Why are YOU voting no ?

Scofflaw

Again that's not what I said (are you tired this evening ):

More distracted, really, than tired. I'm aware I haven't really completed my points.


distractedly,
Scofflaw

sink

Also bribes are more often given for things like planning permission and local policy shifts. I have never heard in the entire history of politics a bribe been given for terms on an international treaty between democratic states. If you are suggesting that someone is bribing Fianna Fail to get their way on the Lisbon treay, I think you're reaching a bit far mate. What would be their motive?

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

More distracted, really, than tired. I'm aware I haven't really completed my points.


distractedly,
Scofflaw

Do you ever say anything worthwhile, or do you just like typing your own name?

sink

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Do you ever say anything worthwhile, or do you just like typing your own name?

Scofflaw is a well respect and knowledgeable member of boards. So far all you've spouted is hot air.

democrates

sink wrote: »

It's also proven itself in the eyes of the public, although it's reputation has been damaged in recent times. In comparison Libertas has barely been on the scene 6 months, it has not been properly vetted by the public or the media so why should it have equal support to an organisation that's been around since the founding of the state? If it did have as much backing could you not also apply your argument that it would be easy to bribe Declan Ganley to get what you want?

Agreed on all points, I don't know Declan Ganley, or who might be pulling strings in the background, or what motivations may exist beyond what's been publicly expressed. Someone else stated that the USA may have a hand in Libertas, you don't need a tin foil hat to entertain that kind of possibility given what they've been up to in the last few years.

I'm not making a case that any special interest group have any kind of entitlement to have equivalent power to long established major party support bases, merely that they're at a significant disadvantage when it comes to gaining public support, and so it should be I'm happy that it is so.

The point is, for someone who wants to corrupt/influence government, it's easier and cheaper to go under the radar behind closed doors and deal with a few politicians than it is to take a publicity campaign to the masses.

democrates

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Do you ever say anything worthwhile, or do you just like typing your own name?

I may have robust disagreements with Scofflaw on some points, but I've top respect for the man, and I also like his sig style, brings up the tone of the place, more like him say I.

oscarBravo

democrates wrote: »

It's the opposite direction we're being taken to where we should be going, which is to inform and involve citizens more directly, treat people like responsible adults.

Much like teenagers, people have to behave like adults in order to be treated like them.

There's very little point in handing decision-making powers to the people, if they're not going to take them seriously. If people vote for or against this treaty on the basis of anything other than the contents of the treaty itself, then they don't deserve a say on it.

Carlow52

sink wrote: »

Scofflaw is a well respected and knowledgeable member of boards....

The clearest reason yet to vote:D

democrates

oscarBravo wrote: »

Much like teenagers, people have to behave like adults in order to be treated like them.

There's very little point in handing decision-making powers to the people, if they're not going to take them seriously. If people vote for or against this treaty on the basis of anything other than the contents of the treaty itself, then they don't deserve a say on it.

Then if they vote for a local, national, or EU Parliament politician for any reason other than (insert acceptable reasons) they should lose that vote too. You can see where this logic leads - elite rule, Orwells nightmare. There's no perfect system made of imperfect humans, I'll take my chances with the great unwashed.

We're asked to trust the politicians who framed this choice, but trust must be earned. 26 member states politicians are denying their people a say, and then there's our politicians less than stellar track record, (Mahon should have been suspended in the run up to this in fairness), I don't see a lot of trust earning going on.

TheBigLebowski

I am voting no because I don't believe we as members of the EU are getting all of the rights which we are currently entitled to as EU citizens. I am specifically talking about the VRT import duty and I will not believe anything my government tells me about the benefits of EU membership until this government removes this tax.

molloyjh

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

I am voting no because I don't believe we as members of the EU are getting all of the rights which we are currently entitled to as EU citizens. I am specifically talking about the VRT import duty and I will not believe anything my government tells me about the benefits of EU membership until this government removes this tax.

This is a domestic tax issue and wholly unrelated to Lisbon. It should have no bearing on how you vote on Thursday.

molloyjh

democrates wrote: »

Then if they vote for a local, national, or EU Parliament politician for any reason other than (insert acceptable reasons) they should lose that vote too. You can see where this logic leads - elite rule, Orwells nightmare. There's no perfect system made of imperfect humans, I'll take my chances with the great unwashed.

We're asked to trust the politicians who framed this choice, but trust must be earned. 26 member states politicians are denying their people a say, and then there's our politicians less than stellar track record, (Mahon should have been suspended in the run up to this in fairness), I don't see a lot of trust earning going on.

The other nations had their say by electing their Governments. It was part of the mandate given to those Governments by their people to negotiate and ratify treaties on their behalf.

molloyjh

oscarBravo wrote: »

Much like teenagers, people have to behave like adults in order to be treated like them.

There's very little point in handing decision-making powers to the people, if they're not going to take them seriously. If people vote for or against this treaty on the basis of anything other than the contents of the treaty itself, then they don't deserve a say on it.

I second that. :pac:

TheBigLebowski

molloyjh wrote: »

This is a domestic tax issue and wholly unrelated to Lisbon. It should have no bearing on how you vote on Thursday.

But if we can't trust this government to abolish import duty on cars, what else can we not trust them on in relation to Europe?

molloyjh

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

But if we can't trust this government to abolish import duty on cars, what else can we not trust them on in relation to Europe?

Whether we can trust them or not in any respect is a domestic matter alone. We need to be sure that they are representing us properly, noone else. All of that is our responsibility as voters. If we can't get that right we may as well all just join a commune or something because there's not much point in democracy if the electorate are too thick to use it!

The Lisbon Treaty has a lot of potential benefits for us, and not just us but the rest of Europe, and I honestly think the world aswell. To reject a good idea because we can't elect the right people to represent us is a bit daft imo. And either way it is in the domestic parties best interest to represent us correctly as they have nothing to gain by not doing so. We elect them and (I'm assuming this does happen) domestic business line their pockets from time to time. To ignore all of us would be stupid.

I'm with you on the Government bit. I don't like them and I found it infuriating that they were reelected last year. I'm not sure that the Irish public either cares enough or is smart enough to use democracy to its fullest, but that is a seperate debate from the Lisbon debate.

TheBigLebowski

micmclo wrote: »

It's not a tax on importing your car, it's a tax on registering it.

Now seriously, do you really believe that?
If so can you answer a few questions?

1. Why do customs and excise do the chasing if it's just about registering cars?

2. Why does it cost more to register a more expensive car than a cheaper car if all they're doing is registering the car?

VRT was an obvious replacement for import duty on cars and anyone who says otherwise is talking sheeite.

Anywho, call it a protest vote or call it what you want but that's why I'm voting no.

Hotblack Desiato

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

But if we can't trust this government to abolish import duty on cars, what else can we not trust them on in relation to Europe?

When did they promise that they would?

A registration tax is not an import tax and the EU have stated that it does NOT conflict with EU rules. Several other EU countries have VRT as well as us.

This is a domestic issue and nothing at all to do with Lisbon. You might as well say "If the weather is sunny on Thursday I'll vote Yes, otherwise I'll vote no."

If you abolish VRT you will have to increase other taxes. I don't want to pay more income tax or higher food prices so that S-Class Mercs become cheaper. No credible political party is promising to abolish VRT, have you ever wondered why? If it's what the public really want, there would be votes in it.

The way things are going, motoring taxes are only going to get higher (whether we pass Lisbon, or not.)

TheBigLebowski

ninja900 wrote: »

A registration tax is not an import tax and the EU have stated that it does NOT conflict with EU rules. Several other EU countries have VRT as well as us.

Maybe you could answer some of the questions posed above?

Also for my own information, can you point me in the direction of where EU stated that it does not conflict with EU rules? Also how many other countries have VRT?

sink

The Netherlands for one, it calls its Belasting Personenauto’s Motorrijwielen (BPM) and is 45% of the cars value.

molloyjh

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

Now seriously, do you really believe that?
If so can you answer a few questions?

1. Why do customs and excise do the chasing if it's just about registering cars?

2. Why does it cost more to register a more expensive car than a cheaper car if all they're doing is registering the car?

VRT was an obvious replacement for import duty on cars and anyone who says otherwise is talking sheeite.

Anywho, call it a protest vote or call it what you want but that's why I'm voting no.

I'm sorry to have to say this but if you're voting no for a totally unrelated issue its a bit of a daft move. A protest vote against VRT when voting on Lisbon will never be recognised as such, and therefore a total waste of a protest vote. Noone wil associatethat with a protest against VRT.

Not only that but to me proves that you (and sorry for being harsh) really should not be involved in the democratic process. I'm beginning to develop what some might consider radical views on the issue of modern Western democracy, but I really feel that if you're not going to vote on the issue(s) you should not be allowed vote at all. If you have a problem with VRT by all means exercise your protest vote, but do so in the appropriate election, not an unrelated referendum. Or better yet raise the issue with a local councilor, or even better again vote Yes for Lisbon and use the Citizes Initiative it is introducing to get a petition going to put pressure on the Government over the issue. Otherwise you are throwing away your vote and distorting the results, nothing more.

mikemac

ninja900 wrote: »

If you abolish VRT you will have to increase other taxes. I don't want to pay more income tax or higher food prices so that S-Class Mercs become cheaper. No credible political party is promising to abolish VRT, have you ever wondered why? If it's what the public really want, there would be votes in it.

+1
This sums it up better than I can. There is still a perception that a car is luxury and for sure, a lot of the cars people buy are luxuries.
Yes, you work hard for your money and yes, you can spend it as you see fit, etc………..
But I’d rather see an expensive car being taxed than something else. Everyone pays tax, not everyone can afford a car worth maybe 30k plus.
If want to minimize it, than it’s a buyer market and there are loads of nice cars for under 5k on sale.

sink

I just did a quick search and found this on the Society of the Irish motor industries website.

http://www.simi.ie/admin/files/ACEATaxGuide2003Extract1.pdf

It outlines the vehicle ownership tax in 15 member states. It look a bit out of date mind you.

democrates

molloyjh wrote: »

The other nations had their say by electing their Governments. It was part of the mandate given to those Governments by their people to negotiate and ratify treaties on their behalf.

Has Bush (now ~25% approval rating) a mandate to attack Iran?

Technically yes, the people elected him, but you see the weakness inherent in representative democracy. The solution is more direct citizen involvement.

If we vote No on Thursday it does not guarantee the reform which I think is necessary, true, but it does prevent the plan to cement citizen exclusion for the next one, two or three decades during which Brian Cowan predicts the new rules will apply, and keeps the possibility of the right kind of reform alive.

We're told there's no plan B. Lisbon is plan B after the constitution, the sky did not fall on the French and Dutch who rejected that. "The EU will continue to operate under existing rules" is what happens after a No, not the end of civilisation as we know it.

TheBigLebowski

micmclo wrote: »

I can't answer your questions, I'm no expert on motor taxation. I was basing it on the simple example that you can import any car but if you just store it and never drive it, then no VRT is due.
If it was an import tax, it'd have to be paid before you left the port or crossed a border.

Clearly you are not an expert. You need to pay VRT within the next working day whether you plan to use the car, store it or drive it off the cliffs of Moher. Just because they don't take it at the port doesn't mean it is not effectively the same thing.
Can you not see the link when one day they have import duty on cars paid at the port and the next day they have VRT but you have to come to us and pay the money to the same people who were collecting it the previous day?

sink

democrates wrote: »

Has Bush (now ~25% approval rating) a mandate to attack Iran?

Technically yes, the people elected him, but you see the weakness inherent in representative democracy. The solution is more direct citizen involvement.

I think it shows the weaknesses in directly electing leaders of the executive government. In a parliamentary democracy the leader of the country needs to maintain the backing of the majority of MP's to remain in power. There is no way Blair or Brown would be able to get involved in another war with out a backbench revolt followed by a snap election. It is one of the reasons I would never support a directly elected president of Europe.

TheBigLebowski

molloyjh wrote: »

I'm sorry to have to say this but if you're voting no for a totally unrelated issue its a bit of a daft move. A protest vote against VRT when voting on Lisbon will never be recognised as such, and therefore a total waste of a protest vote. Noone wil associatethat with a protest against VRT.

Any politician knocking on my door and canvassing for a yes vote will associate my no vote with a protest against VRT.

Also it is not necessarily a protest vote, I'm voting no because as I said I don't believe we are getting our full rights as EU citizens as under Article 25 TC which prohibits member states from levying any duties on goods crossing a border, both goods produced within the EU and those produced outside so I don't think we should be making any changes until these issues are sorted out.

And nobody can tell me that VRT is not an import duty. Sure if that's the case, we could have import duty on everything but call it ERT electronics registration tax, FRT food registration tax, CRT clothes registration tax....

sink

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

And nobody can tell me that VRT is not an import duty. Sure if that's the case, we could have import duty on everything but call it ERT electronics registration tax, FRT food registration tax, CRT clothes registration tax....

Yes you could, by your reasoning VAT is an import duty. The difference you're failing to note is that VRT would be paid on cars that are produced in this country too, it just so happens we don't produce any cars in the country. But we do produce electronics so an ERT would also have to be paid on Irish made electronics. That is the difference.

craichoe

sink wrote: »

The Netherlands for one, it calls its Belasting Personenauto’s Motorrijwielen (BPM) and is 45% of the cars value.

+1 ... i'll end up registering my Irish car on Dutch plates, but won't have to pay the BPM as i owned i longer than six months in my own state

TheBigLebowski

sink wrote: »

Yes you could, by your reasoning VAT is an import duty. The difference you're failing to note is that VRT would be paid on cars that are produced in this country too, it just so happens we don't produce any cars in the country. But we do produce electronics so an ERT would also have to be paid on Irish made electronics. That is the difference.

There is a big difference between VAT and VRT and I'm not reasoning that they are the same thing. VAT is a tax on exchanges. VRT is a once off tax on import.

sink

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

There is a big difference between VAT and VRT and I'm not reasoning that they are the same thing. VAT is a tax on exchanges. VRT is a once off tax on import.

Just as an experiment why don't you build your own car and see if the tax office will let you not pay VRT.:rolleyes: