Lisbon 2: prepare to bend over and recieve ur destiny!

K-9

whatisayis wrote: »

Yes, you are reading correctly. But you are reading The Treaty of Rome not Lisbon. In Lisbon thay have changed it so that it no longer needs to be agreed unaninmously. And, yes most definately, you can have have majority voting without Irelands consent. We only have a population of four (ish) million. That is definately not a majority in the context of Europe.

OK, I'll have to dust of my PDF of the Treaty and read that section together with the sections relating to direct taxation again.

whatisayis

Seanies32 wrote: »

OK, I'll have to dust of my PDF of the Treaty and read that section together with the sections relating to direct taxation again.

In the context of this debate, please check out indirect taxation. Look, Seanie, we are not so dissimilar. We are not sitting here because our fingers need some exercise. I am trying to find out if my assumption as regards corporate tax is correct. You obviously have strong views on certain aspects of the Treaty also. So, if you find I am incorrect, I will actually have a great deal of respect for you. I will also be somewhat relieved just in case the Yes vote prevails.

K-9

No bothers, it's on my old pc so I may have to go digging. However I would point out Corporation Tax is a DIRECT Tax, they do not come under Lisbon.

Any efforts by the EU to tamper with our Corporation tax rate would be unconstitutional as we would not have voted to give the EU the power to do so.

This has been addressed on the Politics forum too, the European section. A few good threads over there around June, with both opinions.

whatisayis

Seanies32 wrote: »

No bothers, it's on my old pc so I may have to go digging. However I would point out Corporation Tax is a DIRECT Tax, they do not come under Lisbon.

Any efforts by the EU to tamper with our Corporation tax rate would be unconstitutional as we would not have voted to give the EU the power to do so.

This has been addressed on the Politics forum too, the European section. A few good threads over there around June, with both opinions.

Ok I will accept that it may be construed as a direct tax. But what it will be challenged under is 'distorting the conditions of competition' in the 'internal' market. As far as I can ascertain, the rights of the internal market overide any other rights. The terminology is crucial to this debate.

K-9

whatisayis wrote: »

Ok I will accept that it may be construed as a direct tax. But what it will be challenged under is 'distorting the conditions of competition' in the 'internal' market. As far as I can ascertain, the rights of the internal market overide any other rights. The terminology is crucial to this debate.

But they have no power over direct taxation.

thelordofcheese

My understand of this has always been that it was a measure meant to stop nations within the EU creating trade wars between nations or to artificially prop up their home industries by taxing all competing imports with extra VAT or something similar (hence distortion of competition).

The taxes used in these are all indirect taxs such as VAT, Sales tax or Goods and services tax which is why in my opinion the measure exists.

With that in mind the switch from Unanimity to majority voting makes sense. If Country A is creating extra tarrifs in a trade war with Country B, neither country (or at the least the agressor nation) would be willing to vote against lifting the tarrifs. So in this instance the EU would be unable to act to stop this harmful behaviour.

whatisayis

Seanies32 wrote: »

But they have no power over direct taxation.

That's what I thought as well. But it seems to only apply if it doesn't interfere with the internal market.

whatisayis

thelordofcheese wrote: »

My understand of this has always been that it was a measure meant to stop nations within the EU creating trade wars between nations or to artificially prop up their home industries by taxing all competing imports with extra VAT or something similar (hence distortion of competition).

What it comes down to is that Ireland has the lowest corporate tax rate in Europe. That is why we have multinational companies setting up in Ireland. Think about it. If you had the choice to set up in France, Germany etc. with their 30%+ corporate tax or Ireland with 12.5% which would you choose?

tolosenc

whatisayis wrote: »

You got the bit about a veto. Only thing is you got it backwards. The Treaty of Rome called for a unanimous vote which allowed a veto, the Lisbon treaty (which supersedes all previous treaties) calls for a majority vote. That means no veto.

Actually, you have it wrong. It says, as you quoted it: "acting unanimously during the first stage and by a qualified majority thereafter". Unanimity first, then Qualified Majority.

whatisayis wrote: »

Do you seriously believe that the Lisbon Treaty is a copy and paste of previous treaties? Then what on earth are you voting on?

No, it's not. That's not what I said. Trust the No side to distort the truth, or just not read tell it at all. It is, however, a consolidation treaty. Where it says beneath the article (ex TEU Art 113) or whatever, its saying that it is taken from that article and that it is being consolidated into one. Unless it introduces an article saying an article should be removed, edited to read, or added, there is no change. The Lisbon treaty makes a few adjustments to Maastricht and Rome, then combines them into one legal document along with the Human Rights stuff.

I could say, quite rightly, that a no vote is a vote against the legal status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Thus no voters do not want to have to respect human dignity, disagree with the prohibition of slavery, do not respect the right to an education nor do they respect equality between men and women. No word of a lie, a No vote is a vote against all of those things.

tolosenc

whatisayis wrote: »

What it comes down to is that Ireland has the lowest corporate tax rate in Europe. That is why we have multinational companies setting up in Ireland. Think about it. If you had the choice to set up in France, Germany etc. with their 30%+ corporate tax or Ireland with 12.5% which would you choose?

But they have no say over direct tax.

From what I remember from Leaving Cert economics (so you might wanna look this up yourself :P):

Direct tax is always a percentage and always levied on compensation/profit.
Indirect tax is a stated amount of money/percentage applied to everything.

Hence, corporation tax is a direct tax, and neither the Lisbon Treaty nor the EU has any jurisdiction over it.

thelordofcheese

whatisayis wrote: »

What it comes down to is that Ireland has the lowest corporate tax rate in Europe. That is why we have multinational companies setting up in Ireland. Think about it. If you had the choice to set up in France, Germany etc. with their 30%+ corporate tax or Ireland with 12.5% which would you choose?

That's quite true. However it doesn't fall under disortion of trade (as i read it) because we're not actively crippling the import from another EU nation via indirect tax.
Also, direct taxation is, as has been mentioned, not an area the EU can effect.

Now this isn't to say that everyone in the EU is happy about it, france would love nothing more than to find a way to make everyones corporation tax in line with it's own (it's at 40% i believe), but just because france is against our tax rate that doesn't inherantly mean the lisbon treaty will grant them the power to change it. Nor would alot of EU nations agree with them.
Infact with the exception of Italy, Spain and belgium everyone has a lower rate of corporation tax than france. That's alot of opposition and not alot of support.

whatisayis

obl wrote: »

Actually, you have it wrong. It says, as you quoted it: "acting unanimously during the first stage and by a qualified majority thereafter". Unanimity first, then Qualified Majority

Oh, this is getting so tiresome. You are quoting the Treaty of Rome which has been superseded by the Lisbon Treaty.

whatisayis

thelordofcheese wrote: »

That's quite true. However it doesn't fall under disortion of trade (as i read it) because we're not actively crippling the import from another EU nation via indirect tax.
Also, direct taxation is, as has been mentioned, not an area the EU can effect.

Now this isn't to say that everyone in the EU is happy about it, france would love nothing more than to find a way to make everyones corporation tax in line with it's own (it's at 40% i believe), but just because france is against our tax rate that doesn't inherantly mean the lisbon treaty will grant them the power to change it. Nor would alot of EU nations agree with them.
Infact with the exception of Italy, Spain and belgium everyone has a lower rate of corporation tax than france. That's alot of opposition and not alot of support.

I agree it doesn't fall under the distortion of trade, it falls under the distortion of competition.
The only nation that objected to the CCTB was the United Kingdom.

Ckal

obl wrote: »

I could say, quite rightly, that a no vote is a vote against the legal status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Thus no voters do not want to have to respect human dignity, disagree with the prohibition of slavery, do not respect the right to an education nor do they respect equality between men and women. No word of a lie, a No vote is a vote against all of those things.

That is just too funny. I don't think you are in any position to start saying that, when you and the rest of yes voters can't respect the outcome of an Irish referendum. Some no voters may have not voted for the right reasons, but nor did some yes voters. It's on both sides, and it's been proven.

We'll vote again. If it's passed, so be it. Well done. We will move on. We will not sulk and whine like yes voters did. But if the **** hits the fan, then a big "I told you so" will be coming your way.

Merry Christmas.

noel farrell

i voted yes in all the votes on europe until the last ref i thought it was a yes too far so i voted no i see no reason to change its no here

walshb

Ckal wrote: »

That is just too funny. I don't think you are in any position to start saying that, when you and the rest of yes voters can't respect the outcome of an Irish referendum. Some no voters may have not voted for the right reasons, but nor did some yes voters. It's on both sides, and it's been proven.

We'll vote again. If it's passed, so be it. Well done. We will move on. We will not sulk and whine like yes voters did. But if the **** hits the fan, then a big "I told you so" will be coming your way.

Merry Christmas.

Mate, it has been proven time and time again that the YES side cannot accept
the vote and nor can they accept that they too were voting ignorantly. You and I and others are wasting our time trying to tell them this!

But, I'd rather vote NO ignorantly to something I knew nothing about than to vote YES ignorantly to something
I know nothing about!

andrew

walshb wrote: »

Mate, it has been proven time and time again that the YES side cannot accept
the vote and nor can they accept that they too were voting ignorantly. You and I and others are wasting our time trying to tell them this!

What do you mean 'cannot accept the vote'? Also, many yes voters have time and time again come out against voter ignorance.

The reason the yes side talks a lot about the ignorance of the no side is because not understanding the treaty (ie. being ignorant) was cited by many as the main reason they voted No. At the same time, voter ignorance on the yes side is bad. noone ever said it was desireable.

But, I'd rather vote NO ignorantly to something I knew nothing about than to vote YES ignorantly to something
I know nothing about!

How about abstaining?

K-9

whatisayis wrote: »

That's what I thought as well. But it seems to only apply if it doesn't interfere with the internal market.

Indeed, but the internal market cannot interfere in areas they do not, Corporation tax in this case. They do not have the authority to do so by the Irish people now or with Lisbon.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

That's quite true. However it doesn't fall under disortion of trade (as i read it) because we're not actively crippling the import from another EU nation via indirect tax.
Also, direct taxation is, as has been mentioned, not an area the EU can effect.

Now this isn't to say that everyone in the EU is happy about it, france would love nothing more than to find a way to make everyones corporation tax in line with it's own (it's at 40% i believe), but just because france is against our tax rate that doesn't inherantly mean the lisbon treaty will grant them the power to change it. Nor would alot of EU nations agree with them.
Infact with the exception of Italy, Spain and belgium everyone has a lower rate of corporation tax than france. That's alot of opposition and not alot of support.

At last, some practical senses. The Eastern European are fond of their low tax rates too.

whatisayis wrote: »

Oh, this is getting so tiresome. You are quoting the Treaty of Rome which has been superseded by the Lisbon Treaty.

Indeed it is getting tiresome.

whatisayis wrote: »

I agree it doesn't fall under the distortion of trade, it falls under the distortion of competition.
The only nation that objected to the CCTB was the United Kingdom.

Again, CCTB or not, Corporation tax cannot be decided on by the EU. They cannot use it to do something illegal.

walshb

andrew wrote: »

What do you mean 'cannot accept the vote'? Also, many yes voters have time and time again come out against voter ignorance.

The reason the yes side talks a lot about the ignorance of the no side is because not understanding the treaty (ie. being ignorant) was cited by many as the main reason they voted No. At the same time, voter ignorance on the yes side is bad. noone ever said it was desireable.



How about abstaining?

Abstaining to suit you and those who want YES. Those who also KNOW little or nothing?
If the truth be known, and ONLY those who understood the treaty voted, I would say the count would be finished in about 5 bloody minutes.

Abstaining thru ignorance on both sides would still have given a NO verdict!

BTW, if those who want a YES in Europe can't even be bothered to
provide a legible and clear and easy to understand treaty, then they do NOT
deserve a YES to it

whatisayis

Seanies32 wrote: »

Indeed, but the internal market cannot interfere in areas they do not, Corporation tax in this case. They do not have the authority to do so by the Irish people now or with Lisbon.

Agree not now, but yes they do with Lisbon

At last, some practical senses. The Eastern European are fond of their low tax rates too.

Yes they are. But none of them are as low as Irelands

Again, CCTB or not, Corporation tax cannot be decided on by the EU. They cannot use it to do something illegal.

It will not be illegal under the Treaty of Lisbon.

Flex

walshb wrote: »

Abstaining to suit you and those who want YES. Those who also KNOW little or nothing?
If the truth be known, and ONLY those who understood the treaty voted, I would say the count would be finished in about 5 bloody minutes.

Abstaining thru ignorance on both sides would still have given a NO verdict!

BTW, if those who want a YES in Europe can't even be bothered to
provide a legible and clear and easy to understand treaty, then they do NOT
deserve a YES to it

And if only people who had read the treaty and then voted and the No side one, Europhiles would demand a re-run because not enough people had voted or something.

andrew

walshb wrote: »

Abstaining to suit you and those who want YES. Those who also KNOW little or nothing?
If the truth be known, and ONLY those who understood the treaty voted, I would say the count would be finished in about 5 bloody minutes.

Abstaining thru ignorance on both sides would still have given a NO verdict!

BTW, if those who want a YES in Europe can't even be bothered to
provide a legible and clear and easy to understand treaty, then they do NOT
deserve a YES to it

Abstaining to suit Yes voters? Don't put words into my mouth. I said anyone who doesn't understand should abstain.

To say that if ignorant voters on both sides abstained then a No would've been returned is stupidly presumptious.

Also, get it into your head - it's not clear and easy to understand because it's legislation and legislation is written to allow for only a specific interpretation.

Heres a good wikipedia article on it

Wikipedia wrote:

Public Comprehensibility

Perhaps most obviously, legalese suffers from being less comprehensible to the general public than plain English, which can be particularly important in both private (e.g., contracts) and public matters (e.g., laws, especially in democracies where the populace is seen as both responsible for and subject to the laws).

IMO, voting on it because 'its hard to understand' is fúcking stupid. Legislation is hard to comprehend, it'll always be hard to comprehend, deal with it.

K-9

It would be illegal to do it without Ireland agreeing and even then, if opposed, if the Dail disagrees it still is illegal, which is a little unlikely don't you think?

At present, decisions by the Member States about taxation must be taken unanimously. That means that any one Member State may veto any change in the policies and laws on taxation (i.e., if one Member State objects to a proposed change then the change will not occur).

This will remain the case if the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified.

The Treaty of Lisbon includes a provision whereby the European Council may, acting unanimously (i.e., all Member States must agree), decide to amend the Treaties so as allow majority voting to operate in certain areas where unanimity is now required. This means that, if the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified, the European Council could decide to amend the treaties to allow decisions on taxation to be made by majority voting rather than unanimously. Any such decision to change the voting rules would have to be made unanimously. Again, this means that any Member State could veto such a decision to change the rules. If the European Council were to agree such change, any national parliament may prevent the change 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 a change. Such a change would not require a referendum in Ireland.

That kind of puts it better than I can. From Lisbobtreaty2008.ie.

K-9

Ckal wrote: »

That is just too funny. I don't think you are in any position to start saying that, when you and the rest of yes voters can't respect the outcome of an Irish referendum. Some no voters may have not voted for the right reasons, but nor did some yes voters. It's on both sides, and it's been proven.

We'll vote again. If it's passed, so be it. Well done. We will move on. We will not sulk and whine like yes voters did. But if the **** hits the fan, then a big "I told you so" will be coming your way.

Merry Christmas.

Unlikely that is, they still go on about Nice2.

whatisayis

Seanies32 wrote: »

It would be illegal to do it without Ireland agreeing and even then, if opposed, if the Dail disagrees it still is illegal, which is a little unlikely don't you think?

At present, decisions by the Member States about taxation must be taken unanimously. That means that any one Member State may veto any change in the policies and laws on taxation (i.e., if one Member State objects to a proposed change then the change will not occur).

This will remain the case if the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified.

The Treaty of Lisbon includes a provision whereby the European Council may, acting unanimously (i.e., all Member States must agree), decide to amend the Treaties so as allow majority voting to operate in certain areas where unanimity is now required. This means that, if the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified, the European Council could decide to amend the treaties to allow decisions on taxation to be made by majority voting rather than unanimously. Any such decision to change the voting rules would have to be made unanimously. Again, this means that any Member State could veto such a decision to change the rules. If the European Council were to agree such change, any national parliament may prevent the change 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 a change. Such a change would not require a referendum in Ireland.

That kind of puts it better than I can. From Lisbobtreaty2008.ie.

Excellent! What's the provision number?

whatisayis

whatisayis wrote: »

Excellent! What's the provision number?

And does this over write the obligations to the functioning of the internal market?

tolosenc

whatisayis wrote: »

Oh, this is getting so tiresome. You are quoting the Treaty of Rome which has been superseded by the Lisbon Treaty.

Apologies, I blame the beer! I meant to copy and paste the "standard operating procedure" or whatever it says. They are, however, the same thing.

Ckal wrote: »

That is just too funny. I don't think you are in any position to start saying that, when you and the rest of yes voters can't respect the outcome of an Irish referendum. Some no voters may have not voted for the right reasons, but nor did some yes voters. It's on both sides, and it's been proven.

We'll vote again. If it's passed, so be it. Well done. We will move on. We will not sulk and whine like yes voters did. But if the **** hits the fan, then a big "I told you so" will be coming your way.

Again, if No voters were informed as to the issues at hand, I would have no issue with the result, but as it stand, ignorance and deliberate misinformation has caused us all a serious problem, the solution to which you don't want to provide, or can't. In general, the no side skirt around actually admitting to being wrong and seemingly pride themselves on their ignorance. That or your just trying to get a rise out of me, and I'm the fool.

As for what I said. It's no more funny than any of the issues that you(generic plural) are providing as to why someone should vote no, based on taxation/abortion etc.. Except what I said is completely relevant. But when I make a hyperbolic exaggeration on the consequences, it's laughable. Double standards and arrogance abound.

You personally may let it go when this, reason willing, gets passed. Most won't. The type of person attracted to the no side presents as a souring ground for one's collective grapes.

And why an "I told you so"? What have you told me? If anything, it will serve as proof of voter ignorance and misinformation on behalf of the No Campaign, surely?

Happy Christmas ("I pray God it's our last [in this predicament]" - to paraphrase The Pogues)

Over and out. This time for good.

Terry/other mods, can I be locked out of this thread? I really want to have nothing more to do with it.

K-9

whatisayis wrote: »

Excellent! What's the provision number?

Trying to find it here, might have to copy it from the old computer.

While searching your argument seems very similar to Anthony Coughlans view on it, nearly word for word!

http://www.nationalplatform.org/wordpress/?page_id=63

Up to date version from the Institute of Taxation:
http://www.tax-news.com/asp/story/Irelands_Lisbon_Treaty_Tax_Fears_Unfounded_xxxx33419.html

Noticed FG referenced 2 key ECJ Judgements with links provided:
http://www.finegael.ie/news/index.cfm/type/details/nkey/34101

whatisayis

Seanies32 wrote: »

Trying to find it here, might have to copy it from the old computer.

While searching your argument seems very similar to Anthony Coughlans view on it, nearly word for word!

http://www.nationalplatform.org/wordpress/?page_id=63

Up to date version from the Institute of Taxation:
http://www.tax-news.com/asp/story/Irelands_Lisbon_Treaty_Tax_Fears_Unfounded_xxxx33419.html

Noticed FG referenced 2 key ECJ Judgements with links provided:
http://www.finegael.ie/news/index.cfm/type/details/nkey/34101

have to be honest here, but who is Anthony Coughlin

K-9

Long time No campaigner, from when I can remember EU Referenda.

New consolidated EU treaties incorporating Lisbon Article 113 (ex Article 93 TEC below): "The Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition."
Existing Treaty on European Community Article 93:"The Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonization of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market within the time limit laid down in Article 14."

PS. Yep, 9 countries can form a club and decide they want tax harmonisation. Again, it's a little unlikely Ireland would be in that if it involved raising our Corporation tax rate!