Irexit party yay or nay?

4068ac1elhodqr

seamus wrote: »

To be fair, you're the one who claimed that more than half the electorate approved Brexit, which is factually incorrect.

That said, overall I dislike the argument since IMO not casting your vote is an implicit approval of the outcome, whatever that outcome is.

But you need to pick your words carefully if you're going for accuracy

Fair enough, so to simplify it further:

17.3m people voted to join.
17.4m people voted to leave.

knipex

Arthur Daley wrote: »

I don't really understand what powers the ecb has now that they didn't have in 2002. They issued our currency in 2002, they had report after report on the property concentration in the economy. But they claim they had inadequate powers over the bsnking system. Doesn't make sense. If they were currency issuer but had no control over the credit supply within their balliwick, then I think they were incompetant.

The Irish Central bank was in change of banking policy. The Irish government was in charge of government policy.

The Government and the Irish central bank had multiple tools which they could have used to control credit expansion. Limiting borrowing, setting minimum deposits, implementing a real property tax to limit property prices.

Some of those tools were implemented on this occasion, particularly on borrowing limits and controls, minimum deposits etc (which people are screaming to get lifted which just proved that people are idiots). The state could do more to limit property prices including real property taxes, site taxes etc.

But can you imagine the uproar is an Irish government tried to implement a real property tax that was actually linked to property prices and the increases in same. ??

The Euro isnt blame free but we cannot ignore our responsibilities our mistakes. The means to prevent the credit bubble were and remain in Ireland.

listermint

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

Fair enough, so to simplify it further:

17.3m people voted to join.
17.4m people voted to leave.

And the rest of the country didnt vote.

So are you now saying what you posted earlier was a lie ?

Because it seems that way

4068ac1elhodqr

listermint wrote: »

And the rest of the country didnt vote.

So are you now saying what you posted earlier was a lie ?

Because it seems that way

Nope, it really depends how much you want to dance around the subject using turnout percentages, the weather or other proportional/representaive methodology.

I simply said 'more people voted to leave, than to join' is that not correct?

Simple really, is 17.4m is more people than 17.3m, yes or no?

edit: Also said more than half voted to leave (52%) if you wanted to get pedantic, fair enough should have said 'of those that voted'.
The fact is the vote is recognised and stands as a democratic or majority type decision.
Those who don't vote simple don't wish to express an opinion, and thereby knowingly leave the decision up to those who did vote.

listermint

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

Nope, it really depends how much you want to dance around the subject using turnout percentages, the weather or other proportional/representaive methodology.

I simply said 'more people voted to leave, than to join' is that not correct?

Simple really, is 17.4m is more people than 17.3m, yes or no?

I dont know the exact wording you said, Edit is an available feature.

Im having trouble policing the lies from people with obvious agenda's who are quite happy to repeat 'facts' or daily mail style headline articles.

So in short i dont know if that was the wording you used. but you have used electorate several times which is not accurate.

There is more electorate than went to vote, would you not agree?

prawnsambo

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

Nope, it really depends how much you want to dance around the subject using turnout percentages, the weather or other proportional/representaive methodology.

I simply said 'more people voted to leave, than to join' is that not correct?

Simple really, is 17.4m is more people than 17.3m, yes or no?

Meh. Proportionally what were the percentages? Because the electorate in 1975 was a good deal smaller than it was in 2016. Back in 1975 the total electorate was a smidgin over 40 million and the turnout was 65%. So the 17.3 million made up 67% of the total vote which is rather more than the 51.8% that voted for brexit in 2016.

knipex

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

Some would also say it's slightly ignorant to disregard this core ambition of the folks in the EC. To not prepare for such an eventuality is lazy at best, especially as the UK positions itself as a low-corp-tax country (down to 17% shortly).

Maybe they're simply afraid of scaring off multinationals, or the possibility of dredging up more €15bn type fines due to 'tax irregularities'.

Why do you keep repeating the same lies even after its been demonstrated to you over and over that you are wrong.

There was no claim of tax irregularities.. no fine for tax irregularities...

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

Currently, yes it may not be possible to enforce tax harmonisation, but should it be ruled out entirely in the future as a factor?

Neither should the asteroid impact or the arrival of aliens or a mass pandemic.

All possible..

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

The EU’s tax commissioner Pierre Moscovici previously stated that the Commission was considering using extraordinary powers to strip EU states of their veto power on tax matters to break resistance over blocked legislation (directly referencing Ireland and Hungary).

And I'm considering buying a Ferrari. Not going to happen either.

Politically any attempt to ride roughshod over the the competence of nation states woudl be suicide.. Even those nation that want tax harmonization would not tolerate that door being opened.

4068ac1elhodqr

listermint wrote: »

There is more electorate than went to vote, would you not agree?

You can dress it up anyway you want, and refer to the '?dailymail' in all your replies. You either accept the outcome as 'democratic majority type decision', as everyone else has done (including their parliment) and get on with it, or you reject democracy and all of it's systems relating to election results.

WinnyThePoo

Just seen on Twitter that Hermann Kelly is denying any involvement in Ukip. Wasn't he the communications officer for UKIP?.

4068ac1elhodqr

knipex wrote: »

And I'm considering buying a Ferrari. Not going to happen either.

Perhaps, but if the EU’s tax commissioner said he was considering buying a Ferrari, he may well go out and buy one.

When the Commission said they were considering using extraordinary powers to strip EU states of their veto power on tax matters to break resistance over blocked legislation.

- There is some chance it might happen in the future, it's an agenda they have, a desire, a topic on their mind, and this a much greater chance than an silly comparision, to the chance of an asteroid impact, obviously.

Hurrache

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

Nope, it really depends how much you want to dance around the subject using turnout percentages,

None of which is related to the point you made.

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

I simply said 'more people voted to leave, than to join' is that not correct?

No, that's not what you said.

demfad

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

Nope, it really depends how much you want to dance around the subject using turnout percentages, the weather or other proportional/representaive methodology.

I simply said 'more people voted to leave, than to join' is that not correct?

Simple really, is 17.4m is more people than 17.3m, yes or no?

edit: Also said more than half voted to leave (52%) if you wanted to get pedantic, fair enough should have said 'of those that voted'.
The fact is the vote is recognised and stands as a democratic or majority type decision.
Those who don't vote simple don't wish to express an opinion, and thereby knowingly leave the decision up to those who did vote.

Vote leave committed crimes in order to win the referendum. This included overspending and coordinating between campaigns.

It is not just my opinion that they committed crimes but this is a designation by the Electoral Commision who have authority to sanction campaigns and indeed are sanctioning Offical Vote Leave, BeLeave and Leave.EU.

If a runner or cyclist wins a race by cheating do you still award them the race?
Do you say they might have won anyway? Or prove that they would not have won?
No. You either award it to the second placed clean competitor or you rerun it.

Talking about majorities etc should be irrelevant.

Because of the bizaare current situation with the Tories and also with the opposition breaking the law does not seem to be such a big deal anymore.

The people shouting loudest for democracy are the ones who have undermined it by cheating.

4068ac1elhodqr

Hurrache wrote: »

No, that's not what you said.

Said 'more than half voted to leave (52%)' yes if you wanted to get pedantic, should have said 'of those that voted'.

But here's a serious question, do you reject the outcome of the brexit vote?

4068ac1elhodqr

demfad wrote: »

Vote leave committed crimes....
.... committed crimes
...... Talking about majorities etc should be irrelevant.
..... breaking the law does not seem to be such a big deal anymore.
..... by cheating.

Took out a few lines, but the summary appears to imply some sort of 'conspiracy', whereby you reject the outcome of the brexit vote, fair enough.

prawnsambo

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

Perhaps, but if the EU’s tax commissioner said he was considering buying a Ferrari, he may well go out and buy one.

When the Commission said they were considering using extraordinary powers to strip EU states of their veto power on tax matters to break resistance over blocked legislation.

- There is some chance it might happen in the future, it's an agenda they have, a desire, a topic on their mind, and this a much greater chance than an silly comparision, to the chance of an asteroid impact, obviously.

You love your boldface.


The suggestion was to use qualified majorities rather than the current unainmous decision requirement. I wouldn't be dismissive of it, but it rears its head every few years and then disappears again. Some EU countries have said that until the EU starts paying all pensions, it's a dead duck. Extraordinary powers sounds better than qualified majorities I suppose. Especially in bold print.

Hurrache

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

Said 'more than half voted to leave (52%)' yes if you wanted to get pedantic, should have said 'of those that voted'.

You didn't, you said

For better or worse 52% of the UK electorate made a choice,

listermint

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

Took out a few lines, but the summary appears to imply some sort of 'conspiracy', whereby you reject the outcome of the brexit vote, fair enough.

Imply a conspiracy ? There is evidence of external foreign power influence. its not a conspiracy.

where are you getting your actual information from ? Facebook ?

No let me guess RT. because MSM is bad news right ?

4068ac1elhodqr

listermint wrote: »

Imply a conspiracy ? There is evidence of external foreign power influence. its not a conspiracy.....

You should quickly address you findings to their parliment for consideration, as they seem to motoring ahead with this atrocity, quick before March '19 comes round!

Whatabout the Chinese, surely they we're involved in Brexit too, oh and the Koreans, big Kim etc.

Thougt it was the only the dailymail that was the hyped-up media here. Is there a 'safe media list' to look out for in the newsagents, should TV's all be burnt, what about library books, has anyone vetted them all for coded messages?

listermint

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

You should quickly address you findings to their parliment for consideration, as they seem to motoring ahead with this atrocity, quick before March '19 comes round!

Whatabout the Chinese, surely they we're involved in Brexit too, oh and the Koreans, big Kim etc.

Thougt it was the only the dailymail that was the hyped-up media here. Is there a 'safe media list' to look out for in the newsagents, should TV's all be burnt, what about library books, has anyone vetted them all for coded messages?

Safe to say you definitely get you're information from dubious sources.

I get it now, it all makes more sense.


Possibly the reason your in this thread for an 'irexit' It makes for quality comedy, because ultimately that is what it is. Something that should be ridiculed an idea for conspiracy theorists and people who just want to burn stuff down.

I for one will be hear to tear down stupid arguments for it and make sure they dont gain any traction in my immediate vicinity.

oscarBravo

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

Some would also say it's slightly ignorant to disregard this core ambition of the folks in the EC. To not prepare for such an eventuality is lazy at best, especially as the UK positions itself as a low-corp-tax country (down to 17% shortly).

OK, I'll play along and explain this to you as if you don't already know it:

Direct taxation is not an EU competence.

What does that mean?

It means that there is no provision whatsoever in the EU treaties for the EU to have any say whatsoever in setting income or corporation tax rates.

What would it take for direct taxation to become an EU competence?

The treaties would have to change.

How does that happen?

Every single member state has to ratify the amended treaties.

So, in fact, you're arguing that we need to start making plans for the possibility that we, and 26 other countries, will voluntarily cede control over our direct taxation rates.

Of course, you're not putting it in those terms, because in those terms it's obvious that it ain't gonna happen. Instead, you continue with your "sky might fall" rhetoric:

Currently, yes it may not be possible to enforce tax harmonisation, but should it be ruled out entirely in the future as a factor?

It can be ruled out until such time as 27 sovereign nation-states voluntarily relinquish the ability to set their own tax rates, yes.

If you think there's a likelihood of that happening, you'll have to offer more than transparent fearmongering to support it.

The EU’s tax commissioner Pierre Moscovici previously stated that the Commission was considering using extraordinary powers to strip EU states of their veto power on tax matters to break resistance over blocked legislation (directly referencing Ireland and Hungary).

Fascinating. What extraordinary powers is he planning to use to force sovereign nations to amend the EU treaties?

4068ac1elhodqr

listermint wrote: »

... tear down stupid arguments for it and make sure they dont gain any traction in my immediate vicinity.

I get it now, it all makes more sense.

Call anything you don't agree with as 'stupid'. Reject outright the event known as Brexit (a conspiracy created by foreign powers it seems!).

Deny any discussion of matters that aren't of your taste - ah how very democratic of you, kind sir.

For one I don't support Irexit under current conditions, but going forward 5yrs or so in a 'changing Europe', can envisage (not desire) there may well be some growing interest for it, from others or the public at large.

listermint

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

I get it now, it all makes more sense.

Call anything you don't agree with as 'stupid'. Reject outright the event known as Brexit (a conspiracy created by foreign powers it seems!).

Deny any discussion of matters that aren't of your taste - ah how very democratic of you, kind sir.

For one I don't support Irexit under current conditions, but going forward 5yrs or so in a 'changing Europe', can envisage (not desire) there may well be some growing interest for it, from others or the public at large.

The opinion polls and all stats disagree with you.

Your a man for stats, So it stands to reason that you are letting your own desires get the better of you. 'You can use terms like' dont support or no desire all you like. The content of the posts speak for themselves. There is no hiding that.


Again the polls speak for themselves there is no appetite for this diet in Ireland. long may it continue.

4068ac1elhodqr

oscarBravo wrote: »

Fascinating. What extraordinary powers is he planning to use to force sovereign nations to amend the EU treaties?

That's a question better to address to the EU tax commissioner. Extraordinary powers mean exactly that, powers that don't currently exist or of the norm.

He suggested stripping veto powers, who knows for sure. If there is a will from those in power, surely there is also a way. Yes two countries may object, but all the rest may be in favour.

Didn't they force Apple to hand over €15bn to Ireland that it didn't even want?

Hurrache

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

I get it now, it all makes more sense.

Call anything you don't agree with as 'stupid'. Reject outright the event known as Brexit (a conspiracy created by foreign powers it seems!).

Deny any discussion of matters that aren't of your taste - ah how very democratic of you, kind sir.

For one I don't support Irexit under current conditions, but going forward 5yrs or so in a 'changing Europe', can envisage (not desire) there may well be some growing interest for it, from others or the public at large.

You're completely unable to debate your points with any facts or evidence to back up your claims. When you get pulled up on it you go on on a strop?

Rhineshark

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

You should quickly address you findings to their parliment for consideration, as they seem to motoring ahead with this atrocity, quick before March '19 comes round!

Whatabout the Chinese, surely they we're involved in Brexit too, oh and the Koreans, big Kim etc.

Thougt it was the only the dailymail that was the hyped-up media here. Is there a 'safe media list' to look out for in the newsagents, should TV's all be burnt, what about library books, has anyone vetted them all for coded messages?

What on earth are you bibbling about?

Also, I thought people were pretty aware that Russia had been meddling in pretty much every major vote that year to greater or lesser extent. Including the UK, Germany and France. Have you been under a rock for the past few years?

Now, this does not mean that Russian interference alone did it. The general approach was stirring trouble and thry managed to hit on a sore point in the US and UK. Things snowballed from there. But to deny any Russian influence at all and start off about North Korea is basically Trumps "It could have been a 400lb guy in his mother's basement in New Jersey". Don't be daft. No-one's falling for it.


I suggest you look at Carole Cadwalladr's work to start with and refrain from pointless sarcasm when you rather clearly don't have the first notion of what you're talking about on the point.

prawnsambo

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

That's a question better to address to the EU tax commissioner. Extraordinary powers mean exactly that, powers that don't currently exist or of the norm.

He suggested stripping veto powers, who knows for sure. If there is a will from those in power, surely there is also a way. Yes two countries may object, but all the rest may be in favour.

Didn't they force Apple to hand over €15bn to Ireland that it didn't even want?

Yes, he was flying a kite. Which was shot down pretty sharpish. The problem for such a kite is that it has to go through a new treaty or treaty amendment. Which of course would require a referendum here. Now maybe we'll all have a turkey moment and vote for Christmas, but I'm not quite feeling it. But something, something, somehow "extraordinary powers". In bold face.

Meanwhile those who have a vested interest in seeing the EU come apart and hoping that they can get Ireland to step into oblivion have really not thought that one through.

deirdremf

prawnsambo wrote: »

Meh. Proportionally what were the percentages? Because the electorate in 1975 was a good deal smaller than it was in 2016. Back in 1975 the total electorate was a smidgin over 40 million and the turnout was 65%. So the 17.3 million made up 67% of the total vote which is rather more than the 51.8% that voted for brexit in 2016.

Either a majority is a majority or it isn't. This is how referendums work. Those who don't vote are not counted.

Theresa May is in government without a majority (29.17% of the electorate voted for her party), as is Leo Varadkar (16.6% of the electorate voted FG).
Should they have refused to take power because a minority elected them? A tiny minority in Varadkar's case.

oscarBravo

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

That's a question better to address to the EU tax commissioner. Extraordinary powers mean exactly that, powers that don't currently exist or of the norm.

You're hand-waving, which is a pretty sure sign of someone making assertions without actually knowing what they're talking about.

I did some searching on the subject of Pierre Moscovici and vetoes, and found some reportage along the lines of what you're suggesting. Reuters, for example, said:

Under article 116 of the EU Lisbon treaty, the European Commission can compel states to drop the unanimity rule and take decisions on tax matters by majority when competition in the EU market is distorted.

Interesting. Let's have a look at Article 116:

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.

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

He suggested stripping veto powers, who knows for sure. If there is a will from those in power, surely there is also a way. Yes two countries may object, but all the rest may be in favour.

"Who knows for sure"? - that's your argument?

You gave away your lack of understanding of the topic earlier, when you mentioned CCCTB. If you'd even given a cursory glance at the Wikipedia entry on the subject, you might have noticed the second sentence of the article:

Corporate tax rates in the EU would not be changed by the CCCTB, as EU countries would continue to have their own corporate tax rates.

It's OK to admit that you've misunderstood what the proposal is about. Alternatively, you can double down and continue to insist that the EU will use powers it doesn't have and can't acquire to punish us in ways that are and will remain illegal, and that we should form policy based on that possibility. It's up to you.

deirdremf

Rhineshark wrote: »

What on earth are you bibbling about?

Also, I thought people were pretty aware that Russia had been meddling in pretty much every major vote that year to greater or lesser extent. Including the UK, Germany and France. Have you been under a rock for the past few years?

Now, this does not mean that Russian interference alone did it. The general approach was stirring trouble and thry managed to hit on a sore point in the US and UK. Things snowballed from there. But to deny any Russian influence at all and start off about North Korea is basically Trumps "It could have been a 400lb guy in his mother's basement in New Jersey". Don't be daft. No-one's falling for it.


I suggest you look at Carole Cadwalladr's work to start with and refrain from pointless sarcasm when you rather clearly don't have the first notion of what you're talking about on the point.

I think the yanks have been meddling in Europe for decades now too.
They even have lots of soldiers and weapons in lots of European countries - whatwould you suggest we should do about that?

prawnsambo

deirdremf wrote: »

Either a majority is a majority or it isn't. This is how referendums work. Those who don't vote are not counted.

Theresa May is in government without a majority (29.17% of the electorate voted for her party), as is Leo Varadkar (16.6% of the electorate voted FG).
Should they have refused to take power because a minority elected them? A tiny minority in Varadkar's case.

Your input is appreciated, but that wasn't the point I was making. The outright numerical differences between 1975 and 2016 were being compared as if the numbers were more important than the actual majority.