The European Council meeting in Brussels last week became famous for the agreement of 26 Member States to start accession negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova (Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban left the meeting room while discussing this point and therefore it was judged that the decision on this was unanimous ).
However, Orban vetoed the amendment to the Multiannual Financial Framework for 2021-2027, which includes an aid package for Ukraine for the next four years until 2027.
Aid for Ukraine, but with three new EU taxes
However, it turns out that this package, which increases the expenditure of the EU budget by a total of 66 billion euros until 2027, also increases the so-called And the EU budget’s own revenue basket, i.e. three new EU taxes: 25%. share of ETS revenues, which were previously the revenues of national budgets, the so-called carbon footprint tax (CBAM) and the so-called corporate tax on the revenues of transnational companies.
They have been deliberately included by the EC in the budget amendment that includes support for Ukraine, precisely to push back countries that want to provide additional financial aid to this country, but at the same time are against new taxes. A way out of this situation would be to separate these two issues, especially if they are dealt with separately in the European Parliament, so that separate reports are voted on in both cases. MEPs from the current parliamentary majority voted in favor of both reports, MEPs from the United Right abstained on the budget amendment and voted against on new taxes.
Ask for another 66 billion euros
Let us not forget that the proposal put forward by the European Commission at the end of June this year included the need for additional financial resources of EUR 66 billion, which Member States would have to finance over the next four years. At that time, the EC predicted around 17 billion euros in subsidies for Ukraine (the expected amount for this country will total 50 billion euros, but 33 billion euros will be loans), another 15 billion euros for migration, and another 15 billion euros for migration. 10 billion euros to support various previously established investment funds, 2 billion euros to finance the consequences of inflation, 3 billion euros for the so-called flexibility mechanism and the aforementioned 19 billion euros in interest costs. Unfortunately, the EC has included a proposal to allocate an additional 15 billion euros for migration and its internal effects, and 0 euros (in words: zero euros) for aid to the so-called frontline countries that took in the largest number of war refugees. However, the additional 19 billion euros in interest costs is at least questionable from Poland’s perspective in a situation where our country has not used KPO funds for two years due to a political blockade.
New taxes are unfair to less wealthy countries
An attempt to introduce 3. new taxes, the so-called own revenues from the EU budget, apart from the fact that it means transferring a significant part of tax sovereignty to the EU level, is also extremely unfair to less wealthy countries, such as Poland. The current system of providing the EU budget on the basis of the GNI contribution means that rich countries, even taking into account the reductions granted to them, pay much higher contributions than less rich countries. Replacing this system with EU taxes, especially those of an environmental nature, burdens less wealthy countries much more heavily than rich countries. Therefore, Prime Minister Morawiecki’s government has consistently supported both the transfer of 25% of ETS revenues from the national budget to the EU budget, and the introduction of the CBAM tax, as well as the 15% tax on the profits of transnational corporations blocked. . The EC expects to generate an average of EUR 17 billion annually from these three new tax sources in the years 2026-2030, of which approximately EUR 12 billion from the ETS, approximately EUR 1 billion from CBAM and approximately EUR 4 billion from corporate tax. As can easily be estimated, most of these additional revenues will come from countries undergoing energy transformation, such as Poland, which will have coal energy for at least another decade.
Tusk’s silent consent
Prime Minister Tusk’s tacit consent to this new tax system is a scandal because, as I have already said, it means transferring a significant part of our tax sovereignty to the EU level, and it is also an announcement that the so-called The Second Basket own income, which will soon be presented by the European Commission, will also be accepted by Prime Minister Tusk. This decision is also a scandal because it means that our country’s pressure on the EU budget will be much higher than before, in a situation where we are still much poorer than the countries of Western Europe. Moreover, this is all happening in a kind of media silence (only TVP Info reported this issue), and yet it is also a serious step towards creating an EU superstate.
Source: wPolityce