The Gibraltarian media has suggested that Spain is likely to raise objections
to the Rock's new tax proposals this week, in order to increase pressure on
the jurisdiction in the run-up to the November 7 referendum on joint Anglo-Spanish
sovereignty.
Reporting Wednesday on the European Commission discussions of the business
tax proposals - formulated in an attempt to satisfy the European Union's state
aid rules - Iberia News suggested that:
'Just under three weeks before Gibraltarians vote in the forthcoming referendum
on joint sovereignty, the Spanish government have climbed on the bandwagon,
criticising Gibraltar and trying to influence the outcome of today's procedures
which will determine whether the EU accepts Gibraltar's new tax proposals.'
The news service continued: 'Spain is expected to reject the proposals. The
Spanish decision is based more on the political issues surrounding Gibraltar,
rather than the validity of the proposals. The proposals have nevertheless been
accepted by the UK government who described them as satisfactory before they
were presented to the European Union for acceptance. The proposals have been
described as unobjectionable and have, since their publication, been seen as
a possible model for other territories to use.'
Meanwhile, the Gibraltar government has come under fire from the Opposition
for giving a misleading impression over the European Commission review of the
proposals.
'When the Chief Minister presented the new tax reforms to the House of Assembly,
he said that there had already been consultations with the European Commission.
However, their acceptance was presented almost as a fait accompli given Britain's
support. There was no indication that this approval would only come after another
full-scale investigation,' the party alleged in a statement, continuing:
'Moreover, Mr Caruana went as far as to suggest that the only reason why the
reforms were not introduced immediately was because it was not desirable in
the middle of a tax year, not because he was waiting for an investigation from
the Commission. The explanation given now is different to what the government
said in July.'