Declan Ganley - A tribute I think!

[starb]

Would you like to give some examples, or links to back up those astounding claims?

There have been endless examples over the last year of his dishonesty, murky history, numerous business failures and evasiveness.

Do you know anything about him at all apart from what was on the Libertas posters?

Oh dear, I appear to have rattled someone's cage. Would you not think "astounding claims" is a wee bit ott? This is my opinion that is all it is, just an opinion not a thesis. The only Libertas poster I have seen was for Raymond O’Malley as I live in the east side of the country and I have also been abroad a lot for the whole European Election thing but I can read and I can also think for myself and not have RTE or the Irish Times tell me how to think

honest - not from the brown paper envelope brigade. Genuine reasons for being in politics.
Fresh - not from a typical Irish style dynasty i.e. going after "daddy's seat".
Capable- helped defeat Lisbon.
Proven businessman – he is not exactly living on the dole is he?
Willing to stand up and be counted - took on the media and the main political parties along with all the abuse because of what he believed in.

So are you jealous of him or afraid of him??

[molloyjh]

So are you jealous of him or afraid of him??

I'll answer that question. I'm afraid of him. He is a very charming man, with a great mind for marketing. However there was so little truth to his Lisbon campaign as to make him dangerous. Someone who is capable of and willing to spread misinformation like that is scary. Quite simple really.

[cHeal]

I'd also argue that the fact that the current "undemocratic" EU is ideal for Ireland is also beyond dispute. A more democratic EU would, by definition, reduce ireland's voice, not increase it.

That depends on what use of the word "Democracy" you take. When most people talk about Democracy they tend to use it in the catch all way, democracy, liberty, equality, accountability. Democracy in and of itself, one man one vote, is useless without the mechanisms to make it fair, efficient and effective. Representation for instance. We "elect" people to represent our interests.

Thus a more Democratic EU would not "by definition" reduce Irelands voice, as it would operate through mechanisms which would ensure that even small countries would have an equal role in the development of the EU. The EU is a voluntary union of nations, built and developed with the interests of every nation in mind, the fact that Ireland is a small nation should not be reflected 1 : 1 within the EU, because the interests of our government, and their commitment to it's citizens is just as important as the interests of Germany, France or Italy.

When people talk about a more Democratic Europe they mean a more accountable Europe. One which is properly answerable to it's electorate, one which is transparent and in touch with it's people. At the moment the EU is none of these things. It is a monolithic bureacracy, which has minimal accountability, almost zero transparency and is so distant to the man on the street that only a very small number actually understand what it does and how it does it.

[molloyjh]

Any future ammendments to Lisbon will not require a constitutional referendum as this is devolved on the legislature. Lisbon overides the existing constitution.
Once its provisions are there no more need for an EU referendum in Ireland. If truth be told there is legal advice availablle that says a referendum on Lisbon wasnt nescessary which is why it was structured as an ammendment treaty and not the original EU constitutuion whuich was a more comprehensible document. No future Govt will bother with a EU referendum unless challenged.
The structuring of Lisbon would make such a challenge unsutainable.

They have the power to set ma minimum rate of Corporation Tax similar to the minimum rate of VAT

Don't know how I missed these earlier. First off the first quote is completely wrong. I have explained what the self-amending aspect of the treaty is about already and it is nothing like the rubbish you are spouting there. The Treaty was created purely because the Constitution (which was designed to be understood easily) made people uneasy about the direction of the EU. The French in particular. They didn't want a Constitution due to fear over loss of sovereignty. A Treaty doesn't have the same connotations.

As for VAT, yes the EU has joint competancy over VAT rates. VAT is an indirect tax and it is indirect taxes that the joint compentancy is about. Corporatetax is a direct tax and the EU has no power over direct taxes. To get that power they would need the nessecary legislation passed by unanimous decision across all member states. Several are firmly opposed including ourselves and the UK to such a move so it is widely accepted that this is not a runner, at least for the next few decades.

[molloyjh]

In realty, Commissioners frequently represent national interests under the guise of "European" interests, such as McCreevy's staunch opposition to Commissioner Kovacs obsession with harmonising the corporate-tax base, supported by FG and Labour in the vote on the Bersani report in the EP.

You could also argue that McCreevy was representing the UK, or even Malta here, or better yet the several other countries opposed to Kovacs policy on the matter. But that wouldn't suit your argument would it.

[Cathar]

No, because Lisbon doesn't introduce direct taxation as an EU competence, so the EU cannot set a rate for any direct tax, either through unanimity or QMV.

youre wrong anything can be introduced in the future.

[ibis]

youre wrong anything can be introduced in the future.

Anything theoretically could be put into a future treaty, but that's always so. If you're suggesting that competence over direct taxes could be introduced by an amendment, I refer you to the fact that such amendments, just like treaties, have to be ratified according to the constitutional requirements of each state, and I further refer you to the Crotty judgement.

If what you mean is that the Council of Ministers could simply decide that direct tax was an EU competence without further discussion, you have no idea what you're talking about at all.

[Cathar]

Anything theoretically could be put into a future treaty, but that's always so. If you're suggesting that competence over direct taxes could be introduced by an amendment, I refer you to the fact that such amendments, just like treaties, have to be ratified according to the constitutional requirements of each state, and I further refer you to the Crotty judgement.

If what you mean is that the Council of Ministers could simply decide that direct tax was an EU competence without further discussion, you have no idea what you're talking about at all.

It can be introduced under Apprpximation Of Laws proviosion (to regulate the internal Market) by removing the word fiscal from Article 114 paragraph 2.
This would only require QMV to ammend .

I hate this you made me read the Treaty.

[FutureTaoiseach]

You could also argue that McCreevy was representing the UK, or even Malta here, or better yet the several other countries opposed to Kovacs policy on the matter. But that wouldn't suit your argument would it.

Not when the UK Labour govt supports the plan - which it does. CCCTB would force companies exporting from Ireland to pay their taxes to the countries they export to, allowing the UK Exchequer to claw back billions in tax revenues that would otherwise go to the Irish govt. The same is true of companies exporting to France, Germanye tc. with respect to those govts. FG and Labour must explain their decision to vote for the CCCTB in the European parliament via the vote for the Bersani Report.

[molloyjh]

Not when the UK Labour govt supports the plan - which it does. CCCTB would force companies exporting from Ireland to pay their taxes to the countries they export to, allowing the UK Exchequer to claw back billions in tax revenues that would otherwise go to the Irish govt. The same is true of companies exporting to France, Germanye tc. with respect to those govts. FG and Labour must explain their decision to vote for the CCCTB in the European parliament via the vote for the Bersani Report.

You really don't understand corporate tax at all do you FT? You don't pay based on exports or transactions or to countries you sell in or anything like that. Corporate tax is paid on profit declared in a particular state. That is overall profit for the company, nothing to do with individual sales or imports or exports or anything like that.

A higher corporate tax here may certainly benefit other member states by making Ireland a less attractive destination for foreign investment, but as long as they are based here their corporate tax will be paid here. Nowhere else.

Anyway England are firmly opposed to CCCTB as they do not want to lose sovereignty over direct taxation - surprise, surprise. McCreevy is opposed because it doesn't make sense from an EU perspective, it only makes sense for certain member states. Indirect taxation is relevant at an EU level in certain areas due to cross border sales etc however direct taxation is not relevant at an EU level as it is completely internal to each member state. you obviously don't understand the basics of this stuff FT, and I don't mean that in an offensive way, but you can't hope to debate this properly without that basic understanding. And generally I wouldn't mind that if you showed and interest in learning about it, but so far you haven't.