International

Last week it was reported in the media that Oxfam’s solidarity shops in the Netherlands and elsewhere which have a turnover of less than €68,000 per year will lose their current exemption from Value Added Tax. Oxfam and a range of organisations run shops in the Netherlands, Belgium and other European countries where goods are sold to raise money to finance their global development work and to the benefit of the people who make the goods, usually individuals or cooperatives from deprived regions in poor countries. Imposing VAT on the smallest of them could kill these outlets. The exemption must be removed as a result of an EU Directive of 2007. In a last attempt to change this decision, I intend to ask the European Commission to bring a new proposal forward. Until then the Commission should simply leave a country such as the Netherlands in peace, and the government should be prepared to defer the measure. I can’t promise anything, but you must in any case try.

The big corporations and the SP appear to have at least one thing in common: we aren’t fond of petty Brussels rules. Of course, that isn’t the whole story. The big corporations are bothered mainly by concerns about rules which increase costs or which set limits to the market. They have set themselves squarely, for example, in favour of Brussels rules which have handed postal services over to the market. They also support the passion for spending cuts in the framework of European economic governance and all of the new rules linked to this. Naturally the SP is also utterly opposed to rules which serve no good purpose but which lead to an increase in administrative burdens. Regulation which sets a level under which the minimum wage or taxes levied on big corporations cannot fall would, however, get a hearty welcome for us. The big firms don’t want such things at all. Although therefore we are both against unnecessary rules, we differ rather a lot in opinion when it comes to the question of what is unnecessary. So it’s not easy to admit to the conclusion that, nevertheless, a grand coalition is indeed absolutely necessary to combat Brussels’ passion for regulation.

No, the elections for the European Parliament have not been brought forward and are still planned for 2014. Nevertheless they’re already being spoken of in the EP in an excited manner. There is now a proposal to have two lists: one, as now, a national list with national parties. But in addition there would be, were the proposal adopted, 25 seats (from the existing total of 754) reserved for European candidates. As if anyone wanted such a thing. In the EP it’s still not understood that ‘Europe’ for most people is a somewhat abstract concept, just as would be ‘European’ parties. So we shouldn’t be acting as if the public was indeed interested in European candidates instead of national candidates.

Last week, as part of its new economic governance, the European Commission produced its first report on ‘macro-economic imbalances’. Despite being extremely important, the report gained little attention in the media,. Twelve countries were, in the first instance, picked on to be examined by the Commission regarding matters such as export position, changes in wage levels, pensions, the housing market, and so on. These countries, which don’t include the Netherlands, are now being subjected to a close investigation. The expectation is that they’ll be getting a kick in the pants, and if things are bad enough and too little is done about these imbalances, they’ll be faced with billions in sanctions. So economic governance is now up and running, without anyone having been given the chance to have their say via referenda or elections. Some people will be very happy about this, and that goes for big corporations and the banks, but for ordinary people it’s a sad development.