The real problem with the EU is whose in control.

[Himaginn]

How many more times are you going to ask the same question?.

How about until you answer it?

You seem to have some ideological notion of how H of P or H of C work.
They don't all get together, then someone asks, "Anybody got any laws to make?" then they all sit around discussing it. Eventually it's passed or not, and then written into law.

Perhaps you ought to read PeterChichester's comment:

MP's don't propose new bills or changes. Well they do but private members bills are extremely unlikely to get passed. A subset of the cabinet who you haven't voted for plus civil servants propose bills and mp's of which you may or may not have voted for 1 out of 650 do as they are told.
Have you actually watched a debate in the commons. There is no debate... That doesn't happen.
Weirdly the house of lords seems more democratic and none of them are elected by anyone.

It works very similar, but IMO, not as well as the EU system.
But again you're forcing me to address something which I hoped to address later at my leisure.
The H of C work in a similar way to the EU Parliament. Just substitute European Commission for Parliamentary Committees and civil servants and it looks very much the same. Except that there are also committees in EU Parliament. The Presidents/Chairmen of the Committees make up the Council of Presidents.
The main difference is that committees and cabinet, in UK H of C decide which laws to pass and are heavily guided and attended by whichever government is in power. So UK government laws, their effect, and their impact is heavily dependent on the majority party.
The party whip system is partly reflected in the European Parliament except that:

There is far more likelihood of Members not knowing what they are voting about in the House of Commons, where some divisions involve one vote on several pieces of legislation at a time!

researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05031/SN05031.pdf (all the following quotes are from the same paper)

Whereas, in the European Parliament, the 'parties' are usually transnational parties:

Political groups and parties at EU level are mainly coalitions of more or less likeminded national political parties, and studies of voting behaviour in the EP suggest that ideology has more influence than nationality.

Committees are formed inn EU Parliament:

1. Members may form themselves into groups according to their political affinities. Parliament need not normally evaluate the political affinity of members of a group. In forming a group together under this Rule, Members concerned accept by definition that they have political affinity. Only when this is denied by the Members concerned is it necessary for Parliament to evaluate whether the group has been constituted in conformity with the Rules. 2. A political group shall comprise Members elected in at least one-fifth of the Member States. The minimum number of Members required to form a political group shall be twenty. 3. A Member may not belong to more than one political group. 4. The President shall be notified in a statement when a political group is set up. This statement shall specify the name of the group, its members and its bureau.

The Conference of Presidents shall submit proposals to Parliament.

The political groups within the Parliament are allocated speaking time in proportion to their numbers of MEPs and it is up to them how that time is divided between their MEPs.

Detailed discussion takes place at committee stage, where there are no constraints on how long an MEP can speak, or how often he/she can take the floor.

Filibustering is not possible in the European Parliament, unlike in the House of Commons.

IMO the EU Parliament is a better more equitable system because it is not dominated by swinging majority parties.
The largest party tend to have about 37% only. It tends to be a continual consensus of opinions amongst all the parties.

UKIP (who have 22 out of UK's total 73 MEPs) are affiliated to EFDD who have a total of 33 MEPs out of a total of 751 MEPs in total. So it's no wonder that UK's interest is not being represented properly in EU Parliament. UKIP has a history of trying to disrupt the proceedings of EU Parliament, rather than engaging in proper debate. (Rather like some of the posters on GD Forum, I suppose.)
We have one group trying to disrupt proceedings while the rest try to represent UK.

Then UKIP spread disinformation abroad about the Commission being the 'law making' body and 'EU Parliament can only accept or reject' laws and regulation.

 

[Himaginn]

A useful web site for who's who in EU Parliament: http://www.europarl.org.uk/en/your-meps.html
More than twenty center left, a few center right, a few greens and a few far left. The rest, more or less are far right. Either Conservative or UKIP.

 

[Himaginn]

How many more times are you going to ask the same question?.

How about until you answer it?

Perhaps, to finally put to bed PBC's fallacious assertion:

under the Treaty of Maastricht enhanced by the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament has a right of legislative initiative that allows it to ask the Commission to submit a proposal.......
On the basis of a report by one of its committees, under Article 225 TFEU, Parliament, acting by a majority of its Members, may request the Commission to submit any appropriate legislative proposal.....
In the areas where the treaties give the European Parliament the right of initiative, its committees may draw up a report on a subject within its remit and present a motion for a resolution to Parliament......

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/20150201PVL00004/Legislative-powers

PBC's assertion was based on the 1957 Treaty of Rome which has been superceeded by the Treaty of Maastricht enhanced by the Lisbon Treaty.

In the beginning, the 1957 Treaty of Rome gave Parliament an advisory role in the legislative process; the Commission proposed and the Council adopted legislation.

 

[PBC_1966]

Utter baloney! Your view, and a highly personalised view of EU

Which statement do you believe is baloney? You, yourself, quoted a reference that the EU sets the minimum 15% standard VAT rate. That the EU sets out the list of exempt items is also a simple matter of record.

Examples please?

A quick search shows a news story from just a few weeks ago on the very issue of Britain's zero-rated food and other items:

Pierre Moscovici, the Economics Commissioner, said that Britain's "zero rate" for VAT on a number of items is "not the best idea" and suggested it will be looked at as part of a review by the European Commission.

Mr Moscovici was asked about about Britain's "zero rate" exemption from European rules which state that the minimum rate of VAT must be 5 per cent. "We will have to reassess everything," he said. "Zero rate is not the best idea."

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rates-of-vat-on-different-goods-and-services

Edit: Above link posted in error. The correct link for the above quote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-on-food-medicine-and-childrens-clothing.html

 

[PBC_1966]

Like all the things listed as exempt here:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rates-of-vat-on-different-goods-and-services

No! That's a UK list of goods and services that ARE subject to VAT.
Some are exempt, some are 0% rated. Some are variously rated. It's a UK list, not a EU list!

Yes, the list overall is for the U.K., but you were asking about VAT-exempt items, so it was a convenient list to show such items. The rates (including zero percent) indicated on some items are specific to the U.K. and will be different elsewhere in the EU, but the list of exempt goods and services is the same throughout the EU, because those are the EU's VAT rules.

 

[PBC_1966]

On the basis of a report by one of its committees, under Article 225 TFEU, Parliament, acting by a majority of its Members, may request the Commission to submit any appropriate legislative proposal.....

And is the Commission now obliged to honor that request?

 

[Himaginn]

Utter baloney! Your view, and a highly personalised view of EU

Which statement do you believe is baloney? You, yourself, quoted a reference that the EU sets the minimum 15% standard VAT rate. That the EU sets out the list of exempt items is also a simple matter of record.

I can't believe you can't tell the difference between a minimum and what you call:

In time the EU wants a completely "harmonized" system everywhere.

That's a highly personal and prejudicial opinion. It has no basis in empirical data.
On that basis I feel fully correct in describing it as utter baloney!
However, there is some administrative advantage to having a harmonized system

Examples please?

A quick search shows a news story from just a few weeks ago on the very issue of Britain's zero-rated food and other items:

Pierre Moscovici, the Economics Commissioner, said that Britain's "zero rate" for VAT on a number of items is "not the best idea" and suggested it will be looked at as part of a review by the European Commission.

Mr Moscovici was asked about about Britain's "zero rate" exemption from European rules which state that the minimum rate of VAT must be 5 per cent. "We will have to reassess everything," he said. "Zero rate is not the best idea."

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rates-of-vat-on-different-goods-and-services

Sorry, but your links to stories are gobbledeygook.
The Pierre Moscivici link shows:

Pierre Moscovici said on Thursday that Europe must focus on promoting growth and less on tightening budgets to revive the bloc's sluggish economy and avoid a deepening social crisis.

Absolutely nothing to do with VAT!
Yet your original assertion was:

The EU permits reduced rates for certain things, but then complains about certain member countries making use of that reduced rate, and especially about the U.K. & Irelands's long-term use of zero-rated items (food, books etc.) which it says is "unfair."

Examples please?

And your other link is to UK VAT rates (again)
Are you trying to be clever, 'cos it ain't working?
You're getting yourself confused.

 

[Himaginn]

Like all the things listed as exempt here:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rates-of-vat-on-different-goods-and-services

No! That's a UK list of goods and services that ARE subject to VAT.
Some are exempt, some are 0% rated. Some are variously rated. It's a UK list, not a EU list!

Yes, the list overall is for the U.K., but you were asking about VAT-exempt items,

I was asking for this EU list of exempt items and you provided a UK list, not a EU list.

so it was a convenient list to show such (UK) items.

Totally irrelevant.

The rates (including zero percent) indicated on some items are specific to the U.K. and will be different elsewhere in the EU, but the list of exempt goods and services is the same throughout the EU, because those are the EU's VAT rules.

I'm still waiting for the list.
(I've got a little list — I've got a little list) Mikado Gilbert and Sullivan.
I'll help you along a little:

Different rates of VAT apply in different EU member states. The lowest standard rate of VAT throughout the EU is 15%, although member states can apply reduced rates of VAT to certain goods and services. Certain goods and services are required to be exempt from VAT (for example, postal services, medical care, lending, insurance, betting), and certain other goods and services to be exempt from VAT but subject to the ability of an EU member state to opt to charge VAT on those supplies
The EU commission wants to abolish or reduce the scope of exemptions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_value_added_tax

 

[Himaginn]

On the basis of a report by one of its committees, under Article 225 TFEU, Parliament, acting by a majority of its Members, may request the Commission to submit any appropriate legislative proposal.....

And is the Commission now obliged to honor that request?

Stop making silly comments! You're being obtuse again.
Is a Parliamentary Committee obliged to carry out the wishes of Parliament?
The Commission is subservient to Parliament! Look up subservient.

I also note that you missed out the previous sentence in that quote:

under the Treaty of Maastricht enhanced by the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament has a right of legislative initiative that allows it to ask the Commission to submit a proposal.......

You are being intentionally obtuse.

 

[PBC_1966]

Sorry, but your links to stories are gobbledeygook.

My apologies - I'm not sure how that happened, but somehow I copied the wrong link and didn't check it as I usually do after posting (I'll plead that it was nearly bedtime here and I'd had a busy day!).

I've posted the correct link in the original post, but here is the report:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-on-food-medicine-and-childrens-clothing.html

 

[PBC_1966]

I can't believe you can't tell the difference between a minimum and what you call:

In time the EU wants a completely "harmonized" system everywhere.

You seem to have trouble differentiating between the situation which exists at present and what the EU is seeking to achieve for the future.

However, there is some administrative advantage to having a harmonized system

And many disadvantages, as already exist with the "partially harmonized" system.

so it was a convenient list to show such (UK) items.

Totally irrelevant.

The U.K. is obliged to exempt items which the EU regulations say shall be exempt, so it's perfectly relevant. However, if you insist:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32006L0112&from=en

Scroll down to Title IX, Exemptions.

 

[Himaginn]

My apologies - I'm not sure how that happened, but somehow I copied the wrong link and didn't check it as I usually do after posting (I'll plead that it was nearly bedtime here and I'd had a busy day!).
I've posted the correct link in the original post, but here is the report:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-on-food-medicine-and-childrens-clothing.html

Thanks for that PBC.
Sorry if I was a bit impatient with you, but your obstinacy over the power of EU Parliament Legislative Initiative was testing.

However, now that you have provided the link we can examine it in detail:
"EU official says review planned for VAT across the union which could threaten long-standing British right to waive sales tax on key items"
So this is a EU wide proposal.
"However Britain will have the right to veto any proposal to scrap the zero rate."
"Moscovici said the EU could draw up a new list or states could be allowed to draft their own,"

So the issue is not as clear or simple as you suggest. It's not about EU deciding that UK should charge VAT on these items. It's an EU wide proposal, which will apply to all states, which UK can veto, hence it could be stopped in its tracks from EU wide implementation. Not a clever move but one that is available. Or UK could insist on states setting their own categories. Again not a clever move and I'll explain in a bit in response to to your other issue.

In addition, the issue is about:
"David Cameron has vowed to resist plans by the European Union to bar Britain from waiving VAT on food, medicine and children's clothing, a senior EU official said.

Pierre Moscovici, the Economics Commissioner, said that Britain's "zero rate" for VAT on a number of items is "not the best idea" and suggested it will be looked at as part of a review by the European Commission."

So it's not about applying VAT to those goods but about putting them into an appropriate category, instead of waiving the VAT. Which I'll discuss in a mo'

 

[Himaginn]

I can't believe you can't tell the difference between a minimum and what you call:

In time the EU wants a completely "harmonized" system everywhere.

You seem to have trouble differentiating between the situation which exists at present and what the EU is seeking to achieve for the future.

No, it's your problem of either being misinformed, mislead or you are interpreting, or intentionally misinterpreting the "harmonization of VAT system" issue. There is a vast difference between rates and system.
"The harmonisation of VAT systems across Member States has been seen as an important part of achieving a Single European Market for many years. In October 1992 the European Council agreed Directive 92/77/EEC which established new rules limiting the discretion of all States to set VAT rates. In brief, all Member States must apply a standard VAT rate of 15% or more, and have the option of applying one or two reduced rates,
Any amendment to these rules – as with any VAT directive – must be agreed unanimously" (which links back to the previous discussion, so your example and your interpretation is fallacious)
European law on VAT rates - Parliament
"The 28 member states are otherwise free to set their standard VAT rates. The EU also permits a maximum of two reduced rates, the lowest of which must be 5% or above" http://www.vatlive.com/vat-rates/european-vat-rates/eu-vat-rates/

Additionally, the minimum standard rate is 15%. Currently the lowest rate set in EU is Luxembourg at 17%. (Some are as high as 25%) So this concern with VAT minimum rates is purely academic because all EU states are above the minimum allowed, and in some cases considerably above.

However, there is some administrative advantage to having a harmonized system

And many disadvantages, as already exist with the "partially harmonized" system.

I vehemently disagree but I'll explain more below.

so it was a convenient list to show such (UK) items.

Totally irrelevant.

The U.K. is obliged to exempt items which the EU regulations say shall be exempt, so it's perfectly relevant. However, if you insist:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32006L0112&from=en

Scroll down to Title IX, Exemptions.

Thanks for this list, and it finally gives us a chance to get at the crux of the issue. But more on that in a mo'.
What a fabulous list of exempt items!
It prevents states charging VAT on medical goods and services, milk, blood, organs, dental treatment, welfare and social issues, (which explains ajs's energy saving problem), protection of children, teaching, sport, charitable donations, land and property deals, postal charges, insurance, financial transactions, transport of sick or injured people. And a few other minor clarifications.
I can imagine some governments trying to put VAT on some of these goods or services.

Now to your interpretation of "Harmonisation of VAT Sytems"
It's inherently sensible for VAT categories to be harmonised across all states.
It makes sound administrative and economic logic for goods and services to be in the same VAT categoies for all EU states.
Take a silly example:
Eire has a exempt rate for postal services whereas NI has a standard rate for postal services. All the local organisations cross the border to post their mail.
We do have some cross-border shopping but it is not as daft as it would be if all states were free to choose their own categories.
UK citizens would be travelling to France for tobacco and alcohol products, etc. French citizens would be travelling to UK for kids clothes, etc.

And let's not get into the discussion about what governments would or wouldn't tax. The EU VAT system prevents this kind of tax avoidance:
"customers in the EU must adhere to the new rules that form part of a drive to harmonise taxes across the continent and curb the benefits for large companies diverting sales through low-tax states." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businessclub/11320318/

Imagine the kind of chaos that would ensue if the categories of goods were different in different states. Goods being transported and exported from one state where VAT was standard to another state where VAT was exempt.
The administrative difficulties would be a nightmare.
That is why it so important to have a harmonised system throughout EU.
And don't forget the bit I quoted earlier: "Any amendment to these rules – as with any VAT directive – must be agreed unanimously"

So were you mislead, misinformed? Or were you intentionally misinterpreting the legislation?

 

[jockscott]

So it's not about applying VAT to those goods but about putting them into an appropriate category, instead of waiving the VAT. Which I'll discuss in a mo'

So the UK's zero rated vat items could be put into an appropriate category? Which category do you think the EU wants to see them in?? Ahh, that would be one of the non zero rated categories then.

 

[PBC_1966]

So this is a EU wide proposal.

Why wouldn't it be? Everything the EU proposes is intended to have an EU-wide applicatoin eventually. Sometimes they permit a temporary derogation to certain countries for specific things (continued use of non-metric measurements on roads in the U.K., for example), and sometimes those "temporary" derogations end up being extended and lasting for many years. But they will keep on trying to get rid of them at evetry opportunity.

So the issue is not as clear or simple as you suggest. It's not about EU deciding that UK should charge VAT on these items. It's an EU wide proposal, which will apply to all states, which UK can veto, hence it could be stopped in its tracks from EU wide implementation.

Possibly at this point, but nothing the EU intends to do ever gets stopped permanently. They just let the fuss die down, then repackage the change some other way and represent it again later. Or will wait until there is some even bigger issue and it will become a bargainable thing.

Not a clever move but one that is available. Or UK could insist on states setting their own categories. Again not a clever move and I'll explain in a bit in response to to your other issue.

Why would it not be a clever move for the U.K. to veto something which is not in the country's interest?

Pierre Moscovici, the Economics Commissioner, said that Britain's "zero rate" for VAT on a number of items is "not the best idea" and suggested it will be looked at as part of a review by the European Commission."

"Not the best idea" - For whom?

So it's not about applying VAT to those goods but about putting them into an appropriate category, instead of waiving the VAT.'

And what would the appropriate category be?

If it were reclassified as exempt, that would have a considerable impact on the expenses of retailers, both in the U.K./Ireland and elsewhere in the EU, not to mention losing the national governments of all those other countries the VAT levied on food to the domestic buyer. Would it be a popular move?

It's already in a reduced-rate category, which as you've quoted yourself the EU says must be no less than 5% and for which the U.K. & Ireland currently do not have to comply, but which the EU wants to end. So if it were left as reduced rate but brough into line with that general rule, it would mean at least 5% VAT being charged on food in Britain.

So what's left - standard rate? I doubt that would go down well anywhere.