RTE suggests treaty is in trouble...

Chardee MacDennis

sink wrote: »

Most people believed that there would be no bitterness in Europe, let's just see if that pans out. Btw, I don't think it is something people should have based their vote on.

most people thought that cos they havent a clue what goes on in the EU and they dont care. i really think we deserve the cold shoulder from europe.

themont85 wrote: »

Unfortunately the less informed people in our soceity buy into this stuff. Interesting that the more affluent areas say Yes and rural areas say No. If it turns out that a lot of these rural areas did so and seem to becoming less in favour of Europe, maybe we should pull out. No more CAP, European Rural Development Fund, Leader Plus ect. Let see how happy they'd be then, oh well atleast we won't be all conscripted to an EU Army

100% agree, people dont realise how much we have depended on the EU over the last 30 years. i would love if we could go a year with no europe and show people what it would be like without them.

Micamaca

lenny_leonard wrote: »

I'm really talking about the opinions I formed of her during the whole campaign. Like I said, I agree Kenny was biased towards the Yes side today.

Sure Lenny, I'm not giving out about your opinion, I'm giving out about our Pat! I'm not even in the country so I didn't hear much about Patricia Murphy but was listening with interest to the the PK show and found that he was obnoxious to her. But I don't think that's the first time PK and his manner has annoyed me. But still it's one of the few sources of what's happening today for those of us off the emerald soil at the mo.

mathie

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

did she actually say we are an ungrateful shower of ***'s?

Or was she just saying she's disapointed the way the vote went etc?

I get the impression that alot of people are seeing bullying and aggression where its not.

No it's not bullying or agression it's just outright lies.

Like Cowen 'promising' the people that we'd be able to keep our low corporation tax when he full well knew that was a lie.

I'm over the moon if its No.
My faith in the Irish public will be restored.

M

mathie

Call_me_al wrote: »

most people thought that cos they havent a clue what goes on in the EU and they dont care. i really think we deserve the cold shoulder from europe.



100% agree, people dont realise how much we have depended on the EU over the last 30 years. i would love if we could go a year with no europe and show people what it would be like without them.

Don't you understand that people are not saying No to Europe they're saying no to this treaty?

BMH

mathie wrote: »

No it's not bullying or agression it's just outright lies.

Like Cowen 'promising' the people that we'd be able to keep our low corporation tax when he full well knew that was a lie.

You know it's been proven time and time again on these boards that we will retain full control over corporation tax.

Butterbox

Call_me_al wrote: »

most people thought that cos they havent a clue what goes on in the EU and they dont care. i really think we deserve the cold shoulder from europe.



100% agree, people dont realise how much we have depended on the EU over the last 30 years. i would love if we could go a year with no europe and show people what it would be like without them.

Voting against Lisbon has nothing to do with recognising the importance of the EU for Ireland. It is a proposal on the future structure which we had a right to have our say on. The suggestion that the only people who understood the treaty were yes voters is insulting. I read the treaty (a difficult process because it was all amendments to Nice and was jumping back and forth between the two) and could not find one single point which I would describe as being good for Ireland. Reasons referring to how good the EU has been for Ireland or how upset everyone would be with us if we voted "no" are irrelevant.

molloyjh

mathie wrote: »

No it's not bullying or agression it's just outright lies.

Like Cowen 'promising' the people that we'd be able to keep our low corporation tax when he full well knew that was a lie.

I'm over the moon if its No.
My faith in the Irish public will be restored.

M

You see this is the problem so many of us have with the No camp. We will retain our veto right in taxation. There will be no change to our corporation tax due to Libon at all. It's a No camp lie. And has been proven so more times that I can care to remember. Mathie, if you're going to vote (and I'm assuming you did) you have a responsibility to inform yourself fully of what you're voting on.

Chardee MacDennis

mathie wrote: »

Don't you understand that people are not saying No to Europe they're saying no to this treaty?

first off thats not how it will be viewed as in europe, they gave us a pretty good deal from what i can tell and then we said no we want better, a bit of a spit in the face if you ask me.

also there is no way 25% of the voting population knew what they were voting for/

Our man in Havana

Brian Cowen is lying low today. So no sign of a statement on the situation?

molloyjh

Butterbox wrote: »

Voting against Lisbon has nothing to do with recognising the importance of the EU for Ireland. It is a proposal on the future structure which we had a right to have our say on. The suggestion that the only people who understood the treaty were yes voters is insulting. I read the treaty (a difficult process because it was all amendments to Nice and was jumping back and forth between the two) and could not find one single point which I would describe as being good for Ireland. Reasons referring to how good the EU has been for Ireland or how upset everyone would be with us if we voted "no" are irrelevant.

While I recognise many No supporters had valid reasons for their stance and many yes voters didn't, it is untrue to say that how good the EU has been to us is irrelevant. One of the main aims of the Treaty was to make the EU more efficient. How good membership has been to us is essential in identifying how good a more efficeint EU will be to us in the future. Its not the only consideration by all accounts, but it isn't irrelevant either.

Pal

ShooterSF wrote: »

Wow nice touch of indirect racism. His parent's were Irish you know and he's lived here since he was 13.

I am not racist and your insinuation is out of order.

My point is solely based on his pronunciation and his nationality is irrelevant.

Chardee MacDennis

Butterbox wrote: »

Voting against Lisbon has nothing to do with recognising the importance of the EU for Ireland. It is a proposal on the future structure which we had a right to have our say on. The suggestion that the only people who understood the treaty were yes voters is insulting. I read the treaty (a difficult process because it was all amendments to Nice and was jumping back and forth between the two) and could not find one single point which I would describe as being good for Ireland. Reasons referring to how good the EU has been for Ireland or how upset everyone would be with us if we voted "no" are irrelevant.

thats not my view, my view is if you understood the treaty and voted yes you were saying yes to the next stage of the EU where we would become less concerned about the health of our independent nations and more about the health of the union as a whole. if you understood the treaty and voted no i would see that as saying no to further integration of europe.

its not a coincidence that all the parties that support us being in europe said yes and the ones who want "independence" said vote no.

while i realise its not quite that black and white I would say thats close to the truth.

ircoha

BMH wrote: »

You know it's been proven time and time again on these boards that we will retain full control over corporation tax.

I did not see any QED:pac:

molloyjh

ircoha wrote: »

I did not see any QED:pac:

You obviously didn't do much looking because it is in almost every thread on the Treaty so far. Your best bet to find proof would be Scofflaws posts. Out of curiousoty if you need proof to be convinced, what proof did you see that says we will have to reform our corporation tax?

musiknonstop

It seems people in the more affluent areas voted yes. Possibly the ones who did best out of the boom years. Personally, I'm not surprised at the result.

gixerfixer

musiknonstop wrote: »

It seems people in the more affluent areas voted yes. Possibly the ones who did best out of the boom years. Personally, I'm not surprised at the result.

Looks that way.Was always going to be the case.Most working class people voted no.Rumours are up to 70% in most working class areas.Delighted myself as the whole country has not been fooled by our corrupted leaders.

mathie

molloyjh wrote: »

You see this is the problem so many of us have with the No camp. We will retain our veto right in taxation. There will be no change to our corporation tax due to Libon at all. It's a No camp lie. And has been proven so more times that I can care to remember. Mathie, if you're going to vote (and I'm assuming you did) you have a responsibility to inform yourself fully of what you're voting on.

I am informed and it's not a lie.

"The Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition." - Lisbon Treaty.

mathie

BMH wrote: »

You know it's been proven time and time again on these boards that we will retain full control over corporation tax.

See my above post BMH.

Jimdagym

mathie wrote: »

I am informed and it's not a lie.

"The Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition." - Lisbon Treaty.

Acting unanimously. You get that bit, dont you. The veto remains on all issues that require unanimity.

Darragh29

mathie wrote: »

I am informed and it's not a lie.

"The Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition." - Lisbon Treaty.

On this very point of tax hamoninisation, would someone be able to explain to me: Why on earth this has been included in the Lisbon Treaty, if it can have absolutely no effect by virtue of the fact that Ireland will always exercise it's veto??? If it can be vetoed, and clearly as one country has said that it will use its veto, then why is this clause in the treaty??? The only reason I can find for it to be included is in line with what Shane Ross said last weekend, that we could be forced or bullied into not using our veto on this area on the basis of something else being taken from us. If the clause above is so contentious and would always be vetoed by at least one country that has made its intentions perfectly clear with regard to using the veto, then why the hell didn't someone just remove it!?!?!

molloyjh

mathie wrote: »

I am informed and it's not a lie.

"The Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition." - Lisbon Treaty.

Thats indirect taxation, as your quote states, which does not include corporation tax or any other form of direct taxation. Plus it can only be done by unanimous decision, meaning we can veto. Care to retract????

mathie

molloyjh wrote: »

Thats indirect taxation, as your quote states, which does not include corporation tax or any other form of direct taxation. Plus it can only be done by unanimous decision, meaning we can veto. Care to retract????

Retract?
Are you winding me up?

'other forms of indirect taxation' - if you think that's not talking about our corporation tax then that's your opinion.

Luckily enough have voted against the treaty so we won't have to find out.

IRLConor

mathie wrote: »

'other forms of indirect taxation' - if you think that's not talking about our corporation tax then that's your opinion.

It's not an opinion.

Corporation tax is a direct tax.

carveone

mathie wrote: »

'other forms of indirect taxation' - if you think that's not talking about our corporation tax then that's your opinion.

Glad we don't have to vote on the budget. revenue.ie. Definition. Corporation tax. Direct tax. End of story.

kerry4sam

NO 862,415 ... 53.4%

YES 752,451 ... 46.6%

:mad: :mad:

molloyjh

mathie wrote: »

Retract?
Are you winding me up?

'other forms of indirect taxation' - if you think that's not talking about our corporation tax then that's your opinion.

Luckily enough have voted against the treaty so we won't have to find out.

Look up what direct and indirect taxes are....then you'll realise I am in fact not winding you up at all. This is just another case of someone who voted for something while not in any way understanding what it meant.