Letter: Which Europe?

Geoffrey Martin
Tuesday 01 December 1998 00:02 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: John Rentoul's article on EU tax harmonisation (28 November) was a useful antidote to some of last week's more extreme attempts to concoct a "hidden agenda" of EU tax rises. But it could usefully have added two points made clear by Commissioner Mario Monti, responsible for all proposals on EU tax matters.

First, far from being the standard-bearers of high tax, the Commission has consistently argued that EU governments should cut the proportion of GDP taken in tax. Fair tax competition benefits the European economy by making it more competitive. If goals can be met without taxes, so much the better. So the aim of reducing tax evasion on savings could be met either through a co-ordinated withholding tax, or by exchange of information. The current proposal leaves it to national governments to choose which option they prefer.

Second, the limits of the current debate should be clear. Any suggestion of a common EU income tax is ludicrous. Common action on VAT dates back to 1977, so another look at VAT within the Single Market makes sense, but there should always be some flexibility for EU governments to apply reduced rates to certain goods. Co-ordination to tackle tax evasion and tax breaks acting as hidden state aids means there would be even less reason to look at common rates of corporation tax.

It is quite natural for the 11 EU countries who will be using the euro in one month's time to be thinking hard about how to maximise the effectiveness of a newly strengthened Single Market. The UK government clearly understands this, as shown by Dawn Primarolo's active chairmanship of the current group on the code of conduct on unfair tax competition. This understanding is not shared by much of the UK media, determined to see this through the prism of the domestic debate on whether or not to join the euro. But their attempts to score points by caricaturing the current debate are unlikely to register much interest in the countries concerned with the serious business of making the euro a success.

GEOFFREY MARTIN

Head of Representations in the United Kingdom

The European Commission

London SW1

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in