why so afraid to go it alone

marco_polo

thehighground wrote: »

And if the French & Germans get their way, no one in the EU will have favourable tax rates! How do we all compete then?

Why do you feel a need to assign motivation?

They have been trying for over ten years now and they still haven't suceeded. When they started out on this campaign there were only 15 countries now there are 27 with more to come. So it is looking likely than ever that it could ever come to pass.

thehighground

seamus wrote: »

But how can they get their way when it can be vetoed?

There is no way in hell that France and Germany would get unanimity on harmonisation. Not in my lifetime.

What are you basing this on? The need for unanimity before Lisbon can go ahead!

marco_polo

thehighground wrote: »

What are you basing this on? The need for unanimity before Lisbon can go ahead!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/...omy/220383.stm

Ten years now they have been banging the same drum.

The Corinthian

thehighground wrote: »

What are you basing this on? The need for unanimity before Lisbon can go ahead!

Are you ignoring the veto on taxation on purpose? It's been pointed out to you a number of times already here? I am begining to get the distict impression that you're being a little less than honest in your willingness to discuss this issue.

seamus

thehighground wrote: »

What are you basing this on? The need for unanimity before Lisbon can go ahead!

Lisbon has no effect on our direct taxation policies or powers. None whatsoever. As pointed out, France and Germany have been going on about this for years and it's never been more than a "We're big but we're not making any more money. We don't understand why you guys can't just be cool." pipe dream.

thehighground

The Corinthian wrote: »

That is if they have their way, which Lisbon does not open the road to. You're simply lowering yourself to FUD arguments now.

Because that's what it comes down to. If pressed, I suspect you would tolerate our economy returning to pre nineties levels - because this would be an acceptable price for 'independence'. If so, then your economic arguments are simply hollow propaganda, designed to obfuscate your true motivations.

If you believe the EU is a bad thing, you should say why and let people decide on that basis. The problem is that it would probably be some xenophobic or nationalistic rational that most would reject - hence your need to use arguments that will push a goal common with your agenda.

Since you ask - I would not be happy with Ireland returning to what is was in the '80s. Its a matter of opinion with regard to my economic arguments.

As regards the EU, I don't think you can reduce it to just a EU 'bad thing' or 'good thing' call. For the record I'm a republican (small 'r' and for the record I have never voted Sinn Fein or never will).

PS - you're not going to win too many to your way of thinking who voted 'no' with your xenophobic accusations. And I'm sure there are quite a few people who would wonder why you have such a lack of respect for people's beliefs (i.e, patriotism/nationalism bad - there are a hell of a lot of 'bad' people in this world if you think like that).

thehighground

The Corinthian wrote: »

Are you ignoring the veto on taxation on purpose? It's been pointed out to you a number of times already here? I am begining to get the distict impression that you're being a little less than honest in your willingness to discuss this issue.

My belief is that it is not worth the paper its written on!

Just like other countries decided that they don't need Ireland's approval to enact the Lisbon Treaty.

hmmm

thehighground wrote: »

PS - you're not going to win too many to your way of thinking who voted 'no' with your xenophobic accusations. And I'm sure there are quite a few people who would wonder why you have such a lack of respect for people's beliefs (i.e, patriotism/nationalism bad - there are a hell of a lot of 'bad' people in this world if you think like that).

Are you going to answer his question or not?

seamus

thehighground wrote: »

My belief is that it is not worth the paper its written on!

How so? How are they going to force any country to adopt their taxes?

Just like other countries decided that they don't need Ireland's approval to enact the Lisbon Treaty.

Of course they do. Without Ireland's approval (or a total withdrawal from the union), the Lisbon treaty will not be enacted. This is a fact. That other countries are ratifying it proves nothing more than the EU is hopeful that Ireland will approve it.

hmmm

thehighground wrote: »

Just like other countries decided that they don't need Ireland's approval to enact the Lisbon Treaty.

But they do need Ireland's approval, that's been pointed out to you several times. They will ratify the treaty in their own parliaments and the EU will figure out what position it is in at that point. If they didn't care what we thought we wouldn't be having all this fuss and hassle in the EU.

marco_polo

thehighground wrote: »

My belief is that it is not worth the paper its written on!

What your belief is has no bearing on the reality of the situation. Why after ten years has corporation tax not been harmonized already if the veto was not effective.

Just like other countries decided that they don't need Ireland's approval to enact the Lisbon Treaty.

Then why the big fuss about having possibly satisfying some of our concerns and having a second referendum? You are confusing this with the issue of what might play out if we reject it a second time.

IRLConor

thehighground wrote: »

Just like other countries decided that they don't need Ireland's approval to enact the Lisbon Treaty.

Enacting something is not the same as ratifying something.

They can all go ahead and ratify the treaty. It just can't be brought into force without all states ratifying it.

This is why the "ratification must go on" statements from around the EU aren't as scary as you might think. It's pretty much: "OK, we got a no from the Irish. Everyone else ratify (or don't ratify) the treaty and we'll see where we are then."

thehighground

hmmm wrote: »

Are you going to answer his question or not?

Thought I had by explaining I'm a republican!* The good things from the EU are collective barganing, free movement etc. Bad things are remoteness of gov**., lack of democracy, loss of sovereignty.


*Brief wiki definition of republicanism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism

**An example of where this remoteness goes wrong - I'm interested in the protection of the environment - a couple of years back the EU introduced headage payments for sheep - its was one size fits all - they hadn't taken into account that fertile land in France could not sustain the same number of sheep on the hills of Connemara - hence overgrazing and destruction of the landscape - it took years to sort it out, all too late.

hmmm

thehighground wrote: »

**An example of where this remoteness goes wrong - I'm interested in the protection of the environment - a couple of years back the EU introduced headage payments for sheep - its was one size fits all - they hadn't taken into account that fertile land in France could not sustain the same number of sheep on the hills of Connemara - hence overgrazing and destruction of the landscape - it took years to sort it out, all too late.

And who was this EU you talk about? A dictator somewhere? Whatever this was could have been stopped at any time by our government if they felt it would cause the problems you talk about and I have no doubt our farmer organisations made their views known. If farmers felt so strongly they get to vote in both the local, Dail and European elections to complain.

thehighground

hmmm wrote: »

And who was this EU you talk about? A dictator somewhere? Whatever this was could have been stopped at any time by our government if they felt it would cause the problems you talk about and I have no doubt our farmer organisations made their views known. If farmers felt so strongly they get to vote in both the local, Dail and European elections to complain.

Thats the problem - the Dept. of Agric/Irish Gov. were well aware of the problem, farmers did lobby etc. - it just took years to get through the bureaucracy of the EU to renegotiate it.

marco_polo

thehighground wrote: »

Thats the problem - the Dept. of Agric/Irish Gov. were well aware of the problem, farmers did lobby etc. - it just took years to get through the bureaucracy of the EU to renegotiate it.

Nice dodging of all the tax veto questions you have been repeatedly asked by the way.

mickoneill30

thehighground wrote: »

Thats the problem - the Dept. of Agric/Irish Gov. were well aware of the problem, farmers did lobby etc. - it just took years to get through the bureaucracy of the EU to renegotiate it.

So a treaty to try and sort out this kind of bureacracy was a bad thing?

thehighground

seamus wrote: »

How so? How are they going to force any country to adopt their taxes?
Of course they do. Without Ireland's approval (or a total withdrawal from the union), the Lisbon treaty will not be enacted. This is a fact. That other countries are ratifying it proves nothing more than the EU is hopeful that Ireland will approve it.

Well, they put us on the Bold step there for a few days - until they actually realised that we actually knew more than them! Not quite sure we're off it yet for having the temerity to say 'No".

For all of you who think that 'No' voters didn't know what we were doing ... I asked a canvassing politicians what the repercusions were for Ireland if we said 'No', and I was told the status quo would remain. I was happy the way things were, why would I want to change them?

thehighground

mickoneill30 wrote: »

So a treaty to try and sort out this kind of bureacracy was a bad thing?

Can you explain to me how that treaty would have sorted out headage payments more quickly! Nothing to do with the Treaty.

mickoneill30

thehighground wrote: »

Can you explain to me how that treaty would have sorted out headage payments more quickly! Nothing to do with the Treaty.

You were talking about beauracracy. Now you're on about headage payments (of which I'm sure you'll know I know nothing about). Stick to one argument will you?

Can you show me where I said that the treaty had anything to do with headage payments? Or are you talking to somebody else?

Hitman Actual

thehighground wrote: »

For all of you who think that 'No' voters didn't know what we were doing ... I asked a canvassing politicians what the repercusions were for Ireland if we said 'No', and I was told the status quo would remain. I was happy the way things were, why would I want to change them?

That's just another notch in the belt of an inept Yes campaign. As has been pointed out quite a few times, no reasonable person here is saying that every Yes voter was well informed either. It's time to stop repeating that pointless comment.

ionix5891

thehighground wrote: »

For all of you who think that 'No' voters didn't know what we were doing ...

A voter in County Clare, not content with putting an X beside the no option on the simple ballot paper in the Irish referendum on the Lisbon treaty, included a long letter of protest. Its message to the Irish government, which had campaigned desperately for a yes vote, was: "You forgot us in Shannon." The anonymous voter was using the opportunity of a vote on the structural reform of the European Union to protest against the withdrawal by the newly privatised state airline Aer Lingus of its regular service between Shannon airport and Heathrow. You would have to pity the poor Eurocrats contemplating the wreckage of the results of eight years of negotiation and compromise. What could they possibly say to a voter whose message, however urgent, was not about qualified majority voting or enhanced cooperation, but the operations of a local airline?
Or to the woman in Galway City who told RTE radio that she entered the polling booth undecided but "I got a bit of information that, if I voted yes, my sons would be drafted into the army, so I voted no ... Our sons are too good-looking for the army"? The irony is that the very absurdity of the woman's fears make them almost impossible to address. If the Lisbon treaty had contained any provisions that could, by any stretch of the imagination, enforce the conscription of the woman's handsome boys into a European army, those provisions could be removed or altered. Since it doesn't, the task of understanding and appeasing the negative sentiment of Irish voters may be a hopeless one.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/14/ireland.eu

whitser

lenny_leonard wrote: »

That's just another notch in the belt of an inept Yes campaign. As has been pointed out quite a few times, no reasonable person here is saying that every Yes voter was well informed either. It's time to stop repeating that pointless comment.

but thats the spin being put out there by the govt, that people didnt realise what they voted against. fact is a lot of people dont like the direction the eu is going.

thehighground

marco_polo wrote: »

Nice dodging of all the tax veto questions you have been repeatedly asked by the way.

How many times do I have to say that I just don't trust them - the fact that they are still on about tax harmonisation 10 years later proves they are not going to give up on it - they've nearly got rid of Charlie McCreevy, the biggest thorn in their side about this issue, and very soon we won't even have a representative on the Council of Ministers which has an appointed, not elected President (which goes against my republican ideology).

Oh, and I forgot, its a bit suspicious that France are drop it off tax harmonisation off their presidency agenda this week - wonder why they would do that now?

IRLConor

thehighground wrote: »

very soon we won't even have a representative on the Council of Ministers

We'll continue to have a representative at the Council of Ministers, Lisbon or no Lisbon.

You're probably mixing it up with the Commission which does a very different job.

Hitman Actual

whitser wrote: »

but thats the spin being put out there by the govt, that people didnt realise what they voted against. fact is a lot of people dont like the direction the eu is going.

Care to back up that 'fact' with something of substance?

Hitman Actual

thehighground wrote: »

How many times do I have to say that I just don't trust them - the fact that they are still on about tax harmonisation 10 years later proves they are not going to give up on it - they've nearly got rid of Charlie McCreevy, the biggest thorn in their side about this issue, and very soon we won't even have a representative on the Council of Ministers which has an appointed, not elected President (which goes against my republican ideology).

Are you sure it's the Council of Ministers you're talking about? Are you sure you have any idea what goes on in the EU?

thehighground

lenny_leonard wrote: »

Are you sure it's the Council of Ministers you're talking about? Are you sure you have any idea what goes on in the EU?

I don't have any idea what's going on in the EU, that's why I'm not about to vote 'Yes' until I do.

IRLConor

whitser wrote: »

but thats the spin being put out there by the govt, that people didnt realise what they voted against. fact is a lot of people dont like the direction the eu is going.

Well, from the post-referendum survey done (see other thread for link) I'd tend to disagree with you:

Reasons for voting "no" to the Lisbon Treaty:
|Reason|Percentage of No voters
1|Because I do not know enough about the Treaty and would not want to vote for something I am not familiar with|22%
2|To protect Irish identity|12%
3|To safeguard Irish neutrality in security and defence matters|6%
4|I do not trust our politicians|6%
5|We will lose our right to have an Irish Commissioner in every Commission|6%
6|To protect our tax system|6%
7|I am against the idea of a unified Europe|5%
8|To protest against the government's policies|4%
9|To avoid that the EU speaks with one voice on global issues|4%
10|Because large Member States decide on EU matters|4%
11|To protect the influence of small states|3%
12|It would allow the introduction of European legislation in Ireland, such as gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia|2%
13|To avoid an influx of immigrants|1%
14|The EU does not need any fixing, it works fine|1%
15|Other|14%
16|DK/NA|3%


The number one reason, by a good margin, is that not only did people not understand what they were voting against but that was the primary reason they did so!

IRLConor

thehighground wrote: »

I don't have any idea what's going on in the EU, that's why I'm not about to vote 'Yes' until I do.

Would you like to learn how it works? If so, there's a whole internet full of explanations out there. Give it a try, it's not that hard.