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 2 The Return!
Options
Comments
-
A touch sensitive?
The mention of abortion is still important in this country.
Your post is too sweeping for me to address it!
It is so sweeping I'll offend some group in defending my position!
..
?
ah jaysus - at 3 mins to midnight you wanted me to write a full diatribe on the treaty. come on!
my post was meant as a general overview to rant on about the treaty in full would take pages and most of it repeating what has been said.
I was just giving a general view with making the point that contry dick roche and the media's perception people are intelligent enough not to be brain washed by Declan Ganley. They voted no not cos of declan ganley but cos they wanted to.
surely you should have gathered that from my post and why bother replying? since you had nothing to add0 -
FutureTaoiseach wrote: »The yes side are the ones with the lies, telling us we'll be thrown out of the EU if we vote no, which is legally impossible. The men and women of 1916 were fighting for a sovereign, independent Ireland. We must not betray them by surrendering that sovereignty just because powerful foreign elites tell us to. No to the new Act of Union.
I think it's absolutely hilarious that you accuse the yes side of lying while you talk about the fictional EU elite, call the treaty the act of union and still have a sig suggesting that the treaty is a carbon copy of the constitution because it's 90% the same, deliberately ignoring that the 10% that was changed were the parts they objected to. I don't think the truth is high on your agenda tbh0 -
31/08/2009
Unite has called on its 60,000 Irish members to vote No in the second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in October.
The country's second largest trade union group said the additional guarantees Ireland had received on workers' rights were unsatisfactory.
The union was also one of the leading opponents during the first referendum last year0 -
More like 95%. Here is a detailed comparison of the two treaties by former Danish MEP Jens Peter Bonde, which underline the insult to the peoples of France and Holland inherent in its provisions being almost the same. The differences are miniscule and relate to symbolic aspects like the flag and anthem. The notion that the peoples of France and Holland voted no because of the flag and anthem is the height of nonsense.I think it's absolutely hilarious that you accuse the yes side of lying while you talk about the fictional EU elite, call the treaty the act of union and still have a sig suggesting that the treaty is a carbon copy of the constitution because it's 90% the same, deliberately ignoring that the 10% that was changed were the parts they objected to. I don't think the truth is high on your agenda tbh
That Lisbon is the EU Constitution under another name (save say 5% or less), is the worst kept secret in the EU. Even the elites admit this:A referendum now would bring Europe into danger. There will be no treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK.The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content … The proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through the old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary … But lift the lid and look in the toolbox: all the same innovative and effective tools are there, just as they were carefully crafted by the European Convention.The good thing is that all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters - the core - is left.Bertie Ahern,24 June 2007 wrote:They haven't changed the substance - 90 per cent of it is still there.Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister,speech at London School of Econmics, 21 February 2007 wrote:They decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception. Where they got this perception from is a mystery to me. In order to make our citizens happy, to produce a document that they will never understand! But, there is some truth [in it]. Because if this is the kind of document that the IGC will produce, any Prime Minister - imagine the UK Prime Minister - can go to the Commons and say ‘Look, you see, it’s absolutely unreadable, it’s the typical Brussels treaty, nothing new, no need for a referendum.’ Should you succeed in understanding it at first sight there might be some reason for a referendum, because it would mean that there is something new.The most striklng change ( between the EU Constitution in its older and newer version ) is perhaps that in order to enable some governments to reassure their electorates that the changes will have no constitutional implications, the idea of a new and simpler treaty containing all the provisions governing the Union has now been dropped in favour of a huge series of individual amendments to two existing treaties. Virtual incomprehensibilty has thus replaced simplicity as the key approach to EU reform. As for the changes now proposed to be made to the constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum.The substance of the constitution is preserved.That is a fact.The substance of what was agreed in 2004 has been retained. What is gone is the term ‘constitution’0 -
FutureTaoiseach wrote: »More like 95%. Here is a detailed comparison of the two treaties by former Danish MEP Jens Peter Bonde, which underline the insult to the peoples of France and Holland inherent in its provisions being almost the same. The differences are miniscule and relate to symbolic aspects like the flag and anthem. The notion that the peoples of France and Holland voted no because of the flag and anthem is the height of nonsense.
That Lisbon is the EU Constitution under another name (save say 5% or less), is the worst kept secret in the EU. Even the elites admit this:
I suppose I'll ask you again just for the craic: If the French and Dutch people only objected to 5% on a wide scale, why should they change the other 95%? What would be the point?0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 9866
FutureTaoiseach wrote: »Are you really a no voter?
I disagree. I would refer you to a case last September 3rd, where the ECJ struck down an EU regulation responsible for implementation of a UN Security Council Resolution freezing the assets of suspected terrorists. Ominously for the Government, they referred to the UNSC resolution (the highest instrument of international law) as "an international agreement". They argued that they were entitled to "review" the resolution on the grounds that an EU regulation was implementing it, and because there were no provisions for appeal for the effected persons. Well some of the 'guarantee' were enshrined in European Council 'decisions', which have some bearing in EU law but which can be annulled by the ECJ if they are judged as falling foul of the Treaties. But the provisions on workers-rights and the Commissioner are not contained in the Council decisions and therefore are not legally-binding. The point is this. If the ECJ won't even respect a UNSC resolution - the highest form of international law - then how can we trust them to respect an 'international agreement' which hasn't even undergone any ratification procedures in a member state? :rolleyes:
.
It is not a secret that Council decisions can be ruled on by the ECJ if they conflict with the existing treaties. Since the guarantees are guarantees about what is not in the Treaty the probability of such a conflict happening is exactly nil. There is a legal analysis from statewatch here.
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/jun/lisbon-ireland.pdf
.Another problem with the guarantees is the plan to insert some of them as a Protocol in Croatia or Iceland's Accession Treaty. For one thing, Liberal Democrat UK MEP Andrew Duff claims this would be illegal and subject to court challenge, as EU accession treaties can only contain provisions on the accession process, rather than extraneous matters contained in an Irish protocol. Secondly, it is unclear if we will still get the protocol if these countries reject EU membership, which is far from unlikely. The latest poll in Iceland shows a majority opposed to EU membership 48-34, while in Croatia the gap is just 8.5% with respect to the "yes" side lead. So if these countries do not join the EU, our protocols fall.
I know for a fact that you are well aware that the guarantees could easily be dealt with in a mini treaty of their own if it looks like the delays in a future accession treaty will be long term. The reason the next accession treaty was chosen is that it is likely to happen in the next few years and would be the easiest and most logical way to achieve this.
As for Andrew Duff he wrote about his concerns re the mechanism for achieving the protocols before it was finalised. Since then he has welcomed the format of the guarantees, achieved by the Irish Government. But again I am certain you are aware of this as well, and are being selective in what you are posting. If you are going to use the argument from authority, you could at least use that authorities most recent position on the matter.
http://federalists.cafebabel.com/en/post/2009/06/19/Andrew-Duff-Welcomes-Irish-guarantees-on-LisbonFollowing the agreement of the Heads of Government on Ireland’s legal dispositions today at the EU summit, UEF President Andrew Duff said:
The Irish government has done well to craft interpretations of the Lisbon treaty which are specific to the Irish case and which will not affect its interpretation in other States. The substance of the original treaty contract is untouched. But Ireland has got what it needs to clarify the meaning of the treaty so that its second referendum will be free from the distortions and confusion which marked the first referendum campaign.
Coupled with the decision not to reduce the size of the European Commission (as long as the Lisbon treaty enters into force), the pro-treaty parties have won enough to fight a self-confident, united and successful campaign to win over Irish hearts and minds in favour of a stronger and more democratic European Union.0 -
They voted on the package in a referendum. The referendum genie cannot be put back in the bottle. That which is rejected by a referendum can only - in my opinion - only be morally overturned by referenda. The 5% relates to names and symbols. The institutional changes are basically the same. In answer to your question, I think that it depends on whether a 5% difference relates to whether or not it relates to the powers of the institutions or of the balance of power between the member states anf the EU. Clearly it does not in this case. A 5% change consisting not of institutional changes but rather of names/flags/anthems is not adequate to avoid a referendum imho. We must respect the spirit of referenda decisions - not just the letter.I suppose I'll ask you again just for the craic: If the French and Dutch people only objected to 5% on a wide scale, why should they change the other 95%? What would be the point?
If the French/Dutch govts think their peoples' concerns have been addressed, then let them prove it with referenda. They won't because it would mean another no - as admitted by Sarkozy as reported in the Daily Telegraph in 2007.
Since this is the first time a member state has received these kind of 'guarantees' as to what is not in a Treaty without it being annexed to the Treaty itself, it is judicial uncharter waters. The ECJ will decided what it means, and whether it stands. In that context, the article is speculative.marco polo wrote:It is not a secret that Council decisions can be ruled on by the ECJ if they conflict with the existing treaties. Since the guarantees are guarantees about what is not in the Treaty the probability of such a conflict happening is exactly nil. There is a legal analysis from statewatch here.0 -
Is there a law anywhere that says that? Also, what was accepted was not what was rejected. You might think it was mostly the same but it wasn't the same thing that was rejected.FutureTaoiseach wrote: »They voted on the package in a referendum. The referendum genie cannot be put back in the bottle. That which is rejected by a referendum can only - in my opinion - only be morally overturned by referenda.
The way I see it, the only things that need changing are the things that were objected to. If the institutional changes weren't the reasons given I see no reason to get rid them. Just because you object to them doesn't mean that's what the French and the Dutch objected toFutureTaoiseach wrote: »The 5% relates to names and symbols. The institutional changes are basically the same. In answer to your question, I think that it depends on whether a 5% difference relates to whether or not it relates to the powers of the institutions or of the balance of power between the member states anf the EU. Clearly it does not in this case. A 5% change consisting not of institutional changes but rather of names/flags/anthems is not adequate to avoid a referendum imho. We must respect the spirit of referenda decisions - not just the letter.0 -
Only the voters themselves truly know why they voted the way they did, and consequently, only they - through referendum - should be allowed to reverse their decision. At least an electorate doesn't have party-whips forcing them to vote against their consciences.Is there a law anywhere that says that? Also, what was accepted was not what was rejected. You might think it was mostly the same but it wasn't the same thing that was rejected.
The way I see it, the only things that need changing are the things that were objected to. If the institutional changes weren't the reasons given I see no reason to get rid them.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 9866
FutureTaoiseach wrote: »Since this is the first time a member state has received these kind of 'guarantees' as to what is not in a Treaty without it being annexed to the Treaty itself, it is judicial uncharter waters. The ECJ will decided what it means, and whether it stands. In that context, the article is speculative.
It is orders of magnitude less speculative than the above statement. Where do you see the conflict between the guarantees and the contents of the treaty yourself? Give me your doomsday scenario.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 9866
31/08/2009
Unite has called on its 60,000 Irish members to vote No in the second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in October.
The country's second largest trade union group said the additional guarantees Ireland had received on workers' rights were unsatisfactory.
The union was also one of the leading opponents during the first referendum last year
It is a shame that they see fit reccomend a vote against the treaty over essentially one issue.
The vast majority of European Trade Unions recognise that Lisbon is a good deal on workers rights.
http://www.etuc.org/IMG/pdf_Irish_Congress_of_Trade_Unions_9-10_July_2009.pdf0 -
If we reject it again, will we be asked a 3rd time?0
-
FutureTaoiseach wrote: »Only the voters themselves truly know why they voted the way they did, and consequently, only they - through referendum - should be allowed to reverse their decision. At least an electorate doesn't have party-whips forcing them to vote against their consciences.
Sarkosy made it clear during the election that he would put through Lisbon without a referendum. If the people didn't want it that was their chance to say so.
Also, your opinion on how other countries should ratify treaties is entirely irrelevant. It's the business of the French people alone. I find it very hypocritical that a person who is so against other countries telling us what to do over Lisbon and in general is so adamant that these countries should change to suit what you think is right.0 -
If we reject it again, will we be asked a 3rd time?
If we reject it again and we can give a list of things that we object to in it, what will most likely happen and what should happen is that the parts we object to will be renegotiated. There is no reason to throw out things that no one objects to. The problem last time was that the majority reason for rejection was lack of understanding and there's nothing in the treaty that can be changed to address that. All that can happen is that we're given extra time to learn about it, which is what happened0 -
Join Date:Posts: 9866
If we reject it again, will we be asked a 3rd time?
No, in light of the guarantees I cannot see any way that the treaty can be clarified or changed further that would give any grounds for a third referendum.
There will be further EU treaties post a rejected Lisbon, but what exactly will the Irish negotiators be looking for in any new deal?0 -
Wrong. Lisbon didn't even exist when he was elected. He promised a "mini-treaty".Sam Vimes wrote:Sarkosy made it clear during the election that he would put through Lisbon without a referendum. If the people didn't want it that was their chance to say so.
Well for a start, we need to recognise the difference between a legal-guarantee and a political promise. Some of the assurances are not in EU council decision form. A European Council "decision" is an instrument of EU law, albeit one subordinate to the Treaties, akin to how Irish law is subordinate to the Irish Constitution. The question of workers' rights is not included in the Council decisions, and is merely included in a statement by the Council. So that is not part of EU law. The same is true of the promise on the Commissioner. So as far as I am concerned, that makes these issues fair game in the referendum campaign. There is nothing preventing the other member states reneging on the Commission promise after a yes vote.marco_polo wrote: »It is orders of magnitude less speculative than the above statement. Where do you see the conflict between the guarantees and the contents of the treaty yourself? Give me your doomsday scenario.
While criticising the guarantees, they don't reflect my underlying reason for voting no, which is the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the consequence increasing in ECJ jurisdiction in its subject matter. I'm more interested in the Charter and the wording of the referendum legislation than I am in the guarantees. I will say this however: while the guarantees are not a threat to Ireland, they are inadequate in respect to questions like taxation. They say that nothing in Lisbon will affect the "field of application" of our taxation policy. What does that mean when confronted by questions like Commissioner Kovacs crusade for a CCCTB (Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base)? Kovacs has repeatedly threatened to attempt to invoke Enhanced Cooperation to impose destination-based corporate-taxes on businesses, whereby companies headquartered in one member state would pay their taxes to the countries of sales-destination rather than where they are based. For a small economy that exports 85% of what we produce, that is troubling as it could deprive the Irish Exchequer of billions in taxation revenue. It may well be true that Lisbon will not force us to change our corporate-tax rates. But if Irish-based companies are forced to pay their taxes to foreign-govts on the basis of exporting to their countries, and to do so proportionately as Kovacs wants, then to all intents and purposes, our corporation-tax rate would become irrelevant as a factor attracting FDI here, because the relevant corporations would be paying the Franco-German rates anyway.
Now you may argue this has nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty. I accept that in theory, CCCTB could happen regardless. But supposing after Lisbon went through, the Council of Ministers uses Enhanced Cooperation (9 countries) to push it through, and the Irish govt attempted a legal challenge in the ECJ. Is there not then a risk that the new wording of Article 113 (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) as amended by Lisbon could make a legal-challenge less likely to succeed, on the basis of the need to "combat distortions of competition"?:The Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition."
I'm also concerned about the new Article 269 of the TFEU, which appears to empower the European Council to raise revenue ("own resources"):The Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonization of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market within the time limit laid down in Article 14.Article 269, TFEU wrote:The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies. The Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall unanimously and after consulting the European Parliament adopt a decision laying down the provisions relating to the system of own resources of the Union. In this context it may establish new categories of own resources or abolish an existing category.0 -
marco_polo wrote: »No, in light of the guarantees I cannot see any way that the treaty can be clarified or changed further that would give any grounds for a third referendum.
There will be further EU treaties post a rejected Lisbon, but what exactly will the Irish negotiators be looking for in any new deal?
Well it can be changed further, the question is what will be the extent of those changes. It could be that 90% of the treaty gets renegotiated but it would be madness to suggest that people have a fundamental objection to every single word of the treaty. What's for sure is that we won't be asked to vote on the same text again but if the Irish people can't give a clear indication as to what parts of the treaty they object to the EU would be put in the very difficult position of knowing we don't want it but not quite knowing why0 -
If we reject it again and we can give a list of things that we object to in it, what will most likely happen and what should happen is that the parts we object to will be renegotiated. There is no reason to throw out things that no one objects to. The problem last time was that the majority reason for rejection was lack of understanding and there's nothing in the treaty that can be changed to address that. All that can happen is that we're given extra time to learn about it, which is what happened
incorrect... if we dont pass it this time there will be no lisbon treaty as labour will not be in power in England...any futher attempts to bring in the treaty will be defeated by the brits just like it should have been the first time around0 -
FutureTaoiseach wrote: »Wrong. Lisbon didn't even exist when he was elected. He promised a "mini-treaty".
Regardless, they knew it would go through without a referendum and they voted him in anyway. If they were worried about it and they fundamentally objected to it that was their chance to stop it and they didn't. Not to mention that if a referendum was as important to them as it is to you that was their chance to stop it and they didn't. Your opinions on the morally correct way for France to run its internal politics is as irrelevant as you think other countries opinions on our internal politics are.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 9866
FutureTaoiseach wrote: »Wrong. Lisbon didn't even exist when he was elected. He promised a "mini-treaty". Well for a start, we need to recognise the difference between a legal-guarantee and a political promise. Some of the assurances are not in EU council decision form. A European Council "decision" is an instrument of EU law, albeit one subordinate to the Treaties, akin to how Irish law is subordinate to the Irish Constitution. The question of workers' rights is not included in the Council decisions, and is merely included in a statement by the Council. So that is not part of EU law. The same is true of the promise on the Commissioner. So as far as I am concerned, that makes these issues fair game in the referendum campaign. There is nothing preventing the other member states reneging on the Commission promise after a yes vote.
Aside from paranoia is there any reason to believe that the other 26 member states would renage on such a promise as the commissioner. If your view of the EU is as gang of 26 other countries that exist for the sole purpose of bullying and lying to Ireland, then I could see how such a view would make sense.
Do you think that any EU treaty would pass ever again in Ireland or indeed any other EU countries if the commissioner deal did not go through? The credibility of the EU in the eyes of all member states would be finished.
While criticising the guarantees, they don't reflect my underlying reason for voting no, which is the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the consequence increasing in ECJ jurisdiction in its subject matter. I'm more interested in the Charter and the wording of the referendum legislation than I am in the guarantees. I will say this however: while the guarantees are not a threat to Ireland, they are inadequate in respect to questions like taxation. They say that nothing in Lisbon will affect the "field of application" of our taxation policy. What does that mean when confronted by questions like Commissioner Kovacs crusade for a CCCTB (Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base)? Kovacs has repeatedly threatened to attempt to invoke Enhanced Cooperation to impose destination-based corporate-taxes on businesses, whereby companies headquartered in one member state would pay their taxes to the countries of sales-destination rather than where they are based. For a small economy that exports 85% of what we produce, that is troubling as it could deprive the Irish Exchequer of billions in taxation revenue. It may well be true that Lisbon will not force us to change our corporate-tax rates. But if Irish-based companies are forced to pay their taxes to foreign-govts on the basis of exporting to their countries, and to do so proportionately as Kovacs wants, then to all intents and purposes, our corporation-tax rate would become irrelevant as a factor attracting FDI here, because the relevant corporations would be paying the Franco-German rates anyway.
Now you may argue this has nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty. I accept that in theory, CCCTB could happen regardless. But supposing after Lisbon went through, the Council of Ministers uses Enhanced Cooperation (9 countries) to push it through, and the Irish govt attempted a legal challenge in the ECJ. Is there not then a risk that the new wording of Article 113 (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) as amended by Lisbon could make a legal-challenge less likely to succeed, on the basis of the need to "combat distortions of competition"?:
If Indirect Taxation in fact means Direct Taxation then yes it is possible. :rolleyes:Article 113 (ex Article 93 TEC below): "The Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition."0 -
Advertisement
-
incorrect... if we dont pass it this time there will be no lisbon treaty as labour will not be in power in England...any futher attempts to bring in the treaty will be defeated by the brits just like it should have been the first time around
You say incorrect and then write a post that suggests you didn't read mine. I said that if it gets rejected, the parts we object to will be renegotiated. At that point it will no longer be the Lisbon treaty, it will be a new one that everyone can agree on. It's crazy to suggest that every word of it has to be thrown in the bin, that nothing whatsoever can be salvaged from a 300 page document0 -
marco_polo wrote: »Aside from paranoia is there any reason to believe that the other 26 member states would renage on such a promise as the commissioner.
I wonder if there's any point in trying to convince someone who thinks that blatantly reneging on an international agreement between member states is a real possibility.0 -
If we reject it again, will we be asked a 3rd time?
When Lisbon is rejected again, just like the last time, the world will end according to the yes camp. Seas will rise, land masses will uplift and tear themselves apart, the skies will darken and thunderous, horrific storms of biblical proportions will wreak unimaginable destruction on us all.0 -
-
You say incorrect and then write a post that suggests you didn't read mine. I said that if it gets rejected, the parts we object to will be renegotiated. At that point it will no longer be the Lisbon treaty, it will be a new one that everyone can agree on. It's crazy to suggest that every word of it has to be thrown in the bin, that nothing whatsoever can be salvaged from a 300 page document
And you obviously dont understand mine... they will try to save lisbon if it is defeated change its name or whatever but with labour gone a new document would want to be something special for the brits to agree... Throw it in the bin its not even worthy of that... what you and others seem to miss... maybe because your blinded by the bs tossed out by members of the eu is that all this does is give the countries with money the more power and control... i wouldnt turst them to cut my grass not to mind decide my future0 -
I'm referring to the reference to "turnover taxes". I'm concerned that corporate-tax will be remodelled as a sales/turnover tax on exports. It would be the logical conclusion of a CCCTB plan, as Commissioner Kovacs wants the destination-taxes paid proportionately to the govt of sales-destination. Definitionally, a turnover tax is a sales-tax.marco_polo wrote: »Aside from paranoia is there any reason to believe that the other 26 member states would renage on such a promise as the commissioner. If your view of the EU is as gang of 26 other countries that exist for the sole purpose of bullying and lying to Ireland, then I could see how such a view would make sense.
Do you think that any EU treaty would pass ever again in Ireland or indeed any other EU countries if the commissioner deal did not go through? The credibility of the EU in the eyes of all member states would be finished.
If Indirect Taxation in fact means Direct Taxation then yes it is possible. :rolleyes:0 -
Didn't the conservatives simply say they'd put Lisbon to the vote? They never said anything about what comes after (that I remember). They'll agree to anything that is favourable to them and will get them elected. If the British people wanted a Yes to Lisbon, you would be guaranteed that the Conservatives would be telling everyone that they wanted a Yes on it too.And you obviously dont understand mine... they will try to save lisbon if it is defeated change its name or whatever but with labour gone a new document would want to be something special for the brits to agree... Throw it in the bin its not even worthy of that... what you and others seem to miss... maybe because your blinded by the bs tossed out by members of the eu is that all this does is give the countries with money the more power and control... i wouldnt turst them to cut my grass not to mind decide my future
After they're in, they can change their minds if they want to.0 -
FYI, the Tories have said they will call for a no vote in the UK.Didn't the conservatives simply say they'd put Lisbon to the vote? They never said anything about what comes after (that I remember). They'll agree to anything that is favourable to them and will get them elected. If the British people wanted a Yes to Lisbon, you would be guaranteed that the Conservatives would be telling everyone that they wanted a Yes on it too.
After they're in, they can change their minds if they want to.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 9866
FutureTaoiseach wrote: »I'm referring to the reference to "turnover taxes". I'm concerned that corporate-tax will be remodelled as a sales/turnover tax on exports. It would be the logical conclusion of a CCCTB plan, as Commissioner Kovacs wants the destination-taxes paid proportionately to the govt of sales-destination. Definitionally, a turnover tax is a sales-tax.
You cannot reclassify a Direct Tax as an Indirect Tax, the main obstacle standing in the way is the fact that it is a direct tax. Could this point be any clearer?
Corporation tax is a tax on profits not turnover or sales.0 -
Advertisement
-
To Lisbon. And this is part of their Election promises. If Lisbon is renegotiated, they haven't said they'll definitely vote no again. They want to be elected and since so many people in the UK are against Lisbon, pandering to them will give them a hell of a boost.FutureTaoiseach wrote: »FYI, the Tories have said they will call for a no vote in the UK.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement