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
Lisbon will allow the EU to force tax harmonisation?
Options
Comments
-
lenny_leonard wrote: »Wrong about what? Your last paragraph is common knowledge to anyone who follows EU affairs. But unless I'm missing something, I don't see anything in your post that contradicts anything that Scofflaw has said.
Also, be careful about confusing the Lisbon Strategy and the Lisbon Treaty. The EC/EU has always operated with 5-10 year strategies, the goals/objectives of which they hope to achieve; however, they have never, ever, achieved all the goals therein. The strategies are not a legally-binding framework of what must be achieved, they're simply a sort of very forward-looking business plan. And while in this case, the Lisbon Treaty may contain (I assume) a lot of elements which help to achieve the goals of the Lisbon Strategy, the Strategy can't change what is contained in the Treaty.
Regarding CCCTB, Scofflaws post #29 really clarifies the issue brilliantly, imo.
Scofflaw maintains that enhanced cooperation can only be introduced by unanimity - my posts show where he is incorrect in this assumption.
He also maintains that CCCTB cannot be introduced if it goes against the common good of the internal market. The submission by both the commission and the parliament say that it is necessary for the common good of the internal market.
The Lisbon agenda is, as you say, a sort of forward looking business plan which outlines the direction the EU wish to go so therefore it is used a basis for proposals related to the internal market.
So, if you cannot see anything in my posts that contradict what he has said then I can only assume you have not understood my post or perhaps Scofflaws post. If you read the links I provided you might get some clarity.0 -
whatisayis wrote: »I probably should have said impeding the goals of the Lisbon Agenda which is to be actioned by 2010 one goal of which is the completion of the internal market. Its integrated guidelines are based on "knowledge, competitiveness, growth and employment"
"C. whereas the removal of any obstacles which hamper the proper functioning of the internal market in the bases of company taxation is an important element in the competitiveness of European enterprises, according to the new 'integrated guidelines',"
"4. Affirms the need for reform of the bases of company tax for companies operating in the internal market, in furtherance of the new Lisbon Strategy, so as to ensure equal treatment for enterprises, administrative simplification and cost reduction and to promote greater investment, corporate competitiveness, growth and job creation;"
(Unless otherwise referenced all quotes can be found in this link which is the Parliament Resolution re CCCTB.)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2005-0511+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN
"11. Considers that the objective of introducing a CCCTB at European level could also be achieved through the mechanism of enhanced cooperation if Member States are unable to reach unanimous agreement."
"The Treaty of Nice facilitates the establishment of enhanced cooperation: the right of veto which the Member States enjoyed over the establishment of enhanced cooperation has disappeared (except in the field of foreign policy),"
http://europa.eu/scadplus/nice_treaty/cooperations_en.htm
"G. whereas factors giving rise to distortions of competition must be countered and whereas a properly functioning internal market must create the conditions for enterprises to enjoy a level playing field,"
So the Commission, the European Parliament and The EU Tax Commissioner all think that CCCTB needs to be introduced to the internal market to achieve the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy and also that it can be introduced by enhanced cooperation. Can they all be wrong?
They are more likely to be right than I am, obviously! Certainly, there is a strong strand of opinion in favour of CCCTB in the EU - although whether there still will be the other side of the euro elections and the new Commission is less certain.
I'm sure CCCTB could theoretically be introduced by enhanced cooperation, and you are correct that there is no veto (I'm afraid I misread the part of Article 326 I quoted as if it were of general application, whereas it is specifically for CSFP). However, CCCTB via enhanced cooperation has been possible since Amsterdam, and subject to QMV since Nice - yet still nothing has happened beyond working groups and a certain amount of talk.
There are several reasons why the enhanced cooperation mechanism has yet to be used: first, it runs counter to the whole idea of the union; second, nobody knows how it will work out in practice; third, it is definitely amenable to challenge by any country who feels that its interests are impacted; fourth, it is an inherently divisive mechanism, and one for which there is no need, since nearly anything that can be introduced by enhanced cooperation could equally well be introduced by multilateral cooperation external to the EU framework - as Schengen was. Finally, enhanced cooperation cannot be structured in such a way that other member states are obliged to join.
So, to amend my earlier conclusions:
1. the Commission has no power to rule inter-state differences in tax rates or bases as discriminatory, because the power to do so is not in the treaties.
2. CCCTB could be introduced by enhanced cooperation without Ireland's consent through QMV - however, this would be open to immediate challenge if it impacted Ireland's interests or resulted in pressure on Ireland to join, is politically unlikely, and is possible without the EU.
3. Finally, the reason you can't find anything of relevance in Lisbon is because there isn't anything in Lisbon of relevance to CCCTB - the argument that Lisbon allows CCCTB is a recycled argument from Nice (and Amsterdam), and bears no relation to the Treaty.
How exactly did CCCTB become an issue in the referendum?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
There are several reasons why the enhanced cooperation mechanism has yet to be used
It is being used at the moment regarding divorce laws.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/briefing_page/39373-294-10-43-20081014BRI39372-20-10-2008-2008/default_p001c021_en.htm1. the Commission has no power to rule inter-state differences in tax rates or bases as discriminatory, because the power to do so is not in the treaties.
They seem to think they have that power2. CCCTB could be introduced by enhanced cooperation without Ireland's consent through QMV - however, this would be open to immediate challenge if it impacted Ireland's interests or resulted in pressure on Ireland to join, is politically unlikely, and is possible without the EU.
True, but De Rossa has already voted in favour of it in Parliament.3. Finally, the reason you can't find anything of relevance in Lisbon is because there isn't anything in Lisbon of relevance to CCCTB - the argument that Lisbon allows CCCTB is a recycled argument from Nice (and Amsterdam), and bears no relation to the Treaty.
Quite possible. However, the Articles that would be used in current treaties only refer to the common market so maybe on a point of law they cannot be used when a proposal only refers to the internal market. Also, it goes back to what my original statement was. If a group of member states initiate a proposal, under the rules of the ordinary legislative procedure, unanimity is not required. This applies to any Article that calls for the use of the ordinary legislative procedure.0 -
whatisayis wrote: »Scofflaw maintains that enhanced cooperation can only be introduced by unanimity - my posts show where he is incorrect in this assumption.
Your posts absolutely do not show that! However, I do believe Scofflaw to be incorrect with his quote: "Authorisation to proceed with enhanced cooperation shall be granted by a decision of the Council acting unanimously". That is part of paragraph 2, 329, which is specifically about CFSP. I think paragraph 1, 329 applies, which is QMV in the council and consent of the parliament (I know the text doesn't strictly say "QMV", but it was QMV in Nice, and in Lisbon decision-making in the coucil is QMV by default unless it's explicitly stated otherwise).
... which can only be carried out in line with the provisions in the Treaties. I don't understand the problem with this.whatisayis wrote: »He also maintains that CCCTB cannot be introduced if it goes against the common good of the internal market. The submission by both the commission and the parliament say that it is necessary for the common good of the internal market.
The Lisbon agenda is, as you say, a sort of forward looking business plan which outlines the direction the EU wish to go so therefore it is used a basis for proposals related to the internal market.whatisayis wrote: »So, if you cannot see anything in my posts that contradict what he has said then I can only assume you have not understood my post or perhaps Scofflaws post. If you read the links I provided you might get some clarity.
I'm quite comfortable in my ability to understand people's posts, tyvm, but what doesn't help is that, in your case, you've continuously moved the goalposts since you starting posting about corporate tax over on AH several weeks ago. Again, I don't believe you have said anything of worth to contradict Scofflaws post.0 -
whatisayis wrote: »Scofflaw maintains that enhanced cooperation can only be introduced by unanimity - my posts show where he is incorrect in this assumption.
He is quite correct - I have misread the CSFP provisions of Article 326 as generally applicable, whereas they are applicable only to CSFP. Damn these feet of clay!whatisayis wrote: »He also maintains that CCCTB cannot be introduced if it goes against the common good of the internal market. The submission by both the commission and the parliament say that it is necessary for the common good of the internal market.
Well, no, that's not quite right. I have stated that the Commission has no power to introduce CCCTB to cure 'distortions in the common market', which is the case. That it is good for the common market is a somewhat different thing, and does not give the Commission the power to introduce it - it is desirable rather than necessary.whatisayis wrote: »The Lisbon agenda is, as you say, a sort of forward looking business plan which outlines the direction the EU wish to go so therefore it is used a basis for proposals related to the internal market
Indeed - however, the Lisbon plan itself was agreed by countries that are opponents of the introduction of CCCTB.
I'm still not quite sure what your point is here - certainly it is nothing like the OP or the thread title. I agree with you that an enhanced cooperation group could introduce CCCTB amongst themselves - but they can do that without the EU entirely. I don't agree that the Commission can in some way enforce CCCTB, however desirable they may consider it. Nor do I agree that Lisbon changes the picture at all, but I have no idea whether you're putting that forward (as far as I can see you agree with me there?).
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
whatisayis wrote: »It is being used at the moment regarding divorce laws.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/briefing_page/39373-294-10-43-20081014BRI39372-20-10-2008-2008/default_p001c021_en.htm
Interesting - still yet to be used, though, unless that group is already in motion.whatisayis wrote: »
They seem to think they have that power1. the Commission has no power to rule inter-state differences in tax rates or bases as discriminatory, because the power to do so is not in the treaties.
Eh? No, and nothing you've put forward has suggested that.
True, but De Rossa has already voted in favour of it in Parliament.2. CCCTB could be introduced by enhanced cooperation without Ireland's consent through QMV - however, this would be open to immediate challenge if it impacted Ireland's interests or resulted in pressure on Ireland to join, is politically unlikely, and is possible without the EU.
OK, but so? That doesn't actually relate to what I said.whatisayis wrote: »
Quite possible. However, the Articles that would be used in current treaties only refer to the common market so maybe on a point of law they cannot be used when a proposal only refers to the internal market. Also, it goes back to what my original statement was. If a group of member states initiate a proposal, under the rules of the ordinary legislative procedure, unanimity is not required. This applies to any Article that calls for the use of the ordinary legislative procedure.3. Finally, the reason you can't find anything of relevance in Lisbon is because there isn't anything in Lisbon of relevance to CCCTB - the argument that Lisbon allows CCCTB is a recycled argument from Nice (and Amsterdam), and bears no relation to the Treaty.
Unless there is some difference between 'common market' and 'internal market' that you are aware of, that point again seems to lack relevance - and it is fairly clear from EU sources that the single market, common market, and internal market are synonymous - otherwise, all current regulations that refer to the common market would immediately have lost application on the change of wording in the treaties.
I am suspicious, I'm afraid, of that kind of pseudo-legal what-iffery - it appears to take place purely at a speculative level, but after a while we discover it has become an operating assumption without ever being properly examined. I'm afraid there's absolutely no reason to assume that there's a distinction between common/single/internal market, and so the point stands that there is nothing relevant to CCCTB in Lisbon.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
whatisayis wrote: »It is being used at the moment regarding divorce laws.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/briefing_page/39373-294-10-43-20081014BRI39372-20-10-2008-2008/default_p001c021_en.htm
They seem to think they have that power
True, but De Rossa has already voted in favour of it in Parliament.
Quite possible. However, the Articles that would be used in current treaties only refer to the common market so maybe on a point of law they cannot be used when a proposal only refers to the internal market. Also, it goes back to what my original statement was. If a group of member states initiate a proposal, under the rules of the ordinary legislative procedure, unanimity is not required. This applies to any Article that calls for the use of the ordinary legislative procedure.
I've already posted an argument on this over on AH, but you chose to ignore it. So, more or less copying exactly what I said:lenny_leonard wrote:...look at the situations where member states can propose legislation. As it happens, this is basically identical in both the current EU framework, and Lisbon. Member states can only propose legislation in two areas, both in "Title V, Area of Freedom, Security and Justice" (that's the Lisbon title, it's currently called "Justice and Home Affairs"). The two areas are:
1. "Chapter 4 of Title V, Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters", and
2. "Chapter 5 of Title V, Police Cooperation".
Also, the decision procedure is identical whether the Commission or Member States propose it, which I think in Lisbon is QMV in the council, and co-decision with the Parliament. Article 293 and 294 have no effect.
So areas where member states can propose legislation is extremely limited, and most definitely doesn't include the functioning of the Internal Market.
I'm sure a further argument would be to say that member states propose legislation through Enhanced Cooperation. But the problem with that is that in Enhanced Cooperation, the Commission is still the proposer of the particular legislation. The member states who desire participation can only request the Enhanced Cooperation procedure for an existing piece of legislation which has utterly failed to get the unanimous approval of the member states. But they don't initiate the actual legislation.0 -
Hmm. whatisayis, what are you trying to say?
interested,
Scofflaw0 -
Sorry lads, I keep getting logged out and losing what I've been typing so have to start again!Eh? No, and nothing you've put forward has suggested that.
The non-legislative proposal put forward by the commission suggests it.OK, but so? That doesn't actually relate to what I said.
What you said is what might happen if CCCTB is introduced. As De Rossa has already approved it on behalf of Ireland and quite a lot of the larger states would like to pursue it, therefore I can just as easily say that Ireland might agree to it and there mightn't be that much political objection to it.Unless there is some difference between 'common market' and 'internal market' that you are aware of, that point again seems to lack relevance - and it is fairly clear from EU sources that the single market, common market, and internal market are synonymous - otherwise, all current regulations that refer to the common market would immediately have lost application on the change of wording in the treaties.
Ok, that sounds entirely logical.lenny_leonard wrote: »I've already posted an argument on this over on AH, but you chose to ignore it. So, more or less copying exactly what I said:
As Scofflaw has already agreed, the only time a group of member states cannot initiate a proposal is if its related to the CSFP.0 -
This is all very interesting about CCTB.
However ignoring the ins and outs of enhanced cooperation for once, why would Ireland join a group of countries that has it?
Its all very well arguing about it, but it is extremely unlikely politically for Ireland to agree to CCTB, unless it was to our advantage?Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Advertisement
-
whatisayis wrote: »As Scofflaw has already agreed, the only time a group of member states cannot initiate a proposal is if its related to the CSFP.
I disagree, but I'll get back to this later with some sources (under pressure now). Member states may be involved in all legislation at various stages of it's life, but they only propose legislation in the two area's I've listed. By 'propose', I mean they frame and draft the actual legislation, and it bypasses the commission and goes directly to the council. [In fact, this is actually a contentious issue in the EU, as member states go through a much less strict 'screening' process of the legislation than when the commission is the proposer, potentially resulting in lower-quality legislation).
Anyway, as I said, I'll get back to this later.0 -
whatisayis wrote: »The non-legislative proposal put forward by the commission suggests it.
I don't see how, I'm afraid.whatisayis wrote: »What you said is what might happen if CCCTB is introduced. As De Rossa has already approved it on behalf of Ireland and quite a lot of the larger states would like to pursue it, therefore I can just as easily say that Ireland might agree to it and there mightn't be that much political objection to it.
What? deRossa has no power to "approve" something "on behalf of Ireland"! he's an MEP, and votes with his EP party.whatisayis wrote: »As Scofflaw has already agreed, the only time a group of member states cannot initiate a proposal is if its related to the CSFP.
Er, no, I haven't said any such thing. "Approval of enhanced cooperation can take place by QMV except under CSFP" is not the same thing as the question of who initiates proposals.
I'm once again a little concerned that you appear to be taking agreement in one thing as agreement in another by way of intermediate steps apparent only to yourself, and which appear to advance a rather obscure agenda. Could you, perhaps, lay out your actual argument from assumptions to conclusions? Otherwise, it appears likely we could stay on the merry-go-round forever!
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
This link explains the situation regarding "Right Of Initiative" quite well. Some of the main points:
The current situation with the First Pillar, which covers the Internal Market:WHOSE INITIATIVE?—THE FIRST PILLAR
12. The right of initiative is conferred by the TEC on a third institution, the Commission. The Council and the European Parliament initiate and adopt their own Rules of Procedure, and other institutions have specific powers to initiate certain measures within their particular spheres of operation. But otherwise, in the first pillar, where the Treaties confer on the EU power to make legislation, they require that a proposal must first be made by the Commission.
The current situation with the Third Pillar, JHA, which is compatible with my assertion that there are only two areas where member states propose legislation:WHOSE INITIATIVE?—THE THIRD PILLAR
16. Article 34 TEU provides that legislation on police cooperation and criminal justice may be made on the initiative of any Member State or of the Commission. This is an important exception in terms of its subject matter but only a small proportion of EU legislation is adopted in this field.
And finally, the changes under Lisbon:THE TREATY OF LISBON
17. Were the Treaty of Lisbon to come into force, it would leave the position unchanged except with regard to police cooperation and criminal justice. That Treaty would bring the provisions on Justice and Home Affairs currently in Title IV TEC and Title VI TEU together in a single Title called "Area of Freedom, Security and Justice".Legislation on police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters would continue to be made on the initiative either of the Commission or Member States, but in the case of Member States, a proposal would require the support of a quarter of their number, instead of a single state.
I may be interpreting this incorrectly, but I recall finding quite a bit of information on the web on this a while back, and I found nothing to indicate that MS's can propose legislation outside of the two area's I mentioned.
Also, read through Lisbon: The only clear chapters enabling member states to propose legislation is in FSJ. There is nothing in the Treaty that indicates otherwise.0 -
This is all very interesting about CCTB.
However ignoring the ins and outs of enhanced cooperation for once, why would Ireland join a group of countries that has it?
Its all very well arguing about it, but it is extremely unlikely politically for Ireland to agree to CCTB, unless it was to our advantage?
The potential advantages of CCCTB, to the EU as a whole, are quite compelling. The aim is to reduce the tax burden of companies who have operations in more than one member state, thereby potentially increasing FDI in the EU, or making it easier (less cost-intensive) for companies in existing EU member states to expand into other EU member states. That ideology sounds good to me.
But I guess the Irish problems with it are:
1. If we were part of CCCTB, our corporation tax rate would be affected for the companies who take part (btw, an important point is that CCCTB would be optional for companies in the countries who take part; it wouldn't be implemented across the board). So there you have exactly the scenario that eurosceptics predicted: The evil EU has raised our corporation tax rate.
2. We currently have no idea how our tax revenues would be affected, should we participate in CCCTB. The idea, as I understand it, is that the corporation tax revenue of a company would be shared out amongst the relevant countries, but the fear is that this share-out would be biased towards larger member states. And admittedly, this is something that would worry me. But the specifics of how all this works within CCCTB still hasn't been formulated, so any current declarations of what will happen are unfounded. The fact is, we don't yet know how things will work. If it could be shown that it would actually increase our tax revenue, but not hinder FDI (or in fact improve it), then I doubt people would have the same aversion to it.
3. If we're not part of the enhanced cooperation group, it has been suggested that we would have to renegotiate bilateral/multilateral trade deals with participating CCCTB countries, which would again affect our tax revenue. Tbh, I don't really understand the implications here (hey, I'm just an engineer, ffs). Again, I think this is just speculation as above, but I'd love if someone more knowledgeable could clarify or explain this.
As it stands, I don't see the evils in CCCTB that a lot of eurosceptics do, but at the same time I'd be very wary of Ireland participating just yet. If it could be shown that our tax revenue and FDI would actually improve, then I'd be all for it. And in the long run, if there was more parity between the cost-base's of MS's (salaries, etc), surely it would be beneficial? Then we would be competing with other MS's on our technical/knowledge base, which are streets ahead of a lot of MS's; I think that's much more relevant to the EU definition of competition than 'tax harmonisation'.0 -
Exactly, it is up to us what we do.
Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
-
lenny_leonard wrote: »Also, read through Lisbon: The only clear chapters enabling member states to propose legislation is in FSJ. There is nothing in the Treaty that indicates otherwise.
According to the Lisbon Treaty:
Article 3The Union shall have exclusive competence in the following areas:
(a) customs union;
(b) the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market;
c) monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro;
(d) the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy;
(e) common commercial policy.
Regarding Enhanced Cooperation:
Article 329
1. Member States which wish to establish enhanced cooperation between themselves in one of the areas covered by the Treaties, with the exception of fields of exclusive competence and the common foreign and security policy..,
Article 3311. Any Member State which wishes to participate in enhanced cooperation in progress in one of the areas referred to in Article 329(1) shall notify its intention to the Council and the Commission.
The Commission shall, within four months of the date of receipt of the notification, confirm the participation of the Member State concerned. It shall note where necessary that the conditions of participation have been fulfilled and shall adopt any transitional measures necessary with regard to the application of the acts already adopted within the framework of enhanced cooperation.
However, if the Commission considers that the conditions of participation have not been fulfilled, it shall indicate the arrangements to be adopted to fulfil those conditions and shall set a deadline for re-examining the request. On the expiry of that deadline, it shall re-examine the request, in accordance with the procedure set out in the second subparagraph. If the Commission considers that the conditions of participation have still not been met, the Member State concerned may refer the matter to the Council, which shall decide on the request. The Council shall act in accordance with Article 330. It may also adopt the transitional measures referred to in the second subparagraph on a proposal from the Commission.
Article 330
All members of the Council may participate in its deliberations, but only members of the Council representing the Member States participating in enhanced cooperation shall take part in the vote. Unanimity shall be constituted by the votes of the representatives of the participating Member States only. A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3).
Article 3331. Where a provision of the Treaties which may be applied in the context of enhanced cooperation stipulates that the Council shall act unanimously, the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with the arrangements laid down in Article 330, may adopt a decision stipulating that it will act by aqualified majority2. Where a provision of the Treaties which may be applied in the context of enhanced cooperation stipulates that the Council shall adopt acts under a special legislative procedure, the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with the arrangements laid down in Article 330, may adopt a decision stipulating that it will act under the ordinary legislative procedure. The Council shall act after consulting the European Parliament.Article 294
Special provisions
15. Where, in the cases provided for in the Treaties, a legislative act is submitted to the ordinary legislative procedure on the initiative of a group of Member States...
This full article has already been referenced earlier in this thread - too long to post again.0 -
With respect, you need to frame your posts/argument better. I've no idea how you're linking each Article together here; "bolding" what you think is relevant and expecting everyone else to put the jigsaw together is unfair. So please explain the point of each Article to your argument, and how you're logically linking the articles together. Otherwise, it's a waste of time for everyone.0
-
lenny_leonard wrote: »With respect, you need to frame your posts/argument better. I've no idea how you're linking each Article together here; "bolding" what you think is relevant and expecting everyone else to put the jigsaw together is unfair. So please explain the point of each Article to your argument, and how you're logically linking the articles together. Otherwise, it's a waste of time for everyone.
In a nutshell, right of initiative is possible by a group of member states if used in relation to competition in the internal market. If the proposal is subject to the ordinary legislative procedure unanimity on the vote is not required under Lisbon. I posted the articles according to how they linked to each other for (I thought!) ease of reference.0 -
whatisayis wrote: »In a nutshell, right of initiative is possible by a group of member states if used in relation to competition in the internal market. If the proposal is subject to the ordinary legislative procedure unanimity on the vote is not required under Lisbon. I posted the articles according to how they linked to each other for (I thought!) ease of reference.
I don't see the problem, unless you are saying that initiatives of a group of member states will apply to all member states if passed by QMV?
It doesn't.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
whatisayis wrote: »No, but the effects of possibly will.
How?Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
-
Well, this is all pleasantly baffling - a sort of EU treaty sudoku. Can we agree to closure of the question in the thread title?
pleasantly baffled,
Scofflaw0 -
whatisayis wrote: »It depends on the legislation. Had a really busy day at work today so I am just too tired to go into anything now besides my bed!
It's simple. The legislation relating to policies of an enhanced cooperation group will not apply to member states outside it.
You have changed your position a few times on this and the AH thread. This enhanced cooperation thing seems to be your fingertips now and if you read the previous posts relating to enhanced cooperation groups, it's time to let go.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
It's simple. The legislation relating to policies of an enhanced cooperation group will not apply to member states outside it.
Is that what he's claiming? Is this, in a nutshell, the relatively standard argument that the introduction of CCCTB by enhanced cooperation by any group of member states will effectively mean the imposition of CCCTB on Ireland?
interested despite myself,
Scofflaw0 -
I don't see the problem, unless you are saying that initiatives of a group of member states will apply to all member states if passed by QMV?
It doesn't.whatisayis wrote: »No, but the effects of possibly will.How?whatisayis wrote: »It depends on the legislation.Is that what he's claiming? Is this, in a nutshell, the relatively standard argument that the introduction of CCCTB by enhanced cooperation by any group of member states will effectively mean the imposition of CCCTB on Ireland?
interested despite myself,
Scofflaw
Seems to be, can't see how else CCCTB would be relevant at this stage.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seanies32
I don't see the problem, unless you are saying that initiatives of a group of member states will apply to all member states if passed by QMV?
It doesn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatisayis
No, but the effects of possibly will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seanies32
How?
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatisayis
It depends on the legislation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scofflaw
Is that what he's claiming? Is this, in a nutshell, the relatively standard argument that the introduction of CCCTB by enhanced cooperation by any group of member states will effectively mean the imposition of CCCTB on Ireland?
interested despite myself,
Scofflaw
Scofflaw,how you can possibly assume that from those posts is beyond me!It's simple. The legislation relating to policies of an enhanced cooperation group will not apply to member states outside it.
You have changed your position a few times on this and the AH thread. This enhanced cooperation thing seems to be your fingertips now and if you read the previous posts relating to enhanced cooperation groups, it's time to let go.
Ok I'm tired and I'm cranky right now. Please explain how I have changed my original position?0 -
Advertisement
-
Hmm. Still irrelevant to Lisbon, though...anyway, isn't it one of the strictures of enhanced cooperation that it cannot affect the interests of other, non-group, members?
cordially,
Scofflaw
So I thought, but we must be missing something.
The effects of enhanced cooperation could possibly, some time in the future, affect us apparently.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0
Advertisement