Why are YOU voting no ?

Húrin · 08-06-2008 8:10pm

sink wrote: »

I think the EU is learning far faster than any other power block, that sustainability is more import than growth. This is also the position I hold. I support Nuclear power the EU is neutral here but provides a framework to spread nuclear power throughout the Union (EURATOM). The EU believes in controlling inflation is far more important than keeping year on year growth, so do I. That is why it has kept interest rates at 4% throughout the credit crisis and is even talking about raising them unlike the fed.

The EU is also bringing in much tougher environmental legislation than anywhere else, for instance the Union has higher VAT on petrol and diesel than anywhere else in the world and is going to keep it high even with crude oil going through the roof in order to encourage adoption of sustainable alternates. It is also banning the use of fertilisers and pesticides that have a negative effect on the natural ecology, against the wishes of it's large farming lobbies.

The EU is also the biggest aid donator in the world bigger than the US, it also believes in soft power and minimum use of hard power. It uses it's soft power to get foreign governments to reform and become more open and democratic. The EU is not perfect but it the best thing that has happened to the world in a long time. Can you imagine a world without the EU and where the US is even more influential than it is now?

It sounds like you should be a supporter of the EU not a detractor. We live in reality and the world needs real solutions, so you can try as hard as you can to stop the west progressing, but if you really thought about it you would see that it's impossible and it also wouldn't be desirable.

What makes you think I oppose the EU? What makes you think I oppose progress? All I want is for western civilisation to realise that economic growth should no longer be a priority, and to recognise the incompatiblity of wanting to stabilise the climate, and wanting to grow the economy.

To claim that a No vote is a rejection of the EU is stupidly simplistic.

I agree that the EU is far more progressive on climate change than the US or China, but are they putting sustainability above growth? Both Britain and Germany are launching into a new phase of building new coal-fired power plants. Denmark is trying, along with its other Arctic neighbours (who are not in the EU) to extract and burn whatever is under the soon-to-melt northern ice. And every country is trying to expand global trade and build new runways. Is this sustainable? No.

Scofflaw · 08-06-2008 8:39pm

democrates wrote: »

In fairness Libertas is a bad example of what I'm talking about, they are unusually well resourced for a group going against encumbent interests. FF have been around a lot longer than Libertas so support base is hardly a fair comparison, besides, the No position of polls would suggest they're position on Lisbon is not a niche one.

Unfortunately, it doesn't indicate that. It indicates people are intending to vote No. It doesn't tell you whether they are doing so for the reasons given by Libertas.

democrates wrote: »

The FF grassroots army can go door to door, you can put a value on that by comparing with how much it costs to get leaflets delivered or market research, so their 'spend' figure greatly understates their economic position.

Well, no, because grassroots support is grassroots support - isn't that the point?

democrates wrote: »

The main risk from vested interests and centralised power is that for a lot less than Libertas have to spend to sway the masses, you can bribe a politician.

In terms of a referendum, that would be pointless.

The problem here, I think, is the default assumption that if you're opposed to what the majority of politicians think, you are therefore on the side of the citizen against the government. In a democracy, that is a fallacy, because the citizens elect the government.

cordially,
Scofflaw

cat&mouse · 08-06-2008 9:34pm

Reasons:
The big white book, What is in it? I'm more curious noow!!
How many Articles are they? Around 150 or so.
The Pollution Act, and other acts...
Why will TV or Radio not have politicians on the phone line to talk direct to the public and answer questions, instead of the interviewer asking the questions?
Those are a few of my NO reasons.

Scofflaw · 08-06-2008 9:40pm

cat&mouse wrote: »

Reasons:
The big white book, What is in it? I'm more curious noow!!
How many Articles are they? Around 150 or so.
The Pollution Act, and other acts...
Why will TV or Radio not have politicians on the phone line to talk direct to the public and answer questions, instead of the interviewer asking the questions?
Those are a few of my NO reasons.

Interesting. What are you voting on exactly?

intrigued,
Scofflaw

cat&mouse · 08-06-2008 9:49pm

That's all I have to say !!

sink · 08-06-2008 9:52pm

Really strange!

genericgoon · 08-06-2008 10:17pm

Húrin wrote: »

What makes you think I oppose the EU? What makes you think I oppose progress? All I want is for western civilisation to realise that economic growth should no longer be a priority, and to recognise the incompatiblity of wanting to stabilise the climate, and wanting to grow the economy.

To claim that a No vote is a rejection of the EU is stupidly simplistic.

I agree that the EU is far more progressive on climate change than the US or China, but are they putting sustainability above growth? Both Britain and Germany are launching into a new phase of building new coal-fired power plants. Denmark is trying, along with its other Arctic neighbours (who are not in the EU) to extract and burn whatever is under the soon-to-melt northern ice. And every country is trying to expand global trade and build new runways. Is this sustainable? No.

The problem is your average Joe is hardly going to put his job on the line for long term sustainabilty is he? Unfortunately the ability of the general public to think ahead instead of just in the now is rather limited. This in turn means politicians have to pander to the short-term views of the general public who will almost without exception put jobs/more money now over some unknown way fo helping the future population. Voting No is hardly going to change that?

Also at cat&mouse. WTF? O_O

johnnyq · 08-06-2008 10:42pm

cat&mouse wrote: »

Reasons:
The big white book, What is in it? I'm more curious noow!!
How many Articles are they? Around 150 or so.
The Pollution Act, and other acts...
Why will TV or Radio not have politicians on the phone line to talk direct to the public and answer questions, instead of the interviewer asking the questions?
Those are a few of my NO reasons.

Cryptic.... I like it!

I'm sure you're heart is in the right place

democrates · 08-06-2008 10:54pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, it doesn't indicate that. It indicates people are intending to vote No. It doesn't tell you whether they are doing so for the reasons given by Libertas.

It indicates that their position "No" is not a niche one, and that's all I said, I didn't say all No voters shared the rationale behind Libertas' "No" position.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, no, because grassroots support is grassroots support - isn't that the point?

It's a point, it's not the point I'm making, which is, a party that's had huge support since the founding of the state has an army of volunteers at it's disposal to go door to door convincing people of the party line.

If you set up a brand new organisation to campaign for the alternative position, you won't have that standing army, so you're going to have to make up for the lack of all those campaigners with spending on leaflets, posters etc.

Scofflaw wrote: »

In terms of a referendum, that would be pointless.

The problem here, I think, is the default assumption that if you're opposed to what the majority of politicians think, you are therefore on the side of the citizen against the government. In a democracy, that is a fallacy, because the citizens elect the government.

Again that's not what I said (are you tired this evening

):

democrates wrote:

The main risk from vested interests and centralised power is that for a lot less than Libertas have to spend to sway the masses, you can bribe a politician.

And you won't find the "default assumption" you posited in any of my posts on boards or anywhere else, because it was never my view so why would I say it. Interesting speculation, but wrong, and I stand by the point I actually made.

sink · 08-06-2008 11:06pm

democrates wrote: »

It's a point, it's not the point I'm making, which is, a party that's had huge support since the founding of the state has an army of volunteers at it's disposal to go door to door convincing people of the party line.

It's also proven itself in the eyes of the public, although it's reputation has been damaged in recent times. In comparison Libertas has barely been on the scene 6 months, it has not been properly vetted by the public or the media so why should it have equal support to an organisation that's been around since the founding of the state? If it did have as much backing could you not also apply your argument that it would be easy to bribe Declan Ganley to get what you want?

Scofflaw · 08-06-2008 11:09pm

Again that's not what I said (are you tired this evening ):

More distracted, really, than tired. I'm aware I haven't really completed my points.

distractedly,
Scofflaw

sink · 08-06-2008 11:18pm

Also bribes are more often given for things like planning permission and local policy shifts. I have never heard in the entire history of politics a bribe been given for terms on an international treaty between democratic states. If you are suggesting that someone is bribing Fianna Fail to get their way on the Lisbon treay, I think you're reaching a bit far mate. What would be their motive?

09-06-2008 12:00am

Scofflaw wrote: »

More distracted, really, than tired. I'm aware I haven't really completed my points.

distractedly,
Scofflaw

Do you ever say anything worthwhile, or do you just like typing your own name?

sink · 09-06-2008 12:18am

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Do you ever say anything worthwhile, or do you just like typing your own name?

Scofflaw is a well respect and knowledgeable member of boards. So far all you've spouted is hot air.

democrates · 09-06-2008 3:26am

sink wrote: »

It's also proven itself in the eyes of the public, although it's reputation has been damaged in recent times. In comparison Libertas has barely been on the scene 6 months, it has not been properly vetted by the public or the media so why should it have equal support to an organisation that's been around since the founding of the state? If it did have as much backing could you not also apply your argument that it would be easy to bribe Declan Ganley to get what you want?

Agreed on all points, I don't know Declan Ganley, or who might be pulling strings in the background, or what motivations may exist beyond what's been publicly expressed. Someone else stated that the USA may have a hand in Libertas, you don't need a tin foil hat to entertain that kind of possibility given what they've been up to in the last few years.

I'm not making a case that any special interest group have any kind of entitlement to have equivalent power to long established major party support bases, merely that they're at a significant disadvantage when it comes to gaining public support, and so it should be I'm happy that it is so.

The point is, for someone who wants to corrupt/influence government, it's easier and cheaper to go under the radar behind closed doors and deal with a few politicians than it is to take a publicity campaign to the masses.

democrates · 09-06-2008 3:31am

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Do you ever say anything worthwhile, or do you just like typing your own name?

I may have robust disagreements with Scofflaw on some points, but I've top respect for the man, and I also like his sig style, brings up the tone of the place, more like him say I.

oscarBravo · 09-06-2008 10:17am

democrates wrote: »

It's the opposite direction we're being taken to where we should be going, which is to inform and involve citizens more directly, treat people like responsible adults.

Much like teenagers, people have to behave like adults in order to be treated like them.

There's very little point in handing decision-making powers to the people, if they're not going to take them seriously. If people vote for or against this treaty on the basis of anything other than the contents of the treaty itself, then they don't deserve a say on it.

Carlow52 · 09-06-2008 1:03pm

sink wrote: »

Scofflaw is a well respected and knowledgeable member of boards....

The clearest reason yet to vote:D

democrates · 09-06-2008 1:30pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Much like teenagers, people have to behave like adults in order to be treated like them.

There's very little point in handing decision-making powers to the people, if they're not going to take them seriously. If people vote for or against this treaty on the basis of anything other than the contents of the treaty itself, then they don't deserve a say on it.

Then if they vote for a local, national, or EU Parliament politician for any reason other than (insert acceptable reasons) they should lose that vote too. You can see where this logic leads - elite rule, Orwells nightmare. There's no perfect system made of imperfect humans, I'll take my chances with the great unwashed.

We're asked to trust the politicians who framed this choice, but trust must be earned. 26 member states politicians are denying their people a say, and then there's our politicians less than stellar track record, (Mahon should have been suspended in the run up to this in fairness), I don't see a lot of trust earning going on.

TheBigLebowski · 09-06-2008 1:48pm

I am voting no because I don't believe we as members of the EU are getting all of the rights which we are currently entitled to as EU citizens. I am specifically talking about the VRT import duty and I will not believe anything my government tells me about the benefits of EU membership until this government removes this tax.

molloyjh · 09-06-2008 1:55pm

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

I am voting no because I don't believe we as members of the EU are getting all of the rights which we are currently entitled to as EU citizens. I am specifically talking about the VRT import duty and I will not believe anything my government tells me about the benefits of EU membership until this government removes this tax.

This is a domestic tax issue and wholly unrelated to Lisbon. It should have no bearing on how you vote on Thursday.

molloyjh · 09-06-2008 1:57pm

democrates wrote: »

Then if they vote for a local, national, or EU Parliament politician for any reason other than (insert acceptable reasons) they should lose that vote too. You can see where this logic leads - elite rule, Orwells nightmare. There's no perfect system made of imperfect humans, I'll take my chances with the great unwashed.

We're asked to trust the politicians who framed this choice, but trust must be earned. 26 member states politicians are denying their people a say, and then there's our politicians less than stellar track record, (Mahon should have been suspended in the run up to this in fairness), I don't see a lot of trust earning going on.

The other nations had their say by electing their Governments. It was part of the mandate given to those Governments by their people to negotiate and ratify treaties on their behalf.

molloyjh · 09-06-2008 1:58pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Much like teenagers, people have to behave like adults in order to be treated like them.

There's very little point in handing decision-making powers to the people, if they're not going to take them seriously. If people vote for or against this treaty on the basis of anything other than the contents of the treaty itself, then they don't deserve a say on it.

I second that. :pac:

TheBigLebowski · 09-06-2008 2:01pm

molloyjh wrote: »

This is a domestic tax issue and wholly unrelated to Lisbon. It should have no bearing on how you vote on Thursday.

But if we can't trust this government to abolish import duty on cars, what else can we not trust them on in relation to Europe?

molloyjh · 09-06-2008 2:08pm

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

But if we can't trust this government to abolish import duty on cars, what else can we not trust them on in relation to Europe?

Whether we can trust them or not in any respect is a domestic matter alone. We need to be sure that they are representing us properly, noone else. All of that is our responsibility as voters. If we can't get that right we may as well all just join a commune or something because there's not much point in democracy if the electorate are too thick to use it!

The Lisbon Treaty has a lot of potential benefits for us, and not just us but the rest of Europe, and I honestly think the world aswell. To reject a good idea because we can't elect the right people to represent us is a bit daft imo. And either way it is in the domestic parties best interest to represent us correctly as they have nothing to gain by not doing so. We elect them and (I'm assuming this does happen) domestic business line their pockets from time to time. To ignore all of us would be stupid.

I'm with you on the Government bit. I don't like them and I found it infuriating that they were reelected last year. I'm not sure that the Irish public either cares enough or is smart enough to use democracy to its fullest, but that is a seperate debate from the Lisbon debate.

TheBigLebowski · 09-06-2008 2:19pm

micmclo wrote: »

It's not a tax on importing your car, it's a tax on registering it.

Now seriously, do you really believe that?
If so can you answer a few questions?

1. Why do customs and excise do the chasing if it's just about registering cars?

2. Why does it cost more to register a more expensive car than a cheaper car if all they're doing is registering the car?

VRT was an obvious replacement for import duty on cars and anyone who says otherwise is talking sheeite.

Anywho, call it a protest vote or call it what you want but that's why I'm voting no.

Hotblack Desiato · 09-06-2008 2:25pm

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

But if we can't trust this government to abolish import duty on cars, what else can we not trust them on in relation to Europe?

When did they promise that they would?

A registration tax is not an import tax and the EU have stated that it does NOT conflict with EU rules. Several other EU countries have VRT as well as us.

This is a domestic issue and nothing at all to do with Lisbon. You might as well say "If the weather is sunny on Thursday I'll vote Yes, otherwise I'll vote no."

If you abolish VRT you will have to increase other taxes. I don't want to pay more income tax or higher food prices so that S-Class Mercs become cheaper. No credible political party is promising to abolish VRT, have you ever wondered why? If it's what the public really want, there would be votes in it.

The way things are going, motoring taxes are only going to get higher (whether we pass Lisbon, or not.)

TheBigLebowski · 09-06-2008 2:33pm

ninja900 wrote: »

A registration tax is not an import tax and the EU have stated that it does NOT conflict with EU rules. Several other EU countries have VRT as well as us.

Maybe you could answer some of the questions posed above?

Also for my own information, can you point me in the direction of where EU stated that it does not conflict with EU rules? Also how many other countries have VRT?

sink · 09-06-2008 2:37pm

The Netherlands for one, it calls its Belasting Personenauto’s Motorrijwielen (BPM) and is 45% of the cars value.

molloyjh · 09-06-2008 2:37pm

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

Now seriously, do you really believe that?
If so can you answer a few questions?

1. Why do customs and excise do the chasing if it's just about registering cars?

2. Why does it cost more to register a more expensive car than a cheaper car if all they're doing is registering the car?

VRT was an obvious replacement for import duty on cars and anyone who says otherwise is talking sheeite.

Anywho, call it a protest vote or call it what you want but that's why I'm voting no.

I'm sorry to have to say this but if you're voting no for a totally unrelated issue its a bit of a daft move. A protest vote against VRT when voting on Lisbon will never be recognised as such, and therefore a total waste of a protest vote. Noone wil associatethat with a protest against VRT.

Not only that but to me proves that you (and sorry for being harsh) really should not be involved in the democratic process. I'm beginning to develop what some might consider radical views on the issue of modern Western democracy, but I really feel that if you're not going to vote on the issue(s) you should not be allowed vote at all. If you have a problem with VRT by all means exercise your protest vote, but do so in the appropriate election, not an unrelated referendum. Or better yet raise the issue with a local councilor, or even better again vote Yes for Lisbon and use the Citizes Initiative it is introducing to get a petition going to put pressure on the Government over the issue. Otherwise you are throwing away your vote and distorting the results, nothing more.

mikemac · 09-06-2008 2:42pm

ninja900 wrote: »

If you abolish VRT you will have to increase other taxes. I don't want to pay more income tax or higher food prices so that S-Class Mercs become cheaper. No credible political party is promising to abolish VRT, have you ever wondered why? If it's what the public really want, there would be votes in it.

+1
This sums it up better than I can. There is still a perception that a car is luxury and for sure, a lot of the cars people buy are luxuries.
Yes, you work hard for your money and yes, you can spend it as you see fit, etc………..
But I’d rather see an expensive car being taxed than something else. Everyone pays tax, not everyone can afford a car worth maybe 30k plus.
If want to minimize it, than it’s a buyer market and there are loads of nice cars for under 5k on sale.

sink · 09-06-2008 2:44pm

I just did a quick search and found this on the Society of the Irish motor industries website.

http://www.simi.ie/admin/files/ACEATaxGuide2003Extract1.pdf

It outlines the vehicle ownership tax in 15 member states. It look a bit out of date mind you.

democrates · 09-06-2008 2:48pm

molloyjh wrote: »

The other nations had their say by electing their Governments. It was part of the mandate given to those Governments by their people to negotiate and ratify treaties on their behalf.

Has Bush (now ~25% approval rating) a mandate to attack Iran?

Technically yes, the people elected him, but you see the weakness inherent in representative democracy. The solution is more direct citizen involvement.

If we vote No on Thursday it does not guarantee the reform which I think is necessary, true, but it does prevent the plan to cement citizen exclusion for the next one, two or three decades during which Brian Cowan predicts the new rules will apply, and keeps the possibility of the right kind of reform alive.

We're told there's no plan B. Lisbon is plan B after the constitution, the sky did not fall on the French and Dutch who rejected that. "The EU will continue to operate under existing rules" is what happens after a No, not the end of civilisation as we know it.

TheBigLebowski · 09-06-2008 2:49pm

micmclo wrote: »

I can't answer your questions, I'm no expert on motor taxation. I was basing it on the simple example that you can import any car but if you just store it and never drive it, then no VRT is due.
If it was an import tax, it'd have to be paid before you left the port or crossed a border.

Clearly you are not an expert. You need to pay VRT within the next working day whether you plan to use the car, store it or drive it off the cliffs of Moher. Just because they don't take it at the port doesn't mean it is not effectively the same thing.
Can you not see the link when one day they have import duty on cars paid at the port and the next day they have VRT but you have to come to us and pay the money to the same people who were collecting it the previous day?

sink · 09-06-2008 2:57pm

democrates wrote: »

Has Bush (now ~25% approval rating) a mandate to attack Iran?

Technically yes, the people elected him, but you see the weakness inherent in representative democracy. The solution is more direct citizen involvement.

I think it shows the weaknesses in directly electing leaders of the executive government. In a parliamentary democracy the leader of the country needs to maintain the backing of the majority of MP's to remain in power. There is no way Blair or Brown would be able to get involved in another war with out a backbench revolt followed by a snap election. It is one of the reasons I would never support a directly elected president of Europe.

TheBigLebowski · 09-06-2008 3:08pm

molloyjh wrote: »

I'm sorry to have to say this but if you're voting no for a totally unrelated issue its a bit of a daft move. A protest vote against VRT when voting on Lisbon will never be recognised as such, and therefore a total waste of a protest vote. Noone wil associatethat with a protest against VRT.

Any politician knocking on my door and canvassing for a yes vote will associate my no vote with a protest against VRT.

Also it is not necessarily a protest vote, I'm voting no because as I said I don't believe we are getting our full rights as EU citizens as under Article 25 TC which prohibits member states from levying any duties on goods crossing a border, both goods produced within the EU and those produced outside so I don't think we should be making any changes until these issues are sorted out.

And nobody can tell me that VRT is not an import duty. Sure if that's the case, we could have import duty on everything but call it ERT electronics registration tax, FRT food registration tax, CRT clothes registration tax....

sink · 09-06-2008 3:13pm

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

And nobody can tell me that VRT is not an import duty. Sure if that's the case, we could have import duty on everything but call it ERT electronics registration tax, FRT food registration tax, CRT clothes registration tax....

Yes you could, by your reasoning VAT is an import duty. The difference you're failing to note is that VRT would be paid on cars that are produced in this country too, it just so happens we don't produce any cars in the country. But we do produce electronics so an ERT would also have to be paid on Irish made electronics. That is the difference.

craichoe · 09-06-2008 3:13pm

sink wrote: »

The Netherlands for one, it calls its Belasting Personenauto’s Motorrijwielen (BPM) and is 45% of the cars value.

+1 ... i'll end up registering my Irish car on Dutch plates, but won't have to pay the BPM as i owned i longer than six months in my own state

TheBigLebowski · 09-06-2008 3:22pm

sink wrote: »

Yes you could, by your reasoning VAT is an import duty. The difference you're failing to note is that VRT would be paid on cars that are produced in this country too, it just so happens we don't produce any cars in the country. But we do produce electronics so an ERT would also have to be paid on Irish made electronics. That is the difference.

There is a big difference between VAT and VRT and I'm not reasoning that they are the same thing. VAT is a tax on exchanges. VRT is a once off tax on import.

sink · 09-06-2008 3:27pm

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

There is a big difference between VAT and VRT and I'm not reasoning that they are the same thing. VAT is a tax on exchanges. VRT is a once off tax on import.

Just as an experiment why don't you build your own car and see if the tax office will let you not pay VRT.:rolleyes:

Lazyfox · 09-06-2008 3:32pm

Remember the Dutch wine case where we should have been able to get wine beer and cigs from anywhere in the EU.

The case was all but won

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/11/sovereignty-up-in-smoke.html

but at the last minute the 3 EU judge panel overturned the preliminary ruling a highly unusual event as they normally rubber stamp the judgement.

Who were the judges do you ask

Allan Rosas, President of the Chamber,( Finnish )
Anthony E Borg Barthet, U.O.M., LL.D. (Malta)
Aindrias Ó Caoimh (Irish)

Draw your own conclusions about their independence

TheBigLebowski · 09-06-2008 3:33pm

sink wrote: »

Just as an experiment why don't you build your own car and see if the tax office will let you not pay VRT.:rolleyes:

Yeah because the Irish government didn't know that there were no car manufacturers in Ireland when they invented VRT :rolleyes:

molloyjh · 09-06-2008 3:35pm

democrates wrote: »

Has Bush (now ~25% approval rating) a mandate to attack Iran?

Technically yes, the people elected him, but you see the weakness inherent in representative democracy. The solution is more direct citizen involvement.

If we vote No on Thursday it does not guarantee the reform which I think is necessary, true, but it does prevent the plan to cement citizen exclusion for the next one, two or three decades during which Brian Cowan predicts the new rules will apply, and keeps the possibility of the right kind of reform alive.

We're told there's no plan B. Lisbon is plan B after the constitution, the sky did not fall on the French and Dutch who rejected that. "The EU will continue to operate under existing rules" is what happens after a No, not the end of civilisation as we know it.

To answer your question on Bush, no he doesn't. Any action like that would need to be passed by Congress and there is little chance of that happening. The reason for this is that they know that the people will not accept it and so your point in many ways is null and void in that regard. The fact is that representative democracy would work in that case.

I take your point though, however the impacts of Lisbon are minimal to us individually. As has been said before elsewhere the likes of budgets etc are far more important to us that Lisbon will ever be so where do you start and stop with the citizen involvement? It gets very messy if we open that can of worms and I really don't feel we should.

There may well be another attempt to repackage it, but what would they change if they do. Many in Europe (and many independant pundits also) believe that we're not going to get much more out of it. Its fairly good to us as it is. So what can be done to get a Yes? And how will we ever find out if so many people are basing their decision on a lack of knowledge, misconceptions or myths?

sink · 09-06-2008 3:37pm

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

Yeah because the Irish government didn't know that there were no car manufacturers in Ireland when they invented VRT :rolleyes:

Regardless of whether they knew it or not it is not illegal under EU law because it is not an import duty. If the EU was to rule against the law it would have to take into account the Netherlands which does produce it's own sports cars and applies the same 45% tax to them, so how could the EU rule that it was an illegal import tariff? Unless it applies double standards, one rule for car producing countries another rule for countries who don't? Just think of how that would go down.

TheBigLebowski · 09-06-2008 3:40pm

sink wrote: »

Regardless of whether they knew it or not it is not illegal under EU law because it is not an import duty. If the EU was to rule against the law it would have to take into account the Netherlands which does produce it's own sports cars and applies the same 45% tax to them, so how could the EU rule that it was an illegal import tariff?

Are you really that naive to believe that VRT was not a direct replacement for import duty on cars and ,as such, is not effectively the same thing?

democrates · 09-06-2008 3:40pm

sink wrote: »

I think it shows the weaknesses in directly electing leaders of the executive government. In a parliamentary democracy the leader of the country needs to maintain the backing of the majority of MP's to remain in power. There is no way Blair or Brown would be able to get involved in another war with out a backbench revolt followed by a snap election. It is one of the reasons I would never support a directly elected president of Europe.

That's it, an individual with too much untrammeled power is far too risky. When ordinary decent Americans elect a president, it is on the understanding that Congress, the Senate and the constitution provide checks on the presidents power, just as proposed EU positions have checks and balances.

However, bring on a crisis, and hasty changes may occur. Right now in America citizens can be illegally wiretapped, taken off the streets, habeus corpus is suspended, torture is approved, the Geneva convention ignored, private military contractors held above the law. 1984.

The real kicker, because we've all written Bush off as a nut, is that with all this and more going on, the democrat dominated congress refuse to impeach. It seems to me that the interests of the body politic takes higher priority over what's best for citizens, so I keep coming back to the solution of citizen involvement.

molloyjh · 09-06-2008 3:43pm

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

Are you really that naive to believe that VRT was not a direct replacement for import duty on cars and ,as such, is not effectively the same thing?

It may be a replacement, but it is not the same thing. These kinds of technicalities matter in law.....

sink · 09-06-2008 3:44pm

democrates wrote: »

That's it, an individual with too much untrammeled power is far too risky. When ordinary decent Americans elect a president, it is on the understanding that Congress, the Senate and the constitution provide checks on the presidents power, just as proposed EU positions have checks and balances.

However, bring on a crisis, and hasty changes may occur. Right now in America citizens can be illegally wiretapped, taken off the streets, habeus corpus is suspended, torture is approved, the Geneva convention ignored, private military contractors held above the law. 1984.

The real kicker, because we've all written Bush off as a nut, is that with all this and more going on, the democrat dominated congress refuse to impeach. It seems to me that the interests of the body politic takes higher priority over what's best for citizens, so I keep coming back to the solution of citizen involvement.

But as has been pointed out countless times to you direct rule has it's own very large downsides. That is why the parliamentary system is a good compromise between direct rule and directly elected leaders. We can each argue this till we're blue in the face, can't we just agree to disagree?

sink · 09-06-2008 3:46pm

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

Are you really that naive to believe that VRT was not a direct replacement for import duty on cars and ,as such, is not effectively the same thing?

No but in legal terms they are quiet different. Look i'm not a supporter of VRT i'm not sure we should have it. I'm just arguing against your claims that it's illegal and the EU is somehow responsible.

TheBigLebowski · 09-06-2008 3:46pm

molloyjh wrote: »

It may be a replacement, but it is not the same thing. These kinds of technicalities matter in law.....

Article 25 of the European Community Treaty prohibits not only customs duties but also charges having equivalent effect.

Why are YOU voting no ?

Comments