You are in:
EU Tax: Straw Reveals Hand Early
British foreign secretary Jack Straw seems to have given away his government's 'bottom line' of compromise on tax reform.
Straw is reported to have said that he would consider surrendering Britain's veto on measures to combat cross-border tax fraud during the intergovernmental conference on the EU constitution.
This veto is yet another of Britain's supposedly sacred 'red lines' - articles of national interest that the government has refused to negotiate away.
However, Ireland's finance minister, Charlie McCreevy, claims that he was contacted by his British counterpart's office, assuring him that the UK had no plans to drop the veto.
The Independent reports that many in Ireland were dismayed by Straw's claim. Ireland has been Britain's only ally in opposing proposals to drop national vetoes in tax-related issues, claiming that any change in this area would be the beginning of the 'slippery slope' to an EU-wide tax policy.
The report goes on to saw that Straw may have bungled negotiations by giving away Britain's bottom line in advance of the conference.
Whether Straw's slip represents the UK's bottom line or not, any change represents another concession on Britain's red lines. The UK tabled over 200 amendments to the constitution's first draft. These have been reduced to just eleven.
Prime minister Tony Blair assured voters that these eleven were 'red lines' that were not up for negotiation. Shortly afterwards, however, he indicated that he was open to the idea of an EU foreign minister - despite the spilts in the union regarding Iraq. He also signalled willingness to sign up to the proposed fundamental rights charter.
Note that Blair still insists that the constitution is a 'tidying up' exercise.
EURSOC wonders where these red lines are really drawn, and if the government has any intention at all of honouring them. Furthermore, why table over 200 amendments without defending them?
Eurocrats argue that this is the sort of sophisticated negotiating required when bashing out a document like the constitution.
However, the government has no mandate to negotiate away rights of any sort. British rights and laws are not bargaining chips.
The idea that one must give away some things to keep others may be fair enough in business mergers. But Britain and Europe have done perfectly well before this EU rights grab. What is so wrong with our laws that they must be surrendered in this way? And why aren't we hearing enough about the alternatives?
