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
-
whatisayis wrote: »Ok I'm tired and I'm cranky right now. Please explain how I have changed my original position?
Forget that, what exactly is your position on CCTB and enhanced cooperation and how is it relevant if Ireland opts out.
On the AH thread you seemed to think Corporation tax wasn't subject to veto and was subject to QMV.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Forget that, what exactly is your position on CCTB and enhanced cooperation and how is it relevant if Ireland opts out.
On the AH thread you seemed to think Corporation tax wasn't subject to veto and was subject to QMV.
CCCTB legislation can be brought in by a group of member states under enhanced cooperation which doesn't require unanimity which means no veto. If Ireland decide to opt out, they can do so. That was my original position and remains my position.0 -
whatisayis wrote: »CCCTB legislation can be brought in by a group of member states under enhanced cooperation which doesn't require unanimity which means no veto. If Ireland decide to opt out, they can do so. That was my original position and remains my position.
So if Ireland opts out of CCCTB that isn't a veto?Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
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.
Absolutely, completely, incorrect. A quick analysis of (some of) the Articles you quoted:
Article 3: Simply states that "the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market" is an exclusive competence of the EU. Nothing else.
Article 329(1): Simply states that member states who wish to avail of enhanced cooperation (E-C) submit a request to the commission, who then submit a relevant proposal to the council. This is the triggering of the enhanced cooperation procedure, and the legislation already exists! The member states don't draft/frame the legislation, it's already there. The reason that the phrase "with the exception of fields of exclusive competence" is used, is that the rules of enhanced cooperation are that an exclusive competence should not even be open to the enhanced cooperation procedure. For some reason that I cant recall off-hand, taxation is considered valid for enhanced cooperation. But you're using this phrase incorrectly in your argument; it doesn't imply that member states can propose legislation in enhanced cooperation cases for an exclusive competence of the EU. No offense, but it's actually absurd when you think about it: why would the Commission give away Right Of Initiative in an area of exclusive competence, the areas where the Commission is most zealous of having control over.
Article 331: Just means that member states who wish to participate in the enhanced cooperation initiative which has been triggered in Article 329(1) should "notify it's intentions to the council and commission". There's nothing to do with proposing legislation here. It's just about 'signing up' to the enhanced cooperation.
Article 330: Self-Explanatory.
Article 333: States that where a decision is normally taken by unanimity, it can in enhanced cooperation by moved, on a unanimous agreement, to QMV. I believe the reference to 330 is that "Unanimity shall be constituted by the votes of the representatives of the participating Member States only".
Your jump to 294 is weird, but I believe this has been covered in detail by Scofflaw here and Sam Vimes over on AH.
But there is nothing there to suggest even remotely that member states can propose legislation on areas other than the two Chapters I referred to earlier. I think that was the original point of your reply to me, but it's wrong.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
lenny_leonard wrote: »Absolutely, completely, incorrect. A quick analysis of (some of) the Articles you quoted:
Article 3: Simply states that "the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market" is an exclusive competence of the EU. Nothing else.
Article 329(1): Simply states that member states who wish to avail of enhanced cooperation (E-C) submit a request to the commission, who then submit a relevant proposal to the council. This is the triggering of the E-C procedure, and the legislation already exists! The member states don't draft/frame the legislation, it's already there. The reason that the phrase "with the exception of fields of exclusive competence" is used, is that the rules of E-C are that an exclusive competence should not even be open to the enhanced cooperation procedure. For some reason that I cant recall off-hand, taxation is considered valid for E-C. But you're using this phrase incorrectly in your argument; it doesn't imply that member states can propose legislation in E-C cases for an exclusive competence of the EU. No offense, but it's actually absurd when you think about it: why would the Commission give away Right Of Initiative in an area of exclusive competence, the areas where the Commission is most zealous of having control over.
Article 331: Just means that member states who wish to participate in the E-C initiative which has been triggered in Article 329(1) should "notify it's intentions to the council and commission". There's nothing to do with proposing legislation here. It's just about 'signing up' to the E-C.
Article 330: Self-Explanatory.
Article 333: States that where a decision is normally taken by unanimity, it can in E-C by moved, on a unanimous agreement, to QMV. I believe the reference to 330 is that "Unanimity shall be constituted by the votes of the representatives of the participating Member States only".
Your jump to 294 is weird, but I believe this has been covered in detail by Scofflaw here and Sam Vimes over on AH.
But there is nothing there to suggest even remotely that member states can propose legislation on areas other than the two Chapters I referred to earlier. I think that was the original point of your reply to me, but it's wrong.
Sorry but I can't even read this post at the moment, I'm just too tired. Will respond tomorrow.0 -
whatisayis wrote: »No, it isn't.
It depends on how we got to the position of Ireland being able to opt-out. We only have the option to opt-out if a MS has used it's veto through Article 94 TEC, and we're now in enhanced-cooperation territory. If Ireland is that state, or one of those states, then we have used our veto.0 -
whatisayis wrote: »No, it isn't.
But we aren't in the group, so we don't need to use a veto.
Our veto is effectively not joining the group!whatisayis wrote:CCCTB legislation can be brought in by a group of member states under enhanced cooperation which doesn't require unanimity which means no veto. If Ireland decide to opt out, they can do so. That was my original position and remains my position.
So what's the problem if it doesn't affect Ireland?
PS From the AH thread:sam vimes wrote:Fair enough
so are we agreed that even if you are right about unanimity not applying (which i don't think you are), lisbon still can't affect our tax unless many other countries also change their current stance on tax legislation?whatisayis wrote:Yes, I absolutely agree! Shake hands on a battle well fought! (but there are other things I dislike about Lisbon, I'll leave them for another day!)Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
It depends what you mean by "brought in". The commission still 'owns' the legislation; it already exists, as they've already proposed it. The member states 'trigger' the enhanced cooperation procedure.whatisayis wrote: »CCCTB legislation can be brought in by a group of member states under enhanced cooperation
Our veto still stands through Article 94 TEC.whatisayis wrote: »which doesn't require unanimity which means no veto.
Once it gets to the enhanced cooperation procedure, they can obviously opt out. But the veto before getting to this point hasn't been affected. You still need to go through Article 94 TEC.whatisayis wrote: »If Ireland decide to opt out, they can do so.
I don't think it was, but in any case you haven't offered any compelling arguments to back up any of your positions either. No offense, but your position is clearly flawed.whatisayis wrote: »That was my original position and remains my position.0 -
whatisayis wrote: »CCCTB legislation can be brought in by a group of member states under enhanced cooperation which doesn't require unanimity which means no veto. If Ireland decide to opt out, they can do so. That was my original position and remains my position.
Ah. So this: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?
...is pretty much the claim? Unless we're dealing with the slightly weirder position where you're simply making the point that a group can go ahead with CCCTB via enhanced cooperation without any effect on Ireland.
The problem with that argument (assuming the former) is that if the introduction of CCCTB by an enhanced cooperation group has any noticeable impact in Ireland, then it fails the test of Article 327 TEU Lisbon:
"Any enhanced cooperation shall respect the competences, rights and obligations of those Member States which do not participate in it."
and quite possibly also that of Article 326 TEU Lisbon:
"Such cooperation shall not undermine the internal market or economic, social and territorial cohesion. It shall not constitute a barrier to or discrimination in trade between Member States, nor shall it distort competition between them."
In particular, by creating what would be, in essence, a subset of the EU with a common corporate tax base, it would be relatively easy to argue that the introduction of CCCTB by an enhanced cooperation group would undermine economic cohesion of the larger EU.
Overall, what's puzzling about the whole CCCTB argument is its relation to Lisbon, which appears to be none whatsoever, as well as the glossing over of the really quite serious political hurdles in its way. Were I an advocate of CCCTB (and, to be honest, I have no strong feelings on it either way), I would be very much less than sanguine about its prospects (relevant Ernst & Young article).
Plus, whatever else about it, the CCCTB working group certainly seems to think unanimity is required:III. Basic structure of a possible CCCTB
1. General form
7. A proposal for a CCCTB would take the form of a proposal for a Directive under Art. 94 ECT, which requires unanimity in the Council. It will be impossible to lay down every detailed rule in the basic instrument. The Directive should therefore provide for implementing measures to be adopted under the Comitology Decision.
Source: CCCTB Working Group Report.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
You are absolutely, completely correct. I should have referenced shared competencies in relation to the Internal Market (Article 4).lenny_leonard wrote: »Absolutely, completely, incorrect.
Please advise me where I am going wrong here.
1. Articles 329, 330 and 331 relate to the procedure to be used to set up enhanced cooperation by a group of member states who wish to resubmit a previously outvoted proposal as long as is not in the area of exclusive competence or CFSP. All decisions in these articles are enacted according to Art. 330 whereby only the member states in the Enhanced Cooperation group (ECG) vote either by unanimity or QVM.
2. Where an article calls for the use of the ordinary legislative procedure,
the special provisions of Article 294 explain the procedure to be used when a legislative act is submitted on the initiative of a group of member states (ECG).0 -
PS From the AH thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sam vimes
Fair enough http://static.boards.ie/vbulletin/im...lies/smile.gif so are we agreed that even if you are right about unanimity not applying (which i don't think you are), lisbon still can't affect our tax unless many other countries also change their current stance on tax legislation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatisayis
Yes, I absolutely agree! Shake hands on a battle well fought! (but there are other things I dislike about Lisbon, I'll leave them for another day!)
I agreed to disagree regards unanimity and unless CCCTB is introduced then there won't be an effect on our tax. If this is meant to show how I've changed my stance I don't see it.0 -
whatisayis wrote: »You are absolutely, completely correct. I should have referenced shared competencies in relation to the Internal Market (Article 4).
Please advise me where I am going wrong here.
1. Articles 329, 330 and 331 relate to the procedure to be used to set up enhanced cooperation by a group of member states who wish to resubmit a previously outvoted proposal as long as is not in the area of exclusive competence or CFSP. All decisions in these articles are enacted according to Art. 330 whereby only the member states in the Enhanced Cooperation group (ECG) vote either by unanimity or QVM.
Where does "a previously outvoted proposal" come from? Also, to clarify a little - decisions about the enhanced cooperation group are taken by the whole Council, decisions within the enhanced cooperation group are taken only by the members of the group.whatisayis wrote: »2. Where an article calls for the use of the ordinary legislative procedure,
the special provisions of Article 294 explain the procedure to be used when a legislative act is submitted on the initiative of a group of member states (ECG).
Yes - we've been over that. The 'special provisions' essentially consist of striking those phrases which refer to legislative steps then missing.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatisayis
CCTB legislation can be brought in by a group of member states under enhanced cooperation which doesn't require unanimity which means no veto. If Ireland decide to opt out, they can do so. That was my original position and remains my position.
Ah. So this:
Quote:
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?
...is pretty much the claim? Unless we're dealing with the slightly weirder position where you're simply making the point that a group can go ahead with CCCTB via enhanced cooperation without any effect on Ireland.
No, its not the claim. Ireland can choose not to join other member states in enhanced cooperation and, if it is introduced, it will have an effect on Ireland.The problem with that argument (assuming the former) is that if the introduction of CCCTB by an enhanced cooperation group has any noticeable impact in Ireland, then it fails the test of Article 327 TEU Lisbon:
"Any enhanced cooperation shall respect the competences, rights and obligations of those Member States which do not participate in it."
and quite possibly also that of Article 326 TEU Lisbon:
"Such cooperation shall not undermine the internal market or economic, social and territorial cohesion. It shall not constitute a barrier to or discrimination in trade between Member States, nor shall it distort competition between them."
The CCCTB doesn't affect the competences, rights and obligations of those member states which do not participate in it. It only affects their profits.
The CCCTB proposal claims the current corporate tax regime in the EU does undermine the internal market.Plus, whatever else about it, the CCCTB working group certainly seems to think unanimity is required:
They do think that, that is why in the Parliament Resolution they specifically state that it can be brought in by enhanced cooperation.0 -
whatisayis wrote: »No, its not the claim. Ireland can choose not to join other member states in enhanced cooperation and, if it is introduced, it will have an effect on Ireland.
The CCCTB doesn't affect the competences, rights and obligations of those member states which do not participate in it. It only affects their profits.
The CCCTB proposal claims the current corporate tax regime in the EU does undermine the internal market.
They do think that, that is why in the Parliament Resolution they specifically state that it can be brought in by enhanced cooperation.
OK, well we appear to be onto a very different topic here - an examination of whether the CCCTB has more impact than the shareout of corporate tax profits between states seems necessary.
I don't have a strong opinion on CCCTB. I can see that it has advantages in theory, and I can see that it could well have problems in practice. I'd accept McCreevy's point that it may in fact result in greater compliance costs rather than a reduction, because as long as national books still need to be maintained, then what actually happens is the introduction of a bridge - a further piece of accounting - between the national books and the CCCTB books. I can also see that even if the overall shape of CCCTB is relatively neutral, there will likely be thumbs on the scale in the detailed implementation - in particular, thumbs belonging to high-corporate tax countries.
On balance, unless you're looking at a totally optional system, I'd be slightly opposed to the whole thing.
My interest, rather, is in finding out why this issue has become attached to Lisbon. There appears to be no justification whatsoever for connecting the two - to the extent that the whole argument has been had before, at Nice.
So, to ask again, can we close the question in the thread title?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
So, to ask again, can we close the question in the thread title?
cordially,
Scofflaw
Ok I'll just say that, in my opinion, I agree that currently CCCTB can be introduced by enhanced cooperation. I think the only relevence to Lisbon is that should it be proposed under Articles 114 or 116 under the ordinary legislative procedure then there would be no need for it to reach the stage of enhanced cooperation because QMV would apply. I really have nothing more to add than that.0 -
whatisayis wrote: »Ok I'll just say that, in my opinion, I agree that currently CCCTB can be introduced by enhanced cooperation. I think the only relevence to Lisbon is that should it be proposed under Articles 114 or 116 under the ordinary legislative procedure then there would be no need for it to reach the stage of enhanced cooperation because QMV would apply. I really have nothing more to add than that.
That appears to kick us back into disagreement, though, since whatever about bringing it in under enhanced cooperation, since Article 114 excludes fiscal provisions in any case, and Article 116 in Nice:Nice wrote:Where the Commission finds that a difference between the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States is distorting the conditions of competition in the common
market and that the resultant distortion needs to be eliminated, it shall consult the Member States concerned.
If such consultation does not result in an agreement eliminating the distortion in question, the Council shall, on a proposal from the Commission, acting by a qualified majority, issue the necessary directives.
The Commission and the Council may take any other appropriate measures provided for in this Treaty.
and LisbonLisbon wrote:Where the Commission finds that a difference between the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States is distorting the conditions of competition in the internal
market and that the resultant distortion needs to be eliminated, it shall consult the Member States concerned.
If such consultation does not result in an agreement eliminating the distortion in question, the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall issue the necessary directives. Any other appropriate measures provided for in the Treaties may be adopted.
aren't materially different, except to add in the role of the Parliament.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Aaaaaaaah! I promised myself I wouldn't log in here again!aren't materially different, except to add in the role of the Parliament.
cordially,
Scofflaw
I must admit you are right when comparing the two Articles. Why then do the CCCTB and Laszlo mention that if unanimity is not reached Enhanced Cooperation would be introduced? I am asking this because I am totally perplexed at this stage!
P.S. Just noticed that the second paragraph doesn't mention the commission. Would that make a difference?0 -
I guess from your later posts today you've moved on from this, but I'll answer anyway:
Okay, but that still doesn't indicate that member states can propose legislation in "shared competencies in relation to the Internal Market", which I assume is still your point? You still seem to to be disregarding my assertion that member states can only propose legislation in two area's in JHA/FSJ. But definitely not in the Internal Market.whatisayis wrote: »You are absolutely, completely correct. I should have referenced shared competencies in relation to the Internal Market (Article 4).
Yes, that's more or less it.whatisayis wrote: »Please advise me where I am going wrong here.
1. Articles 329, 330 and 331 relate to the procedure to be used to set up enhanced cooperation by a group of member states who wish to resubmit a previously outvoted proposal as long as is not in the area of exclusive competence or CFSP. All decisions in these articles are enacted according to Art. 330 whereby only the member states in the Enhanced Cooperation group (ECG) vote either by unanimity or QVM.whatisayis wrote: »2. Where an article calls for the use of the ordinary legislative procedure,
the special provisions of Article 294 explain the procedure to be used when a legislative act is submitted on the initiative of a group of member states (ECG).
Scofflaw has already given the answer to this: in cases where the Commission hasn't proposed the legislation in question, some references to the Commission (specifically "paragraph 2, the second sentence of paragraph 6, and paragraph 9") in Article 294 don't apply, which is fairly obvious if you think about. Also, if you read the second part of paragraph 15 of 294, it actually gives details of the Commissions role in the rare cases where they haven't initiated the legislative act. So all paragraph 15 does, which is central to a lot of your arguments, is describe how the Commissions' role in the Ordinary Legislative Procedure changes when they haven't initiated the legislative act. There is nothing there to change anything from unanimity to QMV. I would just add that, again, you have to acknowledge that the Member States only initiate legislative acts in the two relevant chapters in JHA/FSJ, so for member states these "Special Provisions" only apply in those two cases.Paragraph 15, Article 294 wrote: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, on a recommendation by the European Central Bank, or at the request of the Court of Justice, paragraph 2, the second sentence
of paragraph 6, and paragraph 9 shall not apply.
In such cases, the European Parliament and the Council shall communicate the proposed act to the Commission with their positions at first and second readings. The European Parliament or the Council may request the opinion of the Commission throughout the procedure, which the Commission may also deliver on its own initiative. It may also, if it deems it necessary, take part in the Conciliation Committee in accordance with paragraph 11.0 -
whatisayis wrote: »I agreed to disagree regards unanimity and unless CCCTB is introduced then there won't be an effect on our tax. If this is meant to show how I've changed my stance I don't see it.
No, you said Corporation tax could be brought in to Ireland by QMV. It has been shown on this thread that is untrue.
You seem to now be grasping to Enhanced cooperation to prove your QMV point, even though Ireland does not have to join it.
There is a big difference in the 2 stances.whatisayis wrote: »No, its not the claim. Ireland can choose not to join other member states in enhanced cooperation and, if it is introduced, it will have an effect on Ireland.
The CCCTB doesn't affect the competences, rights and obligations of those member states which do not participate in it. It only affects their profits.
The CCCTB proposal claims the current corporate tax regime in the EU does undermine the internal market.
They do think that, that is why in the Parliament Resolution they specifically state that it can be brought in by enhanced cooperation.
It could actually increase our profits. A multi national would be more likely to go to Ireland with a 12.5% rate than a CCCTB country with higher rates.whatisayis wrote: »Aaaaaaaah! I promised myself I wouldn't log in here again!
I must admit you are right when comparing the two Articles. Why then do the CCCTB and Laszlo mention that if unanimity is not reached Enhanced Cooperation would be introduced? I am asking this because I am totally perplexed at this stage!
P.S. Just noticed that the second paragraph doesn't mention the commission. Would that make a difference?
Because if Ireland vetoes CCCTB, the other countries can go on ahead and form a group.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Advertisement
-
lenny_leonard wrote: »You still seem to to be disregarding my assertion that member states can only propose legislation in two area's in JHA/FSJ.
Sorry, Lenny my mistake. I do see what you are saying now. I thought you were saying that the only two areas where member states in an enhanced cooperation group could actually act were in those two areas.
For the sake of clarification. If we, for the time being, forget about CCCTB and enhanced cooperation and start from scratch.
If a Legislative proposal is submitted by the commission, based on an Article which calls for the use of the Ordinary Legislative Procedure, then all voting is done by QMV by the council unless it has reached the second reading and the commission has delivered a negative opinion.
This is my understanding of it so please correct me if I'm wrong.0 -
whatisayis wrote: »Sorry, Lenny my mistake. I do see what you are saying now. I thought you were saying that the only two areas where member states in an enhanced cooperation group could actually act were in those two areas.
For the sake of clarification. If we, for the time being, forget about CCCTB and enhanced cooperation and start from scratch.
If a Legislative proposal is submitted by the commission, based on an Article which calls for the use of the Ordinary Legislative Procedure, then all voting is done by QMV by the council unless it has reached the second reading and the commission has delivered a negative opinion.
This is my understanding of it so please correct me if I'm wrong.
I don't think this is the case - the Ordinary Legislative Procedure (previously co-decision) certainly applies whenever QMV applies, but I don't think the reverse is true. The extension of QMV and the extension of co-decision have definitely been achieved separately.
This is likely to be a difficult discussion, because if, as I think, QMV does not apply automatically to co-decision, then there will not be anything that states that. I think it is rather up to you, therefore, to show any text that says that QMV automatically applies in the case of the ordinary legislative procedure being used, because if that is the case, there will be something in the Treaty that states it.
Otherwise, we are left trying to prove a negative...
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
whatisayis wrote: »
If a Legislative proposal is submitted by the commission, based on an Article which calls for the use of the Ordinary Legislative Procedure, then all voting is done by QMV by the council unless it has reached the second reading and the commission has delivered a negative opinion.
As Scofflaw says, this is a tricky area to get into. Sometimes it's QMV, other times it must be unanimity because of the particular area being legislated, and sometimes QMV changes to unanimity because the Council's position differs from the Commission. And I think there's a few other proviso's, but it's fairly complicated. Here's a good link explaining the current co-decision procedure. [The changes are minimal in Lisbon, afaik.]
Also, I think I know where you're going with this, and there's something I overlooked in all this CCCTB business: As the primary legal base for CCCTB is Article 94 TEC or Article 115 Lisbon (consolidated), the legislative act wont be initiated through the Ordinary Legislative Procedure, but (in Lisbon) through a Special Legislative Procedure, which requires unanimity. So Article 294 wont even apply to CCCTB.Lisbon Article 115 wrote:Without prejudice to Article 114, the Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, issue directives for the approximation of such laws, regulations or administrative provisions of the Member States as directly affect the establishment or functioning of the internal market.0 -
if that is the case, there will be something in the Treaty that states it.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Here is the full text of Article 294.Article 2941. Where reference is made in the Treaties to the ordinary legislative procedure for the adoption of an act, the following procedure shall apply.First reading
2. The Commission shall submit a proposal to the European Parliament and the Council.3. The European Parliament shall adopt its position at first reading and communicate it to the Council.4. If the Council approves the European Parliament's position, the act concerned shall be adopted in the wording which corresponds to the position of the European Parliament.
5. If the Council does not approve the European Parliament's position, it shall adopt its position atfirst reading and communicate it to the European Parliament.
6. The Council shall inform the European Parliament fully of the reasons which led it to adopt its position at first reading. The Commission shall inform the European Parliament fully of its position.
Second reading7. If, within three months of such communication, the European Parliament:(a) approves the Council's position at first reading or has not taken a decision, the act concerned shall be deemed to have been adopted in the wording which corresponds to the position of the Council
(b) rejects, by a majority of its component members, the Council's position at first reading, the proposed act shall be deemed not to have been adopted;
(c) proposes, by a majority of its component members, amendments to the Council's position at first reading, the text thus amended shall be forwarded to the Council and to the Commission, which shall deliver an opinion on those amendments.
8. If, within three months of receiving the European Parliament's amendments, the Council, acting by a qualified majority
a) approves all those amendments, the act in question shall be deemed to have been adopted
(b) does not approve all the amendments, the President of the Council, in agreement with the President of the European Parliament, shall within six weeks convene a meeting of the Conciliation Committee.9. The Council shall act unanimously on the amendments on which the Commission has delivered a negative opinion.
Conciliation
10. The Conciliation Committee, which shall be composed of the members of the Council or their representatives and an equal number of members representing the European Parliament, shall have the task of reaching agreement on a joint text, by a qualified majority of the members of the Council or their representatives and by a majority of the members representing the European Parliament within six weeks of its being convened, on the basis of the positions of the European Parliament and the Council at second reading.
11. The Commission shall take part in the Conciliation Committee's proceedings and shall take all necessary initiatives with a view to reconciling the positions of the European Parliament and the Council12. If, within six weeks of its being convened, the Conciliation Committee does not approve the joint text, the proposed act shall be deemed not to have been adopted.
Third reading
13. If, within that period, the Conciliation Committee approves a joint text, the European Parliament, acting by a majority of the votes cast, and the Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall each have a period of six weeks from that approval in which to adopt the act in question in accordancewith the joint text. If they fail to do so, the proposed act shall be deemed not to have been adopted.
14. The periods of three months and six weeks referred to in this Article shall be extended by a maximum of one month and two weeks respectively at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council.
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, on a recommendation by the European Central Bank, or at the request of the Court of Justice, paragraph 2, the second sentence of paragraph 6, and paragraph 9 shall not apply.
In such cases, the European Parliament and the Council shall communicate the proposed act to the Commission with their positions at first and second readings. The European Parliament or the Council may request the opinion of the Commission throughout the procedure, which the Commission may also deliver on its own initiative. It may also, if it deems it necessary, take part in the ConciliationCommittee in accordance with paragraph 11.lenny_leonard wrote: »As the primary legal base for CCCTB is Article 94 TEC or Article 115 Lisbon (consolidated),
As regards CCCTB I think it would be Article 116.0 -
whatisayis wrote: »
As regards CCCTB I think it would be Article 116.As the primary legal base for CCCTB is Article 94 TEC or Article 115 Lisbon (consolidated),
Well, let's deal with that bit first - I refer you back to the report of the CCCTB working group:III. Basic structure of a possible CCCTB
1. General form
7. A proposal for a CCCTB would take the form of a proposal for a Directive under Art. 94 ECT, which requires unanimity in the Council. It will be impossible to lay down every detailed rule in the basic instrument. The Directive should therefore provide for implementing measures to be adopted under the Comitology Decision.
It's possible that the CCCTB working group are simply wrong, of course, and we are free to ignore what they say and make up our own minds. It isn't what you might call likely, though.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
It's possible that the CCCTB working group are simply wrong, of course, and we are free to ignore what they say and make up our own minds. It isn't what you might call likely, though.
cordially,
Scofflaw
The CCCTB has progressed beyond the working group and has reached the stage of a non-legislative proposal. I thought we were discussing how it might be implemented through Lisbon?0 -
whatisayis wrote: »As regards CCCTB I think it would be Article 116.
Aargh!!! [/head exploding]
You may think it should be Article 116, but it's not. And I'm not going to do the work on this one, because I know that the legal base for CCCTB is Article 94 TEC, which is Article 115 in Lisbon. So I'll tell you what: You come up with a good solid argument, with decent sources (i.e. not just your own interpretation, and nothing to do with Libertas, please) of why the legal base for CCCTB is 116, and I'll do the same for Article 115/94 TEC when you do. There's so much information on CCCTB on the web that if there's any reference to 116 (or Article 96 TEC, which is what you should be really looking for in the current framework) you'll find it. And we'll see whose argument stands up better to scrutiny.
Sorry to be so abrupt, but we continuously seem to be getting caught up on your own baseless interpretations of the Treaties.
Edit to add: I'm done with this for tonight as well.0 -
whatisayis wrote: »The CCCTB has progressed beyond the working group and has reached the stage of a non-legislative proposal. I thought we were discussing how it might be implemented through Lisbon?lenny_leonard wrote: »Aargh!!! [/head exploding]
You may think it should be Article 116, but it's not. And I'm not going to do the work on this one, because I know that the legal base for CCCTB is Article 94 TEC, which is Article 115 in Lisbon. So I'll tell you what: You come up with a good solid argument, with decent sources (i.e. not just your own interpretation, and nothing to do with Libertas, please) of why the legal base for CCCTB is 116, and I'll do the same for Article 115/94 TEC when you do. There's so much information on CCCTB on the web that if there's any reference to 116 (or Article 96 TEC, which is what you should be really looking for in the current framework) you'll find it. And we'll see whose argument stands up better to scrutiny.
Sorry to be so abrupt, but we continuously seem to be getting caught up on your own baseless interpretations of the Treaties.
Edit to add: I'm done with this for tonight as well.
Yep, think you need to put up the relevant part of 116.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
whatisayis wrote: »The CCCTB has progressed beyond the working group and has reached the stage of a non-legislative proposal. I thought we were discussing how it might be implemented through Lisbon?
We're also trying to stick with verifiable facts! The only result Google has for ccctb "non-legislative proposal" is this thread. There was supposed to be a legislative proposal in September 2008, but it didn't happen, and will not now happen within the lifetime of this Commission.
I think you'll find that CCCTB has not, in fact, "progressed beyond the working group" - unless you'd care to link to this non-legislative proposal?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
We're also trying to stick with verifiable facts! The only result Google has for ccctb "non-legislative proposal" is this thread. There was supposed to be a legislative proposal in September 2008, but it didn't happen, and will not now happen within the lifetime of this Commission. cordially,Scofflaw
So you therefore assume there is no CCCTB non legislative proposal?
Why don't you 'google' why there was no proposal in 2008?lenny_leonard wrote: »You come up with a good solid argument, with decent sources (i.e. not just your own interpretation, and nothing to do with Libertas, please)
I'm surprised at you Lenny. I thought I had actually met someone from the Yes side who didn't depend on the 'Everyone who votes No has to be a supporter of Libertas, Sinn Fein etc. etc.' argument to back up their position. I have quoted directly from the Treaty to back up every point I made but, as usual, the perception that the No side haven't got the intellect to have their own opinion prevails. Biggest mistake the Yes side made last time!
And from Seanie:
PS From the AH thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sam vimes
Fair enough http://static.boards.ie/vbulletin/im...lies/smile.gif
This from the guy who has yet to back up his opinion with any relevant link to the Treaty!
So, guys, you can all pat yourselves on the back and assume amongst yourselves that ye have proved your point. I'm not going to waste any more time in this pseudo debate.0
Advertisement