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
EU plays hardball. complaints lodged
Options
Comments
-
FYI
Quick question, in Lisbon I remember the UK and Poland demanding and getting certain "opt-outs" which would make the treaty more acceptable to their public. Did Ireland do this? Was it not possible to see the potential "no" vote arguments and have them sorted in Lisbon before the vote ever begun ?
This all that was mentioned and the education we got. There was no mention of Tax, defence-Military (other than in the first page) or any other areas where there is veto at present. So poor information from the Referendum Commission and the yes campaign did not complain about it only defended it, when the No campaign questioned its ability to be Neutral and have yes and No arguments explained equally. The government change this after NICE 1 Failure. Referendum Commission was supposedly there to give the full facts. It cannot do that when the government tie its hands.www.lisbontreaty2008.ie wrote:http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_changes_eu.html#b
B. Areas where Ireland may opt in or opt out
Ireland is not obliged to take part in, or be bound by, decisions in what is known as the “Area of Freedom, Security and Justice”. This covers issues such as asylum, immigration, border controls, judicial co-operation in criminal matters and police co-operation.
Ireland and the UK may each decide to be involved in particular issues - they may opt in or opt out of particular decisions. This special arrangement for Ireland and the UK has been in existence since these areas came within the remit of the EU in 1999. In practice, Ireland has opted in to a number of decisions, for example, in relation to asylum and judicial co-operation and has not exercised its right to opt in to others, for example, border controls.
The Treaty provides for the opt-out for Ireland and the UK to continue. Ireland has issued a non legally binding declaration that it proposes to opt in to decisions in this area to the maximum extent possible and to review the entire opt-out clause within three years.
The wording of the proposed amendment to the Constitution proposes to allow Ireland to opt in to particular decisions only with the approval of the Dáil and Seanad (this would continue the present constitutional requirement). It also allows for Ireland to withdraw totally from the opt-out, again only if there is prior Dáil and Seanad approval.
Voting with blind Information when I know there is more Information only leads to suspicion to what are they government is hiding only led me to Vote No for Status Quo.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 9866
FYI
This all that was mentioned and the education we got. There was no mention of Tax, defence-Military (other than in the first page) or any other areas where there is veto at present. So poor information from the Referendum Commission and the yes campaign did not complain about it only defended it, when the No campaign questioned its ability to be Neutral and have yes and No arguments explained equally. The government change this after NICE 1 Failure. Referendum Commission was supposedly there to give the full facts. It cannot do that when the government tie its hands.
Voting with blind Information when I know there is more Information only leads to suspicion to what are they government is hiding only led me to Vote No for Status Quo.
It is not surprising that Tax, Defense and Security policies are not mentioned in a paragraph describing areas that are covered under the QMV changes since these areas do not come under the remit of QMV in any shape or form. On the tax point I don't see why the referendum commission should address issues that are NOT COVERED IN THE TREATY UNDER REFERENDUM
Could you clarify as your last points are hard to understand. You are suggesting that the government altered the functions of the referendum commission after Nice I in order to hide information from the public? Have you any evidence to support this claim?
Furthermore are you also accusing the referendum commission of bias towards the Yes side, and on what basis?0 -
marco_polo wrote: »It is not surprising that Tax, Defense and Security policies are not mentioned in a paragraph describing areas that are covered under the QMV changes since these areas do not come under the remit of QMV in any shape or form. On the tax point I don't see why the referendum commission should address issues that are NOT COVERED IN THE TREATY UNDER REFERENDUM
Could you clarify as your last points are hard to understand. You are suggesting that the government altered the functions of the referendum commission after Nice I in order to hide information from the public? Have you any evidence to support this claim?
Furthermore are you also accusing the referendum commission of bias towards the Yes side, and on what basis?
They went to explain what the EU structures are and what areas they govern that presently exists and then explain what Lisbon would change, that includes new Areas of power that handed over to the EU. So it is very RELEVENT.
We can only have a Referendum when new powers is been handed over under the Crotty case as was the decision in the Supreme Court back in 1987.
Having a Neutral Referendum Commission to give us actual legitimises reasons to look at both Yes and No reasons, then we know if the two campaigns are lying to us after all they have their own agendas. It is better body to have that has no agenda of its own except to inform us about the Referendum in question.
We know the government is not going to tell us the whole truth and same applies to the No campaign. There was also of scaremongering in the NICE 2 campaign that we would be left behind and lose out. I never said the Referendum Commission was bias, I just said their hands was tied by the government after the NICE 1 campaign.0 -
We can only have a Referendum when new powers is been handed over under the Crotty case as was the decision in the Supreme Court back in 1987.
Come again? I thought we were having a referendum because there wasa change to the phrasing of that section of our Constitution that refers to the EU laws having precendence over ours? I never realised we were having it because we were giving EU new powers over taxation.... :eek::rolleyes:0 -
Join Date:Posts: 9866
They went to explain what the EU structures are and what areas they govern that presently exists and then explain what Lisbon would change, that includes new Areas of power that handed over to the EU. So it is very RELEVENT.
Repeating again the areas moving to QMV are the areas we are handing more control to the EU in. Which is why all references to tax and millitary are missing.We can only have a Referendum when new powers is been handed over under the Crotty case as was the decision in the Supreme Court back in 1987.
Why are we on the subject of why referendums are called?Having a Neutral Referendum Commission to give us actual legitimises reasons to look at both Yes and No reasons, then we know if the two campaigns are lying to us after all they have their own agendas. It is better body to have that has no agenda of its own except to inform us about the Referendum in question.
Luckily we have an independent referendum commission.
We know the government is not going to tell us the whole truth and same applies to the No campaign. There was also of scaremongering in the NICE 2 campaign that we would be left behind and lose out. I never said the Referendum Commission was bias, I just said their hands was tied by the government after the NICE 1 campaign.
In what way were their hands tied?0 -
Advertisement
-
Ask the French Finance Minster yourself: Her Pet project CCTB, when is changing the way we calculate Corporation TAX. That is a TAX matter in the EU.Come again? I thought we were having a referendum because there wasa change to the phrasing of that section of our Constitution that refers to the EU laws having precendence over ours? I never realised we were having it because we were giving EU new powers over taxation.... :eek::rolleyes:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0411/corporationtax.html.0 -
They were not properly mentioned, just vaugely mentioned.marco_polo wrote: »Repeating again the areas moving to QMV are the areas we are handing more control to the EU in. Which is why all references to tax and millitary are missing.
because people put in attack on it ans it needed a respeonse.marco_polo wrote: »Why are we on the subject of why referendums are called?
It not completely Independent when the government can still change its function.marco_polo wrote: »Luckily we have an independent referendum commission.
[/quote]marco_polo wrote: »In what way were their hands tied?
Read the Taoiseach own website before the NICE referendum to get some History perspective. They had no problems at that time with the Referendum Commission and gave the Referendum Commission plenty of time (four Months) from the government perpsctive to get NICE 1 Regerendum ready.
http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp?docID=900
There were debates from the Dail about this, Trevor Sargent & John Gormley (Green Party) asked the Minster for the Envoirnment, questioned him?
http://www.irlgov.ie/debates-01/6dec/sect5.htm
Yet, afterwards because of the NO vote on NICE 1, they changed the Rules in which the Independent Referendum Commission operated.
The Independent Referendum Commission gave both arguments equally to the people as they were setup to do before NICE 1 Referendum.
You cannot have an Independent body, if the Government can meddle with it. Therefore, They (the Government) are affecting the Neutral Bias of the Commission body a to more Government Bias agendas.
Now back to EU plays HardBall, Did you see today media reports from the EU? France is now stopping enlargement and that it is putting blame on the Irish people as the reason for stopping Enlargement.
They do not want to negotiate with more countries in the running of the EU, therefore want a bigger say in the Affairs of the EU, is going against NICE Treaty, which address the issues with enlargement and we nearly stop that with NICE Treaty Referendums. This is very worrying about the Integrity of the Lisbon Treaty and questioning it even more.Sarkozy wrote:"Without the Treaty of Lisbon there won't be any enlargement," Sarkozy said.
They want an answer within 4 months.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/5847372.html0 -
Ask the French Finance Minster yourself: Her Pet project CCTB, when is changing the way we calculate Corporation TAX. That is a TAX matter in the EU.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0411/corporationtax.html.
It is a proposal the French are working on that would need unanimous support from the EU to pass. We will veto it, the UK have stated that they too will veto it (less to do with economic reasons, and more about soverignty), and I believe a number of the Eastern European member states are firmly opposed to it too. So it doesn't really stand a chance of getting in. I'm still not sure what bearing that has on Lisbon though????? The two are totally unrelated.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 9866
Ask the French Finance Minster yourself: Her Pet project CCTB, when is changing the way we calculate Corporation TAX. That is a TAX matter in the EU.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0411/corporationtax.html.
It is a tax proposal that would have been voted down by many countries including Ireland and Brittain, and has now been dropped in any case.
Also that link is over two months old and there have been numerous posts here showing how that the fanciful nightmare scenario is not in any way possible under EU regulations, i will try and find some later.0 -
Come again? I thought we were having a referendum because there wasa change to the phrasing of that section of our Constitution that refers to the EU laws having precendence over ours? I never realised we were having it because we were giving EU new powers over taxation.... :eek::rolleyes:
Hmmm....actually, this is something of a vexed question, because we don't know the AG's advice to the Government. Strictly speaking, though, we are having a referendum because the Government thinks (or has been advised) that without one, any ratification of the Lisbon Treaty is open to legal challenge.
The thing that won Crotty wasn't QMV, or the handover of new competences, but a binding foreign policy commitment. The Government exercises foreign policy as an expression of Irish sovereignty, and the power to bind that sovereignty is resides only in the people.
The "aid and assistance" clause, by requiring us to come to the aid of fellow EU states, represents a binding foreign policy commitment - it's not a question of neutrality (which is only a policy, not constitutional), but simply that it is a constraint on our foreign policy. I suspect that clause by itself might require a referendum, quite aside from the necessary update of the EU primacy clause.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
They do not want to negotiate with more countries in the running of the EU, therefore want a bigger say in the Affairs of the EU, is going against NICE Treaty, which address the issues with enlargement and we nearly stop that with NICE Treaty Referendums. This is very worrying about the Integrity of the Lisbon Treaty and questioning it even more.
There will be no more enlargement because the way the EU currently operates it doesn't have capacity for more member states. That was one of the drivers behind Lisbon, to streamline the union in such a way that more states could join and be fairly represented without the whole thing grinding to a halt. So in fact the French do want more members and are actively pursuing a course of action that will allow for more nations to join. It is us that have blocked/delayed that, noone else.0 -
Hmmm....actually, this is something of a vexed question, because we don't know the AG's advice to the Government. Strictly speaking, though, we are having a referendum because the Government thinks (or has been advised) that without one, any ratification of the Lisbon Treaty is open to legal challenge.
The thing that won Crotty wasn't QMV, or the handover of new competences, but a binding foreign policy commitment. The Government exercises foreign policy as an expression of Irish sovereignty, and the power to bind that sovereignty is resides only in the people.
The "aid and assistance" clause, by requiring us to come to the aid of fellow EU states, represents a binding foreign policy commitment - it's not a question of neutrality (which is only a policy, not constitutional), but simply that it is a constraint on our foreign policy. I suspect that clause by itself might require a referendum, quite aside from the necessary update of the EU primacy clause.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Cheers Scofflaw, I thought the two were one in the same issue - in that the primacy clause itself overrode our foreign policy and that was what Crotty brought to the SC - which then meant that any change to that particular part of the Constitution required further referenda on that basis???0 -
It is not interfering with change on what TAX Rates each country is setting. They want to change the way each country method of TAX to harmonized it across the EU. It is the First Step to getting same TAX rates across the EU.marco_polo wrote: »It is a tax proposal that would have been voted down by many countries including Ireland and Brittain, and has now been dropped in any case.
Also that link is over two months old and there have been numerous posts here showing how that the fanciful nightmare scenario is not in any way possible under EU regulations, i will try and find some later.
They cannot get harmonizing, if each country has a different method and rules of calculating TAX, no matter the TAX Rate set, in which we the Irish voters have an major issue (not harmonizing of TAX calculation). They (the French government) want it to pass so in the future after a lot of Horse trading, and when some countries want something completely different in another Area of concern, then France will say yes, but they want this TAX issue first. Do you see what I getting at? They remove one stumbling block without much effort, so they have a better hand in future negotiations.0 -
It is not interfering with change on what TAX Rates each country is setting. They want to change the way each country method of TAX to harmonized it across the EU. It is the First Step to getting same TAX rates across the EU.
They cannot get harmonizing, if each country has a different method and rules of calculating TAX, no matter the TAX Rate set, in which we the Irish voters have an major issue (not harmonizing of TAX calculation). They (the French government) want it to pass so in the future after a lot of Horse trading, and when some countries want something completely different in another Area of concern, then France will say yes, but they want this TAX issue first. Do you see what I getting at? They remove one stumbling block without much effort, so they have a better hand in future negotiations.
That still has nothing to do with Lisbon. They can go ahead with that all they want regardless of whether Lisbon is implemented or not. At the end of the day there isn't enough support for it (I heard recently that the Germans are starting to have second thoughts re the complexity of implementing such a move, must try and dig up the link) and there is plenty of opposition. But I'll re-iterate, it is completely and utterly seperate from Lisbon. It has no bearing on the Treaty, and the Treaty has no bearing on it. Therefore it is a wholly irrelevant issue.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 9866
It is not interfering with change on what TAX Rates each country is setting. They want to change the way each country method of TAX to harmonized it across the EU. It is the First Step to getting same TAX rates across the EU.
They cannot get harmonizing, if each country has a different method and rules of calculating TAX, no matter the TAX Rate set, in which we the Irish voters have an major issue (not harmonizing of TAX calculation). They (the French government) want it to pass so in the future after a lot of Horse trading, and when some countries want something completely different in another Area of concern, then France will say yes, but they want this TAX issue first. Do you see what I getting at? They remove one stumbling block without much effort, so they have a better hand in future negotiations.
I understand the difference. It is a hypothetical possible situation but that make the assumption that the other 26 countries would ever be in favour of harmonizing the tax rates. Brittain would be dead against it and many other states have much lower tax rates Ireland. And I cannot think of something we could possibly want so badly as to make us agree to that. Sure it suits the French and Germans with their very high corporate tax rates, but isn't this evidence that they do not in fact run the EU?
Here is a link from ten years ago expressing the exact same fears and yet we are no closer now to this ever becoming a reality as we were then. The French have dropped their proposal for now, will it resurface again in a few years time. Quite probably, but it has little to do with the Lisbon Treaty.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/the_economy/220383.stm0 -
That still has nothing to do with Lisbon. They can go ahead with that all they want regardless of whether Lisbon is implemented or not. At the end of the day there isn't enough support for it (I heard recently that the Germans are starting to have second thoughts re the complexity of implementing such a move, must try and dig up the link) and there is plenty of opposition. But I'll re-iterate, it is completely and utterly seperate from Lisbon. It has no bearing on the Treaty, and the Treaty has no bearing on it. Therefore it is a wholly irrelevant issue.
My point is we should not be too quick to please others without thinking through the consequences of saying YES, in which some YES hard core supporters want us to decide quickly without time to see the full facts of what they are trying to achieve. NO vote brought us time and debates are more instances because of it. Many Citizens within the EU did not know about the Lisbon Treaty until we voted it down until it was flash in their News and then were told that we were stopping enlargement and there was comments that we are full of greedy people as one Spanish Newspaper put it and they wanted to force us to change our Constitution.
You don’t jump into a bath to wash yourself without testing the temperature. You could be scalded! No vote has opened a lot of eyes throughout Europe.0 -
My point is we should not be too quick to please others without thinking through the consequences of saying YES, in which some YES hard core supporters want us to decide quickly without time to see the full facts of what they are trying to achieve. NO vote brought us time and debates are more instances because of it. Many Citizens within the EU did not know about the Lisbon Treaty until we voted it down until it was flash in their News and then were told that we were stopping enlargement and there was comments that we are full of greedy people as one Spanish Newspaper put it and they wanted to force us to change our Constitution.
You don’t jump into a bath to wash yourself without testing the temperature. You could be scalded! No vote has opened a lot of eyes throughout Europe.
What!? The Lisbon Treaty has been public knowledge for years! We knew it was coming and we had loads of time to familiarise ourselves with the details. Its not like the EU leaders went and snuck it past the rest of Europe when they weren't looking. That notion is ridiculous. It didn't make the front page of papers or massive media coverage until the referendum certainly, but its hardly as though it was covered up and kept secret. I agree that the Yes campaign was awful, but if I had enough time to figure it out then you and everyone else did too. I'm nothing special in that regard, believe me.
I completely understand why so many people across the EU are pissed at us too. The Treaty was very good to us, despite what the No campaign said. There isn't much more, if anything more, that we can get from it. Given that we are dealing with 26 other countries we'll never get 100% of what we want, but we did get a lot of what we wanted. Add to that everything we have gotten from the EU over the years and its easy to see why so many people see us as greedy now. We've gotten loads over the years and we got a very favourable Treaty and we're still not happy. We're still demanding more, more, more. The thing is, we've no real idea what the "more" really is.......0 -
If you keep battering down the door, it will eventually break or open.marco_polo wrote: »I understand the difference. It is a hypothetical possible situation but that make the assumption that the other 26 countries would ever be in favour of harmonizing the tax rates. Brittain would be dead against it and many other states have much lower tax rates Ireland. And I cannot think of something we could possibly want so badly as to make us agree to that. Sure it suits the French and Germans with their very high corporate tax rates, but isn't this evidence that they do not in fact run the EU?
Here is a link from ten years ago expressing the exact same fears and yet we are no closer now to this ever becoming a reality as we were then. The French have dropped their proposal for now, will it resurface again in a few years time. Quite probably, but it has little to do with the Lisbon Treaty.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/the_economy/220383.stm
They will keep battering until we give in. Most countries might not be against harmonizing and eventually warm to it.
Points for CCTB- It would very easy to compare countries and tell Multinational companies that my country favours business and many Multinational companies want it this easy to compare.
- It will make the EU commission and ECB work easier.
- It will reform from their point of view and it will make sense.
- Do you want to be that country to Say NO to Multinational companies?
We cannot depend on Britain or other countries, they will look after their own National Interest, NOT OURS.
Now That I have shown you some arguments in favour and I spun it some bit to make you feel guilty as a National Leader who electorate is depended on Multinational companies for Jobs. Just like the YES campaign did to the Irish electorate about "Lisbon Treaty".0 -
I admire your willingness to sacrifice the Irish economy in the interests of democracy in Europe. I turn on my tv every night to witness the enormous demonstrations that are taking place across Europe in support of our position and I'm strangely disappointed. Even the French who are normally quite prepared to take to the streets couldn't care less. But we Irish will keep patting ourselves on the back as saviours of democracy, egged on by the far right and eurosceptics.No vote has opened a lot of eyes throughout Europe.0 -
The CCTB can be introduced now under Nice. There is nothing preventing the rest of Europe getting together to introduce CCTB. What they cannot do is force us to change the rate we charge.Now That I have shown you some arguments in favour and I spun it some bit to make you feel guilty as a National Leader who electorate is depended on Multinational companies for Jobs. Just like the YES campaign did to the Irish electorate about "Lisbon Treaty".
I'm amazed at this belief in the "no" camp that voting no to Lisbon means we can prevent anything happening anywhere in Europe. We have prevented the Lisbon Treaty from being implemented, that's it.0 -
Advertisement
-
If you keep battering down the door, it will eventually break or open.
They will keep battering until we give in. Most countries might not be against harmonizing and eventually warm to it.
Points for CCTB- It would very easy to compare countries and tell Multinational companies that my country favours business and many Multinational companies want it this easy to compare.
- It will make the EU commission and ECB work easier.
- It will reform from their point of view and it will make sense.
- Do you want to be that country to Say NO to Multinational companies?
Now That I have shown you some arguments in favour and I spun it some bit to make you feel guilty as a National Leader who electorate is depended on Multinational companies for Jobs. Just like the YES campaign did to the Irish electorate about "Lisbon Treaty".
I've lost track of exactly what you are trying to say. It may well happen that tax harmonisation is accepted through-out the EU. However it will not happen any time soon and is not relevant to Lisbon, so why are we talking about it at all?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 9866
If you keep battering down the door, it will eventually break or open.
They will keep battering until we give in. Most countries might not be against harmonizing and eventually warm to it.
Points for CCTB- It would very easy to compare countries and tell Multinational companies that my country favours business and many Multinational companies want it this easy to compare.
- It will make the EU commission and ECB work easier.
- It will reform from their point of view and it will make sense.
- Do you want to be that country to Say NO to Multinational companies?
We cannot depend on Britain or other countries, they will look after their own National Interest, NOT OURS.
Now That I have shown you some arguments in favour and I spun it some bit to make you feel guilty as a National Leader who electorate is depended on Multinational companies for Jobs. Just like the YES campaign did to the Irish electorate about "Lisbon Treaty".
More than half of all european countries are agianst any move in this direction. That is alot of doors for one country to kick in. It matters not that they are doing this for their own reasons. Name one government that has ever done anything in the interests of another country.
And in any case it is not affected by the Lisbon treaty either way.0 -
If you keep battering down the door, it will eventually break or open.
They will keep battering until we give in. Most countries might not be against harmonizing and eventually warm to it.
Points for CCTB- It would very easy to compare countries and tell Multinational companies that my country favours business and many Multinational companies want it this easy to compare.
- It will make the EU commission and ECB work easier.
- It will reform from their point of view and it will make sense.
- Do you want to be that country to Say NO to Multinational companies?
We cannot depend on Britain or other countries, they will look after their own National Interest, NOT OURS.
Now That I have shown you some arguments in favour and I spun it some bit to make you feel guilty as a National Leader who electorate is depended on Multinational companies for Jobs. Just like the YES campaign did to the Irish electorate about "Lisbon Treaty".
I have to say out of all the No points this is the most far fetched, I'd put it on a par with Jim Corr!
Never, never, never will Brian Cowen or any other Taoiseach come back to this country having just signed away our soveireignty over our Corporation Tax. He'd be lynched and it's political suicide. Even core FF voters would leave the party in droves.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
It was in the Public Domain but ALL of the details of it was not public knowledge and we waited for our politicians and other bodies to understand this complicated treaty to go over to see any ratifications of it. They the politicians (Who failed to read the treaty) only highlighted aspects that they were told that might benefit them in supporting the treaty.What!? The Lisbon Treaty has been public knowledge for years! We knew it was coming and we had loads of time to familiarise ourselves with the details. Its not like the EU leaders went and snuck it past the rest of Europe when they weren't looking. That notion is ridiculous. It didn't make the front page of papers or massive media coverage until the referendum certainly, but its hardly as though it was covered up and kept secret. I agree that the Yes campaign was awful, but if I had enough time to figure it out then you and everyone else did too. I'm nothing special in that regard, believe me.
I completely understand why so many people across the EU are pissed at us too. The Treaty was very good to us, despite what the No campaign said. There isn't much more, if anything more, that we can get from it. Given that we are dealing with 26 other countries we'll never get 100% of what we want, but we did get a lot of what we wanted. Add to that everything we have gotten from the EU over the years and its easy to see why so many people see us as greedy now. We've gotten loads over the years and we got a very favourable Treaty and we're still not happy. We're still demanding more, more, more. The thing is, we've no real idea what the "more" really is.......
The Lisbon Treaty is worst than studying for any exam that I know off in trying to comprehend its consequences. It as readable as to say it was similar to reading a quantum theory book. I am not the only one and many people did not understand the Treaty.
Many aspect of quantum theory is easier to understand than the Lisbon Treaty, as the Treaty is full of Amendments to previous treaties.
The Politicians stated that The Lisbon Treaty is available but did not say you will need to read previous Treaties to understand it.
They Kept stating Previous benefits (which has nothing to do with Lisbon Treaty) that any Dick and Harry can understand are easy swayed by it(Previous benefits) to vote Yes.
I recently found out after the Referendum, that approx 95% of it is already in EU countries Law. That leaves 5%. They did not highlight this. This fact was not widely publicized.
Stating that you had enough time to figure out the treaty is rubbish, as you will need to be a Law Expert to do so.
The “Lisbon Treaty” was basically the “EU constitution” rewritten and was deliberate setup to bypass the People of Europe taking the say from them into Politicians hands. Only giving the Politicians say only what direction they want Europe to Take. This is very undemocratic method of producing a treaty that was suppose to be more democratic for the people. Questions are now been asked, what are the loop holes in the treaty in which the people are not aware of?
To state this
is a lie, and the media would highlight this fact.We're still demanding more, more, more.
Where your proof?0 -
I never said he would sign away the Corporation Tax. All I said that if they got CCTB through, then negotiations in future would be very difficult for smaller countries.I have to say out of all the No points this is the most far fetched, I'd put it on a par with Jim Corr!
Never, never, never will Brian Cowen or any other Taoiseach come back to this country having just signed away our soveireignty over our Corporation Tax. He'd be lynched and it's political suicide. Even core FF voters would leave the party in droves.
I can definitely say you are a YES voter by your comments or completely do not understand what CCTB is.0 -
It doesn't matter if I'm yes or not. Anybody with any understanding of politics can see it will never happen.
What's the chances of Ireland agreeing to changes in the CCTB that will affect us detrimentally?
I completely understand CCTB for good reasons and I still stick by my post.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
This is typical discussion from the "no" side. Yes it will make things tougher for countries like us who engage in tax competition, but it has nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty.I never said he would sign away the Corporation Tax. All I said that if they got CCTB through, then negotiations in future would be very difficult for smaller countries.
I can definitely say you are a YES voter by your comments or completely do not understand what CCTB is.0 -
Btw, Europe is not our threat on tax, the USA is.
Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
I never said he would sign away the Corporation Tax. All I said that if they got CCTB through, then negotiations in future would be very difficult for smaller countries.
How is it in anyway relevant to Lisbon though? Our veto on tax issues wasn't changed in the treaty so arguably the issue is agnostic on whether or not Lisbon is ever ratified.Btw, Europe is not our threat on tax, the USA is.
Indeed, a few changes to how the US deals with tax paid in foreign countries by US companies and we could in an interesting position. That though will affect all countries so it's hard to predict how it will affect us if it happens.0 -
Advertisement
-
It was in the Public Domain but ALL of the details of it was not public knowledge and we waited for our politicians and other bodies to understand this complicated treaty to go over to see any ratifications of it. They the politicians (Who failed to read the treaty) only highlighted aspects that they were told that might benefit them in supporting the treaty.
The Lisbon Treaty is worst than studying for any exam that I know off in trying to comprehend its consequences. It as readable as to say it was similar to reading a quantum theory book. I am not the only one and many people did not understand the Treaty.
Many aspect of quantum theory is easier to understand than the Lisbon Treaty, as the Treaty is full of Amendments to previous treaties.
The Politicians stated that The Lisbon Treaty is available but did not say you will need to read previous Treaties to understand it.
They Kept stating Previous benefits (which has nothing to do with Lisbon Treaty) that any Dick and Harry can understand are easy swayed by it(Previous benefits) to vote Yes.
I recently found out after the Referendum, that approx 95% of it is already in EU countries Law. That leaves 5%. They did not highlight this. This fact was not widely publicized.
Stating that you had enough time to figure out the treaty is rubbish, as you will need to be a Law Expert to do so.
The “Lisbon Treaty” was basically the “EU constitution” rewritten and was deliberate setup to bypass the People of Europe taking the say from them into Politicians hands. Only giving the Politicians say only what direction they want Europe to Take. This is very undemocratic method of producing a treaty that was suppose to be more democratic for the people. Questions are now been asked, what are the loop holes in the treaty in which the people are not aware of?
To state this
is a lie, and the media would highlight this fact.
Where your proof?
To respond to the first part of your thread would be to go over all the points made again, and again, and again in all of these threads. I'm getting sick and tired of re-typing the same thing over and over. Its downright nauseating at this stage. All of your points have been dealt with repeatedly in almost every Lisbon thread and yet still yourself, and others like you, keep trotting them out. The Treaty was not that hard to understand, hard to read certainly, but not to understand. The politicians didn't need to read the Treaty itself, some of them were involved in drawing the thing up and the ones that weren't have busy jobs so didn't have the time. Instead a professional legal team would have reviewed the Treaty and reported their findings on it. And yes a lot of what was in the Treaty already exists, because a lot of it was not about the laws themselves but more about how the EU functioned. That was one of the major drivers behind the whole thing, i.e. make the EU more efficient.
As for your "proof" point (given that there's been a serious lack of same in your posts) I think all the proof I need is in the result. We said No to it because we wanted more from it. We hardly voted no because we wanted less......0
Advertisement