Have you been conscripted into a European Army

Scofflaw

O'Morris wrote: »

The people who were using corporation tax as a reason to vote no were not saying that the Lisbon Treaty would directly lead to Ireland being forced to lower its tax rate. Everyone accepted that our tax veto was secure. What they were saying was that it would make it easier for the bigger countries in Europe to push ahead with their tax harmonisation plans and to find a way around the tax vetos.

The economist Ray Kinsella described the position well when he was quoted in this article

This was a point made by people like Shane Ross as well.

The point, though, is there is nothing specific in Lisbon that allows CCCTB. The argument relies on the use of enhanced cooperation to bring in CCCTB for a number of consenting countries, and was made at Nice when enhanced cooperation was first brought in (by, for example, Anthony Coughlan).

That's the issue - because Lisbon does not materially change the enhanced cooperation rules under which it is (inaccurately) claimed CCCTB could be "brought in by the back door". If it is possible, it is already possible - it is irrelevant to Lisbon.

As to the issue itself - any Member State that is not part of an enhanced co-operation agreement cannot be forced to participate in or be subject to any of the decisions made by the group of Member States establishing the agreement. If a group of states were to create a tax harmonisation enhanced cooperation group, and another state found that the existence of that group pressured the state to apply tax harmonisation, that is sufficient to render the legal basis for the tax harmonisation group illegitimate.

In brief - you can't use the enhanced cooperation mechanism to force member states outside it to do what the enhanced cooperation group wants. That applies to tax harmonisation as much as anything else.

The argument was false at Nice, and is not only still false at Lisbon, but not even relevant.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's the issue - because Lisbon does not materially change the enhanced cooperation rules under which it is (inaccurately) claimed CCCTB could be "brought in by the back door". If it is possible, it is already possible - it is irrelevant to Lisbon.

As to the issue itself - any Member State that is not part of an enhanced co-operation agreement cannot be forced to participate in or be subject to any of the decisions made by the group of Member States establishing the agreement. If a group of states were to create a tax harmonisation enhanced cooperation group, and another state found that the existence of that group pressured the state to apply tax harmonisation, that is sufficient to render the legal basis for the tax harmonisation group illegitimate.

In brief - you can't use the enhanced cooperation mechanism to force member states outside it to do what the enhanced cooperation group wants. That applies to tax harmonisation as much as anything else.

The argument was false at Nice, and is not only still false at Lisbon, but not even relevant.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Indeed, it is highly unlikely that Ireland would join an enhanced cooperation group that wants to raise our Corporation tax rate.

I really wish though that the EU would use its powers on indirect taxes. Maybe abolish VRT and lower our high VAT rates! Hasn't happened just like raising our Corporation tax will not!

PS. The point that France, Germany and maybe the UK would want tax harmonisation ignores the point that the majority of States don't. Seems to be another example of irrational fear of France and Germany having too much power.

Hitman Actual

O'Morris wrote: »

The people who were using corporation tax as a reason to vote no were not saying that the Lisbon Treaty would directly lead to Ireland being forced to lower its tax rate. Everyone accepted that our tax veto was secure.

You might have believed that, and a very small minority of people may have believed that, but the general public believed that corporation tax was under direct threat with Lisbon. Such was the strength of the spin put on the CCCTB issue. And in that regard, I'm actually happy to see the (unnecessary) declaration proposed for the second referendum. Anything that nullifies the mis-information offered by several No campaigners is a good thing, imo.

O'Morris wrote: »

What they were saying was that it would make it easier for the bigger countries in Europe to push ahead with their tax harmonisation plans and to find a way around the tax vetos.

The economist Ray Kinsella described the position well when he was quoted in this article



This was a point made by people like Shane Ross as well.

That link can hardly be taken as "describing the position well". There isn't even a mention of what the "compelling arguments" actually are. On the other hand, both IBEC (before the referendum) and the Irish Taxation Institute acknowledge that Lisbon has no affect on our direct taxation. Surely people should have more faith in those sources than on the isolated opinions of guys like Shane Ross and Ray Kinsella.

Zebra3

The answer to OP's question is no.

Or no, not yet. Not that long since the people voted against the LT, not that those pushing the EU superstate project seem anyway bothered by what the people voted. :rolleyes:

One thing we were told in the past was that we wouldn't need passports for travelling within the EU. Another lie from those who support Irish home rule within a European superstate.

Guy:Incognito

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

I think I am a typical no voter. Like many typical no voters, this was my first no vote in an EU referendum (I voted yes in the previous 3).

.

The typical no voter I encountered through any of the straw polls and interviews revolved around voting no for various reasons not actually anything to do with the contents of the treaty ("dont understand it", "anti -VRT" :rolleyes:, "anti FF")

Furious-Dave

One of my friends said he spoke to a girl who voted no because she felt it would help fight global warming...

ShooterSF

One of my mate's cousin step sisters boyfriend heard a guy say he voted Yes because he felt it'd help bring back the dodo.

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

One of my mate's cousin step sisters boyfriend heard a guy say he voted Yes because he felt it'd help bring back the dodo.

What an eejit - that was in Nice.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

What an eejit - that was in Nice.

cordially,
Scofflaw

No, hundreds of thousands of Eastern Europeans wouldn't come to Ireland was in Nice.

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Topics/PPSN/Pages/ppsn_all_0007.aspx

cordially,
Dresden

K-9

Zebra3 wrote: »

One thing we were told in the past was that we wouldn't need passports for travelling within the EU. Another lie from those who support Irish home rule within a European superstate.

If we didn't have them a section of No voters would say our borders are too open, bloody immigrants etc. etc.

Furious-Dave

Zebra3 wrote: »

One thing we were told in the past was that we wouldn't need passports for travelling within the EU. Another lie from those who support Irish home rule within a European superstate.

What about The Schengen Convention? This actually includes Norway and Iceland who are not even in the EU. As far as I always understood, though I could be wrong, Ireland and Britain are not included because of security issues, IRA etc. Am I right in saying that Bulgaria and Romania are also not included?

BlitzKrieg

wait i am confused?

Are we saying that the no side was right in that there was migration to ireland, was the yes side actually saying we wouldnt get any/much migration? or are we saying that the no side was wrong and that the migration has not destroyed the country/irish culture as it was painted in the run up to Nice from my sometimes foggy memory?

Furious-Dave

I don't really remember much about the time of Nice, but what I do know is that the 'Yes' campaign from then lied about there not going to be mass immigration. There obviously was but it turned out to be good for our economy as it gave Ireland a huge workforce. Still no excuse though for the lies.

K-9

Furious-Dave wrote: »

I don't really remember much about the time of Nice, but what I do know is that the 'Yes' campaign from then lied about there not going to be mass immigration. There obviously was but it turned out to be good for our economy as it gave Ireland a huge workforce. Still no excuse though for the lies.

I wouldn't say they lied. They didn't foresee the huge numbers based on the few years before it. Lying is being a little over dramatic.

Furious-Dave

Seanies32 wrote: »

I wouldn't say they lied. They didn't foresee the huge numbers based on the few years before it. Lying is being a little over dramatic.

But lying sounds more insidious!

Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

wait i am confused?

Are we saying that the no side was right in that there was migration to ireland, was the yes side actually saying we wouldnt get any/much migration? or are we saying that the no side was wrong and that the migration has not destroyed the country/irish culture as it was painted in the run up to Nice from my sometimes foggy memory?

Well, we're agreeing that people like Prionsias deRossa said that he only expected a couple of thousand immigrants. We're disagreeing that this would have been a necessary result of Nice, because if the government hadn't waived the 7-year moratorium on movement - and been pretty much been the only country to do so - it wouldn't have happened.

We're also, I suspect, disagreeing on whether the resulting immigration was a bad thing. However, I'd rather not be dragged into such a debate, because I don;t think the two sides of it will ever see eye to eye.

Dick Roche, if you look at what he actually said, never did nail his colours as firmly to the mast as is often made out. I don't mean that as a compliment - I think the government was well aware that immigration would be at least on the same scale as emigration had been, but saw it as absolutely necessary. I think you'll find that Dick Roche actually said that it had never happened before, that it was unlikely, that there were measures that could be taken, and so on.

I don't think "mass immigration" was a necessary result of Nice. Had we not opted out of the "transitional arrangements" that were in Nice, our first immigrants would have been due next year, and I don't think there would have been any great numbers. I do think it was intentional, and I do think that government spokespeople lied about the levels of immigration that they expected.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Have to disagree. I don't think they seen the huge Construction boom, though they did encourage it. We had Full Employment more or less and our Economy boomed for 5/6 years after Nice, that wasn't foreseen to the extent that did happen.

I do think they genuinely thought waiving the 7 year moratorium was a good idea because we had full employment, they just didn't realise it would be so big.

Scofflaw

Seanies32 wrote: »

Have to disagree. I don't think they seen the huge Construction boom, though they did encourage it. We had Full Employment more or less and our Economy boomed for 5/6 years after Nice, that wasn't foreseen to the extent that did happen.

I do think they genuinely thought waiving the 7 year moratorium was a good idea because we had full employment, they just didn't realise it would be so big.

You might be right - they may have been assuming at the time that our economy would grow as it had been doing 1996-2001 - real growth as opposed to a property and construction industry bubble. It would still have amounted to a good deal more than a couple of thousand, though - but then, that was deRossa, an opposition MEP, not a Minister.

cordially,
Scofflaw

trellheim

What has this to do with a European Army ?

partholon

so now you accept the yes side lied about mass immigration are you willing to accept they lied about not losing the comissioner now as well?

remeber that? the thing were being told to vote for lisbon 2 to "Retain" ?

and bringing it up to date dick roche spectacularly lying about there being no chance of a lisbon 2 ?

trellheim

ah this is a bunch of it.

I'm a yes voter. We were going to lose a commissioner under Nice. I still voted yes.

Even though the commissioner is from Ireland he/she doesn't represent Ireland ... fail to see what the issue is.

what matters is the treaty.

partholon

true.

but this thread is about "lies" and the yes side on the last two treaties have been lying their arses off about things too.

something the OP didnt seem to think was happening, or at the very least implied was the preserve of the no side on NICE.

the fact is the people we elect to run this country either lied about not losing the comissioner, didnt really care about it, or didnt actually KNOW about it. knowing the type of people we have in irish politics i lean on the first.

i voted no to NICE and LISBON cause i smelt a rat in both of em. ive been proven right about the first and havent heard anything to change my mind about the latter.

trellheim

fine but posting in a "Conscript/European Army" is a red flag to bull type thread IMHO

Yes is the way to go. Opinions will differ.

K-9

partholon wrote: »

true.

but this thread is about "lies" and the yes side on the last two treaties have been lying their arses off about things too.

something the OP didnt seem to think was happening, or at the very least implied was the preserve of the no side on NICE.

the fact is the people we elect to run this country either lied about not losing the comissioner, didnt really care about it, or didnt actually KNOW about it. knowing the type of people we have in irish politics i lean on the first.

i voted no to NICE and LISBON cause i smelt a rat in both of em. ive been proven right about the first and havent heard anything to change my mind about the latter.

But you have to vote YES to Lisbon to keep the Commissioner. That is why some people voted No the first time, the loss of the Commissioner.

Logically, they have now addressed one of the reasons for voting No and are hoping some people will be happy with the change and vote YES.

But Hey, to Hell with Logic around here today!

bartholomewbinn

What is all this nonsense about being conscripted in to an EU army? We are a tiny (.8% of the population) part of the EU; we have no armed forces to speak of and are totally dependant on either the UK (of which we were part of until relatively recently) or the USA for our defence against external aggression (in the unlikely event of that ever occurring). In the event of the EU being involved in a major military conflict we would not be needed or wanted.

Furious-Dave

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

What is all this nonsense about being conscripted in to an EU army? We are a tiny (.8% of the population) part of the EU; we have no armed forces to speak of and are totally dependant on either the UK (of which we were part of until relatively recently) or the USA for our defence against external aggression (in the unlikely event of that ever occurring). In the event of the EU being involved in a major military conflict we would not be needed or wanted.

That's not true. The Irish Armed Forces are active on peace-keeping missions and the Irish Rangers are highly regarded by foreign armed forces.

bartholomewbinn

Furious-Dave wrote: »

That's not true. The Irish Armed Forces are active on peace-keeping missions and the Irish Rangers are highly regarded by foreign armed forces.

Nonsense, in the grand scheme of things the Irish armed forces is totally insignificant. We have a tiny army, (who have never fought a war since the civil war in 1923) no air force and no Navy (just a very small overstretched naval service). Whatever about the army ranger wing, their numbers are minute and they are no better than the SAS or the special boat service for instance. In the event of a major conflict we would only be in the way.

Furious-Dave

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

Nonsense, in the grand scheme of things the Irish armed forces is totally insignificant. We have a tiny army, (who have never fought a war since the civil war in 1923) no air force and no Navy (just a very small overstretched naval service). Whatever about the army ranger wing, their numbers are minute and they are no better than the SAS or the special boat service for instance. In the event of a major conflict we would only be in the way.

Insignificant is a long way from non to speak of, but I do agree with you on this point. In the event of war we have to rely on the larger nations. I for one would like that to be a combined EU military instead of just the UK or especially the US.

bartholomewbinn

Furious-Dave wrote: »

Insignificant is a long way from non to speak of, but I do agree with you on this point. In the event of war we have to rely on the larger nations. I for one would like that to be a combined EU military instead of just the UK or especially the US.

In the (very unlikely) event of a major conflict we would be protected by the British armed forces initially. We were part of the United Kingdom until very recently and of course there are Irish regiments in the British army and we also have a tradition of Irishmen joining the UK armed forces.

oscarBravo

partholon wrote: »

but this thread is about "lies" and the yes side on the last two treaties have been lying their arses off about things too.

So far the list of things they've been "lying their arses off" about amounts to having been wrong in the predictions as to the number of expected immigrants.

Considering how earth-shatteringly devastating every single EU treaty to date has been predicted as being, I would have thought a list containing more than a single item would have emerged by now.