The position of the participating EU institutions is still not clear. Mid August, the EU Commissioner for Taxation, Algirdas Šemeta, presented a study, which is rather critical of a Europe-wide introduction of the FTT. The study contains the following core statements against a FTT:

• There is a danger that capital is moved from the EU to third countries
• There are concerns regarding legal problems with the WTO (restrictions in respect of international money transfers)
• There are doubts about the technical feasibility
• The capital costs for economy and state will be increased
• The pricing process on the markets would become more difficult
• The stability of the financial markets is reduced by increased fluctuations.
• The Commission expects lower revenues than claimed by  supporters and
• The revenues are not evenly distributed.

Criticism concerning the content of this paper was voiced among other by the non-governmental organisation WEED (World Economy, Ecology & Development) and by Stephan Schulmeister of WIFO (Austrian Institute of Economic Research). Schulmeister invalidated above all the technical details, which might occur during the introduction, whilst WEED accused the Commission "of not really dealing with the arguments of FTT supporters" and "not learning any lessons from the financial crisis". Apart from that, WEED invalidated every single counter argument to the FTT mentioned above.

The ECOFIN was not able to agree on a joint approach regarding the FTT. This debate sees the ideological boundaries of the governments become blurred: supporters are in particular France, Belgium, Austria and Germany. Opponents come in particular from Great Britain, Sweden, but also from countries led by Social Democrats such as Spain or Greece. The latter is in particular for fear of any uncertainty in her - in any case fragile - financial markets against the introduction of a FTT. Countries, governed by Conservatives, which are in favour of introducing a FTT regard it as a necessary regulation of the financial markets to avoid new crises and to use its revenue to ease the burden on their budgets.

So far, the ECOFIN has failed to answer a number of open questions on the introduction of the FTT:

What happens to the revenue? (Discussed alternatives include development aid, climate protection, and budget allocation.) What is the basis of assessment? How high is this tax? Who collects it?

Besides the ECOFIN, a meeting took place of the campaign platform "Europeans for financial reform", in which the office of the Austrian Federal Chamber of Labour in Brussels also participated. It is the objective of this alliance, which apart from the AK also includes trade unions, non-governmental organisations from the areas of climate protection, development, health and education, the European Social Democrats and the European Greens, to jointly put pressure on EU institutions and individual governments. The aim is to regularly inform Europe's citizens and to mobilise them for the introduction of a FTT.

In the European Parliament, however, the debate goes clearly along ideological boundaries. The question, whether a FTT only makes sense globally or whether Europe should assume a pioneering role, is one of the main conflicts. The European People's Party, the European Liberals and the European Conservatives are aiming at postponing the debate to the next G20 summit in order to prevent a solo run of the EU. Social Democrats, Green and Left parliamentary representatives regard this as a filibustering and support a speedy introduction of the Financial Transaction Tax to finance the impact of the crisis now and to regulate the financial market as quickly as possible.