Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What if we voted no to Lisbon again?

Options
13567

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    ionix5891
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭ionix5891


    PlantPot wrote: »
    . The military/indutrial complex run the world these days, and that is not a good thing. Our little lads and lasses in the dail are nobodies.

    yah and the military/indutrial complex bought the Irish NO vote thru' secret LIBERATS funding sources for under a million euro


    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0520/1211232308995.html

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0918/breaking75.htm

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=56202647

    http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/eu-president-demands-probe-into-source-of-libertas-funding-1480303.html


    now run back to the conspiracy forum little boy

    CheckMate i say to ya


  • Options
    #63
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    PlantPot wrote: »
    Well they did finance it, support it and maintain it.

    Read the works of Anthony C Sutton, or for an introduction watch this video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6244851259954264539.

    I am aware of his works. Particularly his belief that Wall Street funded the Bolshevik Revolution and the rise of National Socialism. He is a poster boy for the word kook.
    PlantPot wrote: »
    He was talking about increased integration/expansion.

    Do you have a link to a source so I can read exactly what he said and in what context for myself?
    PlantPot wrote: »
    NO, the EU are holding a gun to the head of the government. They could break this country in two days

    It possibly could but at great cost to it's reputation and could even drive it's own collapse. But here is a question for you, why would it?


  • Options
    #64
    ionix5891
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭ionix5891


    PlantPot wrote: »
    Here we go again. Like a little pack of children, "eu president demands probe into source of funding,......"

    How about he tries to get his own EU accounts signed off.

    Libertas?? I could not care less about them. I am anti EU, always have been. Read "the trap" by Sir James Goldsmith, explains everything.

    the EU president doesn't work for US military he works for us (all the people in Europe), but Ganley on the other hand...


  • Options
    #65
    Furious-Dave
    Registered Users Posts: 479 ✭✭Furious-Dave


    PlantPot wrote: »
    Here we go again. Like a little pack of children, "eu president demands probe into source of funding,......"

    How about he tries to get his own EU accounts signed off.

    Libertas?? I could not care less about them. I am anti EU, always have been. Read "the trap" by Sir James Goldsmith, explains everything.

    Would you prefer no Union at all? Or perhaps you actually would be more comfortable having separate states that still war amongst themselves as they have been doing for millennia.


  • Options
    #66
    ionix5891
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭ionix5891


    answer this pothead

    * why dont the evil military EU park and aircraft carrier in Dublin bay and take over the country by shock and awe?

    * why are "they" instead pouring billions into our economy and brought our infrastructure from stone ages?

    * why do "they" allow our businesses into their lucrative markets? and our citizens to travel and live freely?


    has it occurred to you that if you lower your dosage things might be a bit simpler (Occams Razor) with no crazy conspiracies involved :rolleyes:

    i request moderators delete all posts since he started posting in this thread, completely derailing it and going on a tangent


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    PlantPot wrote: »
    :pac: He is only the tip of a vast iceberg. Trading with the enemy, old Prescott Bush was done.

    The tip of a vast iceberg? He is one of a few dozen prominent conspiracy theorist standing against thousand upon thousands of historians, economists and political scientists. His belief that Wall Street funded the October revolution and National Socialism is particularly laughable as the first era of globalisation ended at the outbreak of WWI with the movement of private capital across borders almost ceasing entirely. Only small amounts of private currency exchange took place with governments having exclusive control of all large international capital movements. It would not have been possible for large amounts of private Wall street dollars to find their way into the hands of the Bolsheviks and the Nazis without the compliance of central banks and the governments of Germany and Russia.
    PlantPot wrote: »
    Interview on RTE after the vote, don't know the exact date. And that is not to say it did not happen.

    I have little doubt that it took place. I just have a severe doubt of your ability to interpret events rationally.
    PlantPot wrote: »
    Oh I could alright, that is why our boys are running aroung like headless chickens, trying to please the big boys. Welcome to the world of "interdependence".

    It's reputation is already in tatter's.

    So you believe the EU will consciously make the Irish economy implode? You do realise when you talk about the EU making a decision you are really talking about the democratically elected governments of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom making a joint decision based upon the processes establish by the treaties?

    No doubt you are suffering some sort of paranoid delusion and I don't take pleasure in arguing with kooks so I'll bow out of this conversation from here.


  • Options
    #68
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    PlantPot wrote: »
    Read his works, it is all documented. And what makes you think the compliance of these people would be a problem.`:confused:

    Well considering many of them were subsequently executed or forced to flee I doubt they would willingly lend their support. It would be like the DUP supporting the IRA's appropriation of weapons to be used in their assassination.
    PlantPot wrote: »
    Or maybe Marty has a slip of the tongue.

    Or maybe you are seeing moving statues.
    PlantPot wrote: »
    That's not how it works, as you know. With all this talk of democracy, and yet only one country in the whole EU gets to vote on an EU constitution. Laughable.

    That is how it works and I know it because I have spent a significant proportion of my time reading the treaties and watching the EU work.
    PlantPot wrote: »
    Translation "I can't argue with what you said".

    It seems this is exactly what you do with everything. You apply your own interpretation of events and dialogue without the slightest justification in order to fit your warped perception of reality. I don't why Im taking the time to reply, no doubt you'll just do the same to what I have just written.


  • Options
    #69
    Thomas_S_Hunterson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,151 ✭✭✭Thomas_S_Hunterson


    ionix5891 wrote: »
    answer this pothead

    mature...


  • Options
    #70
    Thomas_S_Hunterson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,151 ✭✭✭Thomas_S_Hunterson


    Just noticed in the current Private eye, they brought up the interesting point that all of the 'changes' that the yes side are screaming about, which have actually changed nothing in the treaty, adequately served the purpose of providing justification for a second vote.

    Resorting to smoke and mirrors like that: Underhand and apalling.


  • Options
    #71
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    Sean_K wrote: »
    Just noticed in the current Private eye, they brought up the interesting point that all of the 'changes' that the yes side are screaming about, which have actually changed nothing in the treaty, adequately served the purpose of providing justification for a second vote.

    Resorting to smoke and mirrors like that: Underhand and apalling.

    Because the concerns addressed were a complete fabrication by no campaigners to begin with. If I tell people not to trust you because you have a swastika on your forehead with 'White Power' written underneath you wouldn't take a course of action to have laser tattoo removal surgery for something I fabricated, would you? You would attempt to demonstrate that you have no such tattoo in the first place. The one thing that will actually change is the number of commissioners.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Sean_K wrote: »
    Just noticed in the current Private eye, they brought up the interesting point that all of the 'changes' that the yes side are screaming about, which have actually changed nothing in the treaty, adequately served the purpose of providing justification for a second vote.

    Resorting to smoke and mirrors like that: Underhand and apalling.

    It's a pretty natural reflection of the nature of the No campaigns, though. With a few exceptions, what was objected to wasn't what was in the Treaty, but how what was in the Treaty might be interpreted. In response, we are getting assurances that those interpretations are not correct.

    That the No proponents wish to represent this as not dealing with the original issues is understandable, but rather difficult to claim, given the original lack of substantive complaints. Indeed, the only substantive complaint - the loss of a Commissioner - is being addressed. The rest were smoke and mirrors to start off with.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #73
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    If we voted No again, Scofflaw would still be defending the Government's right to hold a third referendum.


  • Options
    #74
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    dlofnep wrote: »
    If we voted No again, Scofflaw would still be defending the Government's right to hold a third referendum.

    Maybe! But that ignores the Political Reality of that 3rd Referendum happening!

    Some seem to think this could be a reality! That is a bigger reflection on the some, not Scofflaw!

    I'd put more weight on that, rather than Scofflaws opinion on a 3rd Referendum!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #75
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    dlofnep wrote: »
    If we voted No again, Scofflaw would still be defending the Government's right to hold a third referendum.

    They would have exactly the same rights to a third referendum that I am defending in respect of a second, for sure. The only real question for the government is whether it's politically advisable, at the end of the day - there's no doubt of their legal right to do it.

    Having said that, I'd vote No in a third referendum...

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #76
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Having said that, I'd vote No in a third referendum...
    May I ask why?


  • Options
    #77
    Thomas_S_Hunterson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,151 ✭✭✭Thomas_S_Hunterson


    To my mind, any third referendum should be rejected, even if it's merely to assert to the government that it is they who work for us and it is us who pay their salary. They should not try and manipulate us, irrespective of their reasons for doing so.


  • Options
    #78
    ionix5891
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭ionix5891


    Sean_K wrote: »
    To my mind, any third referendum should be rejected, even if it's merely to assert to the government that it is they who work for us and it is us who pay their salary. They should not try and manipulate us, irrespective of their reasons for doing so.

    there wont be a 3rd referendum on Lisbon

    if theres another No vote we be too busy with our economy imploding as businesses pull out


  • Options
    #79
    slimjimmc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,787 ✭✭✭slimjimmc


    ionix5891 wrote: »
    there wont be a 3rd referendum on Lisbon

    if theres another No vote we be too busy with our economy imploding as businesses pull out

    Businesses pull out if there is a business advantage in doing so such as to cut losses or make higher profits. This is usually achieved by gaining access to better markets, to cheaper or better skills and materials, and to state incentives and favours.

    How does passing Lisbon prevent that?


  • Options
    #80
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    ionix5891 wrote: »
    there wont be a 3rd referendum on Lisbon

    if theres another No vote we be too busy with our economy imploding as businesses pull out
    We're doing that already :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #81
    ionix5891
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭ionix5891


    slimjimmc wrote: »
    Businesses pull out if there is a business advantage in doing so such as to cut losses or make higher profits. This is usually achieved by gaining access to better markets, to cheaper or better skills and materials, and to state incentives and favours.

    How does passing Lisbon prevent that?

    not passing lisbon puts Ireland at risk of being an outsider in the EU :(

    now thats bad for business

    we have enough uncertainty as is in this country thanks to the property bubble /credit crunch thingie

    theres reason why ibec and isme (my small company is member of) backed the treaty

    if our partners leave the country so will my business, yee can go back to exporting potatoes and fish :(

    .


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    slimjimmc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,787 ✭✭✭slimjimmc


    ionix5891 wrote: »
    not passing lisbon puts Ireland at risk of being an outsider in the EU :(

    now thats bad for business

    we have enough uncertainty as is in this country thanks to the property bubble /credit crunch thingie

    theres reason why ibec and isme (my small company is member of) backed the treaty

    if our partners leave the country so will my business, yee can go back to exporting potatoes and fish :(

    .

    Regardless of Lisbon we would still be a full member of the EU with the same access to free trade as other members, that can't be changed unless we agree to it, choose to leave the EU, or the EU itself is disbanded. If the other countries go it alone then they would have to erect internal EU trade barriers which I don't think is possible. Being a political outsider doesn't necessarily make a country economically unattractive. I still fail to see how business could be affected. Can you explain what explict Lisbon related circumstances would cause businesses to leave Ireland or not locate here?


  • Options
    #83
    jacool
    Registered Users Posts: 3,835 ✭✭✭jacool


    Recession = Lisbon No Vote

    I'm a maths teacher, but can't work out that equation - help !


  • Options
    #84
    WooPeeA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,136 ✭✭✭WooPeeA


    slimjimmc wrote: »
    Regardless of Lisbon we would still be a full member of the EU with the same access to free trade as other members, that can't be changed unless we agree to it, choose to leave the EU, or the EU itself is disbanded. If the other countries go it alone then they would have to erect internal EU trade barriers which I don't think is possible.
    Irish has chosen position of the country in Europe and the world. It was (will gonna be) Irish choice, they will benefit or lose from that decision in the next years. But Irish were not aware that they are, at the same time, choosing world position of other European countries.

    Million dollar question for you:

    How do you think all 27 member states can benefit from keeping Ireland still in the club?

    Don't cross out the option of excluding Ireland from the EU that easily. Remember that Ireland is not Germany.


  • Options
    #85
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    slimjimmc wrote: »
    Regardless of Lisbon we would still be a full member of the EU with the same access to free trade as other members, that can't be changed unless we agree to it, choose to leave the EU, or the EU itself is disbanded. If the other countries go it alone then they would have to erect internal EU trade barriers which I don't think is possible. Being a political outsider doesn't necessarily make a country economically unattractive. I still fail to see how business could be affected. Can you explain what explict Lisbon related circumstances would cause businesses to leave Ireland or not locate here?

    Nothing specific in Lisbon itself. However, Ireland's refusal to ratify Lisbon, and the other member states' ratification, would indicate that Ireland doesn't want to go in the same direction as the rest of the EU. That suggests an ongoing tension, which will in time lead to a rift. Given the pace of change in the EU, and the built-up head of steam behind the current movement for reform (which is what Lisbon is), the timescale for such a rift might well be 5-10 years or less - well within a business planning horizon.

    Now, OK, cue arguments about how really the people of Europe want the same as Ireland, and it's only the elites/governments/eurocrats/Freemasons that want the other. Unfortunately, without the people of Europe being bothered to force their governments in the direction it is claimed they want - and all the evidence says that's not going to happen - none of that matters.

    It is not certain where such a rift/tension would lead - but that's something businesses hate - uncertainty. High tax, low tax, meh - it's always possible to make a profit somehow, as long as you can plan.

    If I were putting forward Ireland right now as a location for a European base, at some point in the presentation someone is going to say "well, what are the prospects on a five-year timescale?" and I'm going be saying "well, ah, that depends on whether the, er, tension between Ireland and the other EU members leads to some kind of rift, and what kind of rift...". Then I'll be asked "OK, and what's the maximum downside?" and I'd have to say "loss of access to the EU market". Killer.
    Having said that, I'd vote No in a third referendum...
    May I ask why?

    Actually, I'm not sure I haven't just persuaded myself out of it...essentially, though, my reasoning would be that a further No can only result from either a second failure to explain the Treaty by the government, or a fully conscious rejection of Lisbon by the electorate.

    A second failure to explain the Treaty would suggest that the government is either incapable of or unwilling to explain the Treaty, and further referendums are unlikely to change that.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #86
    slimjimmc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,787 ✭✭✭slimjimmc


    Thanks Scofflaw, that's a fair expectation of what could happen.

    The 'No' side are saying a,b and c will happen if we accept Lisbon, whereas the 'Yes' side are saying d, e and f will happen if we don't.
    It is by no means certain what will happen, nobody can really predict the future especially in politics. I suppose we all just have to weigh up the possibilities and make our decisions based on what could happen, the likelyhood of it occuring and the impact (good or bad) if it did.
    WooPeeA
    How do you think all 27 member states can benefit from keeping Ireland still in the club?
    I'm not saying there's any particular benefit to the other countries (those that have ratified at least, note there are still some countries who haven't played their cards yet). I don't know if there is or isn't.

    My point is that we are already in the club and afaik the rules of the club means we can't be kicked out, especially as the club is only proposing a 'minor' change to streamline how it is administered, it is not seeking to change the function or purpose of the club.

    When it came to the vote one member put her hand up and said "no, on second thoughts I'm not happy with some of the changes proposed". The motion fails, gasps and sighs echo around the clubhouse.

    So what happens next?

    Well one possibility is that the club could continue being administered as it has been without the new efficiencies. Certainly there will be groups muttering in the corner, a few choice words and many club members might get huffy and try ignore us, not invite us home for tea, etc in the hope we might reconsider or feck off. A few members who had said "I'll will if you will" might be relieved that someone else is taking the flack before they had to declare their side.

    Another possibility is that the unhappy members who already voted yes could get so pissed off they go form their own club but that would be an admission that the old club wasn't worked and some of them might be concerned a dangerous precedent is being set considering the core purpose of the club hasn't changed. "How many new clubs could be formed?" they might ask.

    I'm not ruling out that it could happen but imo it is a big step, a really big one.

    Of course it's also possible the dissident member could later announce her concerns are washed away, her previous reaction was only a stunt to jiz up a boring meeting and she was really voting yes, yes, yes.


  • Options
    #87
    evercloserunion
    Registered Users Posts: 1,889 ✭✭✭evercloserunion


    slimjimmc wrote: »
    Regardless of Lisbon we would still be a full member of the EU with the same access to free trade as other members, that can't be changed unless we agree to it, choose to leave the EU, or the EU itself is disbanded. If the other countries go it alone then they would have to erect internal EU trade barriers which I don't think is possible. Being a political outsider doesn't necessarily make a country economically unattractive. I still fail to see how business could be affected. Can you explain what explict Lisbon related circumstances would cause businesses to leave Ireland or not locate here?
    Because by repreatedly voting down EU treaties we are portraying ourselves to be a Eurosceptic nation, which increases the risk in the eyes of foreign investors that we will soon pull out. They're not going to wait until we actually have a referendum on EU membership, because at that stage it'd be too late.


  • Options
    #88
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    this was posted over in AH before christmas but life got in the way and i never got around to responding to it. there's an article of the treaty that seems to override unanimity whenever a few member states want it to and i was hoping someone could clarify what it means. i've bolded the relevant parts:
    239) Article 251 shall be amended as follows:
    (a) in paragraph 1 the words "to this Article" shall be replaced by "to the ordinary
    legislative procedure";
    (b) the second and third subparagraphs of paragraph 2, and paragraphs 3 to 7 shall be
    replaced by the following:
    "First reading
    3. The European Parliament shall adopt its position at first reading and communicate it to
    the Council.
    TL/en 149
    4. If the Council approves the European Parliament's position, the act concerned shall be
    adopted in the wording which corresponds to the position of the European Parliament.
    5. If the Council does not approve the European Parliament's position, it shall adopt its
    position at first reading and communicate it to the European Parliament.
    6. The Council shall inform the European Parliament fully of the reasons which led it to
    adopt its position at first reading. The Commission shall inform the European Parliament fully
    of its position.
    Second reading
    7. If, within three months of such communication, the European Parliament:
    (a) approves the Council's position at first reading or has not taken a decision, the act
    concerned shall be deemed to have been adopted in the wording which corresponds to
    the position of the Council;
    (b) rejects, by a majority of its component members, the Council's position at first reading,
    the proposed act shall be deemed not to have been adopted;
    (c) proposes, by a majority of its component members, amendments to the Council's
    position at first reading, the text thus amended shall be forwarded to the Council and to
    the Commission, which shall deliver an opinion on those amendments.
    8. If, within three months of receiving the European Parliament's amendments, the
    Council, acting by a qualified majority:
    (a) approves all those amendments, the act in question shall be deemed to have been
    adopted;
    (b) does not approve all the amendments, the President of the Council, in agreement with
    the President of the European Parliament, shall within six weeks convene a meeting of
    the Conciliation Committee.
    9. The Council shall act unanimously on the amendments on which the Commission has
    delivered a negative opinion.
    TL/en 150
    Conciliation
    10. The Conciliation Committee, which shall be composed of the members of the Council
    or their representatives and an equal number of members representing the European
    Parliament, shall have the task of reaching agreement on a joint text, by a qualified majority
    of the members of the Council or their representatives and by a majority of the members
    representing the European Parliament within six weeks of its being convened, on the basis of
    the positions of the European Parliament and the Council at second reading.
    11. The Commission shall take part in the Conciliation Committee's proceedings and shall
    take all necessary initiatives with a view to reconciling the positions of the European
    Parliament and the Council.
    12. If, within six weeks of its being convened, the Conciliation Committee does not approve
    the joint text, the proposed act shall be deemed not to have been adopted.
    Third reading
    13. If, within that period, the Conciliation Committee approves a joint text, the European
    Parliament, acting by a majority of the votes cast, and the Council, acting by a qualified
    majority, shall each have a period of six weeks from that approval in which to adopt the act in
    question in accordance with the joint text. If they fail to do so, the proposed act shall be
    deemed not to have been adopted.
    14. The periods of three months and six weeks referred to in this Article shall be extended
    by a maximum of one month and two weeks respectively at the initiative of the European
    Parliament or the Council.
    Special provisions
    15. Where, in the cases provided for in the Treaties, a legislative act is submitted to the
    ordinary legislative procedure on the initiative of a group of Member States, on a
    recommendation by the European Central Bank, or at the request of the Court of Justice,
    paragraph 2, the second sentence of paragraph 6, and paragraph 9 shall not apply.
    TL/en 151
    In such cases, the European Parliament and the Council shall communicate the proposed act
    to the Commission with their positions at first and second readings. The European Parliament
    or the Council may request the opinion of the Commission throughout the procedure, which
    the Commission may also deliver on its own initiative. It may also, if it deems it necessary,
    take part in the Conciliation Committee in accordance with paragraph 11.".

    can someone clarify what exactly that means? if they don't act unanimously, how do they act? what does this apply to?

    the person who posted it suggested that this article could be used to affect our tax in the future


  • Options
    #89
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    this was posted over in AH before christmas but life got in the way and i never got around to responding to it. there's an article of the treaty that seems to override unanimity whenever a few member states want it to and i was hoping someone could clarify what it means. i've bolded the relevant parts:

    can someone clarify what exactly that means? if they don't act unanimously, how do they act? what does this apply to?

    the person who posted it suggested that this article could be used to affect our tax in the future

    The first question I have to ask is why on earth is this guy not using the consolidated version? It really doesn't make sense to just read the changes themselves, and the consolidated version has been available since April 15th!

    Reading the article in context, these are the bits that don't apply:

    2. The Commission shall submit a proposal to the European Parliament and the Council.
    6. The Commission shall inform the European Parliament fully of its position.
    9. The Council shall act unanimously on the amendments on which the Commission has delivered a negative opinion.

    And the case in which they don't apply is:

    15. Where, in the cases provided for in the Treaties, a legislative act is submitted to the ordinary legislative procedure on the initiative of a group of Member States, on a recommendation by the European Central Bank, or at the request of the Court of Justice, paragraph 2, the second sentence of paragraph 6, and paragraph 9 shall not apply.

    The bits that don't apply are the bits that mention the Commission, and they don't apply in the case where the legislative initiative does not come from the Commission. In that case what will apply is either QMV or unanimity, depending on the area under consideration - in taxation, unanimity.

    Paragraph 9 is a special unanimity requirement applicable only when the Commission has delivered a negative opinion on legislation originated by the Commission and amended by Parliament and Council, and where unanimity would not otherwise apply. Striking it has no effect on the 'ordinary' unanimity required on tax matters, which I presume is the concern here.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #90
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    The first question I have to ask is why on earth is this guy not using the consolidated version?
    i don't know if he was, i got that from the treaty myself and didn't want to leave out anything that might be important. this is his post:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58320300&postcount=1477

    also he calls it article 116. what's going on there :confused:

    and i can't some of the other paragraphs he posted. might that be because he was using the consolidated version?
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Reading the article in context, these are the bits that don't apply:

    2. The Commission shall submit a proposal to the European Parliament and the Council.
    6. The Commission shall inform the European Parliament fully of its position.
    9. The Council shall act unanimously on the amendments on which the Commission has delivered a negative opinion.

    And the case in which they don't apply is:

    15. Where, in the cases provided for in the Treaties, a legislative act is submitted to the ordinary legislative procedure on the initiative of a group of Member States, on a recommendation by the European Central Bank, or at the request of the Court of Justice, paragraph 2, the second sentence of paragraph 6, and paragraph 9 shall not apply.

    The bits that don't apply are the bits that mention the Commission, and they don't apply in the case where the legislative initiative does not come from the Commission. In that case what will apply is either QMV or unanimity, depending on the area under consideration - in taxation, unanimity.

    Paragraph 9 is a special unanimity requirement applicable only when the Commission has delivered a negative opinion on legislation originated by the Commission and amended by Parliament and Council, and where unanimity would not otherwise apply. Striking it has no effect on the 'ordinary' unanimity required on tax matters, which I presume is the concern here.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    right so the reason the 3 paragraphs don't apply under the special provision is because they only apply in cases where the initiative came from the commission. as in it doesn't make sense for them to apply when the commission didn't propose it. right?

    and most importantly, it doesn't change whether anything is voted on by unanimity, QMV or majority?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    i don't know if he was, i got that from the treaty myself and didn't want to leave out anything that might be important. this is his post:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58320300&postcount=1477

    also he calls it article 116. what's going on there :confused:

    He's quoted Article 116, and not then indicated that he's gone on to another article. Article 116 is being quoted to show the 'impetus' behind tax harmonisation, if you like, although states' taxation policies can't be considered as a distortion of the market as long as they apply equally to all companies operating within the state's territory whether foreign or domestic. The point of the common market is not to render every state identical, as appears to be commonly believed, but only to provide a common outline framework and prevent states from putting their thumb on the scales in favour of their domestic companies.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    and i can't some of the other paragraphs he posted. might that be because he was using the consolidated version?

    Could be - you can get the consolidated version from the link in the post above.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    right so the reason the 3 paragraphs don't apply under the special provision is because they only apply in cases where the initiative came from the commission. as in it doesn't make sense for them to apply when the commission didn't propose it. right?

    and most importantly, it doesn't change whether anything is voted on by unanimity, QMV or majority?

    Exactly so.

    So, coming back to the OP, neither his claim that Article 116 could be used to drive tax harmonisation nor his claim that the article above dispenses with unanimity where it would otherwise apply are correct.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


Advertisement