TV3 Ganley-Sutherland debate now

[NotDevsSon]

[quote=FutureTaoiseach]

Ganley is wining hands down. Sutherland seems very smug. I thought Ursla Halligan was being fair to Ganley this time until they cut the program me very early because Ganley was wining.

how so? stance on abortion all over the place, agreed that we have a veto regards to tax etc

The veto on tax is ineffective because of Article 93 which will allow the ECJ to rule that our corporate-taxation is a "distortion of compettition". [/quote:22f367ga]

And STILL you trot out that lie. It has been pointed out over and over in thread after thread after thread that "distortion of competition" CANNOT apply to taxation. The ECJ has already ruled that explicitly twice.

STOP lying on the issue.

The veto cannot stop Enhanced Cooperation being used to proceed with destination-taxes which - while not officially including Ireland - would result in Irish-based companies and multinationals operating out of Ireland being taxed on their sales in the participating member states.

Again that is lie, shown clearly over and over. Yet still you claim it.

Ganley's lies were caught out on tax, CCCTB, Article 48 and especially on abortion where said one thing and was then caught to have said the exact opposite in a Mayo newspaper. As usual Libertas seems to change its stance by the day.

Wrong because you have to look at the fine-print as Ganley did. He won.

If you think a stuttering performance in which Ganley was caught lying on abortion, lying on Article 48 and lying on tax was a win, you are even more deluded than normal, something i did not think was possible.

[FutureTaoiseach]

The veto on tax is ineffective because of Article 93 which will allow the ECJ to rule that our corporate-taxation is a "distortion of competition". The veto cannot stop Enhanced Cooperation being used to proceed with destination-taxes/CCCTB which - while not officially including Ireland - would result in Irish-based companies and multinationals operating out of Ireland being taxed on their sales in the participating member states. Barroso and Kovacs have made clear the Irish veto can't stop CCCTB.

incorrect FT, the distortion of competition phrase refers to indirect tax; corporation tax is a direct tax.

And the taxation of Irish companies in the EU cannot be changed without a renegotiation of Ireland's double tax treaties.

Did Ganley make those points on corporation tax? Because they have been soundly debunked on dozens of threads here.

He talked about destination-taxes (CCCTB).

As far as I am concerned, the problem is that countries using enhanced-cooperation can agree common policies for the taxation of companies from outside the CCCTB area that trade with that area.

Again that is lie, shown clearly over and over. Yet still you claim it.

It's the truth. Why do you think Jean-Luc Dehaene said that releasing the report on implementing Lisbon would hand arguments to the no side?

Sutherland's indifference to the no votes in France and Holland was unfortunate but typical of the elites.

[Solipsist]

Wow i'm surprised that the No side haven't come out with "I cannot categorically rule out that a Flying Spaghetti Monster will not be created to feed on the souls of Yes voters if this Treaty is passed".

Holy * siúcra * but the amount of creative ******** i've heard by the No side is gobsmacking

Ganley
Remember its all about joining the dots...I have joined the dots and I can see the ECJ will be able to force cross dressing on all of us

Sutherland
quite simply you are wrong and you disgust me you are so wrong

G.
I am an ordinary citizen of Europe who happens to be very rich

S.
Me too...

[Common_sense]

Veto is there, but its irrelevant because other parts of the treaty nullify it. top Eu officials have admitted this. There are punitive fines if a veto is attempted and the government has said that it will endeavor to never implement the veto.

finally the veto's are temporary and come up for review after three years, article 48 will in any event be used to change the treaty to remove the veto for Ireland and UK with out having to resort to parliaments or referendums. Ganley pointed all this out very well.

[NotDevsSon]

Veto is there, but its irrelevant because other parts of the treaty nullify it. top Eu officials have admitted this.

Another lie.

There are punitive fines if a veto is attempted and the government has said that it will endeavor to never implement the veto.

100% untrue.

finally the veto's are temporary and come up for review after three years, article 48 will in any event be used to change the treaty to remove the veto for Ireland and UK with out having to resort to parliaments or referendums. Ganley pointed all this out very well.

Absolutely untrue.

[myk]

He talked about destination-taxes (CCCTB).

As far as I am concerned, the problem is that countries using enhanced-cooperation can agree common policies for the taxation of companies from outside the CCCTB area that trade with that area.

only is they renegotiate their double tax agreements with Ireland. Any country can change how they tax companies operating in that country. And they can do this without Lisbon. But if they have a double tax treaty with Ireland they have to re-negotiate it.

Yours (and Ganley's) argument on this is a "what if" with no direct relevance to Lisbon.

[Solipsist]

commonsense you are actually just making stuff up - what is this three year review you are making up?

[baldur0300]

commonsense you are actually just making stuff up - what is this three year review you are making up?

He's making up everying in that post.

[FutureTaoiseach]

He talked about destination-taxes (CCCTB).

As far as I am concerned, the problem is that countries using enhanced-cooperation can agree common policies for the taxation of companies from outside the CCCTB area that trade with that area.

only is they renegotiate their double tax agreements with Ireland. Any country can change how they tax companies operating in that country. And they can do this without Lisbon. But if they have a double tax treaty with Ireland they have to re-negotiate it.

Yours (and Ganley's) argument on this is a "what if" with no direct relevance to Lisbon.

Lisbon makes clear that we can't veto them going ahead with CCCTB, as unanimity is only defined as the countries involved in Enhanced Cooperation for the purposes of E.C.

[Solipsist]

FT Im only new here but honestly doubletaxation agreements and our veto prevent what you are saying. You must see that!