Who is the greenest of them all? *

Is the EC green or not? More green than the UK? A Green MEP (M.Scott Cato) speaks in the Grudnia. As usual, the headline is uncompromising:

Brexit is political poison, and it’s green policies that are suffering 

The body text is a bit different:

As pro-European MEPs we grow weary of the government claiming credit for European achievements while blaming Brussels for its own inaction or mismanagement.... finger wagging at Brussels to deflect from British government failure is a well-rehearsed strategy. The latest blame game is about household solar batteries, which HMRC claims must be subject to the higher rate of VAT because of EU state aid rules. 

The proposed new [EC] rules [on VAT] also offer more flexibility for countries to set rates and to extend VAT exemptions – including a zero rate and some reduced rates – but the proposals are being blocked because there is still no unanimous agreement between EU countries. The UK has been one of the countries showing a reluctance to push for reforms that could provide the flexibility to reduce or zero-rate VAT for energy efficiency measures.

Lots of conditionals already. There's more:

But the government also likes to point towards a 2015 European court of justice (ECJ) ruling, which concluded that the reduced 5% rate of VAT on the supply and installation of energy-saving materials was in breach of EU rules.  

However, this rule could have been worked around: 

However, the ECJ also ruled that a reduced rate could apply if it was “part of a social policy”...As unhelpful as the ECJ ruling was, there are a number of ways that the British government could have engaged constructively with it....First, it could have explored its breadth and almost certainly found that energy-saving materials used in home insulation do not include batteries...Second, it could have changed domestic legislation to defend energy efficiency as social policy – which would allow the reduced rate as the ECJ ruled

So he UK Government should not have been so silly as to take  the ECJ ruling seriously in the first place. Of course,the ECJ could legislate later to close any interpretive loopholes, just as it did with UK power supply subsidies. So a longer term  remedy might have been necessary:

Third, it could have influenced the current debate over the revision to the VAT regime and supported the Greens in demanding that all products that support the sustainability transition will be zero rated for VAT.

Not exactly autonomous policy making though is it? First you have to work around some irritating new legislation, with a promise only of short term results. Then engage in a minority-supported lobby to try and move the ECJ - the same body that was pretty unmoved in the first place. Scott Cato sees it differently:

The government decided first to ignore the EU rules it was signed up to, then pick a fight with Brussels, [which seems to be a problem now, not heroic campaigning at all] then over-interpret the result of a legal case and use it to undermine support for the EU among the green lobby [a bit of old-fashioned party paranoia]... it is a perfect example of how our national politics under the Tories has become subjugated to Brexit posturing while urgent environmental and social priorities are ignored.

The VAT proposals in question are actually quite far-reaching, according to the European Commission press release Scott Cato links to:

In its 2016 VAT Action Plan, the Commission announced its plan to introduce definitive arrangements based on the principle of taxation in the Member State of destination. This is a departure from the current system where VAT is paid in the country where the goods or services originate. For the current system to work, VAT rates in different countries needed to be as similar as possible so that unfair competition between Member States is kept to a minimum. The recent EU decision to move to the so-called 'destination principle', as proposed by the Commission, means that such a restrictive approach becomes unnecessary. ...At the same time, the Commission proposes to abolish the list of goods and services to which reduced rates can currently be applied.

Consumers are likely to see more products being subject to reduced VAT rates. Member States should ensure that this lower rate is reflected in the final price paid by the consumer. [nice hope] 

There may be some particular advantages for small and medium-sized enterprises (SME):

It will reduce SME's VAT compliance costs by up to 18% per year, leading to an increase in their cross-border trading activity by about 13%. It should also have a positive revenue impact in the longer term due to the general positive effect on the small enterprises' output.

And what is an SME? Not really your corner shop or window-cleaning outfit:

the simplifications of the VAT Directive [also] target businesses operating on a much smaller scale, which under the general definition would be considered as ‘micro-enterprises', namely, those with annual turnover not exceeding €2,000,000. The review of the current exemption scheme will affect in particular a much smaller group of firms, i.e. those with less than €100,000 annual turnover.

There is a political agenda too, of course:

[The reforms will produce a] robust single European VAT area fit for an increasingly globalised world..The current process by which a Member State can seek to alter the rules on rates ultimately requires unanimous agreement by all Member States..  

So more power to the Commission, represented of course as an extension of freedom:

a new proposal granting Member States more flexibility to set rates [but within the new standard limits of course,with far less room for the current] patchwork of rates that vary from one country to the next. It has also created inequalities within the EU. Some Member States enjoy derogations, [rather a nasty word] while others are not allowed to apply a reduced rate or zero rate to the same products or services.