Vote 'Yes' for President Tony Blair?

[molloyjh]

A CCCTB would force companies exporting from Ireland to pay destination-taxes to the countries of sales-destination and to do so proportionately. Because we export 85% of what we produce, that would rob the Exchequer of most of its corporate-tax revenue. What have FG and Labour been offered in return?

Good to see some things never change. FT take a couple of days (you had plenty during your ban) to go and educate yourself on taxation. I know we've tried here already, but it's obviously not getting in there. There are a number of glaring holes in your argument (par for the course that though).

For starters CCCTB has to be introduced before it can do anything. That can only happen via unanimity. There are several EU states firmly opposed to it at the moment, and there's no sign of that changing. The Germans last year even came out to say that for as much as they want it to happen it is not a realistic expectation right now.

Secondly this "destination tax" you refer to would be a tax on what exactly? It would have to be a tax on goods right!? After all that is what is being shipped between States. And when you talk about proportionally charging this tax what exactly do you even mean? Bear in mind that every State already has their own distinct VAT etc on goods and that destination tax would amount to an import duty if it were seperate to that and this is prohibited by EU law. Add to that the simple fact that companies work to maintain their profit margins, so any additional tax would only lead to increased costs of goods and then look at what corporate tax is, i.e. a tax on profit, and you'll quite clearly see that you are talking total and utter rubbish. Again.

[molloyjh]

How short exactly do you think our memories actually are?

It was said over and over and over again!

Ok then, who ever said Lisbon would create jobs. Where was it ever explicitly stated?

[ibis]

How short exactly do you think our memories actually are?

It was said over and over and over again!

Given that you've already forgotten he addressed exactly that point in his post, I'd say very short. Given that the No side didn't seem to be able to remember what was in Nice and what was in Lisbon, or what they'd said (and been wrong about) in previous referendums, I'd again say, very short.

Were you hoping for a different answer? Or have you forgotten the question already?

[MacCoise2]

Jesus lads, if you're going to be such smart arses you shoudl really try to be right

Yes vote will create jobs - Kenny - The Irish Times - Mon, Sep 14, 2009
""If we vote Yes to Lisbon, we will attract more investment into this country, and help create thousands of desperately needed new jobs."

Hayes says Lisbon will help create jobs - Nationalist

IBEC and the Lisbon Treaty


So cut the nonsense, admit your lies and stop being such prissy winners. 3thierry Henry syndrome3 maybe?

[MacCoise2]

Lisbon will impact on jobs and economic recovery - Galway Independent
"Employers in the region also believe that a 'yes' vote will have implications for job creation and retention in the West."


Now onto page 2 of the google search....



Lisbon Treaty | Cork Chamber of Commerce

bored now

[Design for Life]

This was based on the idea that voting No puts our position in the EU under doubt

And that "idea" was created by people who wanted the treaty passed. All proponents here terrified people into thinking the country would end up like Iceland if they didn't vote "yes" because we'd be kcicked out. Barosso also showed up to spread the fear message.

[ibis]

Lisbon will impact on jobs and economic recovery - Galway Independent
"Employers in the region also believe that a 'yes' vote will have implications for job creation and retention in the West."

Now onto page 2 of the google search....

Lisbon Treaty | Cork Chamber of Commerce

bored now

Ah, it's a vocabulary problem, then. I don't doubt our vote had implications for job creation and retention - or that the implications of a Yes vote for job creation and retention were more positive than the implications of a No vote.

Jumping from 'implications' to shouts of "where's the jobs then?" is imbecilic - like pretending the implications of buying a house on a flood plain are floods the moment you move in - and if there aren't, then there are "clearly" no such implications.

Not that we're short on that bit of reasoning either, obviously.

[MacCoise2]

Ah, it's a vocabulary problem, then. I don't doubt our vote had implications for job creation and retention - or that the implications of a Yes vote for job creation and retention were more positive than the implications of a No vote.

Jumping from 'implications' to shouts of "where's the jobs then?" is imbecilic - like pretending the implications of buying a house on a flood plain are floods the moment you move in - and if there aren't, then there are "clearly" no such implications.

Not that we're short on that bit of reasoning either, obviously.

Semantics Ibis and iof course you conveniently ignore the first two links