Ireland and EU money

Scofflaw

limklad wrote: »

Of course we did well under previous treaties because the larger nations wanted to improve Europe because of socialist ideals. Times have change and the EU is expanding at fast rate. The Lisbon treaty is changing that form and the form of the EU governing structures and that does not gives the right for leaders of each country to bypass the people.

To be emotionally bullied by using the money argument is wrong in any sense of the world and as it goes against the principles in which the EU was built upon, and it would be very foolish to give in under that pressure.
I will never feel guilty for protecting democracy by been cautious and I would be very foolish not to read the fine print of futures treaties and foolish not to listen to other people concerns and finding competent answers to those concerns before giving away more powers or changing the rules in which the EU is to be govern by.

I am also concern about the self amending part of the treaty in which EU leaders can change without going to the people. I have got no full clarification on that, and any questions about it was never explained, it kept been brushed off and attention was drawn to Past benefits of the EU. The Past benefits were because of previous treaties, so I did not want them to change the current treaties, since the politicians kept talking about them in how good they were to us, so there was no point to change the status quo. Therefore it is a perfectly good reason to vote NO.

Well, I don't know whether you'll accept my clarification, but I'll give it a go anyway. That clause does not make the treaties "self-amending". It means they can be altered by single amendments - not a "self-amendment clause" but an "amendment clause".

In the same sense, our Constitution is "self-amending" - it doesn't require a whole new Constitution every time (which is how Eu treaties currently operate), but can be changed by a paragraph here and there - by referendum.

This is the first sentence of Article 48:

1. The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures.

So, there are two ways of amending the EU Treaties - the 'ordinary' and the 'simplified'. This is the ordinary:

Ordinary revision procedure

2. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties. These proposals may, inter alia, serve either to increase or to reduce the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties. These proposals shall be submitted to the European Council by the Council and the national Parliaments shall be notified.

3. If the European Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, adopts by a simple majority a decision in favour of examining the proposed amendments, the President of the European Council shall convene a Convention composed of representatives of the national Parliaments, of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, of the European Parliament and of the Commission. The European Central Bank shall also be consulted in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. The Convention shall examine the proposals for amendments and shall adopt by consensus a recommendation to a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States as provided for in paragraph 4.
The European Council may decide by a simple majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, not to convene a Convention should this not be justified by the extent of the proposed amendments. In the latter case, the European Council shall define the terms of reference for a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States.

4. A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to the Treaties.
The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

5. If, two years after the signature of a treaty amending the Treaties, four fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter shall be referred to the European Council.

This is the same as the only method we currently have. The Treaties can be amended by holding an Inter-Governmental Conference (IGC), and drafting up a new Treaty - exactly as was done with Lisbon. Everyone has to ratify it - "amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements" - which is a referendum, normally, for us.

This is the simplified procedure, which is new:

Simplified revision procedures

6. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the European Council proposals for revising all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relating to the internal policies and action of the Union.

Any government, the EP, or the Commission, may put forward an amendment that relates to internal Union policies (Part 3 of the TFEU Treaty) - which covers all, and only, the things that are within the EU remit.

The European Council may adopt a decision amending all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The European Council shall act by unanimity after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, and the European Central Bank in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area.

The Council decides whether the amendment should be put forward for ratification.

That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

In order for the amendment to actually become legal, it must be ratified by all the member states in the same way they ratify treaties. In our case, that will normally be by referendum as at present.

The decision referred to in the second subparagraph shall not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties.

None of these amendments can extend the powers of the EU.

Finally, in respect of QMV areas:

7. Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or Title V of this Treaty provides for the Council to act by unanimity in a given area or case, the European Council may adopt a decision authorising the Council to act by a qualified majority in that area or in that case. This subparagraph shall not apply to decisions with military implications or those in the area of defence. Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides for legislative acts to be adopted by the Council in accordance with a special legislative procedure, the European Council may adopt a decision allowing for the adoption of such acts in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure.

Areas can be moved from unanimity to QMV....but not ones with military implications...

Any initiative taken by the European Council on the basis of the first or the second subparagraph shall be notified to the national Parliaments. If a national Parliament makes known its opposition within six months of the date of such notification, the decision referred to in the first or the second subparagraph shall not be adopted. In the absence of opposition, the European Council may adopt the decision.

...but only if no national Parliament objects within six months...

For the adoption of the decisions referred to in the first and second subparagraphs, the European Council shall act by unanimity after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, which shall be given by a majority of its component members.

...and it's not vetoed by any government, or not accepted by more than half the MEPs.

I watch some time back on a UK TV interview on youtube ( I think) with a British MP who was defending Lisbon treaty said that 60 New areas been transferred under Lisbon treaty to the EU. None of the areas was explain by our government. No full mention of the list though as the interview changed topic to other parts of the ratification process. I was looking for it now but cannot find the link. I think it was a BBC political programme, I post the link when I find it. I would appreciate if someone could help me find it again.

I can't help you with the BBC link, but the list of the new QMV areas is here. Actually, by the time you take out the ones Ireland has opt-outs on, you're left with about 34 or so.

Hope that is of some use to you.

cordially,
Scofflaw

kevteljeur

I'm coming to this party a little late, but here's a link that everyone should have a read of; it won't be readily apparent what the relevence is, but essentially it's about the fallout from the Suez Crisis, an event that barely touched Ireland (it overlooks the Benelux arrangement too, which I believe was the model of the EEC).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jul/13/egypt.ianblack

In a nutshell, this is how the EU got started, and goes a long way to explaining why France and Germany are so protective of the Big Project. Together we stand, divided we fall, and they've never forgotten that.

For what it's worth, I think the anger in other European states has a lot to do with the accomodation they made for Ireland in the treaty, only to see that time and effort rejected. It doesn't help that Ireland as a nation has been rubbing their faces in it over the economic progress of the last few years. Two years ago Dutch economists mapped out the downturn that the Irish economy would take in due course, and observed that Ireland as a nation would do well to be a bit more humble; when the economy would go down, it would help to have some friends... (I'm paraphrasing here, and I'll try to dig out the link later on)

The Corinthian

kevteljeur wrote: »

In a nutshell, this is how the EU got started, and goes a long way to explaining why France and Germany are so protective of the Big Project. Together we stand, divided we fall, and they've never forgotten that.

That is the unfortunate truth of modern geo-politics. The USA is already a major World power. Russia has more or less re-established itself as one and China has all but done so. Countries such as India and Brazil are rapidly reaching the point where they will be as influential.

Meanwhile the European countries are becoming dwarfed in comparison. The UK and France are the only ones who are able to 'run with the big boys', but even there their influence is falling. Suez was a serious turning point for the UK and France in that they realized that they had become second rate powers, dependant upon American benevolence. The Iraq war was a reminder of Suez, in that a major power was able to happily do what it wished again with little regard for what anyone else thought.

In this New World Order (as coined by the Americans) most nation states really have three options. One is to stay small and hope that no one bothers you. Not a very realistic option, TBH. Just ask Belgium.

The second is to become a de facto protectorate of a major power - this is the basis of the UK's special relationship, or as Harold Macmillan argued on after Suez, that the UK should be "wise Greeks to the bumptious Romans" (the latter referring to the US). If we ever ended going down this route, we can expect NATO membership and permanent bases in Shannon.

Finally there is the super-national approach of forming a cohesive bloc, which the EU is ultimately all about.

Like it or not that is the World we live in. You can pretend that we can go on as we have been, but only a fool would do that. Nations, like anyone else, must adapt and evolve or die.

Two years ago Dutch economists mapped out the downturn that the Irish economy would take in due course, and observed that Ireland as a nation would do well to be a bit more humble; when the economy would go down, it would help to have some friends... (I'm paraphrasing here, and I'll try to dig out the link later on)

I've heard this argument being mooted before by diplomats. Even Switzerland, which is an example of an 'independent' nation, is a good example because when it does (rarely) get into trouble - such as the case of the Nazi gold scandal - it's on its own. It actually has very few friends internationally and ultimately can be forced to bow to the wishes of other nations.

In short, there is no such thing as independence or sovereignty.

limklad

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, I don't know whether you'll accept my clarification, but I'll give it a go anyway. That clause does not make the treaties "self-amending". It means they can be altered by single amendments - not a "self-amendment clause" but an "amendment clause".

In the same sense, our Constitution is "self-amending" - it doesn't require a whole new Constitution every time (which is how Eu treaties currently operate), but can be changed by a paragraph here and there - by referendum.

This is the first sentence of Article 48:



So, there are two ways of amending the EU Treaties - the 'ordinary' and the 'simplified'. This is the ordinary:



This is the same as the only method we currently have. The Treaties can be amended by holding an Inter-Governmental Conference (IGC), and drafting up a new Treaty - exactly as was done with Lisbon. Everyone has to ratify it - "amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements" - which is a referendum, normally, for us.

This is the simplified procedure, which is new:



Any government, the EP, or the Commission, may put forward an amendment that relates to internal Union policies (Part 3 of the TFEU Treaty) - which covers all, and only, the things that are within the EU remit.



The Council decides whether the amendment should be put forward for ratification.



In order for the amendment to actually become legal, it must be ratified by all the member states in the same way they ratify treaties. In our case, that will normally be by referendum as at present.



None of these amendments can extend the powers of the EU.

Finally, in respect of QMV areas:



Areas can be moved from unanimity to QMV....but not ones with military implications...



...but only if no national Parliament objects within six months...



...and it's not vetoed by any government, or not accepted by more than half the MEPs.




I can't help you with the BBC link, but the list of the new QMV areas is here. Actually, by the time you take out the ones Ireland has opt-outs on, you're left with about 34 or so.

Hope that is of some use to you.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hi Scofflaw,
Thanks for this information, you gave lot of very informative information, most I already know.

But there is one section you and the Referendum Commission are in contradiction and this area I am most concerned about. I highlight it in Bold for you and quote their whole statement about the issue.

Read their Booklet on the Lisbon Treaty, link & statement provided.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

www.lisbontreaty2008.ie wrote:

http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/HandBookEng.pdf
Page 9 to 10
Proposed Changes - Power to Change the Treaties
At present the Treaties governing the EU are amended only
by the Member States agreeing to an amending treaty which
must then be approved by the Member States in accordance
with their own constitutional traditions. In almost all cases
this involves parliamentary approval. In some cases, for
example in Ireland, a referendum may be required.

The Lisbon Treaty now proposes to give the European Council
(Heads of Government) the power to propose changes to
certain parts of the governing Treaties. Any such changes
cannot increase the competence of the EU. Any such
proposals must be agreed unanimously by the European
Council. This means that any national government may
veto such a proposal. If the European Council does agree
a proposed change, then in order for it to come into effect,
it must be ratified by the Member States in accordance
with their own constitutional traditions. This may require a
referendum in Ireland as happens at present.

The Lisbon Treaty also proposes to give the European Council
the power to amend the Treaties so as to allow Qualified
Majority Voting to operate in certain areas where unanimity
is now required. It will also give them the power to apply
the Ordinary Legislative Procedure in certain areas where a
Special Legislative Procedure applies at present. Any such
proposals must be agreed unanimously by the European
Council.

This means that any national government may veto
such a proposal. If the European Council does agree a
proposed change, any national parliament may prevent
these changes coming into effect. Under the proposed
amendment to the Constitution of Ireland the approval of
the Dáil and Seanad will be required for Ireland to agree
to such proposed changes. Such changes would not
require a referendum in Ireland.

The power to change from unanimity to Qualified Majority
Voting or from the Special Legislative Procedure to an
Ordinary Legislative Procedure does not extend to military
and defence issues.
It could apply, for example, to taxation where unanimity is
required at present. However as outlined earlier in this
handbook, any such proposed change could be vetoed by
the Irish government.

As Far as I am concern that government and parliament are one, you cannot have them seperated as you well know government will fall without support of parliament or in other words. Governments have majority of parliaments, therefore the parliament will not vote against Governments. With one or two exceptions, fragile coalitions and rebel members to name some.

Scofflaw

Actually, I did cover those, I think. Moving areas from unanimity to QMV doesn't impact Irish sovereignty unless they're foreign policy areas - and so would not have required a referendum in any case. The moves do require unanimity.

However, taxation per se is not an EU competence - indirect taxation is, but not direct taxation (such as Corporation Tax), so it isn't in there even as a unanimity area.

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

limklad wrote: »

Hi Scofflaw,
Thanks for this information, you gave lot of very informative information, most I already know.

But there is one section you and the Referendum Commission are in contradiction and this area I am most concerned about. I highlight it in Bold for you and quote their whole statement about the issue.

Read their Booklet on the Lisbon Treaty, link & statement provided.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

As Far as I am concern that government and parliament are one, you cannot have them seperated as you well know government will fall without support of parliament or in other words. Governments have majority of parliaments, therefore the parliament will not vote against Governments. With one or two exceptions, fragile coalitions and rebel members to name some.

Fair point but I feel you missed the most important sentance in the paragraphs that you quoted.

"Any such proposals must be agreed unanimously by the European Council."

Whatever powers we hand over, we must agree to first. The treaty is very limited in its self amending properties.

Scofflaw

limklad wrote: »

As Far as I am concern that government and parliament are one, you cannot have them seperated as you well know government will fall without support of parliament or in other words. Governments have majority of parliaments, therefore the parliament will not vote against Governments. With one or two exceptions, fragile coalitions and rebel members to name some.

Actually, with the exception of quite a few other states. We have a party whip system, a purely oppositional system, and a totally supine upper house consisting primarily of single-term political appointees. Other parliaments allow unwhipped votes, develop cross-party consensuses, or have upper houses that have no issues contradicting the government.

Again, our political system is not the only way of doing things.

cordially,
Scofflaw

limklad

marco_polo wrote: »

Fair point but I feel you missed the most important sentance in the paragraphs that you quoted.

"Any such proposals must be agreed unanimously by the European Council."

Whatever powers we hand over, we must agree to first. The treaty is very limited in its self amending properties.

You also missed another point, the "Lisbon Treaty" is agreed unanimously by the European Council after a lot of horse trading.
Also the Failed EU Constitution reject by both French and Dutch voters was agreed unanimously by the European Council.

So getting unanimously agreement can be done, depending what each country wants badly enough. Each country will want something that they feel they want badly and our country is no different. Our Government will want to be Yes men and do not feel they can hold others up and give in hopefully with sweeter to try and soften the blow.

We do not know what goes on behind close doors and I do not trust the government, to prove this point to use one example: Aer Lingus -Shannon-Heathrow recent issue, there was more there than meets the eye.

marco_polo

limklad wrote: »

You also missed another point, the "Lisbon Treaty" is agreed unanimously by the European Council after a lot of horse trading.
Also the Failed EU Constitution reject by both French and Dutch voters was agreed unanimously by the European Council.

So getting unanimously agreement can be done, depending what each country wants badly enough. Each country will want something that they feel they want badly and our country is no different. Our Government will want to be Yes men and do not feel they can hold others up and give in hopefully with sweeter to try and soften the blow.

We do not know what goes on behind close doors and I do not trust the government, to prove this point to use one example: Aer Lingus -Shannon-Heathrow recent issue, there was more there than meets the eye.

That was an Aer Lingus decision, albeit one that the governemt stood idely by on.

They can still not agree to any changes in the treaty that would result in a conflict with our constitution as it stands. And a veto would stand on any area that we currently have them in.

If you are suggesting that the Government does not have the courage to use their vetos, then that is a different issue and the vetos are useless already. Lisbon will not change that one way or the other.

It seems you have issues with the government, which is fair enough nothing wrong with that at all.

You can correct me if I am wrong but would it be somewhat fair to say that your biggest concern is that you don't trust our Government to do the right thing?

BTW - You're not the guy that put the shannon letter in the Ballot box by any chance?

limklad

marco_polo wrote: »

That was an Aer Lingus decision, albeit one that the governemt stood idely by on.

They did have a veto, and when they sold Aer Lingus, they told us there were keeping 25% stake for a veto, in case of National Interest. West of Ireland to Heathrow route is very important to local business and Jobs. It was highlighted and Aer Lingus decision did not make sense.
http://www.rte.ie/business/2006/0706/aerlingus.html

Minster for Transport Cowen 18 October, 2006 wrote:

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0625/D.0625.200610180016.html
We decided to hold 25.1% at a minimum so that we could have that minority holding to allow us to continue to play some role in the development of the company and to ensure the future of the Heathrow slots. The slots cannot be disposed of without a change in the articles of association, which a shareholding of 25.1% can prevent. In addition, under these articles the Minister for Finance’s shareholding, along with an additional 4.8% of shares, can block any disposal of a London Heathrow slot.

They never explain their decision, Just renege on their promise.

marco_polo wrote: »

They can still not agree to any changes in the treaty that would result in a conflict with our constitution as it stands. And a veto would stand on any area that we currently have them in.

If you are suggesting that the Government does not have the courage to use their vetos, then that is a different issue and the vetos are useless already. Lisbon will not change that one way or the other.

A week before The Referendum, The IFA forced the government to say they will use their Veto on Mandelson's talks. So Do they (the Government) really have courage ? They have proven that they have no courage when pushed. So NO Courage.

marco_polo wrote: »

It seems you have issues with the government, which is fair enough nothing wrong with that at all.

You can correct me if I am wrong but would it be somewhat fair to say that your biggest concern is that you don't trust our Government to do the right thing?

Government have a proven record not to be trusted and will pull the wool over anyone eyes, as they have done many times. It does not mean I will not listen to their proposals.

marco_polo wrote: »

BTW - You're not the guy that put the shannon letter in the Ballot box by any chance?

No, but I do watch their behaviour on Issues.
Sound like to me you are either a politician/government supporter or just into trying to slander me for been a NO voter.

marco_polo

limklad wrote: »

They did have a veto, and when they sold Aer Lingus, they told us there were keeping 25% stake for a veto, in case of National Interest. West of Ireland to Heathrow route is very important to local business and Jobs. It was highlighted and Aer Lingus decision did not make sense.
http://www.rte.ie/business/2006/0706/aerlingus.html



They never explain their decision, Just renege on their promise.

Look where I am originally from, I share your sentiments entirely on this matter.

A week before The Referendum, The IFA force the government to say they use their Veto on Mandelson's talks. So Do they (the Government) really have courage ? They have proven that they have no courage when pushed. So NO Courage.

I am not an expert on WTO matters or farmers concerns about it but it seemed to be an attempt by the IFA to highjack debate on the Lisbon treaty to achieve this. Which is not in any way related to the WTO talks.

While I sympathise that they felt they had no option but to had to go down this road, I cannot but feel that this action and SIPTUs attempt to do something similar had a serious negative impact on voters.

Government have a proven record not to be trusted and will pull the wool over anyone eyes, as they have done many times. It does not mean I will not listen to their proposals.

No, but I do watch their behaviour on Issues.

That is a fair sentiment based on their record in office. I am no fan of the current government either.

Sound like to me you are either a politician/government supporter or just into trying to slander me for been a NO voter.

The letter comment was entirely in jest I promise , I meant no offense by it and please don't take any.

All I am saying is that however much you dislike the Government, they impact of our decisions on Lisbon Treaty will affect us long after they are gone from office (Unless we vote them in again ). So while it is a difficult thing to do in reality, negative sentiment against the government should be left out of any decision on Lisbon

PHB

Ireland suffered greatly because of the 2nd World War - because of its neutral stance (which was viewed as siding with Germany) we didn't receive Marshall Aid.

That's a bit of an historical myth. Marshall Aid wasn't really all that effect bar maybe staving the tide of Communism for a couple of months until Europe's actual economic recovery.

--

The Irish economy is based on the EU. Knowledge based economy with low taxation rates for a big market.
The reason the 15% corporation tax is effective is because it means somebody can use Ireland to do business in all of the EU.

If we were not in the common market, even a 1% corporation tax wouldn't do **** to attract investment. That said, there's no real danger of us ever leaving the common market.

The corporation tax issue isn't really about us, it's about Eastern Europe. Because they are following Ireland's model, problem is, there is a ****load more of them, so it actually really hurts the six and Spain and Italy.

The building industry was maintained by our economic growth in other areas. People don't just want to build for the hell of it. Without the corp tax and big market, we would not have grown anywhere near where we are today.

Still hasn't stopped us having 3rd world infrastructure though

Irish and Proud

A Random Walk wrote: »

Multinationals locate here because they get access to EU markets. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking that low corporation tax is the primary reason, the primary reason is access. Without access to EU markets, Ireland is a market of 4 million people - with EU access, you can supply 500 million people from Ireland.

As a person campaigning for a NO vote, I also think that EU market access is vital for Ireland. However, if we say NO to Lisbon #2, the rules of the EU (Nice Treaty etc) will remain as is - refer to Referendum Commission's booklet. The EU leaders can huff and puff, but they can't blow the house down. AFAIK, our access to the said markets is protected under Nice and that in itself is one the core aspects for Ireland!

Also, under Nice, Ireland's low corporation tax rate will still be safe. The only way in which the current rules of the EU can change is with a new treaty, which would require ratification on the part of all 27 member states! The various statements concerning Ireland being punished for voting NO is IMO, just a load of spin to scare us!!! If Lisbon is put to another referendum - I would not think of it as being a second chance for Ireland (out of the goodness of EU hearts), I would think of it as being an act of desperation on the part of EU leaders in the hope that scare tactics will get them the result they want!

Well, I know what way I'll be voting!!!

Regards!

K-9

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Also, under Nice, Ireland's low corporation tax rate will still be safe. The only way in which the current rules of the EU can change is with a new treaty, which would require ratification on the part of all 27 member states!

Under Lisbon, tax still requires 27 countries to agree.

I can just imagine Cowen coming back to Ireland after agreeing to the EU to raise our taxes!

PHB

Can you? Can you imagine him getting re-elected afterwards?

bush doctor

While there is no doubt that Ireland has benefited greatly from access to EU markets and EU structural funds, it certainly hasn't been a one-way street.

A few points come to mind:

- Companies of other EU members have been heavily involved in the major infrastructural projects here which the EU funds have been spent on.

- The growth of the Irish economy has led to high demand here for EU goods and services, and investment by Irish individuals / companies in different parts of the EU.

- The fisheries argument has been done to death here, but access to our fishing waters has been very beneficial to certain EU member states.

- Access to the Irish jobs market for nationals of new Eastern European members has benefited the economies of those countries in terms of repatriated wages (a la David McWilliams article last week in the Indo).

If we were to leave the EU overnight I don't think we would be beholden to them economically. However as continuing members we will be expected (quite rightly so) to become net contributors.

Irish and Proud

Seanies32 wrote: »

Under Lisbon, tax still requires 27 countries to agree.

I can just imagine Cowen coming back to Ireland after agreeing to the EU to raise our taxes!

That's if you consider the front door in relation to corporate taxes. What about the back door? ...the door by which (as some people say) our corporate taxes could be harmonised (whether directly or indirectly) by an EU court ruling, on the grounds of the proposed distorted competition laws under Lisbon. Here's a link to one source:

http://www.euinfo.ie/index.php?page=faq&op=read&id=6

Regards!

marco_polo

Irish and Proud wrote: »

That's if you consider the front door in relation to corporate taxes. What about the back door? ...the door by which (as some people say) our corporate taxes could be harmonised (whether directly or indirectly) by an EU court ruling, on the grounds of the proposed distorted competition laws under Lisbon. Here's a link to one source:

http://www.euinfo.ie/index.php?page=faq&op=read&id=6

Regards!

The point in the article is all those mechanisms are there already not that the Lisbon treaty adds anything, as we have gone over dozens of times here before. And it is by no means clear that that scenarion that that scenario is even possible.


**EDIT** I just noticed the "source" is Kathy Sinnott :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

bush doctor wrote: »

While there is no doubt that Ireland has benefited greatly from access to EU markets and EU structural funds, it certainly hasn't been a one-way street.

A few points come to mind:

- Companies of other EU members have been heavily involved in the major infrastructural projects here which the EU funds have been spent on.

- The growth of the Irish economy has led to high demand here for EU goods and services, and investment by Irish individuals / companies in different parts of the EU.

- The fisheries argument has been done to death here, but access to our fishing waters has been very beneficial to certain EU member states.

- Access to the Irish jobs market for nationals of new Eastern European members has benefited the economies of those countries in terms of repatriated wages (a la David McWilliams article last week in the Indo).

If we were to leave the EU overnight I don't think we would be beholden to them economically. However as continuing members we will be expected (quite rightly so) to become net contributors.

I don't think for a minute it's been a one-way street, although much of the value we have given to Europe has been our negotiating skills. Nor do I feel any guilt whatsoever over the money we have undoubtedly received, although it seems many people do - they want to dislike the EU, and find it conflicts with the way the EU gave us a helping hand out of the quagmire national self-sufficiency had got us into.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Irish and Proud

marco_polo wrote: »

The point in the article is all those mechanisms are there already not that the Lisbon treaty adds anything, as we have gone over dozens of times here before. And it is by no means clear that that scenarion that that scenario is even possible.

Eh, you were saying? :rolleyes: - From the same source:

The Lisbon Treaty directly invites the Court to outlaw the low Irish corporate rate by important changes which were never discussed in the Constitutional Convention.

1. The tax clause in Art. 113 (TFEU) would be radically changed. Currently, taxes can only be harmonised when it is a necessity for the functioning of the Internal Market, but the Lisbon Treaty widens the scope unlimitedly by adding "and to avoid distortion of competition". This concept is much broader and prone to interpretation: what small difference between one member state and another does not distort competition?

2. This broader concept is also found in the new Protocol No. 27, which widens the definition of the internal market with "a system ensuring that competition is not distorted". The Protocol even
invites the Council to use the "flexibility clause" in this new area if there is no other legal base (flexibility to amend the treaty, that is).

3. There is an easy legal base for fighting distorted competition. This is Art. 116 TFEU, allowing the Council to decide by a majority vote. The Commission initiates the process by sending a letter to the Member State concerned. If the Member State does not change the distorting element the Commission can go to the EU Court or propose a law to be adopted by qualified majority.

4. On 17 January 2008 the EU Court overruled a Danish law on the taxation of Danes possessing secondary housing in Denmark and/or abroad. There was no connection to the common market at all. Finland was forced to change their taxation of pensions in the Danner case. Denmark lost a tax case on pensions as well. It is naïve to believe that the new Union could not reach the low Irish corporate tax by other means than direct harmonisation of tax rates.

5. The Commission has already initiated the work for harmonisation of the corporate tax base. It is included in the annual programme for 2008. The draft has been prepared and will make it impossible for the Irish state to gain revenue from Irish companies' turnover in other Member States. The proposal has been archived – until the Irish referendum is over.

6. There is only one way to safeguard the low Irish tax, a Protocol stating: 'Nothing in the European treaties shall hinder Ireland from maintaining its lower taxes on companies for their turnover in the EU.'

marco_polo wrote: »

**EDIT** I just noticed the "source" is Kathy Sinnott :rolleyes:

Eh, so what???

Anyway, she is:

1) an MEP
2) pro Europe, but...
3) anti Lisbon!

...and yes, you can be pro-Europe and Anti-Lisbon...

...however IMO, what you can't be is: in favour of power hungry EU politicians and at the same time, anti-Lisbon!

Regards!

nesf

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Anyway, she is:

1) an MEP
2) pro Europe, but...
3) anti Lisbon!

4) jumps onto every populist bandwagon she can get a hold of?

marco_polo

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Eh, you were saying? :rolleyes: - From the same source:

The Lisbon Treaty directly invites the Court to outlaw the low Irish corporate rate by important changes which were never discussed in the Constitutional Convention.

1. The tax clause in Art. 113 (TFEU) would be radically changed. Currently, taxes can only be harmonised when it is a necessity for the functioning of the Internal Market, but the Lisbon Treaty widens the scope unlimitedly by adding "and to avoid distortion of competition". This concept is much broader and prone to interpretation: what small difference between one member state and another does not distort competition?

2. This broader concept is also found in the new Protocol No. 27, which widens the definition of the internal market with "a system ensuring that competition is not distorted". The Protocol even
invites the Council to use the "flexibility clause" in this new area if there is no other legal base (flexibility to amend the treaty, that is).

3. There is an easy legal base for fighting distorted competition. This is Art. 116 TFEU, allowing the Council to decide by a majority vote. The Commission initiates the process by sending a letter to the Member State concerned. If the Member State does not change the distorting element the Commission can go to the EU Court or propose a law to be adopted by qualified majority.

4. On 17 January 2008 the EU Court overruled a Danish law on the taxation of Danes possessing secondary housing in Denmark and/or abroad. There was no connection to the common market at all. Finland was forced to change their taxation of pensions in the Danner case. Denmark lost a tax case on pensions as well. It is naïve to believe that the new Union could not reach the low Irish corporate tax by other means than direct harmonisation of tax rates.

5. The Commission has already initiated the work for harmonisation of the corporate tax base. It is included in the annual programme for 2008. The draft has been prepared and will make it impossible for the Irish state to gain revenue from Irish companies' turnover in other Member States. The proposal has been archived – until the Irish referendum is over.

6. There is only one way to safeguard the low Irish tax, a Protocol stating: 'Nothing in the European treaties shall hinder Ireland from maintaining its lower taxes on companies for their turnover in the EU.'



Eh, so what???

Anyway, she is:

1) an MEP
2) pro Europe, but...
3) anti Lisbon!

...and yes, you can be pro-Europe and Anti-Lisbon...

...however IMO, what you can't be is: in favour of power hungry EU politicians and at the same time, anti-Lisbon!

Regards!

Its a propaganda website for the UK Independance party and Kathy Sinnott and their cronies.

Its regurgitating all the the usual abortion, euthanasia, tax and neutrality lies.

Irish and Proud

marco_polo wrote: »

Its a propaganda website for the UK Independance party and Kathy Sinnott and their cronies.

Yawn, Yawn, Yawn...

...heard it all before...

...anyone who is against Lisbon is right wing...

...yeah, yeah, yeah...

...now, can I get a bit of shuteye...

...ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Scofflaw

4. On 17 January 2008 the EU Court overruled a Danish law on the taxation of Danes possessing secondary housing in Denmark and/or abroad. There was no connection to the common market at all. Finland was forced to change their taxation of pensions in the Danner case. Denmark lost a tax case on pensions as well. It is naïve to believe that the new Union could not reach the low Irish corporate tax by other means than direct harmonisation of tax rates.

Now, I should be very interested to see an actual reference to the case there, because I have been unable to find any ECJ cases relating to Denmark on that day (see here for the week in question).

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Yawn, Yawn, Yawn...

...heard it all before...

...anyone who is against Lisbon is right wing...

...yeah, yeah, yeah...

...now, can I get a bit of shuteye...

...ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Where did I say that? Are you saying that that parliament group isn't extremely right wing? Even a slightly less biased source would be ok.

Irish and Proud

marco_polo wrote: »

Where did I say that? Are you saying that that parliament group isn't extremely right wing? Even a slightly less biased source would be ok.

Kathy Sinnott is right wing??? :rolleyes:

Now, IMO the political term "Right Wing" generally refers to policies which favour the "survival of the fittest" ideology (ie. right wing parties like to cut social benefits etc.). Now, as Kathy Sinnott has been campaigning for people with disabilities (even if it was all about her son), where does that fit in with right wing thinking? Sure far right wing extremists like Hitler would have people with disabilities exterminated as they would be regarded as a burden on society.

Again, where does Kathy fit in??? :rolleyes:

Regards!

VoidStarNull

Irish and Proud wrote: »

...and yes, you can be pro-Europe and Anti-Lisbon...

What has Kathy Sinott ever done that is pro-EU?
What has Sinn Fein ever done that is pro-EU?
What has Libertas ever done that is pro-EU?

Let's be clear here: this article is arguing against Lisbon based on a hypothesized, convoluted "back-door" mechanism by which the ECJ might possibly at some unknown future date attempt to interfere with Irish tax.

Think of the effort required to assemble such a tenuous and convoluted argument! (After all, how much easier it would have been if the EU had already tried something like this, but of course they have not!)

Doesn't strike me as the work of someone who is pro-EU. More like clutching at anti-EU straws.

dresden8

VoidStarNull wrote: »

What has Libertas ever done that is pro-EU?

It's kind of ironic that a lot of Yes people who slag off Ganley slag off the fact the he's a Brit or West Brit yadda yadda yadda. Surely he's a poster boy for the EU project, an immigrant who came to Ireland and made it good.

marco_polo

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Kathy Sinnott is right wing??? :rolleyes:

Now, IMO the political term "Right Wing" generally refers to policies which favour the "survival of the fittest" ideology (ie. right wing parties like to cut social benefits etc.). Now, as Kathy Sinnott has been campaigning for people with disabilities (even if it was all about her son), where does that fit in with right wing thinking? Sure far right wing extremists like Hitler would have people with disabilities exterminated as they would be regarded as a burden on society.

Again, where does Kathy fit in??? :rolleyes:

Regards!

If you purposly narrow the defination of right wing to fiscal conservatism, then you would be right. And in America moreso than Europe the two tend to go hand in hand.

If you look at her leanings in terms of social issue such as abortion, divorce, contraception and stem cell research then you cannot say but that she is very very much right wing.

marco_polo

dresden8 wrote: »

It's kind of ironic that a lot of Yes people who slag off Ganley slag off the fact the he's a Brit or West Brit yadda yadda yadda. Surely he's a poster boy for the EU project, an immigrant who came to Ireland and made it good.

Has he mentioned where he got the few million from yet?