Ireland to contribute €16 billion more than it receives to EU in next 7 years

MrMusician18

Graham wrote: »

Some would say it was a mess of our own making and access to cheap EU money to get out of it rather than expensive alternative borrowing was a good thing.

The money wasn't cheap. The rate was punitive at 6%, set at just below the rate considered to be the lockout rate. It was meant to be a lesson for us.

Graham

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Ireland currently has a veto. This wont always be the case. It will be an uphill battle for the EU to change to a majority voting system but it's a battle they are keen to undertake.

Will that benefit you and your life?

There's your bogeyman back again.

micosoft

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

You are going down the diplomatic approach where everyone listens to each other and laws are made that take everyone's opinion into consideration. Sounds great.

But if a decision is made that isn't in your favour you must comply. That's the price of being a member. Fair enough.

What happens when the EU acts to remove veto powers from countries and changes to qualified majority voting in EU taxation policy.

The EU are coming for Ireland's taxation deal with multinationals. The wheels are already in motion.

Do you think this will be good for Ireland and its citizens and national budget?

It is great. Not being an Asshole generally works out in this life I find.
Making sure you aren't on the wrong side of a decision is the smart thing to be. In fact even the UK never had an important vote go against its interests.

In any case there is simply no evidence for your assertion.The other EU members literally cannot do what you propose unless Ireland and a number of other members agree to it. Ireland would have to accept EU competence in corporate taxation for that to happen and it retains its veto.

As for "do I think this will be good". Yes it will in the medium run. The key enabler of a common market is a level playing pitch.

When we started out we were a resource poor country on the western seaboard of the EU. The pitch was not level and we used tax to help. We've now matured well past being a low tax destination to being a premium FDI destination. We are moving to a Nordic model. So actually it will be in our interests to ensure a level tax base especially if there is an attempt to open "Singapore-on-Thames" next door when we absolutely will be clamboring to ensure that level playing on corporate tax is part of the EU trade negotiating (which is a competence).

ExMachina1000

Graham wrote: »

There's your bogeyman back again.

That system would allow a tax initiative to become EU law as long as 16 out of the 28 countries agree on it. Any tax-related decision currently requires unanimity, leaving many tax proposals doomed to fail.

The tax veto has undermined the bloc’s policy ambitions on climate change and in the financial, digital, and energy sectors, the draft communication says.

To put its plan in motion, the Commission is set to suggest triggering the so-called passerelle clause in the EU treaty that allows changes in voting procedures without opening up the bloc’s rule book


European Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs, Taxation and Customs Pierre Moscovi 

ExMachina1000

micosoft wrote: »

It is great. Not being an Asshole generally works out in this life I find.
Making sure you aren't on the wrong side of a decision is the smart thing to be. In fact even the UK never had an important vote go against its interests.

In any case there is simply no evidence for your assertion.The other EU members literally cannot do what you propose unless Ireland and a number of other members agree to it. Ireland would have to accept EU competence in corporate taxation for that to happen and it retains its veto.

As for "do I think this will be good". Yes it will in the medium run. The key enabler of a common market is a level playing pitch.

When we started out we were a resource poor country on the western seaboard of the EU. The pitch was not level and we used tax to help. We've now matured well past being a low tax destination to being a premium FDI destination. We are moving to a Nordic model. So actually it will be in our interests to ensure a level tax base especially if there is an attempt to open "Singapore-on-Thames" next door when we absolutely will be clamboring to ensure that level playing on corporate tax is part of the EU trade negotiating (which is a competence).

Read the Passserelle clause

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-5683_en.htm

No bogeyman.

What's worse being uninformed or misinformed?

Podge_irl

Tax rates are not an EU competency. The EU can not "take" any competency for itself without it being explicitly decided by all member states. This is simply a matter of law and there is nothing they can do about it.

And, as always, "The EU" is not some dark overlord - we are the EU.

sameoldname

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Ireland currently has a veto. This wont always be the case. It will be an uphill battle for the EU to change to a majority voting system but it's a battle they are keen to undertake.

Will that benefit you and your life?

What are you talking about? What is the point in debating with you?

If we're talking hypotheticals, I'm just waiting for the EU to give give me a million euros a year, just for being me. There's absolutely nothing stopping them from doing that right now with the law as it stands so it'll definitely happen.

micosoft

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The money wasn't cheap. The rate was punitive at 6%, set at just below the rate considered to be the lockout rate. It was meant to be a lesson for us.

And yet it was a lot cheaper than the IMF (twice as much) and the UK.

And the EU, Sweden and Denmark let us pay back early unlike the UK which refused. This is despite the fact it was a bailout for UK banks in the main.

It wasn't meant to be a lesson for us. It was a lesson for us. At the end of the day other countries borrowed money on our behalf and put the risk on their taxpayers. Let's not forget the Irish electorate voted in FF three times in a row for a massively expansionist policy. When people post what you have it tells me we still have not learned the lesson that we need to manage our own country. The irony of folk who militate against the EU for too much control but expect it to bail us out when we wilfully mismanage our economy.

ExMachina1000

Podge_irl wrote: »

Tax rates are not an EU competency. The EU can not "take" any competency for itself without it being explicitly decided by all member states. This is simply a matter of law and there is nothing they can do about it.

And, as always, "The EU" is not some dark overlord - we are the EU.

Yes they can

Graham

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Read the Passserelle clause

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-5683_en.htm

No bogeyman.

What's worse being uninformed or misinformed?

The use of a passerelle clause required unanimity of all member states

sameoldname

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Read the Passserelle clause

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-5683_en.htm

No bogeyman.

What's worse being uninformed or misinformed?

You didn't read it did you? That can only be invoked if all the countries agree to it and they get an outright majority of MEP's to consent to it too.

So which are you, uninformed or misinformed?

ExMachina1000

Graham wrote: »

Well informed?

The use of a passerelle clause required unanimity of all member states

Not at all Graham. I think you are misinformed and not fully up with current events.

We will pay our share as we should. We are wealthy. Our multinationals employ a few hundred thousand people and provide high paying jobs which leads to a steady stream of exchequer income. The multi nationals themselves pay slightly over 1 in 6 of every euro collected by the exchequer.

Let's enjoy it while it lasts. The extra 2 billion euro per year will be felt though. You can bank on it

sameoldname

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Not at all Graham. I think you are misinformed and not fully up with current events.

We will pay our share as we should. We are wealthy. Our multinationals employ a few hundred thousand people and provide high paying jobs which leads to a steady stream of exchequer income. The multi nationals themselves pay slightly over 1 in 6 of every euro collected by the exchequer.

Let's enjoy it while it lasts. The extra 2 billion euro per year will be felt though. You can bank on it

Moving on from the Passerelle clause after being shown up on your lack of knowledge again?

ExMachina1000

sameoldname wrote: »

You didn't read it did you? That can only be invoked if all the countries agree to it and they get an outright majority of MEP's to consent to it too.

So which are you, uninformed or misinformed?

And they will agree with it. Ireland will do as its told as it has done all along

ExMachina1000

sameoldname wrote: »

Moving on from the Passerelle clause after being showed up on your lack of knowledge again?

Its not easy responding to you all. You might exercise a bit of patience and leave the rudeness out.

Podge_irl

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Yes they can

No they can't.

This is like the world's ****test panto.

EU competencies are enshrined in treaty/law.

sameoldname

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

And they will agree with it. Ireland will do as its told as it has done all along

As long as they send me my million euros while they're at it.

micosoft

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Read the Passserelle clause

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-5683_en.htm

No bogeyman.

What's worse being uninformed or misinformed?

Did you read it?

Let me help you... bolding and underlining the important bits.

"the so-called "passerelle clause" according to which the European Council may authorise (by unanimity) the Council to act by qualified majority in certain Common Foreign and Security Policy cases. These relate to:

• Positions on human rights issues in international fora;
• Decisions to establish sanctions regimes;
• Decisions on civilian Common Foreign and Security Policy missions.

"

So every country in the EU must unanimously (all 27) agree to delegate a very limited set of powers to the EU where it makes a lot of sense. Even then - the actual positions must be by QMV.

You've basically proved the opposite of what you set out. Like all conspiracy theorists you try to use a funny foreign sounding name to lend gravity to what is a very straight forward process.

As an aside - on top of the veto of the member state you also have the EU parliament able to veto it AND within six months any member parliament can veto it included our friends in the Wallonian parliament.

Ireland, or anyone else could veto this. Why would it though. It's not foreign policy but three very sensible areas where acting as one makes complete sense. Especially item 2 where being a trading block we can't do sanctions individually.

You've demonstrated that you are "uninformed" and like to be "misinformed".

Can I ask you a honest question. All of your positions (as you flesh them out) seem increasingly against Irelands national interest and Western European states interests. They are aligned with Brexit but wider than that Russian interference and a desire for a weakened West. Specifically your curious example above is counter to a very clear (yet limited) attempt by the EU states to form a foreign policy bulwark against Russian interference and its US friend Trumpism. I'm curious - whose interests do you think you represent or align with?

Podge_irl

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

And they will agree with it. Ireland will do as its told as it has done all along

Ireland literally just brought the EU to court to defy them.

sameoldname

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Its not easy responding to you all. You might exercise a bit of patience and leave the rudeness out.

Why? You only answer with what you want anyway so we may as well just get it done quickly.

micosoft

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Its not easy responding to you all. You might exercise a bit of patience and leave the rudeness out.

I go back to my earlier point. Perhaps you are learning now why diplomacy is important? Imagine applying your approach to Ireland and now seeing Ireland isolated because it didn't want to pay it's fair share into EU coffers and had a transactional relationship aligned to anti-EU/Western Europe values.

fly_agaric

Was having a look for OPs image with Google.
Coming up with rake of Irish National Party and Irexit Freedom Party results.
Our new-ish status as a net contributor to future EU budgets must be a talking point I suppose.
Now that some sort of agreement was reached EU can't be bashed as easily for infighting and self-interest among the member states, lack of progress on an EU level post-pandemic economic stimulus etc. There were threads on that too I recall, but they are dead now.

MrMusician18

micosoft wrote: »

And yet it was a lot cheaper than the IMF (twice as much) and the UK.

And the EU, Sweden and Denmark let us pay back early unlike the UK which refused. This is despite the fact it was a bailout for UK banks in the main.

It wasn't meant to be a lesson for us. It was a lesson for us. At the end of the day other countries borrowed money on our behalf and put the risk on their taxpayers. Let's not forget the Irish electorate voted in FF three times in a row for a massively expansionist policy. When people post what you have it tells me we still have not learned the lesson that we need to manage our own country. The irony of folk who militate against the EU for too much control but expect it to bail us out when we wilfully mismanage our economy.

My memory is a little hazy and I do stand open to correction, but I'm almost certain that loans to Ireland were offered by Norway and the UK at a rate just above their own borrowing rate. The IMF component was around 4% and the EU component was over 6%. The overall combined rate was around 6%. The country was on it's knees, suffering huge unemployment and loss of wealth and the kind of solidarity we received was akin to sticking the boot in or giving someone dangling from a building a rusty blade to hang onto.

The extra 2-3% heaped on as a lesson for Ireland wasn't anything that was not going to be learned from the other consequences. It was punitive and wasn't real solidarity.

We now look at Spain and Italy who suffering a natural disaster but are only in the state they are in because thay have steadfastly refused to reform their economies. Their reward isn't 6% loans but low interest ones along with grants. How is that fair?

ExMachina1000

micosoft wrote: »

Did you read it?

Let me help you... bolding and underlining the important bits.

"the so-called "passerelle clause" according to which the European Council may authorise (by unanimity) the Council to act by qualified majority in certain Common Foreign and Security Policy cases. These relate to:

• Positions on human rights issues in international fora;
• Decisions to establish sanctions regimes;
• Decisions on civilian Common Foreign and Security Policy missions.

"

So every country in the EU must unanimously (all 27) agree to delegate a very limited set of powers to the EU where it makes a lot of sense. Even then - the actual positions must be by QMV.

You've basically proved the opposite of what you set out. Like all conspiracy theorists you try to use a funny foreign sounding name to lend gravity to what is a very straight forward process.

As an aside - on top of the veto of the member state you also have the EU parliament able to veto it AND within six months any member parliament can veto it included our friends in the Wallonian parliament.

Ireland, or anyone else could veto this. Why would it though. It's not foreign policy but three very sensible areas where acting as one makes complete sense. Especially item 2 where being a trading block we can't do sanctions individually.

You've demonstrated that you are "uninformed" and like to be "misinformed".

Can I ask you a honest question. All of your positions (as you flesh them out) seem increasingly against Irelands national interest and Western European states interests. They are aligned with Brexit but wider than that Russian interference and a desire for a weakened West. Specifically your curious example above is counter to a very clear (yet limited) attempt by the EU states to form a foreign policy bulwark against Russian interference and its US friend Trumpism. I'm curious - whose interests do you think you represent or align with?

You have laid it out well and accurately. I feel all countries will agree to the clause. Most by will as it will benifit them. Others like in the case of Ireland by pressure. Ireland will need a lot of help from Europe with the uk leaving the EU.

The second part of the post. The actual question. My honest reply would be that I would prefer the European union to be just a free trading bloc or as it is with no power over countries. Ie EU law supersedes national law etc.

Ireland has a great deal with multinationals here and it has greatly benighted the country. It has made us what we are. EU money also helped massively in the form of grants for farmers and road networks etc.

I feel as time goes on the EU as a bloc government is encroaching on countries sovereign rights more and more. Moving toward a sort of federalised union ran from Brussels. I don't think this is beneficial long term.

In summary: A free trading bloc working together as sovereign nations yes. A centralised government who can impose blanket laws that nations must adhere to no.

Forget about all of your Brexit, Russia, anti western notions.

Graham

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

You have laid it out well and accurately. I feel all countries will agree to the clause. Most by will as it will benifit them. Others like in the case of Ireland by pressure. Ireland will need a lot of help from Europe with the uk leaving the EU.

You're saying Ireland will agree because it will be in our interest to agree?

ExMachina1000

Graham wrote: »

You're saying Ireland will agree because it will be in our interest to agree?

We will be told to agree.

Graham

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

We will be told to agree.

You really don't get this whole democratic thing.

You just said we'd agree because it will be in out interest to agree.

View

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

And they will agree with it. Ireland will do as its told as it has done all along

If Ireland does “as its told as it has done all along” then we would have a significantly higher corporate tax rate then we do.

As it is, both Bulgaria and Hungary have lower corporate tax rates than we do.

ExMachina1000

Graham wrote: »

You really don't get this whole democratic thing.

You just said we'd agree because it will be in out interest to agree.

No. I said we will agree because we will need help after Brexit. Long term it is not in our interest to upset our sweet sweet multinational deal.

Ireland without the multinational cash money is nothing.
We don't have anything else. The beef industry perhaps but some people want the herd cut.
People should put our national interests first and Europe's interests second.

sameoldname

MrMusician18 wrote: »

My memory is a little hazy and I do stand open to correction, but I'm almost certain that loans to Ireland were offered by Norway and the UK at a rate just above their own borrowing rate. The IMF component was around 4% and the EU component was over 6%. The overall combined rate was around 6%. The country was on it's knees, suffering huge unemployment and loss of wealth and the kind of solidarity we received was akin to sticking the boot in or giving someone dangling from a building a rusty blade to hang onto.

The extra 2-3% heaped on as a lesson for Ireland wasn't anything that was not going to be learned from the other consequences. It was punitive and wasn't real solidarity.

We now look at Spain and Italy who suffering a natural disaster but are only in the state they are in because thay have steadfastly refused to reform their economies. Their reward isn't 6% loans but low interest ones along with grants. How is that fair?

The reason the interest rates that were offered to us were so high was precisely to prevent Italy or Spain from looking for a bailout as well. At the time if either of those countries went to the wall we were all going with them.

The rumours going around at the time were that if the Ireland, Portugal and Greece accepted the initial high rates, that after everything calmed down the rates would be reduced and the repayment times would be stretched out. Which is exactly what happened.

You also have to remember that it was viewed in countries like Germany, Finland and The Netherlands that this was their tax money being given to countries that couldn't manage their own finances. True or not as that perception was, I'm sure the high interest rate was there to appease certain domestic concerns as well.