Osborne tries to blame the EU for "taxes" - it doesn't charge any

Is the Chancellor hoping the public will forget he's responsible for raising taxes?

Over the next few years, we can expect the Conservatives and the right-wing press to take every opportunity to spread myths about the EU in order to win public support for David Cameron's madcap renegotiation strategy. A useful example of this tactic was offered by George Osborne during his interview with the BBC this morning. The Chancellor remarked that "a lot of big British businesses and small businesses came out last week and said actually one of Britain's problems are the taxes and regulations from Europe". 

There are many things that one can blame on the EU but "taxes" are not one of them, for the simple reason that it doesn't levy any. At no point in the history of European integration have national governments ever surrendered control of taxation to Brussels. As the EU's website helpfully explains:

This [taxation] is decided by your national government, not the EU.

Governments set tax rates on company profits, personal income, savings and capital gains (profits made from selling an asset, such as a house). The EU merely keeps an eye on these decisions to see they are fair to the EU as a whole.

This means ensuring national tax rules are consistent with the EU's goals of job creation and do not impede the free flow of goods, services and capital around the EU, or give businesses in one country an unfair advantage over competitors in another.

Moreover, national governments remain in control of raising taxes as EU law requires that no EU decisions on tax matters be taken unless all member countries are in unanimous agreement.

It's true that the introduction of VAT, which replaced the UK's existing consumption tax, the Purchase Tax, was a pre-condition of the UK joining the EEC in 1973, but since Osborne increased this tax from 17.5 per cent to an all-time high of 20 per cent in his 2010 "emergency Budget", that's presumably not what the Chancellor had in mind. 

With the UK in danger of an unprecedented triple-dip recession, it would be surprising if businesses weren't concerned about the tax burden. But unfortunately for Osborne, the only person to blame for that is him. 

Chancellor George Osborne takes part in a tour of the train wheel manufacturers Lucchini UK, at Trafford Park in Manchester earlier today. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.