A simple question/concern about Lisbon

LookingFor · 12-06-2008 10:41am #1

OK, I consider myself very pro-Europe. And I'm leaning towards a yes vote today. But one thing is niggling me.

Our politicians seem very keen to have a yes vote in order to avoid 'embarrassment' with their European colleagues, in order so that Ireland is not put on the margins of Europe, in order that, basically, they'll be able to look their European colleagues in the eye and stand proud around them. One of the major concerns regarding a No vote seems to be how it would affect our image, or our 'standing' in Europe...or more specifically, our polticians' standing at EU meetings.

On the other hand, we're being reassured of our veto in issues like tax and defense.

But what happens if 26 other members of the EU, for example, want to harmonise corporation tax? Is there not a danger of the same psychology kicking in, whereby our politicians feel they have to fall in line in order to save face? Vetos are worth nought if our leaders aren't willing to go against the grain in Europe in the future, when the decisions are left in their hands and the public has no say in the matter.

That's the one thing bothering me, particularly re. corporation tax. I wouldn't even mind a "united states of Europe", but even in the US individual states have control over tax.

I just don't think the noises our politicians have been making about embarrassment etc. are particularly encouraging for the future usage of vetoes in face of similar pressure. Have the main parties even committed to veto-ing harmonisation of tax if the issue is raised going forward? I'm actually surprised the No campaign hasn't made more issue of this. Like I say, such vetoes are useless if our leaders aren't willing to stand up to a EU majority - something they don't seem to be willing to do judging by their comments about what would happen if there was a no vote. I'd like reassurance on this before marking a x in the Yes box.

ixtlan · 12-06-2008 10:51am

You raise a valid concern and there is a certain amount of trust involved that your government will do the right thing.

Bear in mind these points:

Passing Lisbon will make difference to the tax issue one way or the other. There will be an attempt to harmonise taxes.

Many of the other countries don't want harmonised taxes either. Britain has this view also. No matter how much they would like higher taxes in Ireland, they would never hand that power to Brussels.

The Irish politicians, who work with their European colleagues all the time, obviously feel they will be in a better position to block tax changes if they are not trying to resolve a messy failed Lisbon treaty debacle, which may have damaged personal/national relationships around the table.

Decision making at EU level has always been done on a consensus system. It's very seldom they even take votes, and use of the veto almost never happens. So you should take from that that changes are not forced.

Actually the no side has made your argument. In particular Shane Ross... who I shall paraphrase "we will have a veto but they will force us not to use it". Maybe, but you cannot be pro-European if you believe this. We should be attempting to withdraw because in that scenario anything can be forced on us.

Ix.

axer · 12-06-2008 10:56am

If lisbon is rejected then it will send a strong message to the EU that Ireland has no problems going against EU when ireland sees fit.

It might even get people thinking about where the EU is going. Will it eventually just lead to a federal government.

VoidStarNull · 12-06-2008 11:11am

Are you suggesting that Ireland should go against the EU just to prove that we can do it?

Regardless of whether the issue at hand is good or bad for Ireland?

I think the message that sends is "WE ARE PARANOID!"

sink · 12-06-2008 11:14am

There is no way out of it, the people in power throughout Europe spent 8 years toiling to get to this point, along the way the made many concessions to Ireland and other small nations and from their point of view we got and extremely good deal. They will not understand why we voted no, they will feel let down and betrayed in a way. That will have negative connotations for us when negotiating other treaties in the future. It will be more difficult for us to get concession because they will feel that we won't appreciate their sacrifice.

I don't think the sky will fall, or that we will be kicked out of the Union. Although if we become constant naysayers we just might at some point in the future be asked to leave.

ixtlan · 12-06-2008 11:20am

axer wrote: »

If lisbon is rejected then it will send a strong message to the EU that Ireland has no problems going against EU when ireland sees fit.

It might even get people thinking about where the EU is going. Will it eventually just lead to a federal government.

In your vision of Europe we would never have had an EU. That's the Ian Paisley form of doing politics. No. No. Didn't you hear me I said no. Yes, thanks for that concession, it's not enough. What? You want me to concede something? Sorry I'd never get that passed at home. Sorry can't concede anything. You guys can make all the movement, I have to have a referendum at home and you know my people are not afraid to say No. You just keep giving an I'll tell you when it's enough... but I might have to come back and ask for more if my people don't like it.

How well do you think that would go down?

Ix.

LookingFor · 12-06-2008 11:22am

ixtlan wrote: »

Passing Lisbon will make difference to the tax issue one way or the other. There will be an attempt to harmonise taxes.

Many of the other countries don't want harmonised taxes either. Britain has this view also. No matter how much they would like higher taxes in Ireland, they would never hand that power to Brussels.

I am reassured that other countries like Britain don't want this either, but it's a crying shame I need to rely on that reassurance rather than that of our government. Like I say, I'd like to know Ireland would say no to harmonised tax even if it was a 26:1 argument.

I agree it's a matter of trust.

ixtlan wrote: »

Actually the no side has made your argument. In particular Shane Ross... who I shall paraphrase "we will have a veto but they will force us not to use it". Maybe, but you cannot be pro-European if you believe this. We should be attempting to withdraw because in that scenario anything can be forced on us.

I think 'force' is a strong word. I'd be afraid that the politicians would almost force themselves, due to their fear of 'what would happen' if they said no, in terms of image or embarrassment.

Maybe I'm over-worrying on this issue, but it's just something that struck me trying to think forward.

And again, I would consider myself very pro-Europe. I can get behind the notion of a federal European government, even. But like I say, harmonised tax needn't be on the agenda for that to happen.

As a general comment, even as a probable Yes voter I can understand why people will vote no. This stuff about other countries not understanding why we'd vote no, or being offended, or our government being embarassed by the vote..that's utter tosh. I don't always agree that 'the people know best' (e.g. often in civil rights issues), but with something like this it's very insulting to think the government would be ashamed to present the opinion of the people to the rest of Europe. Europe should be about the people, thus if people send a message the politicians don't like, they should try to address rather than go sulk in a corner and tell us how stupid we are.

LookingFor · 12-06-2008 11:30am

sink wrote: »

There is no way out of it, the people in power throughout Europe spent 8 years toiling to get to this point, along the way the made many concessions to Ireland and other small nations and from their point of view we got and extremely good deal. They will not understand why we voted no, they will feel let down and betrayed in a way.

There might be more understanding than you think.

"public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals we dare not present to them directly"

Valéry Giscard d'Estaing

In a House of Lords debate yesterday, he was also quoted as saying that changes made to the constitution in creating the Lisbon Treaty were simply changes to avoid referenda.

He is the chief author of the constitution which led to Lisbon. I'm sure he'd be dismayed by a no vote here today, but he didn't really do himself any favours! He or others under him would have some cheek to turn around and express a non-understanding of a rejection.

ixtlan · 12-06-2008 11:48am

LookingFor wrote: »

I am reassured that other countries like Britain don't want this either, but it's a crying shame I need to rely on that reassurance rather than that of our government. Like I say, I'd like to know Ireland would say no to harmonised tax even if it was a 26:1 argument.

I agree it's a matter of trust.

Well, why should you trust the British government over the Irish one? The Irish politicians have all committed to blocking a common tax rate, and in fact it seems it would require a referendum to adopt it.

I only mention Britain and other countries because people in general seem to believe that it is 26:1 on this issue and it is not.

You are right in a way that if it was 26:1 there would be a lot of pressure and we would have to consider why we thought that a no was the correct choice. However the only issues that are going to come down to 26:1 are cases .... actually I'm stuck... I can't think of any issues that would be 26:1! On the tax issue it will be many years before there would be agreement on this, and at that point we will probably be trying to push a yes to pay for our improved public services and stop jobs heading to lower tax regimes in Eastern Europe!

Ix

LookingFor · 12-06-2008 12:04pm

ixtlan wrote: »

Well, why should you trust the British government over the Irish one? The Irish politicians have all committed to blocking a common tax rate, and in fact it seems it would require a referendum to adopt it.

Because they seem more willing to stick to their guns when it comes to Europe. They don't talk about potentially being embarassed by the will of their people re. Europe. If it came town to 26 v Britain I could still see them sticking to their guns..can't say the same of Ireland.

But I agree that 26:1 is very unlikely. It would just be nice to think IF in the small chance that did happen, the Irish government would face it down.

nhughes100 · 12-06-2008 12:09pm

Sorry but what is the point of having a vote if yes is the only acceptable answer? If we vote no the EU will have to deal with that appropriately as a democratic decision of the people. If it can't deal with that in a mature manner and look inwardly at themselves and ask the hard questions like has the EU gone too far, is it moving in a direction that the people don't want?

If we are to become alienated because of a no vote then we should leave the EU. This would be childish in the extreme and tantamount to bribery like the bribery that took place this week in Westminister with the 42 day detention law. Shame on the Ulster Unionists.

It is only 26 Versus 1 when every other country holds a referendum and votes for it and we are the only ones that vote against.

VoidStarNull · 12-06-2008 12:22pm

nhughes100 wrote: »

Sorry but what is the point of having a vote if yes is the only acceptable answer? If we vote no the EU will have to deal with that appropriately as a democratic decision of the people. If it can't deal with that in a mature manner and look inwardly at themselves and ask the hard questions like has the EU gone too far, is it moving in a direction that the people don't want?

Bear in mind that the other member states have been negotiating this with Irish diplomats for quite a long time. Our diplomats presumably thought they had articulated all of our concerns, and got them duly accomodated. They may have been wrong about that, but it is a travesty to suggest that other states are not listening or responding to us.

Scofflaw · 12-06-2008 1:19pm

To answer the OP - the French have been looking for tax harmonisation since the 1960's. In all that time, it appears we have not given up the veto because we "don't want to face down a consensus".

cordially,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF · 12-06-2008 1:29pm

nhughes100 wrote: »

It is only 26 Versus 1 when every other country holds a referendum and votes for it and we are the only ones that vote against.

Actually as Ive already stated no it only becomes 26 versus 1 when the rules change to majority voting rather than unanimous voting. We are completely entitled if we choose to block it as are any other country regardless of the rest of the E.U. Those are the rules of the game as they say!

nhughes100 · 12-06-2008 5:18pm

The only way that the EU can actually state that we are the only ones who aren't playing ball are when all the other countries have a referendum and let the people decide rather then letting the politicians give away national sovereignty for a few roads.

po0k · 12-06-2008 5:28pm

VoidStarNull wrote: »

Are you suggesting that Ireland should go against the EU just to prove that we can do it?

Regardless of whether the issue at hand is good or bad for Ireland?

I think the message that sends is "WE ARE PARANOID!"

More like "WE KNOW WHAT YOUR UP TO IN YOUR SUGARMINES UNDER THE ALPS!"

zig · 12-06-2008 5:44pm

nhughes100 wrote: »

Sorry but what is the point of having a vote if yes is the only acceptable answer?

Because its in our constitution , they are obliged to have a referendum. Sorry to sound blunt but imo its the truth. The Gov have worked at getting a good deal for ireland for 7 years. They have succeeded there ,but have failed MASSIVELY in promoting this treaty before the referendum, they allowed a lot of people to make a lot of noise and havent responded correctly, this will be only reason Ireland will vote no if we do that is.

nhughes100 · 13-06-2008 9:44am

I'm well aware that we need a referendum to change our constitution, my point was that people were being bullied by the 3 major parties into that yes was the only acceptable answer.

oscarBravo · 13-06-2008 10:11am

When did the word "bully" get re-defined?

When I was at school, a bully was someone who beat you up and stole your lunch. If the bullies back in my day had simply stuck up posters telling me that in their opinion doing things their way would result in a better deal for everyone, I think I'd have had a much happier childhood.

A simple question/concern about Lisbon

Comments