Lisbon Treaty Irish Referendum Information

by plato Tue Apr 29, 2008 18:47

In any case, mr aristotle your repeated assertions about stuff and general bitterness against the "fringe left" is all very interesting, but you, as an individual are surely even less relevant than these fringe lefties. So, you should follow through with your principles and ignore yourself - everybody else is already doing so (save my good self but I don't count as I'm merely a character that Eoghan Harris read about in a book once).

by aristotle Tue Apr 29, 2008 17:29

Dear Parvus,

The problem with your silly proposition is that "Anti-American knee-jerk types" comprise a miniscule portion of the electorate and what "they" (aka the fringe left) decide to do will make no difference whatsoever to the outcome of this plebicite.

This treaty/constitution will be defeated by the centre, including Libertas and defectors from the line being spun by the main political parties. In fact, Libertas, far from being incompetent, has been the most effective and coherent anti-treaty voice and its message has found a resonance with the electorate. This message is: 1. preservation of national rights against the bureaucrats and federalism. 2. the text is incomprehensible. 3. The EU is already too large.

Nobody really cares about the fringe-left and its 19th century preoccupations. it sank without trace some time ago.

by Edward Horgan - PANA Mon Apr 28, 2008 23:11

"The EU needs to be repossessed by its citizens. A "no" vote will be a good first step"
This last comment by Aristotle is one of the most important ones.
The cowardly leaders of all EU states, except Ireland, have refused to let their citizens vote on this most important EU treaty that is in effect an EU constitution. Irish leaders have only allowed a referendum because our constitution obliges them to do so, following the Raymond Crotty Supreme court dedcision.
The EU, and the governments of France and the Netherlands have disenfranchised the citizens of France and the Netherlands, who have already rejected the EU constitution. This Lisbon treaty is a thinly disguised EU constitution, just as surely as the EU Rappid Reaction Forces are intended to be a European Army, thinly disguised.
Aristotle's suggestion that "The EU needs to be repossessed by its citizens" should have a hazard warning sign however.

The concept of EU Citizenship is an unecessary and dangerous one, as it is a significant step towards an EU superstate. "The EU needs to be repossessed by the citizens of the EU states" would be a better wording, and probably the intended meaning.
The European Union as an organisation of European states has been a very valuable institution, and one we should all support. However, a European militarised superstate is the last thing the citizens of the Europe's states need, and will be a significant danger to humanity, by intensifying the deepening divide between North-Western elites of the world on the one hand, and the South-Eastern exploited 'Bottom Billion'.
The EU force, or rappid reaction force, or EU army, that is now located in Chad and the Central African Republic, is the vanguard of renewed French neo-colonialism in Africa, supported by Irish troops. Those with a short memory will have forgotten how the French Government sent in its military forces in "Operation Turquoise" to rescues its client Rwandan Government while it was still perpetrating the Rwandan Genocide in 1994, all in the national interests of French Francophone African strategy.

We all need a Europe that will work towards bridging the divides that are endangering humanity, not deepening them.

It is foolish and short-sighted to believe that we in the elite countries can continue to expoit the less well off countries. In this interdependent world, with its damaged environment and wasted resources, humanity needs to learn to cooperate and work together, for the benefit of all.

A YES vote for the Lisbon Treaty (constitution) will be a vote for a neo-colonial Europe, continuing to exploit the resources of Africa and the Middle East.

A NO vote for the Lisbon Treaty (constitution) will be a vote for deeper democracy within Europe, and for peace and justice for humanity.

by aristotle Mon Apr 28, 2008 19:57

Yup "davekey",

You can't read.

Neither do you know much about tax. VAT is by definition a "turnover" tax. Prior to Ireland entering the EU we had a tax in Ireland which was actually called "turnover tax". It was an ad-valorem tax on (most) goods and (some) services. When we joined the EU the "turnover tax" was replaced by an almost identical "ad-valorem" tax on (most) goods and (most) services. The new ad-valorem tax was of course called VAT. Corporation tax, on the other hand, is a "direct" tax.

As for the reference in the fanatical Euro-phobic "Telegraph" :- Unlike yourself, I don't pay much heed to that particular organ - particularly when it comes to commentary on EU matters. In this case it has got it wrong (yet again).

I am voting "no" because the proposed treaty/constitution is an incomprehensible document designed to be inaccesable to the EU electorate and which is designed to deliver more and more default-powers to the EU-elites and to facilitate the further expansion of a Community which is already too large. I am a committed European and I love this most amazing continent. I am not going to stand back and do nothing and allow my Europe to be hijacked by elites who tell me "it's their way or the highway."

The EU needs to be repossessed by its citizens. A "no" vote will be a good first step.

by davekey Sun Apr 27, 2008 22:59

"It says nothing of the sort. Nor would it empower the EU Court of Justice to rule in the manner you suggest, because,

1. The provision clearly requires political unanimity at Council level."

The article states: "acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure", it doesn't say deciding/voting unanimously nor does it elaborate on this special legislative procedure but it could easily be a ruling from the ECJ, this article seems deliberately vague to me, in line with the rest of the small print throughout the treaty

"2. It only refers to "indirect" taxes. Corpration, income, CGT and CAT are "direct" taxes.. This provision is aimed at VAT harmonization, which is a very good thing because Ireland's VAT rate is on the high side compared to most other EU states"

I'm not well up on taxation but what do they mean by "turnover taxes", it sounds like Corporation Tax to me?

"the threat of tax-harmonization is a bagatelle"

Daily Telegraph:
Just how sensitive some issues can be became clear earlier this month when Christine Lagarde, Mr Sarkozy’s finance minister, said Paris was “determined” to push for harmonised corporation taxes across Europe.

Her words sent a shiver through Ireland, where a low corporation tax - 12.5 per cent compared with 28 per cent in Britain - is one of the main factors credited with attracting the international companies that have helped create its “Celtic Tiger” economy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/20...0.xml

by aristotle Sun Apr 27, 2008 14:48

Read it again "liz C".

It says nothing of the sort. Nor would it empower the EU Court of Justice to rule in the manner you suggest, because,

1. The provision clearly requires political unanimity at Council level.

2. It only refers to "indirect" taxes. Corpration, income, CGT and CAT are "direct" taxes.. This provision is aimed at VAT harmonization, which is a very good thing because Ireland's VAT rate is on the high side compared to most other EU states

There are good reasons for voting no. Alas, the threat of tax-harmonization is a bagatelle. Alarmist nonsense is going to be the undoing of the "no" campaign.

by liz c - caeuc Sun Apr 27, 2008 14:33

Treaty content affecting tax harmonization. This if from the National Platform site, a group about which I know nothing, there's no info on who they are. Makes interesting reading.

Article 2.79 of the Lisbon Treaty would insert a six-word amendment -”and to avoid distorton of competition” - into the Article of the existing European Treaties dealing with harmonising indirect taxes - Article 113. The full amended Article would then read as follows:

Article 113
“The Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition.”
(The Lisbon Treaty amendment is underlined) . . .Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

The part of the sentence 'to avoid distortion of competition' is underlined.

The significance of this short but important amendment is that it would enable the European Court of Justice, which adjudicates on competition matters, to decide that Ireland’s 12.5% rate of company tax, or Estonia’s zero rate, as against Britain’s 28% rate and Germany’s 30% is a distortion of competition which breaches the Treaty Articles dealing with the internal market - Art. 26 and Arts.101-9 TFEU - in relation to which qualified majority voting on the Council of Ministers applies. The Irish Government’s veto under Article 113 would be irrelevant if those Articles on the Internal Market are invoked as the legal basis for proposing changes in EU tax laws. All the assurances regarding unanimity under Article 113 would then count for nothing.