Some questions for the No to Nice people

Cork

NICE REMOVES OUR VETO ON HARMONIZING TAXES IN THE EUROZONE:
Articles 1.11 and 2.1 of the Treaty of Nice remove the veto we have at present on harmonizing company taxes in the eurozone, thereby abolishing the principal incentive we have for keeping foreign capital in Ireland and attracting new foreign investment here. At present Ireland can veto any such EU development, but under these provisions of Nice for so-called'enhanced cooperation,' eight or more EU States can harmonise taxes among
themselves, even if the others disagree. British politicians have calledIreland a tax haven,like the Cayman Islands. Germany, with its high tax rates, wants a level playing-field for company taxes in the eurozone and wants Ireland to raise its low, 12.5%, tax rate to remove the incentive for German and other companies to move here. Ireland can still opt out if the other eurozone States go ahead with harmonizing company taxes under
'enhanced cooperation', but it will then be faced with becoming a second-class EU Members outside the core eurozone group. Ratifying Nice thus faces us with the invidious choice of either undermining a fundamental basis of Ireland's economic success - the attractiveness to foreign
investors of its low company tax rates - or being relegated to second-classEU membership status outside an inner core of avant-garde EU States.

Cork

NICE REMOVES OUR VETO ON THE RULES FOR EU STRUCTURAL AND COHESION FUNDING:
Articles 2.13 and 2.14 of Nice remove the veto Ireland has at present on the rules of the Structural Funds - just at the time when Ireland will become net contributors to the EU Budget. These rules govern how much money we pay to these Funds and how much we receive from them. Nice provides that, from 2007, these rules will be decided by qualified majority vote, rather than by unanimity as heretofore. This is exactly the time when large sums of money will be needed for restructuring the economies of the new East European Member States. Ireland should be generous in the EU and should pay its fair share, especially after being a net beneficiary for years. It is foolish however to write a blank cheque for others to sign, whereby what we contribute in the future will effectively be decided by aqualified majority vote on the EU Council of Ministers, a body on which
Ireland will have 7 votes out of 345 in an enlarged EU of 27 States -hardly the heart of Europe - and when we are moving into recessionary times.


The Yes side ignore

NICE REMOVES OUR VETO ON THE RULES FOR EU STRUCTURAL AND COHESION FUNDING
and
NICE REMOVES OUR VETO ON HARMONIZING TAXES IN THE EUROZONE
and
they ignore the fact - this treaty is a mess and should be rejected.

Let the followers of IBEC & others have their say - but this treaty is a sorry mess.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
The Yes side ignore

NICE REMOVES OUR VETO ON THE RULES FOR EU STRUCTURAL AND COHESION FUNDING
and
NICE REMOVES OUR VETO ON HARMONIZING TAXES IN THE EUROZONE
and
they ignore the fact - this treaty is a mess and should be rejected.

OK - whatever about the third point (which is yet more empty invective), I dont think the first two points have been ignored at all.

Yes, we lose veto. However, many people feel that this is not as dangerous as it appears, nor that its necessarily wrong.

So much of the advancement of the EU to date has been stalled by having only partial implementations - mostly because of the use of veto by nations (large and small) protecting their national interests.

Take tax harmonisation. Yes, our low tax rate is one of the reasons we attract business. It is also one fo the reasons we lost business to areas which offer better deals (we went up against Scotland in many a close bidding war).

If Germany, ar any other EU major player, wanted to shaft Irish industry, and our tax rate was the only thing supporting it, it has the size and the resources to under-bid us in every single deal as things stand. It doesnt do this...it gave our country time to play catch-up. It, and other nations, allowed us to effectively steal business in order to bring our economy into the same ballpark as mainland Europe.

Now its there, they are asking that we play fair from here on out.

I dont see a problem with this. I also fail to see how not ratifying Nice will prevent this nations from crippling our economy in favour of their own should they decide to do it anyway.

Now look at salaries. Our salaries are quite high compared to much of Europe in many areas. This is being used as reasoning for why immigrants from Eastern Europe will cripple our economy, again as a result of Nice ratification.

Lets not forget that even without Nice, the EU can grow by another 5 nations, yielding the same problem, even if it exists. However, as has already been pointed out - our skilled workforce and relatively high productivity is a more important reason for attracting companies than salary. Gonna get this with all those immigrants? Big risk to take.

As for our loss of veto in the funding rules changes. Again - so what. This is being made to sound like an EU conspiracy to screw Ireland. Ask yourself - what would the EU get out of this? Nothing except another fscked country which it would have to support again which benefits no-one.

The logic isnt there, unless you're looking at a situation where the EU is collapsing, and a mini-EU forms inside it which decides to screw all other nations for a few years before getting out. Of course, even in the absence of a veto, this would need a small thing called a majority, which (as has been pointed out time after time) the big 4 cannot achieve on their own.

Stop scaremongering. Explain exactly how one of these losses exposes a real risk. All I'm seeing is "it would be ludicrous", and words to that effect.

The EU is not out to screw Ireland. We've had it cushy, and thats coming to an end, but believing that this wont happen if we reject Nice is nothing but spin. It has nothing to do with Nice.

jc

Meh

Originally posted by Cork
At present Ireland can veto any such EU development, but under these provisions of Nice for so-called'enhanced cooperation,' eight or more EU States can harmonise taxes among themselves, even if the others disagree.

Under the present EU arrangements (i.e. pre-Nice), any number of EU states can harmonize taxes among themselves, even if the others disagree. If the Germans want to have the same tax rates as the French, there's nothing we can do to stop them (and I don't know why we'd even want to try).

Ireland can still opt out if the other eurozone States go ahead with harmonizing company taxes under 'enhanced cooperation', but it will then be faced with becoming a second-class EU Members outside the core eurozone group. Ratifying Nice thus faces us with the invidious choice of either undermining a fundamental basis of Ireland's economic success - the attractiveness to foreign
investors of its low company tax rates - or being relegated to second-classEU membership status outside an inner core of avant-garde EU States.

If Ireland wishes to stay out of enhanced cooperation in one area (e.g. tax harmonization), it will still be able to participate fully in other areas of enhanced cooperation, without any prejudice. This can be seen in the current treaties, where Ireland is part of the euro but is not part of the Schengen agreement.

While it's not explicitly spelt out in the Treaty, it's pretty clear that there will be multiple acts of enhanced cooperation, each in a very specific area:
Article 2.1.1:

Member States which intend to establish enhanced cooperation between themselves in one of the areas referred to in this Treaty shall address a request to the Commission,...

Article 2.1.2:

When enhanced cooperation relates to an area covered by the procedure referred to
in Article 251 of this Treaty...

So the safeguards in Article 1.11 will apply individually to each area of enhanced cooperation. If Ireland stays out of tax harmonization, it will still be able to sign up for any other enhanced cooperation.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Cork
The Yes side ignore...

NICE REMOVES OUR VETO ON HARMONIZING TAXES IN THE EUROZONE

No they do not ignore it, for the simple reason that it is a BIG FAT LIE. Not that the No to Nice fools give a shït about concepts like "the truth", but Ireland does have a veto on harmonizing taxes in the eurozone, as the half-wit who wrote the article has to admit: “Ireland can still opt out if the other eurozone States go ahead with harmonizing company taxes under 'enhanced cooperation'”. Even for the No lobby, the sheer brazen dishonesty of the headline is breathtaking. Of course, now that the author has admitted his initial claim was a lie, he has to find another way to convince us that enhanced cooperation is bad, and what better way than with another lie. If Ireland decides not to participate in any tax harmonization scheme, we will supposedly become “second-class EU members”. How the fudge would that make us second-class? What rights and privileges will we be denied?

Cork

Ireland will become net contributors to the EU Budget. These rules govern how much money we pay to these Funds and how much we receive from them. Nice provides that, from 2007, these rules will be decided by qualified majority vote, rather than by unanimity as heretofore. This is exactly the time when large sums of money will be needed for restructuring the economies of the new East European Member States.

Where will you find monies to pay for the above?
Will Irish people be paying higher taxes?
Will our health budget be cut?
Will the Yes people clarify this?
How will our EU contributions be financed?
I think as taxpayers - the government needs to clarify this.

Harmonising taxes and removing our veto on cohesion funds is like turkeys voting for Chrismas.

THe Yes people need to get real - this treaty is a piece of rubbish that we are putting into our constitution.

How many times will the Irish people have to reject it?

PH01

I haven't got one yet. I'm voting 'Yes'

Biffa Bacon, well done mate. You speak the truth. You're a light in a sea of No2Nice darkness.

Cork

The EU is not democratic or accountable. Let the EU mandrians come back to us with something worth voting for & consign the nice treaty to the trash heap.

gandalf

PH01 I'm just curious as to why a Irish referedum is so interesting to someone posting from a co.uk domain ?

Gandalf.

PH01

"gandalf: PH01 I'm just curious as to why a Irish referedum is so interesting to someone posting from a co.uk domain ?

Gandalf. "

So what does that make me if I'm posting from/via a UK domain?

Me thinks that you're showing your true colours, Gandalf?

gandalf

Please explain yourself regarding me showing my true colours please PH01? What true colours?

I was just curious as to why someone from a UK domain is interested in a Irish referendum (something that is a rarity unless that person is Irish), nothing sinister in there. Maybe you've watched too many episodes of the X-files

Gandalf.

PH01

Oh does it mean that I'm from the UK if my client browser accesses this web site from a server logged on to a co.uk domain? Dhuh!

gandalf

Very nice attitude, your going make lots of new friends here.

/sarcasm off.

Gandalf.

PH01

Gandalf, if I offended you then I'm sorry. For I thought you might have picked up as to where I was coming from - in both senses of the word.

The reason why you might be seeing my domain come up as 'co.uk' can easily be explained. The company, which I work for (god bless them), provides me with web access through their network. And their network access the WWW via a server in the UK (don't ask me how this is done as I'm not that technical), therefore you see my accessing domain as 'co.UK'.

But you ask "why a Irish referendum is so interesting to someone posting from a co.uk domain "? And I've replied, in be it a sarcastic way, 'why not'? Just because my domain is UK does not make me from the UK. I'm Irish and living (and working when I'm not on the web posting to this BB) in Ireland. That should explain my interest in this referendum.

But even if I was from the UK (or anywhere else) why should it surprise you that I would be interested in an Irish referendum?

bonkey

Biffa....

good point, but keep it a touch more civil pls.

jc

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by PH01
I haven't got one yet. I'm voting 'Yes'

Biffa Bacon, well done mate. You speak the truth. You're a light in a sea of No2Nice darkness.

Thanks!

Originally posted by bonkey
Biffa....

good point, but keep it a touch more civil pls.

K

sceptre

Originally posted by gandalf
I was just curious as to why someone from a UK domain is interested in a Irish referendum

Half of this thread is making reference to the outcome of the Irish referendum having possible importance for the rest of the EU. Last I checked, the UK was in the EU

That's one good enough reason, isn't it?

If I (and I don't generally) browse boards through a US proxy does that make me a sinister XFiles fanatic?

Cork

I think that what ever part of Europe you are from. You need to be aware of how undemocratic the EU has become.

In the post NICE era (if we pass the mess that it this treaty) - the president of the comission will appoint the commissioners.

We will loose our veto in the area of structural funds and tax policy.

Economically this treaty will signal disaster for ireland.

Meh

Originally posted by Cork
We will loose our veto in the area of...tax policy.

No matter how many times you repeat this, it's still not going to be true. See my post above.

In the post NICE era (if we pass the mess that it this treaty) - the president of the comission will appoint the commissioners.

This is inaccurate as well.

Article 2.22 (page 21 of the PDF)
The Council, meeting in the composition of Heads of State or Government and acting by a qualified majority, shall nominate the person it intends to appoint as President of the Commission; the nomination shall be approved by the European Parliament.
The Council, acting by a qualified majority and by common accord with the nominee for President, shall adopt the list of the other persons whom it intends to appoint as Members of the Commission, drawn up in accordance with the proposals made by each Member State.
The President and the other Members of the Commission thus nominated shall be subject as a body to a vote of approval by the European Parliament. After approval by the European Parliament, the President and the other Members of the Commission shall be appointed by the Council, acting by a qualified majority.í

It's clear that the individual member states will still have control over who their commissioner is. The commissioners will be nominated by the member states and then approved by the Council and the Parliament.

We will loose our veto in the area of structural funds

After the inaccuracies shown above, I'm going to have to ask you for a reference in the treaty for this. No offence...

DeVore

Biffa Bacon... I have a question for you:

What part of "No" dont you understand?

Asking us to vote for a treaty which is effectively christmas for turkeys is idiocy. To wrap several different things up in the ONE vote is stupid too.

I'll be voting No because after the last vote, the things which were said about "proceeding without Ireland" and our vote "no making any difference" REALLY pissed me off. And these are the people who we are supposed to trust as "Big Brothers"?

Its not about populations, its about member countries.... one member one vote.

DeV.

spongebob

I will be voting No for roughly the same reasons as Devore.

In response to our No vote the EU strung together a forum on the 'future of europe,' under D'Estaing, in which I have no faith.

It has been told not to report until the Nice votes are complete.

I'd like to believe that democracy is at the the Heart of the European project and will await that report and the implementation thereof before I consider my position on 'son of nice'

The EU can accept another 5 members or so in the interim....lets do it.

M

Biffa Bacon

Here's another question for yiz:

Are you not mortified to be on the same side of the debate as Justin Barrett and Youth Defence, Dana, the Greens, Sinn Féin, Republican Sinn Féin, the Socialist Workers Party, the Socialist Party, Áine Ní Chonaill and the Immigration Control Platform and Anthony Coughlan and the National Platform?

sceptre

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Are you not mortified to be on the same side of the debate as Justin Barrett and Youth Defence, Dana, the Greens, Sinn Féin, Republican Sinn Féin, the Socialist Workers Party, the Socialist Party, Áine Ní Chonaill and the Immigration Control Platform and Anthony Coughlan and the National Platform?

The real question is:

Are the above people not mortified to be on the same side as Seamus Ryan (me!), a degenerate who supports divorce on demand, legalised abortion, liberal immigration/intra-EU migration laws, equal rights for homosexuals, enforced equal pay for women, the true separation of Church and State, the right of Northern Irish citizens to self-determination by "one man one vote" majority voting, democratic socialism, social democracy, the retention of the capitalist system and the abolition of the Eurovision Song Contest as an affront to world culture?

If they're not going to change their votes merely based on my being on the same side I don't see why the hell I should.