This week saw a major motion on measures to be taken to tackle tax abuse passed by the EU Parliament. I do, of course, welcome that.
I welcomed the size of the vote: 500 for, 122 against and 81 abstaining.
What surprised me was the single biggest opposing group by a long way were the ECR group, which is dominated by the UK's Conservative MEPs, none of whom seem to have voted for the motion (page 35, here).
Why is it that right across Europe political parties could find common ground on this issue and the problems it causes but the UK's Conservatives could not do so?
What is it about our Conservatives that makes them oppose transparency, coordination and convergence in corporate tax policies?
Surely they're not on the side of the avoiders, are they?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Corbyn could challenge Cameron to go public on the cabinet`s tax details, as was promised back in April 2012. He would have to do the same with Labour`s. Any problems? Surely not.
One suspects in many cases they are themselves the avoiders.
I have sent to my Tory MP and 2 MEPs.
Because they are:
1. Liars
2. Dishonest
3. Deceitful
4. Two Faced
5. Otherwise known as Loyal Party Politicians
I had lots more choice phrases but they would most likely get edited out!
I would have voted against the idea of a European tax ID. Everything else was at worst inoffensive and at best (common corporate tax base, digital permanent establishment, rules against sweetheart deals) likely to be effective
So you want people to use multiple identities to hide what they’re doing?
Why?
I see this as the visible manifestation of something we’ve known since the early years of the previous government. That the Cameron/Osborne/Tory “commitment” to get tough on tax avoidance and abuse has always been a smoke and mirrors policy, nothing more.
Of course, they are very clever at keeping their real intentions (a low/no tax system for the rich, by whatever means necessary) from public view here in the UK. But I assume that as all Tories believe that nobody much is interested in what goes on in that largely powerless entity, the EU Parliament, they feel safe enough not to worry about hiding their true intentions.
I agree entirely
Unfortunately the policy began under Gordon Brown as Chancellor
But it has got very, very much worse
Fair enough. But maybe the point is that the EU should not being doing this, but our own Parliament should. The EU institutions are a sham?
You have a strange definition of a sham
I received this answer:
Dear Ms Wilcox,
Thank you for your email. Conservative MEPs, and myself, voted to reject
this report, drafted by a British Labour MEP, because it calls for more
powers for the European Commission over tax policies.
The report calls for the introduction of a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax
Base, a European definition of tax havens, and mandatory notification of all
new tax measures by national governments to the European Commission.
It is part of the European Parliament’s response to the “LuxLeaks”
revelations over allegations of tax avoidance. I fully support the fight
against aggressive tax avoidance, but the proper fora for cooperation on
fighting against tax fraud and other harmful tax measures are the OECD and
the G20. The EU should rigorously follow the work done on the OECD level.
In my opinion this was yet another attempt by Labour MEPs to hand over
powers on the setting of tax policies to Brussels bureaucrats.
I believe that this report completely oversteps the mark with regards to tax
harmonisation. Tax policies are a matter for national governments, and
Conservative MEPs will fight to keep it that way. I contend that instead of
coming up with its own ideas, the EU should be rigorously following the
ongoing work already done by the OECD and the G20.
Yours sincerely,
Ashley Fox
Maybe they anticipate the EC proposing to set up or sponsor a private sector, stakeholder-controlled organisation (a bit like IFRS).
And maybe they have voted against this because they think that would be a bad idea, given how vulnerable to capture such an organisation is likely to be.
And the rest have not?
They could have sought to strike the one issue out in that case
They did not