Wasent aware of this aspect.
http://www.brecorder.com/top-news/1...ack-eu-financial-transaction-tax-sources.html
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
1/4% Tax on all stock trades pushed in NY Times today
- Thread starter seasideheights
- Start date
Wasent aware of this aspect.
http://www.brecorder.com/top-news/1...ack-eu-financial-transaction-tax-sources.html
"France and Germany want the FTT to be operational by the end of this year based on the support of nine states but they will still need a positive vote by all 27 states, which means getting London and other opponents who would not be joining in to approve."
Could the UK, etc., vote yes and put their competitors at a disadvantage? Or could it do a lot of damage to London depending on the current construction of the tax, and future alterations? It definitely will harm the economies of those 9 states and then all of Europe.
Well, Asia Rising eagerly awaits passage.
Quote from sheda:Wasent aware of this aspect.http://www.brecorder.com/top-news/1...ack-eu-financial-transaction-tax-sources.html
Could the UK, etc., vote yes and put their competitors at a disadvantage? Or could it do a lot of damage to London depending on the current construction of the tax, and future alterations? It definitely will harm the economies of those 9 states and then all of Europe.
Well, Asia Rising eagerly awaits passage.
Quote from FightTheFuture:
"France and Germany want the FTT to be operational by the end of this year based on the support of nine states but they will still need a positive vote by all 27 states, which means getting London and other opponents who would not be joining in to approve."
Could the UK, etc., vote yes and put their competitors at a disadvantage? Or could it do a lot of damage to London depending on the current construction of the tax, and future alterations? It definitely will harm the economies of those 9 states and then all of Europe.
Well, Asia Rising eagerly awaits passage.
The UK and Sweden have said they won't make any effort to block the enhanced cooperation FTT agreement as long as it doesn't burden their financial institutions or residents.
As you say, the FTT in Germany and France will directly benefit London. Malta would also get some of the business. Sweden would benefit if Finland joins the FTT. I've heard through a European friend that several German investment firms are planning to move to Switzerland.
The UK and others may perhaps be more likely to consider blocking an FTT proposal which included a residence principle.
The arithmetic could be quite tight in that case looking at the requirements for QMV (http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/area...onary/definitions/qualifiedmajorityvoting.htm)
The arithmetic could be quite tight in that case looking at the requirements for QMV (http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/area...onary/definitions/qualifiedmajorityvoting.htm)
Are we sure how an EC-9 FTT would work? I don't trust the prior linked Brazilian media report alone on this crucial question. Can someone pin this down? Can just one member country of the EU 27 vote no to block EC-9 FTT? That doesn't sound like what we were thinking was the case before, and it doesn't make sense. I thought Enhanced Cooperation was for when there wasn't unanimous agreement in the EU 27.
Assuming one country has minority blocking power, if EC-9 FTT has extra-territorial reach using a residence principal, so the tax has material effect in London and Stockholm, for sure the UK and or Sweden would vote no and block it. Conversely, if EC-9 FTT has no extra-territorial reach, it exposes the weak nature of FTT, a competitive disadvantage.
Does EC-9 FTT get paid to Brussels? The Finnish FM advocate said Finland would have an offsetting credit on EU membership fees.
Is EC-9 FTT for real on its own, or a way for 9 EU countries to all pass it in their own countries like France, or just a way to snowball it further for EU discussion? Is Germany prepared to pass it on their own in Germany, or more interested to keep it on an EU agenda? We need to understand how EC-9 in general works better. Is there precedence for using enhanced cooperation already?
Assuming one country has minority blocking power, if EC-9 FTT has extra-territorial reach using a residence principal, so the tax has material effect in London and Stockholm, for sure the UK and or Sweden would vote no and block it. Conversely, if EC-9 FTT has no extra-territorial reach, it exposes the weak nature of FTT, a competitive disadvantage.
Does EC-9 FTT get paid to Brussels? The Finnish FM advocate said Finland would have an offsetting credit on EU membership fees.
Is EC-9 FTT for real on its own, or a way for 9 EU countries to all pass it in their own countries like France, or just a way to snowball it further for EU discussion? Is Germany prepared to pass it on their own in Germany, or more interested to keep it on an EU agenda? We need to understand how EC-9 in general works better. Is there precedence for using enhanced cooperation already?
Quote from Explorer:
The UK and others may perhaps be more likely to consider blocking an FTT proposal which included a residence principle.
The arithmetic could be quite tight in that case looking at the requirements for QMV (http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/area...onary/definitions/qualifiedmajorityvoting.htm)
Based upon previous statements made by various countries: If the enhanced cooperation (EC) FTT agreement results in a tax burden on financial institutions or residents outside the EC FTT zone, then the UK, Sweden, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and Malta are all likely to object.
If the EC FTT does not place a burden on countries outside the EC zone, then other countries are not likely to object.
How agressive the EC countries will be remains to be seen. Attempting to place a FTT burden on other countries, particularly the UK, will result in a nasty fight.
Quote from Robert A. Green:
Are we sure how an EC-9 FTT would work? I don't trust the prior linked Brazilian media report alone on this crucial question. Can someone pin this down? Can just one member country of the EU 27 vote no to block EC-9 FTT? That doesn't sound like what we were thinking was the case before, and it doesn't make sense. I thought Enhanced Cooperation was for when there wasn't unanimous agreement in the EU 27.
Assuming one country has minority blocking power, if EC-9 FTT has extra-territorial reach using a residence principal, so the tax has material effect in London and Stockholm, for sure the UK and or Sweden would vote no and block it. Conversely, if EC-9 FTT has no extra-territorial reach, it exposes the weak nature of FTT, a competitive disadvantage.
Does EC-9 FTT get paid to Brussels? The Finnish FM advocate said Finland would have an offsetting credit on EU membership fees.
Is EC-9 FTT for real on its own, or a way for 9 EU countries to all pass it in their own countries like France, or just a way to snowball it further for EU discussion? Is Germany prepared to pass it on their own in Germany, or more interested to keep it on an EU agenda? We need to understand how EC-9 in general works better. Is there precedence for using enhanced cooperation already?
For enhanced cooperation to occur a minimum of nine countries must request it and it must also be agreed by a qualified majority of the whole EU27. Qualified majority means each country is given a number of votes roughly proportionate to population size (see http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/area...onary/definitions/qualifiedmajorityvoting.htm). No one country can veto a proposal .
For a proposal to go through by QMV a total vote of 258 is needed, out of 345.
If you tally up the votes for the countries that are largely sympathetic to an FTT - whether or not they actually elect to join in - it doesn't reach 258 by my reckoning so they'll need support from other members.
A proposal that threatens the interests of other members, like including a residence principle for example, could make the arithmetic quite tight. The UK's vote carries significance because it has a large number of votes.
Quote from Explorer:
For enhanced cooperation to occur a minimum of nine countries must request it and it must also be agreed by a qualified majority of the whole EU27. Qualified majority means each country is given a number of votes roughly proportionate to population size (see http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/area...onary/definitions/qualifiedmajorityvoting.htm). No one country can veto a proposal .
For a proposal to go through by QMV a total vote of 258 is needed, out of 345.
If you tally up the votes for the countries that are largely sympathetic to an FTT - whether or not they actually elect to join in - it doesn't reach 258 by my reckoning so they'll need support from other members.
A proposal that threatens the interests of other members, like including a residence principle for example, could make the arithmetic quite tight. The UK's vote carries significance because it has a large number of votes.
Thanks Explorer.
EC 9 is just over half EC 17 and way short of a majority of the EU 27, on a member basis, not QMV basis. Plus, the EC 9 for FTT looks to be 2 big countries Germany and France plus lots of smaller countries, so it's probably even weaker on a QMV basis for passing an EC9 vote.
If 2 of the big 4 EU members, Spain and Italy stay out - and Germany and France originally counted them in for FTT - isn't EC9 FTT doomed to failure? Doesn't this render EC 9 FTT just a talking point, or red herring? I know Explorer is implying the same thing.
I hope we can count on Spain and Italy to stay out of EC9 FTT. I think the Franco German strategy is to snowball FTT one step at a time. Has Germany lost their leverage with the ECB under Draghi? Maybe, but probably not.
Quote from Robert A. Green:
Thanks Explorer.
EC 9 is just over half EC 17 and way short of a majority of the EU 27, on a member basis, not QMV basis. Plus, the EC 9 for FTT looks to be 2 big countries Germany and France plus lots of smaller countries, so it's probably even weaker on a QMV basis for passing an EC9 vote.
If 2 of the big 4 EU members, Spain and Italy stay out - and Germany and France originally counted them in for FTT - isn't EC9 FTT doomed to failure? Doesn't this render EC 9 FTT just a talking point, or red herring? I know Explorer is implying the same thing.
I hope we can count on Spain and Italy to stay out of EC9 FTT. I think the Franco German strategy is to snowball FTT one step at a time. Has Germany lost their leverage with the ECB under Draghi? Maybe, but probably not.
Thanks Robert
Italy and Spain could well choose to stay out of EC9 but still give their consent through QMV for others to go ahead with EC9, in which case it would probably get enough votes to go through.
However if Germany and France come up with a proposal that threatens other members including the UK, it is just possible they might struggle to get enough votes.
Of course if Italy and/or Spain voted against in QMV it would probably be curtains for EC9 but I'd question whether that is particularly likely.