1. Aquí tenemos la posibilidad de seguir en vivo el debate sobre la TTF
del Ecofin del 22 de junio 2012.
http://video.consilium.europa.eu/webcast.aspx?ticket=775-979-
11487# -.
Posicionamientos orientativos:
Definitely in: France, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Slovenia, Greece, Spain,
Portugal.
Very likely to say yes soon: Italy (Merkel Hollande will convince them tonight),
Estonia, Finland.
Possible: Poland, Luxembourg (depending on the design of the tax),Slovakia,
Latvia (will judge latter), Romania, Latvia.
Definitely not: Uk, Sweden, Czech (say does not have a position yet but was
against FTT the whole time), Malta (say will take decision latter but was vs FTT
the whole time)
Did not speak: Bulgaria, Hungary (spoke but said nothing)
Only countries that were ready to block the enhanced cooperation (ECP)/say it
was not the right time to decide about it: Latvia, NL
Denmark: Germany has sent a letter to all of you asking to move ahead with
enhancedcooperation. I would like to have the European Commission
comments first.
Semeta (EC): (frankly we could have written his speech- only the allocation
part is missing)It is clear that there is no agreement at EU 27. We need to find a
way forward. There is pressure from citizens, the European Parliament, and
some of you. Swift progress is expected. We need to maintain the momentum.
Discussing further about the objectives, principles, alternatives is just a delaying
tactic (really looks like our last letter). We already had enough debate in 2011 on
the options; the EC proposal was the result of this debate.
Denmark. I would like to know if we have reached an agreement on unanimity
or not?
Austria: (actually lead the fight even more than Fr or Ger).The EC proposal is
good but there will be no EU 27 agreement in the near future. Alternatives are
not as good as the FTT and it would anyway be impossible to find a common
solution soon.
As said in our letter: Enhanced cooperation is possible according to art 20TEU
and 226 TFUE. Invite colleagues in favour of the FTT to participate in
developing ECP. Austria needs urgent steps forward as it is a condition for our
coalition partner (the greens) to agree to the Fiscal Pact (ESM). Otherwise will
not be ratified
Germany:Clear FTT in any form would fail at EU 27. We need to report to the
European Council next week. FTT good example of ECP. Wants to know where
we stand. More discussions will be needed on details but know need a tour de
table.
1

2. France:Strongly support the FTT; agrees with AT and DE that EU27 option
won’t be adopted any time soon, thus FR wishes for those countries who wish to
go forward to be able to do so quickly as a first step towards a broader based
FTT. Quick implementation possible on more limited scope like the French tax
for example.
Romania: Still have concern re potential risk but not averse to continue
discussions on potential impact, costs, low growth etc; if a majority is in favour,
we would “stay with them” (frankly not clear if he meant they will allow the ECP
to go ahead or support it)
Sweden: Supports financial sector’s contribution to the crisis (such as via FAT)
but cannot support FTT; concerns on impact on growth. There should be more
work put on looking at optional alternatives/compromises such as stamp duties
and the likes, but the Commission’s proposal should be killed right now.
Reserve the position on ECP, needs to see how it will affect other European
countries before deciding. Prefer to try compromise at EU 27.
Finland: Supports FTT and EC’s proposal; important to find common EU27
solution; see benefits of ECP but first needs to know the scope and the type of
tax. We should continue to work.
Spain:EU 27 would be better but taking into account the difficulties to get an
agreement, open to explore ECP on a gradual/step by step approach. Will need
to minimise distortive effects on capital flows;
Poland: Has problem regarding the effectiveness of the FTT. FAT is safer but if
a group of countries feels the need to move forward with ECP and even if we are
against creating division within the EU then we would be supportive of an ECP
“by these countries” (frankly not clear for me if it means they would join the
EPC or just do not prevent it from happening). We need to have more details
and ensure that it would not have negative effects on the outsiders – it’s
important to build community spirit/more integration and ECP is a mean
towards that. Favours part of FTT revenue to go to EU own resources.
Italy: Supports FTT and a progressive approach (esp. on the tax base), would
prefer a EU27 solution; but it is unlikely. The government is looking “with
sympathy” to ECP but is not yet in a position to say whether it would join. It’s
very important to look at other factors (e.g. link between approval of the ESM
treaty and the FTT in some national parliaments). Easier to agree if others
measure to address the economic crisis are agreed (guess he links this to
discussion that will take place in Italy between Fr, Ger, It, and Sp today)
UK: not against transaction taxes in general – we have one of our own – and
have introduced a bank levy, we are taxing our financial sector more than
others, but have concerned on the EC proposal and its impact on EU GDP and
financial services flight: according to EC it will lead to decreasing GDP by 1.7%
and to 90% of financial business leaving the UK (How can he publicly lie like
this and misinterpret the EC work on purpose) There doesn’t seem to be a
consensus on a EU27 option; UK would only support a global solution.
However, would not stop an ECP if what is being proponed is made clearer: an
2

3. ECP on the basis of the EC proposal? A lesser version? What rate? What base?
Where is the money supposed to go? Barroso said in Mexico at the G20 that
proceeds would support climate finance among other things, though this is not
what the EC proposal says (revenue to go to EU own resources); international
charities who are lobbying me want to see revenue to go to development aid,
some EU MS to their own budget – need more clarity on all of this. We reserve
the opportunity to check that an ECP would not have consequences on the
European economy or other negative effects.
Belgium: Support EC proposal, would prefer at EU 27 but searching for
alternatives is just delaying the process. They are complementary not a
replacement. Ready for EPC while preventing distortions.
Portugal: Supports FTT and willing to look at alternatives including ECP.
Slovenia, the new mate on board! supports FTT, would prefer at EU 27 but as
not possible in the short or medium term and as it is also demanded in Slovenia
in the negotiation with the Trade Unions on the fiscal pact, SL is willing to join
the ECP though still have many questions. Believes that fall in GDP has been
greatly overestimated; people and trade unions demand a FTT.
NL: Not against an FTT per se, but need full examination of alternatives before
deciding – supports DK presidency proposal that today should be an orientation
debate and to proceed on parallel tracks. ECP can only be triggered if all
alternatives at EU27 level have been looked at and discounted in turn. It is not
the time for such a decision today.
Ireland: Has a Stamp Duty but not convinced can go beyond. Cannot join ECP
because of the risk of financial services flight; criteria for ECP have to be met
rigorously and any negative impact on others must be ruled out. Concerned that
ECP on such a central economic issue would set a dangerous precedence,
though will not attempt to stop those who feel the need to go ahead.
Latvia: All possible alternatives at EU27 must be looked at; need impact
assessment of ECP on the internal market. Not the time for the ECP, we have
not exhausted all other solutions.
Luxembourg (more open that we expected). Some questions remain
unanswered: what is the objective, generate new income and/or reduce
speculation? Where does the money go to, EU budget? What is the scope? ECP
must not undermine the internal market. Will not oppose ECP but can’t tell
today whether LUX will join (financial services represent 30% of GDP in LUX),
need to see new EC proposal and to know what we are talking about
Greece: Would prefer EU27 option but will go with the ECP (Still need
discusión however).
Malta: Has as Stamp Duty but does not support EC proposal on FTT; would
not object
to ECP by others – position will be taken once the details are known.
3

4. Czech Republic: Prefers discussion on other alternatives, does not have
position on ECP yet as we need to know the impact.
Slovakia: Has bank levy, supports EC proposal for EU27 FTT, believe
alternatives need to be explored, ready to explore ECP but it should be seen as a
last resort solution; would not object to it.
Hungary: No position. Need to respect art. 329 and minimum required for
ECP.
Estonia: ECP could be a possibility if FTT not possible at EU27. Need to
discuss
within the governments but need to know what we are talking about.
Latvia: Ready to discuss all options and flexible regarding way forward. Do not
think yet no chance to find an agreement EU 27 but would not block EHC. Need
to see a framework for ECP before we can take a position on it.
Cyprus: Agree that it is complicated to find an EU 27 consensus. Need to
explore procedural alternatives including ECP if all other avenues have been
exhausted; as the incoming presidency we will continue the discussion.
Commission (Semeta):Unfortunately there is no unanimity for EU27 option
but it is time to decide now. If proceeds of the tax are invested in a smart way
there would be positive effects on growth (in reply to UK comment); EC analysis
on the possible reduction of financial services (the 90% mentioned by Osborne)
is Orly about HFT; risk of relocation has been looked at. There are a significant
number of countries that wish to move towards to ECP: those will have to
submit their request to the EC defining the scope and details, on the basis of
which the EC can produce a proposal which the Council can then look at. ECP is
definitely better than no results at all. The impact of the internal market should
not be used as a way to prevente the EPC. Many EU MS already have some kind
of FTT or want to introduce some, which already has impact on the internal
market. Having 10 EU MS with the same system can only make it better.
Legal services clarified 5 steps necessary for EPC:
a) Note that there is an impasse (not necessarily formally by a vote)
b) At least 9 member states (or one country on behalf of 9) send a request
to the EC, indicating scope and objectives
c) EC produces a proposal (though technically not obliged to draft one) and
verify that basic conditions are met:
1. Situation of last resort;
2. There are 9 participants to begin with but the initiative is open to
all;
3. The initiative cannot be on an exclusive competence e.g. own resources;
4. The initiative does not undermine the internal market
d) Decision by the Council by QMV (which means the UK does not have a
veto!) to allow ECP to go ahead – Council will make political assessment
that the conditions above have been met
e) Implementation via normal legislative procedure: co-decision with EP if
4

5. it is the case (but EP does not have co decision on fiscal matters);
deliberation by Council but only interested member states have a vote and
the vote is taken by QMV. EP “consent” needed.
DK presidency conclusions
• note had been taken that the FTT could not be supported by all 27
member states (step a. above);
• There is the support of a significant number of EU MS for considering
the ECP
• The steps described by legal services can be taken – the next
presidency will take over.
5