever happens). Someone closer in economic/social terms to the USA (i don't mean a duplicate), but a single economic/state power house.

mike65

As a rule I dont side with the government on European matters
but on taxes I do. Victor is right in his observation about
treaties and the fewer the better really.

The EU or rather Prodi et al hace a fight on thier hands I can think of 4 curent members who will not vote to allow the end of vetos on tax matters namely Rep of Ireland, UK, Sweden and Denmark
plus proberly Netherlands and Luxembourg. So its a non-runner.

When the ex-communist block members join that'll be it for tax harmonisation, the likes of Poland and Slovenia have a very free-market anglo-american view of fiscal/economic policies.

On federalism I dont have problem with that in its purest form but the Eurocrats have something else in mind as far as I can tell. With too much power at the centre and not enough "subsidiarity",
that a word thats gone right out of fashion in the EU.

Mike.

dathi1

I would trust the people in Brussels before i would trust ANYONE in Lenister House!!!

like who? Prodi? http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?sid=9&aid=12738
http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901030721-464409,00.html
http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3053343.stm
and thats mild....there's more..a lot more.

Sand

Tax harmonisation needs to be resisted with all the governments strenth. It would be disastrous for Ireland - it benefits no one seriously except for the high tax economies of europe as it reduces Irelands prime advantage in attracting investment.

dathi1

Sand.....just as a matter of interest..what way did you vote on Nice?