One last Nice thread... as simple as I can make it.

bonkey

Originally posted by mayhem#
Voting No to the Nice treaty is basically voting yes to the corruption and mis-management in this country.

We could equally say :

Voting Yes to the Nice Treaty is basically voting yes to the corruption and mis-management in the EU.

Wake up. Ireland does not have a monopoly on dodgy dealings. Far from it.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
Maybe - we need to put manners on IBEC?

And in another thread it was "maybe its time to give FF a bloody nose".

Did you ever consider voting on what you were asked to vote on, rather than trying to use unrelated issues as a reason for a decision?

Exactly how will voting No to spite IBEC send a message to them? How are they supposed to know that it was their wage proposals that brought down the treaty?

Same for your logic about FF, and for any other of the spurious reasons that people are coming up with.

You dont get to explain your reasoning on your ballot paper. The only message you can send is that you are for or against the treaty for unknown reasons, or that you chose to spoil your vote for unknown reasons, or that you chose not to vote for unknown reasons.

Has this not sunk in yet, or have you just run out of rational arguments?

jc

mayhem#

Originally posted by Meh
I think the "I'll emigrate if you people don't vote the way I want!" histrionics are hilarious.

Typedef and mayhem#, one of you is going to have to leave the country on Sunday...

Think of it what you want, I'm in the position at the moment where I have to decise if I stay in Ireland or go abroad. I haven't decided yet, but if we have a majority "NO" vote I will definetly leave.
The "NO" voters will get what they deserve...

Greenbean

"Ireland was given (and continues to have) tax-less access to the EU market as was every other nation. In return, we exploit this by setting our corporate tax at a deliberately low level in part to attract foreign businesses. We offered tax havens and breaks, again to attract foreign businesses."

In general I agree with what bonkey says, but this one thing above I do not get. Surely, no matter what way you look at it, taxation is how much our government wants to charge companies for being here. If we wanted companies to be here for free, then thats totally our perogative. If someone else wants to charge them 40% tax, then thats their own (greedy?) stance towards it. I mean corporation tax in itself is just a notion, its not like an etheral human right, countries on different planets in the galaxy might find the notion unique and weird. So how can this be something for which the EU complains? Go reduce your own tax. Oh you still want your tax and everyone else charging less to take away the benefits of charging less. Is this like insurance or something, ie international law requires it, and are these other countries having their hands tied behind their back about reducing it? If its only a case of "it would make things awkward for us" then I don't think they have a valid case at all.

To turn it around and make it look like we are abusing other countries by taking a loss on taxation, when other countries can do the same.. well I don't buy it - its everyone else bullying the odd one out so they can have it both ways.

Slutmonkey57b

Out of all the hyperbole, he's the only one that's actually discussed what the treaty is about. He should write for the Economist (the only other source of intelligent political news).

And he's quite correct: the EU is about
Ever closer Union

Everyone is being asked to give up some degree of power in this treaty, everyone is being asked to give up some degree of veto, everyone is being asked to potentially lose a commissioner.

And yes, it is absolutely right that this should happen. Why? Because most of the complaints directed at "Brussels" regarding autocracy or high-handedness are due to there not being enough democracy in Europe. And the veto is not democratic. What would happen in our parliament if every TD had a veto? Nothing would get done! (yes, basically nothing gets done now but this is due to laziness and corruption, not the system preventing things from getting done.)
The purpose of the treaty is to start a process whereby power is handed away from permanant commissioners, toward the Parliament and Council of Ministers - that's why the commission structure is being revised. The vetos are being removed to allow actual democratic voting - countries have a show of hands to see if they're in favour of something - and most importantly, this show of hands has some bearing on the actual size of the countries. By removing the vetos we ensure that people do not get disillusioned with the EU every time the wishes of X% of the EU population is abrogated by 1 country using its veto.

To those that oppose the Common Defense Force, I ask this:

Who gets called out when there's someone drowning off our coast?

The RAF. Yes, the RAF - some OTHER country's defense force, that THAT country is paying for, saves our lives. Because our government won't pay for one.

When everyone was panicky over sept. 11th (yes, spew 9/11 garbage), who was allowed to fly over our airspace to protect us because we have no adequate defenses?

The RAF.

The EU Common Defense Force is there as an opt-in structure. The default is that you're out unless you sign up to it. Its purpose is simply to ensure that every time there's a crisis in the EU's sphere of influence, we dont have to go running to Uncle Sam to help up out (eg Kosovo). It allows those nations that are prepared to use a small number of their own forces to run peacekeeping or humanitarian missions, or to defend ALL the EU.

Would you object to the EU Common Defense Force being used to protect Ireland in the unlikely event of us being attacked?

Bali was bombed possibly to kill western (ie american) tourists - can you name another country that gets a lot of american tourists?

Slutmonkey57b

Yes the likelyhood of us being attacked is minimal, but the likelyhood of the CDF being used at all is minimal.

As to the "loss" of the right to set corporation tax, we are not losing that right at all - we are being asked to stop abusing an agreement between member countries to not institute tax havens, tax dodging schemes etc in the interests of preventing a system whereby EU countries are stabbing each other in the back with such schemes. The only reason we were allowed to tell companies "come to Ireland and pay no tax for 10 years" was because to achieve the same effect the EU would have had to subsidise those companies by a similar amount. It saved taxpayers in other countries money in the long run.

It's time to grow up. Ireland has lived too long as the greedy corrupt child of the EU. We are no longer a backwoods country with no economic impetus. We no longer have the need for the tax breaks, as shown by the recent influx of companies in deregulated telecoms/energy. When we were in need, other richer countries stepped up and extended the hand of friendship. We should do the same.

And we should do so with an EU structure that reflects a more level, democratic, accountable, and representative system. Nice may not be perfect in doing this, but future treaties will improve. Problems with the structures that become apparant during use can be changed. Sending the treaty back to the drawing board solves nothing. The same problems will still exist, and solutions will still have to be found. At least Nice makes some attempt to put a structure on the "maybe's" and "possiblys".

Slutmonkey57b

Originally posted by Greenbean
In general I agree with what bonkey says, but this one thing above I do not get. If we wanted companies to be here for free, then thats totally our perogative. If someone else wants to charge them 40% tax, then thats their own (greedy?) stance towards it. So how can this be something for which the EU complains? Go reduce your own tax. To turn it around and make it look like we are abusing other countries by taking a loss on taxation, when other countries can do the same.. well I don't buy it - its everyone else bullying the odd one out so they can have it both ways.

Very simple - Corporation Tax, or Company Tax, is one of the methods by which governments raise money. This may suprise you but money is needed for governments to do things. What is at issue is that everyone else was playing by the rules, but we were not. We are now being asked to play by the rules. We were the ones doing the "bullying" - not them.

Oh, just as a matter of interest, were you aware that all that EU money comes from taxpayers in other EU countries? And that if the likes of France and Germany hadn't had such high taxes they might not have had so much money to hand to this country on a plate? Of course, that's different I'm sure.

Meh

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
What is at issue is that everyone else was playing by the rules, but we were not. We are now being asked to play by the rules. We were the ones doing the "bullying" - not them.

But there is no rule that says we can't have our corporation tax rate "too low". The only rule says we have to have the same tax rate for foreign and domestic companies, so we're moving to a common rate of 12.5% (up slightly for foreign companies, down dramatically for domestic companies). Still a lot lower than the rest of the EU.

Nevyn

a certain large computer company ( thier name has 3 letters )
Had a production plant in italy, thier product which is sold to business has a very hefty price.

When Italy changed thier export tax so that all goods made for export where subject to a 15 % tax they decided that it would be cheaper to shut up shop and move to ireland despite the setup costs and the cost of building a factory from scratch.

So when this evening out of taxes occurs, the only way they will save would be in wages oh an wow look how many of the countries jockeying to join the E.U. have lower pay rates and cost of living nevermind better roads, cheaper electricty ect.


Think about it, oh and the live register for those who are currently unemployed has risen for the first time in 8 years.


Do the maths, read it for yourself , make up your mind and least take part and vote one way or the other.

I know what way i'm voting but if by some chance the other side wins and the precentage of those who did not vote
( those that are registered !!! but thats a differnce issue)
is twice what swung it for them I'll be livid to say the very least.

This referenda is going to be very very close

bonkey

Originally posted by Thaed
When Italy changed thier export tax so that all goods made for export where subject to a 15 % tax they decided that it would be cheaper to shut up shop and move to ireland despite the setup costs and the cost of building a factory from scratch

....

Do the maths,

Yes. The Italian increase immediately removed a masive amount of taxation before profit. Regardless of whether the company made money or not, it was facing either an increase of 15% of its product's end-price, or a corresponding decrease in its own income

The Irish increase to foreign investors is (on paper) 1/6 of this figure. Not only that, but it only gets applied to profit.

In short, the two situations are as different as chalk and cheese...when you (as you suggested) do the math rather than looking at the fact that both are taxation increases (about their only similarity).

Going further, you will also find that in many cases these companies who set up in Ireland had cheaper locations available but moved to Ireland because of a combination of factors - including the available skillsets in the marketplace - something we can be sure that the eastern nations do not have an advantage in right now.

Think about it, oh and the live register for those who are currently unemployed has risen for the first time in 8 years.

Gosh. There's a world recession, and yet somehow its a bad/surprising thing (and somehow relevant to Nice) that unemployment has risen?

jc

Nevyn

Well as i used for work for that company i know for a fact that is why they moved here and 2 of thier main suppliers for parts have recently moved into Croatia. Chances are they'll do so in the future

Lemming

I'm not going to get bogged down in most of the Nice Treay pros and cons here, but I'll ask this on the much vaunted subject of Irish neutrality ........ (since I find it quite amusing in a not-so-amusing way)

1. If someone attacks the EU tomorrow, whom are they attacking?

2. What union of european nations is Ireland a member of?

3. Therefore, Nice Treaty passed or no, are we are still a target for whomever decides to attack the EU?

4. Therefore, are we neutral when push comes to shove?