Can someone answer me the following questions;
Will Irelands Corporation Tax be, in anyway, compromised should this treaty be ratified?
And to add a point, credible or not I don't know. Whats to stop all countries dropping their tax rate to Irelands?
Is Ireland obliged to any sort of ''Common Defence Policy'' should this be ratified?
Go raibh maith agat go leir.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
No. It's an argument that was used at Nice too, and it was just as false then. There's a couple of threads on this already, though.Originally Posted by IrishRepublican.net
Nothing. Taxation is a sovereign matter, so every other country in the EU is free to drop their tax rate as low as they like.
No, we have the usual clauses respecting our neutrality (amongst others), as well as the Constitutional amendment preventing us being part of a common defence.
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.
Corportation tax - As per Ibis's comments above - this has been done to death in this forum - Irelands taxes are ours to decide alone -likewise we have no control over what other nations choose to set their tax rates as.
The harmonization of how corporate taxes are calculated is the red herring that has raised its head during this campaign - there is a report and a proposal for consideration by the commission on this - its chances of ever seeing the light of day as legislation are less than zero as it would require unanimity to go ahead and even then would be on a voluntary basis
Sometimes I think the No camp are under the impression that it will be Ireland verus the other 26 together on every single issue - its far far from the truth and we have our veto on every issue of vital national interest.
http://www.rte.ie/business/2008/0422/tax.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008 ... 170799.htm
As regards common defense:
This is the Irish Constitution Article 29.9
http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_fi ... reland.pdf
Its an open and shut case - this article is totally unaffected by the Lisbon Treaty and would require a seperate referendum to be repealed.9° The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7° of this section where that common defence would include the State.
Sorry OP - but I just feel Im going around in circles in this debate - This is the umpteenth thread I've brought this up on and some posters simply refuse to believe their own eyes and ears.
gone
Just for ************************s and giggles I've decided to post the following taken from the Libertas website.
Discuss...
Barosso refuses to rule out possibility of court challenge to corporate tax rate
Written by Libertas
Thursday, 17 April 2008
Speaking after an exchange with EU Commission President Jose Barroso at the Forum on Europe this afternoon, Libertas Executive Director Naoise Nunn has said that it Mr. Barroso's refusal to deny the possibility of a court challenge to Ireland's Corporate tax rates after ratification of the Lisbon Treaty was a "devastating" indictment of the Treaty.
In an exchange with Mr Barroso at the forum, Mr. Nunn asked the Commission President to answer yes or no to the question of whether the ECJ could be asked to rule on whether Ireland's corporate tax rates "distort competition".
Such a challenge could mean that Ireland would be forced by the EU courts to abandon the one policy that has been most responsible for the country's economic success over the past 15 years.
Commenting on the exchange, Mr. Nunn said:
"Today was supposed to allay fears about Ireland's corporate tax rates being interfered with after the Lisbon Treaty. It was set up as a rehearsed, controlled, and totally orchestrated opportunity for the great leader of the commission to tell the "No" campaign that we are all fools.
Instead, we had the spectacle of the President of the Commission refusing to answer a yes or no question on the grounds that it was "too technical". This was despite his being surrounded by senior commission officials who are, presumably, intimately familiar with the text.
The fact of the matter is that the Lisbon Treaty opens the risk of a court challenge to Ireland's corporate tax rates under the pretext that they "distort competition" within the Union.
Libertas has asked "yes" campaigners repeatedly in recent weeks to respond to this charge, and each time they have refused to do so. Today the Commission President refused to do so.
The fact of the matter is that such a court challenge could be defeated. Or it could succeed. Or it could never be taken, - or it could be taken and succeed. If such a thing were to happen, the Irish economic miracle would end overnight.
This is an issue of the utmost seriousness. Within a few hours of my releasing these comments, they will be attacked as "spurious", "technical", "ridiculous", or "misleading" by Dick Roche. They are not. This may not happen, but be under no illusions that it would be permissible. In that case, Ireland's tax rates would be in the hands of the European Courts.
The Irish people should say no."
"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.'' ~ J. Edgar Hoover
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Any just for everbody's sanity - here is one of the discussions on it here already!
viewtopic.php?f=172&t=34170
Im going to Bed!
gone
As someone there at the time I have got to admire Libertas for their ability to spin wild claims and untruths.
The facts are simple. Barroso was meant to have been at the forum for about 2 hours. In the morning he was meant to have a series of meetings before coming to the forum in the afternoon. His flight was delayed considerably, so he only arrived in Ireland at lunchtime and had to cram in all his day's engagements in the afternoon. As a result he was 20 minutes late getting to the forum.
The normal routine is that the guest speaks for 15 minutes, then questions are taken from the heads of delegations, the speaker answers them all en bloc, then more questions are taken by delegation members, and a final rap up answer and last comments are made by the speaker.
Barroso was under severe time restraints. The main delegations kept to a very tight schedule of questions, but Patricia McKenna, true to form, wasted value minutes launching a bitter personalised and frankly vicious attack on Barroso that drew catcalls even from other No campaigners who were then left with less time because she had used up so much of what was left. (The No campaigners tend to sit together so they were the ones waiting to ask questions after her. She screwed up their time.) [I am ashamed to admit I once voted for her. After her recent performances I now see how she earned a reputation in parliament as a headbanger!]
Barroso answered a selection of questions - he hadn't the time to get around to them all. (He might have gotten around to more if McKenna had shut up gob and not wasted so much time.) Barroso simply had not the time to go into the detail on the question Libertas wanted. If Libertas had BOTHERED to turn up at all the forum meetings (which they haven't done) they would have heard that question answered in detail in previous longer meetings by a number of speakers. It is unfortunately typical of Libertas's approach to misrepresent the fact that Barroso was under severe time constraints due to circumstances beyond his control (a delayed flight) and spin a yarn that he had refused to answer their 'tough questions'. He simply could not answer all the questions in the limited time he had available. Even to get in the ones he could involved staying longer than scheduled. Maybe the next time Libertas and some of the No crowd should gag the increasingly nutty McKenna, and tell Joe Higgins to stop asking 7 minute technical questions when questions are supposed to be only 2 minutes and every time he does it he then leaves PANA, EU Reform, Libertas, whichever organisation McKenna is in - she seems to change organisations all the time - as well as ICTU, the IFA and others with less than 2 minutes for their questions. (Interestingly, the only speaker who has had their microphone turned off when they went way over time was Deidre de Burca - not that that stopped her still going on. The chairman really needs to take Higgins and McKenna to task and cut them off mid-sentence. They are being allowed get away with murder over highjacking 5-8 minutes each to ask questions when they are supposed to take no more than 2.)
[color=#FF0000](Guys, when I type in capitals it isn't shouting. I have technical problems which makes using italics difficult. Please don't take offence if you see capitals used!) [/color]
Well it's all fine and dandy blaming McKenna, sure we all do it from time to time. But...As someone there at the time I have got to admire Libertas for their ability to spin wild claims and untruths.
The facts are simple. Barroso was meant to have been at the forum for about 2 hours. In the morning he was meant to have a series of meetings before coming to the forum in the afternoon. His flight was delayed considerably, so he only arrived in Ireland at lunchtime and had to cram in all his day's engagements in the afternoon. As a result he was 20 minutes late getting to the forum.
The normal routine is that the guest speaks for 15 minutes, then questions are taken from the heads of delegations, the speaker answers them all en bloc, then more questions are taken by delegation members, and a final rap up answer and last comments are made by the speaker.
Barroso was under severe time restraints. The main delegations kept to a very tight schedule of questions, but Patricia McKenna, true to form, wasted value minutes launching a bitter personalised and frankly vicious attack on Barroso that drew catcalls even from other No campaigners who were then left with less time because she had used up so much of what was left. (The No campaigners tend to sit together so they were the ones waiting to ask questions after her. She screwed up their time.) [I am ashamed to admit I once voted for her. After her recent performances I now see how she earned a reputation in parliament as a headbanger!]
Barroso answered a selection of questions - he hadn't the time to get around to them all. (He might have gotten around to more if McKenna had shut up gob and not wasted so much time.) Barroso simply had not the time to go into the detail on the question Libertas wanted. If Libertas had BOTHERED to turn up at all the forum meetings (which they haven't done) they would have heard that question answered in detail in previous longer meetings by a number of speakers. It is unfortunately typical of Libertas's approach to misrepresent the fact that Barroso was under severe time constraints due to circumstances beyond his control (a delayed flight) and spin a yarn that he had refused to answer their 'tough questions'. He simply could not answer all the questions in the limited time he had available. Even to get in the ones he could involved staying longer than scheduled. Maybe the next time Libertas and some of the No crowd should gag the increasingly nutty McKenna, and tell Joe Higgins to stop asking 7 minute technical questions when questions are supposed to be only 2 minutes and every time he does it he then leaves PANA, EU Reform, Libertas, whichever organisation McKenna is in - she seems to change organisations all the time - as well as ICTU, the IFA and others with less than 2 minutes for their questions. (Interestingly, the only speaker who has had their microphone turned off when they went way over time was Deidre de Burca - not that that stopped her still going on. The chairman really needs to take Higgins and McKenna to task and cut them off mid-sentence. They are being allowed get away with murder over highjacking 5-8 minutes each to ask questions when they are supposed to take no more than 2.)
Possible answers:Mr. Nunn asked the Commission President to answer yes or no to the question of whether the ECJ could be asked to rule on whether Ireland's corporate tax rates "distort competition".
Yes, it could.
No, it could not.
Mr Barroso's answer:
That's too technical.
Now, given the importance of the issue of Ireland's corporate tax rate, regardless of the actual situation, that was a piss poor answer from Barrosso. If anything, as it is doing here, it's causing more speculation that he's hiding something. Own goal there.
A poster of some consequence...
Well I must say he did answer it, it was linked with art 113 and he had to point out that the article was additional to it being by unanimity, he also explained enahnced co-operation under the treaty could not undermine those not participating. He did all this in a few sentences
There's no script but on the webcast it is at about 84 mins 34 secs...crystal clear to me. (85.51 on enhanced co-operation) Says it about 4 times
http://pim.mediasite.com/pim/Viewer/Vie ... rType=WM7#
[a fitting thousandth post methinks]
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks