3 ms·

Can you cite the parts of the treaties that say that? The reality is that in the treaties the EU very explicitly does not have control over tax. In fact, this

Can you cite the parts of the treaties that say that? The reality is that in the treaties the EU very explicitly does not have control over tax. In fact, this was a key issue in the last Irish referendum on the EU treaty changes. The Irish rejected the treaty until they received explicit assurances from the EU that they'd never lose any control over local tax and the EU wouldn't attempt to undermine their local corporate tax rates. But as it turns out, the EU's assurances on such things were useless and the Irish people were misled. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8288181.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8288181.stm Irish opinion is thought to have swung behind the "Yes" vote this time because of the severity of the economic downturn, as well as the legal "guarantees" on Irish sovereignty that the EU pledged after the first referendum. The legally binding "guarantees" state that Lisbon will not affect key areas of Irish sovereignty, such as taxation, military neutrality and family matters such as abortion - significant issues in last year's campaign in Ireland. But they have not yet been attached to the treaty.

lucideer 9y ago
The EU doesn't have any direct control over tax, but the treaties govern how law is applied by member states, including tax law. They do this in a multitude of ways, but in the specific case mentioned above you're looking for Article 107 of this treaty[0] which prohibits member states giving corporations individual tax deals that are not afforded to others operating in the same market. The follow-on report on Google, Facebook seems to indicate that they'ree looking at similar individual deals made there. > But as it turns out, the EU's assurances on such things were useless and the Irish people were misled. Leaving aside the absolute spurious nature of that BBC article (there is nothing to support the supposition that the No vote (nor the swing to Yes) had anything to do with taxation or - most ridiculous of all - abortion), even in an imaginary world where those issues were of import, I can't see where anyone was misled. Can you cite cases where the guarantees have been broken? [0] https://www.ecb.europa.eu/ecb/legal/pdf/c_32620121026en.pdf https://www.ecb.europa.eu/ecb/legal/pdf/c_32620121026en.pdf
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  You prove my point. Article 107 says nothing about tax at all. The EU's case depends on a bizarre redefinition of taxation as "aid", as if taking something away is the same thing as giving it. Article 107 is meant to handle subsidies, hence the discussion of granting things through state resources. Obviously, nobody told the Irish people that their nation's tax decisions might be retroactively re-classified as "aid" ... and nobody told them that because they were explicitly told that tax was not an EU competency. There's really no way around that outcome. Regardless of how the EU likes to reinterpret the treaties to grant it newfound powers nobody thought it had, the people of Ireland know what they were promised and know that it's been violated.

lucideer 9y ago

The EU doesn't have any direct control over tax, but the treaties govern how law is applied by member states, including tax law. They do this in a multitude of ways, but in the specific case mentioned above you're looking for Article 107 of this treaty[0] which prohibits member states giving corporations individual tax deals that are not afforded to others operating in the same market. The follow-on report on Google, Facebook seems to indicate that they'ree looking at similar individual deals made there. > But as it turns out, the EU's assurances on such things were useless and the Irish people were misled. Leaving aside the absolute spurious nature of that BBC article (there is nothing to support the supposition that the No vote (nor the swing to Yes) had anything to do with taxation or - most ridiculous of all - abortion), even in an imaginary world where those issues were of import, I can't see where anyone was misled. Can you cite cases where the guarantees have been broken? [0] https://www.ecb.europa.eu/ecb/legal/pdf/c_32620121026en.pdf https://www.ecb.europa.eu/ecb/legal/pdf/c_32620121026en.pdf

peoplewindow 9y ago
You prove my point. Article 107 says nothing about tax at all. The EU's case depends on a bizarre redefinition of taxation as "aid", as if taking something away is the same thing as giving it. Article 107 is meant to handle subsidies, hence the discussion of granting things through state resources. Obviously, nobody told the Irish people that their nation's tax decisions might be retroactively re-classified as "aid" ... and nobody told them that because they were explicitly told that tax was not an EU competency. There's really no way around that outcome. Regardless of how the EU likes to reinterpret the treaties to grant it newfound powers nobody thought it had, the people of Ireland know what they were promised and know that it's been violated.