How can Lisbon II be defeated.

[molloyjh]

Ok that's it, I reserve this word for special occassions and here we have a special occassion. FT you are a moron. We have been through this with you already and explained it to death. INDIRECT TAXATION IS A SHARED COMPETANCY OF THE EU, DIRECT TAXATION IS NOT.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp if you try. Direct taxation, like income tax and corporate tax, is the Government going DIRECTLY (there's the clue!) to you for revenue. Indirect taxation is the Government going via something else (INDIRECTLY, see how this works), e.g. the sale of goods with VAT, for revenue.

Indirect taxation has very obvious cross-border impacts due to goods being bought and sold across member states, e.g. a light bulb made in the UK sold in Ireland. Therefore it makes sense for the EU to have a shared competancy in indirect taxation.

Direct taxation does not have the same cross border implications with one single exception, i.e. the possibility that Ireland, for example, may charge different rates to companies from different member states. Given that this practice is fundamentally opposed to the founding principles of the EU it is only fair that the ECJ can step in to insist that we charge the same rate for all member state cmopanies under the anti-discriminatory measures. They cannot tell us what rate to set, just that it has to be the same across the board for all EU companies.

Added to that the fact that we have never, nor probably ever will, attempt to adopt multiple corporate rates in this manner means that this particular piece of legislation will have no impact on us.

Now seeing as you don't understand corporate tax (which became apparent in the last discussion we had on this very same point, that had all these points in it) and you don't understand the difference between direct and indirect taxation (covered again both here and in the last thread) I don't expect you to be able to come to terms with all of this straight away. Take your time with it, you'll get there eventually. Unless of course that is that you have no intention of "understanding" anything, but are only here to stir it up????

[bazlad]

It might help if there weren't quite so many retards on the no side. Keep them quiet this time

How rough it must be for you to live in a country where you think the MAJORITY of people in ireland are retards then!

[hiding behind a poster]

No, you're wrong there, Molloyjh. The way it is is this:

The ECJ are big mad nasty bastards, and the rules of the EU and their own limitations by statute are thrown out the window on a regular basis - as in whenever a case before them has implications for Ireland. And as long as they're screwing Ireland in the process, all the other member states are happy.

That's FT's interpretation, anyway.

[west'sawake]

I have to disagree with your implication - Lisbon and the EU are certainly not socialist. They are about completely free markets, privatisation of all resources and services and centralised decision making.

That's not socialism. It's corporate fascism.

Cheers for the reps btw!

Thanks for yours Sarahj

Not so, we do not have completely free markets within the E.U. when;

i) The social charter tries impose uniform industrial relations, labour laws and welfare standards on divergent economies at a differnt stage of economic development

ii) There is asingle monetary policy within a collection of non homogenenous economies through out much of the union.

iii) Various economic tools, or stabilsers that can correct disequilibriums in markets for the factors of production and the trading of goods and services are eleminated as the union attempts to standadrise fiscal policy across and eleminate exchange rate fluctations by a single currency union or pegging those outside it within narrow bands.

There are also inbuilt contradictions within E.U. smoked salmon socialist market. For example France and the other big founding members have blocked perfect mobility of labour, their labour markets are closed shops, unlike Ireland, Sweden and the U.K

Your corporate fascist remark though does have a grain of truth to it, but not in the economic sense, nor in away you and I are likel to agree on, me being socailly conservative, it is a corporatism that would find common ground with Marx who saw religion, the family, and private property as bulwarks against State power, thus the politically correct driven agenda of defamiliaisation, the belligerence towards denominational education, are all are consistent with the post Marxist Frankfurt school, who which has made remarkable headway via NGOs, Quanoges, and E.U institutions.

but that would need another thread in itself.

[Watcher1]

Bringing up EU membership itself is a distraction by the yes campaign. EU membership continues regardless. It's the gravy-train for politicians aspiring to EU patronage that is threatened. There is no mechanism for expulsion of members. You know you're being offered a raw deal when the elites talk about everything except what's in it to get you to agree to it. They don't mention the expansion of Qualified Majority Voting on the Council of Ministers, the halving of the Irish voting-strength while Germany's doubles and the French vote increases by one-third, or the Charter of Fundamental Rights turning the ECJ into a Supreme Court (particularly over asylum and immigration), oer the govt's intention to surrender the veto on Justice and Home Affairs (provisions allowing for this were contained in the Referendum Act 2008 in relation to relinquishing the Protocol with the consent of the Oireacthas but without a referendum(. Unfortunately for them, there are those willing to confront them on these issues, as well as how Lisbon would in fact worsen the recession by copperfastening plans for corporate-tax harmonisation via CCCTB and the amended Article 113 of the TFEU, which facilitates tax harmonisation to combat "distortions of competition" - a clear reference to low-tax economies like Ireland.

Hi FT, what in your opinion is the benefit to the Irish politicians in getting Lisbon passed? I know we cant be kicked out, despite the inferences by the Yes camp and I dont believe a No vote will unduly hurt us in Europe. I think our "influence" in Europe is overstated (just like our footballing abilities and how great our economy is/was. Sure, dont we think we are just marvellous compared to 90% of the rest of the world).

I also agree with you on the power that Lisbon will give to Brussels to change things like taxation and a whole other raft of national policies. While Lisbon wont change those policies, despite what those legal guarantees say, I believe that Lisbon installs the mechanism to lay the infrastructure for those changes.

I think the tax thing is a mute point anyway because I can see the day when Brussels tells us they will help our economic situation if we increase our corporation tax rates. It will be that or feck off to the IMF.

[Watcher1]

People who oppose the treaty, in particular the ones who have been posting in this thread.


No it's not, the contents of the treaty are relevant to the treaty. The main opposition parties also support Lisbon so why make it a referendum on FF and the Greens? Especially considering that the junior government coalition partners didn't even formally support the Treaty. It doesn't make sense to turn this into a referendum on the government.

Why not turn it into a referendum on the opposition parties who also supported Lisbon? Because that would produce a Yes vote and that's not what the nay-sayers want. The fact is that encouraging people to use their vote as a protest vote against the government is underhanded.

That's because as an economic union we are in this together. A lot of this comes down to the question: do you support a common market? Because much of the EU's common regulatory provisions, senseless as they may seem, have their logical basis in the common market. If every nation was to go its own way economically it would be impossible to have a common market in which fair business practices are observed.

Of course, Ireland still has a lot of power over its own affairs, something which you acknowledge in your post. I don't think the influence exercised by the EU is "underhanded". The EU are our neighbours and trading partners, it's hardly scandalous that their concerns feature in our budgets.


You're entitled to have your opinion, but I'm entitled to criticize it.

Lets just turn it into a referendum on politicians in general? That would still get the same result as a referendum on the government. Feel free to launch either campaign. It will make me happy as I'm sure my no vote will be copperfastened with the majority in this country.

[Watcher1]

Reply to Watcher1
Noone else sought the right to vote. We did through Crotty years ago. If noone in the other other member states didn't do what we did that is their fauly, not their Governments nor the EUs.


Lisbon doesn't have any selling points as such as it just modifies hoe the EU does things to make it more effecient for the most part. There are no direct benefits, not direct disadvantages. A more effecient EU is surely in everyones benefit though?

No one else sought the right to vote? Well, what mechanism would the people have in France and the Netherlands to seek a vote? If there was an easily accessible route to make that happen I am sure they would have looked for it. The had the vote and gave the answer to Lisbon but the politicians decided to change about 5% of the text and fed the line to the people that it was not a constitutional issue. Similar line to our guys saying the banks capital was adequate I suppose.

I agree that there are no direct benefits from Lisbon and probably no direct disadvantages, however, what we are not being told is what the indirect disadvantages are. Dont be fooled by the men in power, they want this for their own benefits plain and simply. They have not explained the treaty to us.

If you dont know, vote NO. That is the only logical thing to do and the only democratic manner in which to vote.

[Watcher1]

Nonsense. You fit in quite well with the PC-brigade mindset. Asylum should be about safety, not merely a flag of convenience for economic migration. The UK does not allow asylum-seekers to work either. Given their partial optout from the Charter, Article 15 of the Charter could well mean we are the only English speaking country in the EU to allow asylum-seekers to work. That would lead to a large influx into this country by asylum seekers living in the UK. In a recession, this is an unacceptable burden to place on the Irish people, 600,000 of whom are expected to be out of work by the end of the year.

And let me remind you: it was the Irish govt that revoked the right of asylum-seekers to work - and for good reason. Do they have "the BNP type mind-set" too?When it was last permitted, we had 11,000 coming here per annum. This was the argument rolled out when we had the Citizenship referendum aswell, even though we were only bringing our laws into line with the rest of Europe. And as for the BNP and the Far Right generally, it's PC attitudes like yours which have spawned the growth in support for such parties. Closing down debate by mainstream parties drives people to the extremes. So it may well be that retaining our restrictions helps prevent the rise of racist groups in this country. It is the politicians I am blaming, not the immigrants. But charity begins at home, and we have been generous enough.
Switzerland is faring better than we are economically outside of the EU.
I assume she is referring to the simplified-ratification procedure, which allows for changes in the texts of the Treaties without referenda. I specifically recall on Prime Time during the Lisbon I campaign it being stated by the narrator that the Treaty allowed the govt to surrender further vetoes in the future - including taxation. These assurances are a scrap of paper, which can be thrown out by the ECJ. One thing that is certainly the case is that in the Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2008, specific permission was given to the govt, with the support of the Oireachtas, to surrender the veto on Justice and Home Affairs through the abrogation of the Protocol on the Area of Justice and Freedom, and thereby avoid a referendum. Watch for the 2009 Referendum Act for them to attempt again to slip things in under the radar when they think we're not looking.

Here is the gem they put into the legislation last year to allow them surrender our veto on Justice and Home Affairs:

There are 40 houses in the Oireactas? WTF?

[Watcher1]

Give up, its going to be a yes vote!

Yes to Lisbon No to Nutters!

Tell me this - Why are you so in favour of the Lisbon Treaty? Please be as specific as possible.

[molloyjh]

No one else sought the right to vote? Well, what mechanism would the people have in France and the Netherlands to seek a vote? If there was an easily accessible route to make that happen I am sure they would have looked for it. The had the vote and gave the answer to Lisbon but the politicians decided to change about 5% of the text and fed the line to the people that it was not a constitutional issue. Similar line to our guys saying the banks capital was adequate I suppose.

I agree that there are no direct benefits from Lisbon and probably no direct disadvantages, however, what we are not being told is what the indirect disadvantages are. Dont be fooled by the men in power, they want this for their own benefits plain and simply. They have not explained the treaty to us.

If you dont know, vote NO. That is the only logical thing to do and the only democratic manner in which to vote.

Until such a time as you understand WHY the French and Dutch voted No to THE CONSTITUTION I suggest you leave that point well enough alone. Like every other EU country the mechanisms to change the way they do things exist the same as here, i.e. through the courts. If noone seeks to change things (and it only takes 1 person) then its safe to assume (as no other conclusion can be reached) that they are happy enough to go without the referendum. Especially seeing as they elected a vocally pro-Lisbon man in Sarkozy and never tried to tell him they were opposed to Lisbon.

As for the "if you don't know, vote NO" line, all I can say is that is a shameful display of the greatest problem with Irish democracy, That should read:

IF YOU DON'T KNOW MAKE THE EFFORT TO FIND OUT. IF YOU'RE NOT BOTHERED FINDING OUT ABSTAIN.

Your right to vote comes with the moral responsibility to educate yourself about what you are voting on. Voting out of ignorance does nothing for anyone and is a barrier to true democracy, i.e. how can you really know what you want if you don't understand it, therefore how is your view being represented?