EU tax harmonization proposals vetoed

Cork

Turning the EU Commission into a quasi-EU Government, and the Commission President into an EU analogue of a national Prime Minister, is the most important political change in the Treaty of Nice after its two-class two-tier EU provisions (miscalled "enhanced cooperation").

Neither of these key changes to the EU decision-making rules have anything logically or legally to do with EU enlargement.

Politically, the Nice Treaty's replacement of unanimity by qualified
majority voting(QMV) for appointing national Commissioners and the Commission President, opens the way for the Big States to control the Commission in quite a new way if Nice is ratified, for it is the Big States that will dominate the qualified majority as regards these matters.

Most Irish voters seem to be unaware - despite the Government's Summary White Paper and the Referendum Commission's efforts - that if Nice is ratified it means that, from January 2005, THE IRISH TAOISEACH AND GOVERNMENT WILL NO LONGER HAVE THE FINAL SAY IN WHO IRELAND'S COMMISSIONER
IS. That will be decided by Council majority vote,and if the Big States do not like a particular national nominee, they can always insist on another in behind-the-scenes bargaining over nominations.

Post-Nice, the next EU Commission, to be appointed in January 2005, will be radically different from the Commission of today.

The first step under Nice will be to decide the President of the Commission by majority vote,which the Big States will determine because this is a key appointment. Also under Nice the new President will be able to shuffle and reshufle his Commissioners, much as a national Prime Minister shuffles a
Cabinet.That cannot happen now.

The President will also be able to require a Commissioner's resignation. This will make national Commissioners much more compliant with the President's views than they need be at present. If a Taoisecah dismisses a Minister, the Minister remains a TD and can hope to become a Minister
again in some future administration. If the EU Commission President dismisses a Commissioner, that will be the end of his career.

Nice also provides that nominations for national Commissioners - to be appointed by majority vote - must be such as to ensure that the Commissioners are congenial to the Commission President and the qualified majority on the Council. The President thus has a key role in appointing national Commissioners, unlike today.

These provisons of Nice move the Commision towards becoming an EU Government, and the President of the Commission towards becoming an EU Prime Minister.

The Big States will be able to control or have decisive influence on the the EU Commission through its President,with his new powers, and his and their role in appointing individual national Commissioners.

That is why the Big States such as France and Germany can look with equanimity on the prospect of being unrepresented themselves form time to time on a rotating Commission in an enlarged EU of 27 States.

Together with the provisions on "enhanced cooperation," these changes to the Commission provided for in Nice amount to what the Portuguese Prime Minister has termed an "institutional coup d'etat" in relation to the EU as we have known it up to now - on the part of France and Germany.

I think the way the CAP negotiations were carried out was a sign for the future. Germany agreeing with France and agreement is reached.

^^^^^^

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I thought the above copy and paste tract
was soundly rejected by the people on
october 19th.
mm

Cork

I thought the above copy and paste tract
was soundly rejected by the people on
october 19th.

It was - but - I pasted it for a reason that France and Germany are now the Masters of Europe.

They agreed on CAP - Negotitions ended.

Now - they will push to tax harmonisation.

Do you think Ireland will stand up aganist these?

Meh

Originally posted by Cork
Do you think Ireland will stand up aganist these?

Well, if you'd read the article I'd linked in the first post in this thread (disappeared now, thanks to eircom), you'd see that Ireland is standing up to them very successfully.

Cork

I think that should the government fail the Irish fishermen by not protecting the 50 mile limit oround our island - it be be very worrying.

I think - the Eurocrats have no respect for Irish democracy or accountability.

I would not be a assured as as you that we will make a stand.

Victor

Originally posted by Cork
I think that should the government fail the Irish fishermen by not protecting the 50 mile limit oround our island - it be be very worrying.

I think there is one way to protect it. Charge them all royalties on the fish they catch.

Typedef

Originally posted by Cork
Now - they will push to tax harmonisation.

Not likely, so long as the UK opposes Tax Harmonisation and it has allies like the Swedish, Irish and Austrians to envigorate this position.

The same goes for a Federal Union, sort of, the Germans are cooling to the idea of a Federal Union I think, here is a pdf that would seem to back up that claim.
http://www.cdu.de/englisch/europapolitik_engl.pdf
From my thread here.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=68649


EU behooves us to play by the rules we have agreed to play by, then there might be a point in continuing this discussion

Jc. I accept that Ireland as a State must play by the rules it has agreed to. Ireland has 'not' agreed to tax harmonisation and in no Treaty that the Irish people have ever ratified has taxation been labled as 'unfair' competition. You say tax harmonisation is implied by 'the rules' (of the Union), I say that until such time as Ireland agrees to that via Plebiscite that such an assertion is erroneous.
Furthermore I take serious issue with acts of ceding soveringty to Europe under the umbrella of 'plebiscite' as being valid, when it is quite obvious that people do not vote for or against a measure based on that measure's merits, but on the 'perception' of which 'side' is to be believed in such campaigns to accept or reject in this case European integration measures. In this regard putting Treaties to the people is merely for show, clearly the people do not understand the Treaties they vote for.

For example Ireland signed up to a Treaty that gave Europe jurisdiction over fishing of Irish waters. People voted for this measure, so logically this implies that people 'want' Europe to have this jurisdiction over Irish fishing rights. This is not the case, most people in Ireland are shocked that the Common fishiers policy can allow a mere 3% of the EU's catch to Ireland, where Ireland has 11% of the waterspace. Now Federalists or others might turn around and say "the people voted for this", but in reality if you asked the people of Ireland to vote tomorrow on whether or not the EU should have jurdiction over Ireland's allowable fishing catch, the measure would be defeated, without doubt. Thus when the people ratified the measure that allowed the EU to dictate this policy, the people did so in ignorance of what the measure would ultimately mean.

Thus the notion that the EU is a body the Irish people have willingly walked into is true, but it is also true to say that the Irish people don't really understand what that Union implies as the Irish people would most certainly never have willingly decimated the fishing industry of their own country. To argue against this view is in my opinion to stick ones head in the sand and rationalise in perpetuity.

Again, ask ordinary Irish people tomorrow if they think it was a 'good' idea to given Europe jurisdiction over fishing in Irish waters in the light of small fishing communities being given only access to 25% of the potential Irish fishing stock and see if that measure passes. It wouldn't pass, quite obviously, so how can one claim that European jurisdiction in this and in many other areas is actually what the Irish people want, when the Irish people would not in many cases support such ceding of soveringty if the people at large understood the full ramifications of such acts of ceding?

Victor

Originally posted by Typedef
The same goes for a Federal Union, sort of, the Germans are cooling to the idea of a Federal Union I think, here is a pdf that would seem to back up that claim.
http://www.cdu.de/englisch/europapolitik_engl.pdf
From my thread here.

Aren't the CDU in opposition?

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
Thus the notion that the EU is a body the Irish people have willingly walked into is true, but it is also true to say that the Irish people don't really understand what that Union implies as the Irish people would most certainly never have willingly decimated the fishing industry of their own country. To argue against this view is in my opinion to stick ones head in the sand and rationalise in perpetuity.

So what you're saying is that the result of the previous plebiscite isnt relevant because the people didnt know what they were agreeing to? Sounds horribly like a stance you were vehemently condemning only a few short weeks ago

As for the current round of negotiations, I have very little interest in how much faith people like Cork profess to have or not have. The Irish are opposing tax harmonisation - something Cork has no faith that they will do. As soon as this is pointed out, we have another area he has no faith in our government to protect.

As with all negotiations, there is a degree of give and take. Ireland will no doubt end up keeping some benefits it should no longer really be entitled to based on its economic position. This, of course, can be spun as "we lost some benefits - see, I knew our government would let us down".

Here's a really scary thing....they're your government. They are the collected choice of you and the rest of the people. If the people are as unhappy as Typedef claims, or have as little faith as Cork, then what in the name of all that is sense and reason are they doing re-electing the usual suspects in every party election after election?

This boils back to an old debate which has resurfaced here plenty of times. Democracy gives a nation the government it deserves. If the people of this country are consistently agreeing to "bad" agreements and electing "bad" governments, then one must simply ask why? Are they incapable of learning their lessons?

If people are not willing to think about an issue when the opportunity to decide arises, then they deserve what they get. Any idiot can tell you how they should have chosen in an issue once they can see whether their actual choice was good or not. Of course, they can never know what a different decision might have cost, but thats not important (apparently). And yet, time after time, we continue, as a nation, to make these apparently bad choices....

Would the people make the same choice if presented with the issue of fishing grounds again? Probably not - you're dead right. On the other hand, if faced with a new issue, would they learn their lesson and pay attention first time round? I very much doubt it. Given the multitude of bad decisions you guys can come up with - either by the people or their chosen representatives - I think you more or less prove my point.

Part of life is abiding by our decisions. If we want to exist in any form of international community, there isnt a hope of hell of being able to make decisions on the basis of "well, let us decide now, but we reserve the right to change our minds on each issue which wasnt to our advantage". Because that's in effect what you're advocating - that we shouldnt have to abide by decisions that when taken in isolation, in hindsight, appear to have been the wrong ones. We shouldnt be bound to accept these impositions that turned out to be disfavourable....but we should keep the ones that were advantageous.

We, as a nation, continue to make bad choices. We elect people who cant fight our corner, or pick a team to fight it for us. We make the wrong decisions....as viewed in a very narrow-vision hindsight. And yet somehow, we are the wronged ones? Please.

Secondly, just consider the implications of Ireland having some "sovereign right" to redecide on issues that werent to our advantage. Well, then, so must every other sovereign nation have similar rights. So no-one must abide by anything which is disadvantageous....

Given that most things in the EU involve taking from one nation and giving to another....you can quickly see the logical conclusion, cant you? No-one has to give anything. This, of course, would be Typedef's idealistic pre-EEC loose economic community of nations who only make agreements which are mutually beneficial, but who can backstab each other all they like when its to their own advantages.

jc

sceptre

Originally posted by bonkey
then what in the name of all that is sense and reason are they doing re-electing the usual suspects in every party election after election?

I think I can explain that one. Had a (brief) conversation with GF about Irish politics yesterday. I mentioned (again - purely to rise her) that I do actually vote for the party/candidate that I think is best for the country at the time of the election and for the duration of the next government, making me a dictionary definition floating voter. She said that she votes for the party/candidate that impresses her most at the time (fair enough - at least she's thinking about it[1]) but where no party impresses her at all she'll vote FF by default. I suspect many people think that way (on either side of the artificial divide), even ignoring the people that will just vote in a particular manner based on some argument that happened 80 years ago.

Ultimately, as you've pointed out, the people get the government they deserve. If they don't make a conscious decision about their vote and more importantly, know why they're voting in a particular manner they don't deserve a good government.


[1] Just in case she reads this, this is a Good Thing. She refuses to discuss politics or economics with me but as long as there's actually a decision being made, I couldn't give a fig which way she votes. I do however suspect that if I ran for election under any banner but deValera's she'd have to seriously think whether to vote for me or not:)

Cork

If there was an election tomorrow morning - I would vote FF - They are the best we have got.

We do not want tax harmonisation - If it comes in - we will be like the Outback.

We'll be like the Las Vagas of Europe - Holiday Ireland.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
If there was an election tomorrow morning - I would vote FF - They are the best we have got.

Then I would strongly suggest you stop constantly complaining about how you have no faith in our government to do X, Y, and Z.

If you are happy to elect them, then you must accept their decisions, and the resultant outcomes.

Personally, if I couldnt find a candidate worth voting for, I would spoil my vote, or choose not to vote. I sure as hell wouldnt vote for "the best we have" if they're not good enough, because how will they get the message to improve otherwise?

jc

Cork

I would never spoil my vote - It was hard won.

No party is perfect. But I think FF for all their faults are the best we have.

When you look at the North before they got back into office - no ceasefire & no Good Friday agreement.

FG would not have done a good a job as FF on this.

Tax harmonisation would sound the Death Knell for our total economy. We do not have oil - one of the few competitive advantages we have is taxation.

Originally posted by Cork
I would never spoil my vote - It was hard won.

No party is perfect. But I think FF for all their faults are the best we have.

When you look at the North before they got back into office - no ceasefire & no Good Friday agreement.

FG would not have done a good a job as FF on this.

Tax harmonisation would sound the Death Knell for our total economy. We do not have oil - one of the few competitive advantages we have is taxation.

Cork you sound to me like my next door neighbour.
He's in his eighties, and the new local priest visited him the other day....
My neighbour said to me the next day " I think that new fella is another blue shirt...." why, I said... and yer man said, "well he was asking why I had a picture of Dev above the fire place instead of Our Lord...:rolleyes:
Needless to say that wasn't the first time he called a visitor a blue shirt...
mm

Typedef

I'd tend to agree with bonkey (not on harmonisation, lets agree to disagree like gents on that one), but on the notion that if you vote for Fianna Fial even though you vehemently disagree with some Fianna Fial policies then you can't really bitch about their policies.

For example I specifically voted against Fianna Fial, because of it's stance on the Nice Treaty instead the Green Party will continue to get my first preference vote so long as I believe Fianna Fial is exponenciating a view of a quasi-Federal European Union.

In many ways I'm a nationalist and as a nationalist I would say I subscribe to a kind of Bushist unilateralism vis-a-vis Irish interests, and since I don't believe political Union with the the EU is in Irish interests I don't vote for parties that I think will bring Ireland closer to such a Union. I am a floating voter though, after the Good Friday agreement I was going to vote Fianna Fial, like I say Nice soured me on Fianna Fial.

However since I am prepaired to break with Fianna Fial or the Greens on issues I think merit them the choice for me becomes, is party (x) so divergent from my view that I will refuse to vote for them. In Fianna Fial's case vis-a-vis Europe, yes, that is the case and for me Europe is a big issue.

Perhaps for you Europe is not such a big issue, perhaps it is, but the fact is if you vote for a party, it is no good criticising them after the fact and then voting for them again. How will you ever let the politicians know what you want unless you use your vote to tell them?

Thus Cork you must really want whatever you think it is Fianna Fial have to offer over and above your opposition to European Federalism.

If you are happy to elect them, then you must accept their decisions, and the resultant outcomes.

It makes sense really, so long as you give support to Fianna Fial, you give tacit support to their greater policy motif, carte blanche if you will.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
I would never spoil my vote - It was hard won.

So if there was an election in your local area, and the only two representatives were both from parties you detest utterly (like, say, Sinn Fein - IIRC you're no fan of theirs), you would still feel obliged to vote for one of them because "my vote was hard won" ???

Funnily enough, no-one ever asked me if I wanted a vote. They never gave me a choice. For me, being compelled to vote (or being compelled to vote with no option to spoil) is a loss of my personal freedom. I dont care how hard won it was. If some dictator overtook this country by force, and imposed single-candidate, mandatory voting (like they have in Iraq for example), I would not see it as a "hard won right" although the term would still equally apply.

Its a right, not an obligation, and you have the right to use your vote (or not use as the case may be) any way you choose. That is what was hard won - the freedom of choice.

Originally posted by Typedef
(not on harmonisation, lets agree to disagree like gents on that one)

Certainly, although I would agree that tax harmonisation across the EU nations (as opposed to internally within each nation such as we have just done with our corporate rates) would be a horrifically bad move at this point in time.

jc

Cork

There is not perfect party so we as voters tend to pick the one that we most agree with.

In my constituency - It is a 3 seater. There is one safe FF seat and 1 safe FG seat. We have a choice to give the remaining one to FF or FG. The PDs,Green or SF do not run. Niether do, independants.


But - We have a choice.

Its a right, not an obligation

It is - but it is good to have a say.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
but it is good to have a say.

Sure, and spoiling your vote says "I am not happy with these candidates".

Alternately, you could vote FF, and then mail the TD you voted for and explain in the letter that you voted for him, but think his party's policies on X, Y, and Z are a load of c0ck.

jc

Originally posted by Cork
There is not perfect party so we as voters tend to pick the one that we most agree with.

In my constituency - It is a 3 seater. There is one safe FF seat and 1 safe FG seat. We have a choice to give the remaining one to FF or FG. The PDs,Green or SF do not run. Niether do, independants.


But - We have a choice.



It is - but it is good to have a say.

There are only two parties ever running in your constituency??
Which one, cause I'll run there, I'll bus in my support campaign:p
Will you vote for me:D probably not as I voted yes to Nice:eek:
mm

Cork

Alternately, you could vote FF, and then mail the TD you voted for and explain in the letter that you voted for him, but think his party's policies on X, Y, and Z are a load of c0ck.

I don't expect to agree 100% with a person I vote for. I take a look at what party would do the best for the area and the country.

There are only two parties ever running in your constituency??

No - Labour run as well - but they really have no a hope.

Area: Cork NW