The YES side were wrong or lied?

djpbarry

realcam wrote: »

I know that for instance in Germany the majority of laws and regulations that are passed by the parliament already have their origin in Brussels not in Berlin.

I seem to recall that "fact" being trotted out on numerous occasions prior to the referendum, but I don't ever recall seeing a source.

Scofflaw

realcam wrote: »

Correct, I actually confused two of Schachtschneiders initiatives here which obviously wouldn't do a lot for my credibility on the subject, but there you go, damage done, all I can do is to admit my mistake.

Not at all - your credibility would only suffer if you refused to admit making mistakes!

realcam wrote: »

I wouldn't say that Schachtschneider opposes the EU as such, and neither do I, but he doesn't like the way it's shaping up. He'd prefer the EU to become a true democratic republic rather than what's currently happening.

Hmm. I'd rather it didn't - I'm quite happy with the current set of bodges. I appreciate the idea of preferring a democratic republic of Europe over, say, an authoritarian technocratic Europe, but for that to be a concern, I'd first have to equate pooling sovereignty with giving up sovereignty, and assume that I could extrapolate from the fact that some sovereignty had been "given up" to the EU therefore inevitably becoming a superstate.

Leaving aside the question of whether reversibly pooling sovereignty really is the same as irreversibly giving it up, the mere fact that some sovereignty has been pooled still wouldn't demonstrate any appetite whatsoever for pooling all sovereignty - or indeed any further sovereignty. More realistically, the process by which competences have been granted to the EU suggests a rather cautious process, and one which is on a very strong downwards trend - Lisbon contains only a couple of new competences, and those shared rather than exclusive.

If one is a fan of that kind of simplistic linear extrapolation, of course, one is probably too busy wondering what on earth happened to one's shares and houses at the moment to worry about the EU.

cordially,
Scofflaw

whatisayis

The incorrect assertion that the EU have no competence regarding Direct taxation is one instance where the Yes side were wrong. Please read the below referenced link as one example:

"Direct taxation: The Commission requests Ireland to amend discriminatory tax provisions relating to Savings Certificates"

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/1356&format=HTML&aged=0&language=en&guiLanguage=en

sink

It's not a ruling on Direct Tax, it is a ruling on tax breaks for financial products and only insofar as any tax breaks given to domestic products must also be extended to similar products from the rest of the EU. The EU still cannot change our Direct Taxes.

Hitman Actual

whatisayis wrote: »

The incorrect assertion that the EU have no competence regarding Direct taxation is one instance where the Yes side were wrong. Please read the below referenced link as one example:

"Direct taxation: The Commission requests Ireland to amend discriminatory tax provisions relating to Savings Certificates"

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/1356&format=HTML&aged=0&language=en&guiLanguage=en

The EU has no competence over direct tax, but member states still have to carry out their obligations in line with the Treaties, which clearly isn't happening in what you're referring to (i.e. there's a direct issue over the 'free movement of capital'). I think when people here refer to the fact that the EU has no competence over corporation tax, they mean that the EU cannot directly set the corporation tax rate (or any direct tax rate) in any member state. That's still up to each MS, or at least any collective change would require unanimity, as per Article 94 TEC.

By the way, I assume you've admitted defeat in this thread?

Scofflaw

whatisayis wrote: »

The incorrect assertion that the EU have no competence regarding Direct taxation is one instance where the Yes side were wrong. Please read the below referenced link as one example:

"Direct taxation: The Commission requests Ireland to amend discriminatory tax provisions relating to Savings Certificates"

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/1356&format=HTML&aged=0&language=en&guiLanguage=en

As lenny_leonard and sink have said, the EU do not have the power to make rulings on direct taxation. They do, however, have the power to require states not to use their sovereign powers - such as taxation - in a way that discriminates against nationals and businesses of other member states.

That power is the root of many europhobic arguments, where it is claimed that because the EU can require the Irish government, for example, not to tax Finnish companies more highly than Irish ones, it thereby has power over taxation. Then, with a slight sleight of hand, the argument moves on to how the EU will use the general powers thus assumed to exist.

The EU has the same powers as any referee (a role the Commission explicitly fulfils) - they cannot determine how you play the game, but ensure the mutually agreed rules are not broken to either your advantage or detriment.

cordially,
Scofflaw

whatisayis

So, basically you are all in agreement that, while the EU cannot change our tax rates, they can initate proceedings related to a states Direct tax where it is seen to cause unfair advantage to that state?

Scofflaw

whatisayis wrote: »

So, basically you are all in agreement that, while the EU cannot change our tax rates, they can initate proceedings related to a states Direct tax where it is seen to cause unfair advantage to that state?

No, that's completely wrong. The Commission can take action where the state discriminates between its own nationals/businesses and other EU nationals/businesses in applying direct taxation.

We can have a 12% corporate tax rate while Belgium has 50%, but the Irish government cannot apply a 12% rate to an Irish business operating in Ireland and a 50% rate to a Belgian business operating in Ireland.

It's not about an "unfair advantage" to the State - it's about the State discriminating against other EU nationals.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

whatisayis wrote: »

So, basically you are all in agreement that, while the EU cannot change our tax rates, they can initate proceedings related to a states Direct tax where it is seen to cause unfair advantage to that state?

No, completely wrong, it has nothing to do with unfair advantages for member states, rather an unfair advantage for Irish resident companies over non resident.

sink

whatisayis wrote: »

So, basically you are all in agreement that, while the EU cannot change our tax rates, they can initate proceedings related to a states Direct tax where it is seen to cause unfair advantage to that state?

I agree completely with Scofflaw and Seanies32 but I just want to point out a failure in your own logic. The ruling you point to has been passed already and therefore cannot have do with Lisbon. How can it be evidence that anyone lied about Lisbon if the ruling itself has nothing to do with Lisbon?