38. VET INTE, BERÄTTAR INTE (EU-beskattning)

TILLÄGG ANGÅENDE CH:S KOMMENTAR 30.1.
Väl magstarkt av CH att påstå att vi "i sak är överens",CH visste inte ens om vad som pågår eller så vill han inte berätta !
Att mina kommentarer ännu var så pass "sakliga" får CH vara tacksam för. Själv är han allt annat än saklig, det vill säga vet ingenting och/eller berättar ingenting om ytterst viktiga frågor !!!!!!!!


***

Jag tackar parlamentariker Carl Haglund för svaret till min fråga om EU-beskattning. Du vet ingenting och ”hoppas” att det inte blir någon beskattning heller. Eftersom jag inte deltar i ”stafettkarnevaler” utan samlar information i stället, så vet jag tydligen mer.

Att någon Mepp (parlamentariker) idag gillar eller inte tanken om EU-beskattning har försvinnande lite betydelse. Jag har redan för några år sedan påpekat att kommissionens tidning i Sverige, Europaposten, visste i sitt nummer 3/2008 berätta om förberedelser, där också finländare varit med (www.eukomm.se).

Och parallellt har Europas kritiska rörelser hållit på att följa den här oroande utvecklingen. Så här ser det ut i mina anteckningar:

1. “Egna resurser” heter det ständigt pågående projektet i syfte att styra allt mer medel till EU, när man inte täcks öppet säga att nuvarande medel inte räcker till att bygga vidare superstaten EU.

2. På ett möte i Helsingfors 7.3.2006 med Alain Lamassoure (den ständiga rapportören för projektet), Ulla-Maj Wideroos (finansministeriet) och Jari Koskinen (någon beskattningskommitté i riksdagen) konstaterades att AL ”var övertygad om att i något skede en del av nationell skatt borde överföras till unionen. Alltså ”del av någon nationell skatt så att landets budget inte behöver belastas med detta”.

3. Eftersom det skulle bli för dyrt för EU att beskatta länderna, så ”skulle det vara mycket enklare att utnyttja någon skatt som redan existerar i alla medlemsländer”.

4. För Finlands del gällde det då att fatta beslut om huruvida man landet vill åstadkomma något sådant. Och det vill ju beslutsfattande eliten i Finland (och Åland?) så gärna!

Jag bifogar texten ( det är Finlands bidrag i sammanhanget) till denna insändare på min hemsida (www.merjarenvall.blogspot.com) och återkommer med mera detaljer. Nu säger jag bara detta: Meppar är ofta springpojkar och –flickor i ett större spel. De vet inte ens alla gånger vad medlemmar i det egna partiet sysslar med. Det har vi bevis på här. Och sådana skall sedan ta hand om åländska frågor för oss? Hissa flaggor i Bryssel, vad?

Till vanliga ålänningar säger jag det här: den som enbart funderar på enstaka projektbidrag är samma som att fokusera på att anordna bal under tiden båten sjunker redan. För vad tror ni att det betyder när man börjar styra skattemedel till EU? Bättre löner och pensioner och arbetsplatser för unga, typ?


TEXTEN JAG HÄNVISAR TILL OVAN:

MEETINGS OF ALAIN LAMASSOURE,
STANDING RAPPORTEUR FOR OWN RESOURCES
HELSINKI, 7 MARCH 2006

Participants:
Mr. Alain LAMASSOURE (AL), Standing rapporteur on own resources
Secretariat: Mrs. Monika STRASSER, Administrator
Mme Ulla-Maj WIDEROOS (UMW), Minister responsible for own resources, Ministry of Finance
Mr. Jari KOSKINEN (JK), Chairman of the Sub-committee on taxation, Eduskunta

1) Meeting with Mme Ulla-Maj Wideroos, Minister responsible for own resources, Ministry of Finance, 16: 15 hours

AL commenced the meeting by giving some background information on the reasons for his meetings with the national parliaments. He reminded that the own resources were not a community competence but one of the Member States. This was why he was aiming at finding a common proposal of EP and national parliaments in order to prepare for the review of expenditure and revenue that was supposed to take place in 2008.

AL spoke out in favour of a 2-stages-approach: First, the current system should be improved by making it fairer, simpler and more transparent. Secondly, a new genuine own resource should be introduced as per 2013.

In response to UMW 's question, if he had had any feedback on this from other Member States, AL explained that there had not been much reaction so far. Net-beneficiaries were happy with the current situation, anyway, while net-contributors who were not happy with the current situation had been made happy by the latest British proposals.

AL reminded that the amounts at stake were very low. He was convinced that, at some stage, part of a national tax would have to be allocated to the Union. There had to be a treaty or an inter-institutional agreement by which Member States decided to allocate, for some time, part of some national tax to the Union without first charging the national budget with it. This treaty or agreement would require unanimity in Council and ratification by all national parliaments.

For UMW the first stage towards achieving a result was taking the decision on whether to try and accomplish this by many small steps or by one large step.

AL preferred a gradual progressive approach. However, he pointed out that if the new system should be applied as from 2013, negotiations should start without delay.

To UMW's question how realistic these proposals were, AL responded that by mid-2006 he hoped to have received the first position of half of the countries. They should be a representative sample of big and small, rich and poor, and old and new Member States.

It was only logical that a Union of 28 could not be financed with the same funds as a Union of 12. 1% of GNI was not enough, 1.1% or 1.07% or any other figure in this range was needed. However, none of the big countries wanted to pay the extra 0.1% or so. This was why a new system was needed.

UMW concluded the meeting by stating that Finland was always open for negotiations.

2) Meeting with Mr. Jari Koskinen, Chairman of the Sub-committee on taxation, Eduskunta, 17:30 hours

AL introduced the topic by describing the development of an original system of own resources, as in the beginning of the European Community, to a system of Member States' contributions as it was in place now, 20 years later. At the moment 90% of EU revenue came from VAT and GNI which had a lot of drawbacks like for example the dominance of the principle of just returns. Net contributors just wanted changes for their own situation and net-receivers were happy.

The current system needed to be updated, otherwise the policies decided by the European Council would not be implemented because the Member States had their own problems and could not even comply with the stability pact.

In its considerations of the reform of the own resources system, COBU wanted to work hand-in-hand with the national parliaments. The EP could do the stocktaking and could launch initiatives but the subject was in the competence of the Member States. The national parliaments had the power, the European Parliament had the vision.

On the procedure, AL explained that first the opinions of 10 - 12 parliaments should be collected. By the end of 2006 he hoped to have a resolution adopted which would enjoy broad consensus within the EP and amongst a majority of national parliaments.

In the current negotiations on IIA and financial perspective the governments should make a commitment to include a reform of own resources in the review process 2008.

His visit to Helsinki, AL stated, was to be seen in this context as part of a pre-, pre-, pre-, pre-negotiation. He wanted to find out which method Finland wanted and which timetable.

JK stressed that negotiations on this subject had been and would always be difficult. Finland had considered a GNI based resource the best way to finance the budget. They thought this was a fair indicator of the prosperity of a country. This would of course mean less weight on a VAT resource and a slow disappearance of traditional own resources.

Finland, for example, did not need the kind of CAP currently in place. However, if everybody in the Union agreed that cohesion and CAP were common tasks then there should also be an agreement on how to finance it.

JK underlined that the British rebate was not acceptable to Finland who considered it unfair. He also reminded that there was still some misuse of money and called for a better auditing system.

With regard to an EU tax, JK noted that people in Finland were very much against it. How could they know how this money would be used? Whether it went to the right places? JK was also doubtful if using part of an existing tax would work.

AL responded that the EP was not biased and open to all proposals. Fact was that the current system did not work and a new one needed to be found. The recent Finnish proposals on how to improve the current system had been very interesting in this respect.

Of course, it should be insisted upon that EU money was spent correctly, value for money should be guaranteed. However, AL reminded that the EP Committee on Budgetary Control worked together with the Court of Auditors in order to check on how EU money was spent.

According to AL, for the next few years a European tax would not make sense because only small amounts were needed. To introduce a new tax for some 300 million taxpayers to raise something like 1/1000 of GNI would just cause collection costs that were totally out of proportion.

It would be much simpler to use part of a tax existing in all Member States - maybe in connection with the common market. Thus, the additional wealth created by the internal market could be used to fund new EU policies. AL stressed once more that this did not mean raising the current level of VAT. The idea was, for example, to dedicate to the European Union budget a part of the VAT on goods imported into a Member State from another Member State. In parallel, the Member States' contributions to the EU budget would be decreased or abolished. Another possibility was the harmonisation of the profit tax - rates and tax bases - followed by part of it going directly into the EU budget.

AL underlined that, whatever way would be chosen, it would be a decision taken by a Member State to allocate part of their revenue directly to the Union and not a decision to grant the Union the right to levy taxes.
According to JK, tax harmonisation was not any problem for Finland. He knew that other Member States wanted tax competition. For Finland there was enough competition outside Europe.

JK found the VAT idea quite interesting since it would also help the Member States to make their own budgets and it would be transparent for the consumers. Concluding the meeting, he showed himself open to jointly look for other possible answers.