Referendum on Lisbon Treaty

Scofflaw

jawlie wrote:

This is the reason why anyone who values democracy has to vote “NO” to the transfer of more powers to these unelected politicians until such times as they are elected by universal suffrage.

We've now had about three or four pages on this particular topic. At no point have you even tried to address any of the points made about the problems involved in direct election of Commissioners.

At this stage, you're simply repeating a slogan. Would someone like to take up jawlie's cudgels and actually debate this?

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

jawlie wrote: »

The EU commission is where the real power of the EU lies, just like the real power of our Dail lies in the hands of the Taoioseach and his ministers.

But our Taoiseach and Ministers aren't elected by the populace either.
Indeed, the TDs aren't elected by universal suffrage. Come to think of it, the only political position in Ireland elected by universal suffrage is the President, but even then, the list of candidates is effectively controlled by elected parties.

This is the reason why anyone who values democracy has to vote “NO” to the transfer of more powers to these unelected politicians until such times as they are elected by universal suffrage.

By this logic, anyone who values democracy opposes every functioning democracy on the planet...given that none of them work by the principles that you are espousing. Indeed, I can't think of a modern democracy which has ever functioned on these principles.

Maybe you could correct me, and show me where a modern democracy functioning under your ideals has thrived, and shown that these ideals are - as you claim - what anyone who values democracy should be fighting for.

jawlie

Scofflaw wrote: »

We've now had about three or four pages on this particular topic. At no point have you even tried to address any of the points made about the problems involved in direct election of Commissioners.

At this stage, you're simply repeating a slogan. Would someone like to take up jawlie's cudgels and actually debate this?

cordially,
Scofflaw

You are right. For me, democracy is a matter of principle. I just don't think its good enough to say that because there are problems with electing these particular politicians, therefore we should just forget it and not bother to elect them.

Even Zimbabwe elects its politicians & leaders, even if the process is not completely flawless. It is ironic indeed that the commission is imploring Zimbabwe to abide by the demicratic will of the Zimbabwean people, when the commission itself resists the democratic will of the EU people , both in the elections of its own members and in resisting any attempts to allow the people to vote on the Lisbon treaty itself. Democracy, it seems, is good enough for Zimbabwe, but when it comes to electing the commissioners or voting for such fundamental legislation, 99% of the citizens of Europe are to be denied a democratic vote.

Democracy is not a bi product of convenience. It is a fundamental building block of a democratic process, and if you judge that, for you, its ok to bypass democracy because you also judge it inconvenient or difficult to arrange, then that is where we differ.

I can only repeat that it is madness to hand over more powers to these unelected and unaccountable politicians until such times as they are subject to being elected by the people over whom they hold power, and we should all vote "NO"

IRLConor

jawlie wrote: »

Democracy is not a bi product of convenience. It is a fundamental building block of a democratic process, and if you judge that, for you, its ok to bypass democracy because you also judge it inconvenient or difficult to arrange, then that is where we differ.

So you'd argue for democracy even when it is a demonstrably poorer solution than another way? If so, that's just dogmatic silliness.

jawlie

IRLConor wrote: »

So you'd argue for democracy even when it is a demonstrably poorer solution than another way? If so, that's just dogmatic silliness.

Not at all, if I were the leader of Europe I would not need to be democratically elected as I'd prefer to be unaccountable to the electorate and be a dictator.

If you know of a better method of electing the politicians who rule over us, then put it forward and we'll examine it.

All I can say is that of course I am open minded to improving on democracy. The difficult thing is to achieve that.

Many different "improvements" have been tried over the years and none have worked so well. it's interesting that we have become so complacent about our own democracy that some seem to forget the price we paid for it.

Ask anyone in China, or the former USSR, or any of the other states which have abandoned democracy as a means of electing a government, how they feel about democracy, it having been denied to them.

Scofflaw

IRLConor wrote: »

jawlie wrote:

Democracy is not a bi product of convenience. It is a fundamental building block of a democratic process, and if you judge that, for you, its ok to bypass democracy because you also judge it inconvenient or difficult to arrange, then that is where we differ.

So you'd argue for democracy even when it is a demonstrably poorer solution than another way? If so, that's just dogmatic silliness.

He's not even arguing for democracy - he's simply confusing democracy with direct election. There is no democracy anywhere, as far as I am aware, that directly elects every single person who exercises political power.

Unsurprisingly, he has apparently also decided that anyone who disagrees is not a democrat. Perhaps it would be worth voting to determine whether his definition of democracy is the majority one?

jawlie wrote:

Many different "improvements" have been tried over the years and none have worked so well. it's interesting that we have become so complacent about our own democracy that some seem to forget the price we paid for it.

Many different improvements? What, like all the bits of the democratic countries that aren't direct election? Or electoral colleges? Appointment of an executive?


cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

jawlie wrote: »

I can only repeat that it is madness to hand over more powers to these unelected and unaccountable politicians until such times as they are subject to being elected by the people over whom they hold power, and we should all vote "NO"

So the short answer is no - you're not interested in engaging in a discussion on the topic.

As you yourself might say, we can only speculate as to why that is.

IRLConor

jawlie wrote: »

If you know of a better method of electing the politicians who rule over us, then put it forward and we'll examine it.

I don't know a way better than the current one and given the points made by Scofflaw in post 597 and oscarBravo in posts 614 and 631 I believe that direct election of the Commissioners would be a retrograde step.

Certainly, I can see that from a purely principled point of view "democracy is better". On the other hand, when choosing a method of selecting the Commissioners one must examine the downsides of the likely outcomes.

The most likely outcome of a directly elected Irish commissioner is that the person selected for the job would be the one most adept at getting potholes fixed, not the best person for that particular portfolio.

Perhaps you could suggest how we would prevent this happening if the Commissioners were to be directly elected? (Bonus points if you can suggest how we fix the problem in Ireland.)

WillieFlynn

Looking at the long discussion about demrocy and how this relates to the EU commission, while the arguments for or against direct elections have some valid points.
I fail to see how this relates to the Lisbon referandum because we are not voting on this issue. The commission be apointed no matter if you vode yes or no.

Scofflaw

WillieFlynn wrote: »

Looking at the long discussion about demrocy and how this relates to the EU commission, while the arguments for or against direct elections have some valid points.
I fail to see how this relates to the Lisbon referandum because we are not voting on this issue. The commission be apointed no matter if you vode yes or no.

It relates to a very particular way of looking at the Treaty - which is "it doesn't match exactly what I think is best, so I'm going to vote No".

One need not take into account whether what one wants is either sensible or feasible, luckily for those who adopt this viewpoint. You could summarise it as "no bread is better than half a loaf".

cordially,
Scofflaw

jawlie

WillieFlynn wrote: »

Looking at the long discussion about demrocy and how this relates to the EU commission, while the arguments for or against direct elections have some valid points.
I fail to see how this relates to the Lisbon referandum because we are not voting on this issue. The commission be apointed no matter if you vode yes or no.

As has been pointed out before, the Lisbon treaty takes even more power away from our elected representatives and hand it into the hands of the unelected commissioners. If you agree with that, then vote yes. By voting "NO" then we can stop handing more powers over to unelected politicians.

oscarbravo wrote: »

So the short answer is no - you're not interested in engaging in a discussion on the topic.

If any of us was not interested in engaging in discussion, it's a odd way of going about it to be contributing to a message board!

But, in a sense, you are right. Democracy, and electing politicians by universal suffrage is a point of principle for me, and for many others too. i am, frankly, amazed that there seem to be a few poeple who are actually arguing against the election of politicians by universal suffrage.

IRLCONOR wrote: »

The most likely outcome of a directly elected Irish commissioner is that the person selected for the job would be the one most adept at getting potholes fixed, not the best person for that particular portfolio.

Perhaps you could suggest how we would prevent this happening if the Commissioners were to be directly elected? (Bonus points if you can suggest how we fix the problem in Ireland.)

IRLConor may well be right that parts of the electorate may well be too stupid to vote for the right candidate, and he may well be right that democracy,as practiced in Ireland is imperfect.

However, the solution to abandon democracy in favour of some other system seems the wrong conclusion, when we also have the alternative to improve how it operates in Ireland.

oscarbravo wrote: »

So the short answer is no - you're not interested in engaging in a discussion on the topic.

If any of us was not interested in engaging in discussion, it's a odd way of going about it to be contributing to a message board!

But, in a sense, you are right. Democracy, and electing politicians by universal suffrage is a point of principle for me, and for many others too. i am, frankly, amazed that there seem to be a few poeple who are actually arguing against the election of politicians by universal suffrage.

scofflaw wrote: »

He's not even arguing for democracy - he's simply confusing democracy with direct election. There is no democracy anywhere, as far as I am aware, that directly elects every single person who exercises political power.

Unsurprisingly, he has apparently also decided that anyone who disagrees is not a democrat. Perhaps it would be worth voting to determine whether his definition of democracy is the majority one?

Scoff law seems to be arguing that, because he is not aware of a democracy which directly elects every single person who elects political power, than that is a good enough reason not to elect the commissioners and president of the commission.

A democrat is someone who believes in democracy, and the The OED defines democracy thus; • noun (pl. democracies) 1 a form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives. 2 a state governed in such a way.

It seems hard to argue that while one is a democrat, one is also opposed to electing those who hold considerable political power over us in favour of a system of patronage.

As I've said before, this is where we differ; I favour directly electing those who have considerable political power over us (in this case the commissioners and president of the commission) You seem to favour a system of patronage where they are appointed by one person or a handful of people.

oscarBravo

jawlie wrote: »

If any of us was not interested in engaging in discussion, it's a odd way of going about it to be contributing to a message board!

For very small values of "contributing". Repeating slogans ad nauseam and refusing to back them up with coherent arguments doesn't constitute discussion in my book.

jawlie wrote: »

But, in a sense, you are right. Democracy, and electing politicians by universal suffrage is a point of principle for me, and for many others too. i am, frankly, amazed that there seem to be a few poeple who are actually arguing against the election of politicians by universal suffrage.

And I'm amazed that you seem to think nobody will notice your persistent refusal to answer questions.

jawlie wrote: »

IRLConor may well be right that parts of the electorate may well be too stupid to vote for the right candidate, and he may well be right that democracy,as practiced in Ireland is imperfect.

However, the solution to abandon democracy in favour of some other system seems the wrong conclusion, when we also have the alternative to improve how it operates in Ireland.

...and yet, when challenged to come up with any practical suggestions as to how it could be improved, all we get is yet more repetition of the same mantra.

jawlie wrote: »

A democrat is someone who believes in democracy, and the The OED defines democracy thus; • noun (pl. democracies) 1 a form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives. 2 a state governed in such a way.

It seems hard to argue that while one is a democrat, one is also opposed to electing those who hold considerable political power over us in favour of a system of patronage.

In a black-and-white you're-either-with-us-or-against-us sort of a world, it may seem hard to argue that. However, some of us are prepared to contemplate shades of grey, and to recognise the pitfalls inherent in directly electing everyone under the sun.

I firmly believe that you know perfectly well that your position is completely unrealistic, and that your refusal to answer the very clear and straightforward questions I posed directly to you earlier is a tacit acknowledgement of same. I also believe that you're an intelligent person, and that your constant recital of the "democracy" mantra is a deliberate tactic to obfuscate the discussion and to avoid having to reveal your real reasons for vocally advocating a "no" vote, whatever those may be.

jawlie wrote: »

As I've said before, this is where we differ; I favour directly electing those who have considerable political power over us (in this case the commissioners and president of the commission) You seem to favour a system of patronage where they are appointed by one person or a handful of people.

Yes, so you've said countless times. How about answering some of the questions that have been posed instead of waxing rhetorical with every post?

Scofflaw

jawlie wrote: »

As has been pointed out before, the Lisbon treaty takes even more power away from our elected representatives and hand it into the hands of the unelected commissioners. If you agree with that, then vote yes. By voting "NO" then we can stop handing more powers over to unelected politicians.

Well, we can keep them in the hands of our Taoiseach and Ministers (who we don't directly elect either, of course). However, something that seems to have escaped your attention is that these same national politicians wish to pool those powers with the other members of the EU....so what you actually mean is that our national politicians should have taken away from them the option to do with those powers what they think is in the best interests of the country.

jawlie wrote: »

If any of us was not interested in engaging in discussion, it's a odd way of going about it to be contributing to a message board!

Not at all - one can come here simply to repeat slogans in the hopes of persuading people to vote No. Apparently.

jawlie wrote: »

But, in a sense, you are right. Democracy, and electing politicians by universal suffrage is a point of principle for me, and for many others too. i am, frankly, amazed that there seem to be a few poeple who are actually arguing against the election of politicians by universal suffrage.

We are arguing that it does not produce the best possible result, because of problems we have pointed out, and which you have chosen to ignore.

jawlie wrote: »

IRLConor may well be right that parts of the electorate may well be too stupid to vote for the right candidate, and he may well be right that democracy,as practiced in Ireland is imperfect.

However, the solution to abandon democracy in favour of some other system seems the wrong conclusion, when we also have the alternative to improve how it operates in Ireland.

According to your version of democracy, everyone everywhere has abandoned democracy.

jawlie wrote: »

Scoff law seems to be arguing that, because he is not aware of a democracy which directly elects every single person who elects political power, than that is a good enough reason not to elect the commissioners and president of the commission.

No, I am arguing that direct election of Commissioners produces a worse result than the current system. Simply ignoring that argument is one thing - attributing to me arguments I have not made is another (and easier for you, of course, by virtue of the far lower quality of argument).

jawlie wrote: »

A democrat is someone who believes in democracy, and the The OED defines democracy thus; • noun (pl. democracies) 1 a form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives. 2 a state governed in such a way.

It seems hard to argue that while one is a democrat, one is also opposed to electing those who hold considerable political power over us in favour of a system of patronage.

As I've said before, this is where we differ; I favour directly electing those who have considerable political power over us (in this case the commissioners and president of the commission) You seem to favour a system of patronage where they are appointed by one person or a handful of people.

Well, you seem neither to have thought about this, nor to be willing to do so. The so-called "system of patronage" is appointment by the national governments you seem so fond of.

Will you stop simply repeating your slogan, and answer the points that have been put to you? Are you afraid of the debate, or have you got a different agenda?

bored again,
Scofflaw

dathi1

So, If you work in HP, Intel, Google, Microsoft, Wyath etc and have a mortgage


http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0408/1207602058354.html

Well who'd believe anyone with the name ahern.

Quote from link above:
Ms Lagarde's support for the commission's plan to introduce a common consolidated corporate tax base throughout the EU will alarm the Government. It has lobbied hard at EU level to have the proposal scrapped in the run-up to the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, fearing it could persuade some business people to vote no.
So our Yes men want to hide this issue until June 12th.

IRLConor

Well, if we're selectively quoting from that article then:

Ireland has a veto on tax so regardless of what the French talk about, it is irrelevant... Ireland's corporate tax regime is one solely for Ireland. If others want to join us, well and good. But there is no mechanism by which our taxation system can be changed without our consent.

Scofflaw

dathi1 wrote: »

So, If you work in HP, Intel, Google, Microsoft, Wyath etc and have a mortgage

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0408/1207602058354.html

Well who'd believe anyone with the name ahern.

Quote from link above:
Ms Lagarde's support for the commission's plan to introduce a common consolidated corporate tax base throughout the EU will alarm the Government. It has lobbied hard at EU level to have the proposal scrapped in the run-up to the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, fearing it could persuade some business people to vote no.
So our Yes men want to hide this issue until June 12th.

Perhaps for fear that people might pretend it has something to do with the Treaty...not that anyone would do that. Perhaps you'd like to show us how this issue is relevant to the Lisbon Treaty?

cordially,
Scofflaw

dathi1

Perhaps for fear that people might pretend it has something to do with the Treaty...not that anyone would do that. Perhaps you'd like to show us how this issue is relevant to the Lisbon Treaty?

and the quote you quoted from me:

Ms Lagarde's support for the commission's plan to introduce a common consolidated corporate tax base throughout the EU will alarm the Government. It has lobbied hard at EU level to have the proposal scrapped in the run-up to the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, fearing it could persuade some business people to vote no.

The relevant part in bold as specified by the govenment itself.

LostinBlanch

Berties angling to use the Treaty as his job application

Ahern EU job hangs on treaty vote


By Aine Kerr Political Correspondent
Tuesday April 08 2008

TAOISEACH Bertie Ahern is one of a number of personalities who could earn a major new job in Europe, the President of the European Parliament said last night.

Hans-Gert Pottering, who met with Mr Ahern yesterday, insisted that the Lisbon Treaty must first be passed before debate could move to who will fill key new positions.

"The priority of the priorities is now to get the reform treaty ratified," he said. "Europe is so rich to have several personalities who can do the job . . . Taoiseach Ahern with his experience can, like others, undertake responsibilities in the European Union."

The positions of President of the European Commission and President of the European Council must be filled over the next 12 months.

Confirming that the referendum will take place on June 12, Mr Ahern said any remaining details would be "wrapped up" in the coming days.

When asked about a possible job in Europe, Mr Ahern would only say: "Of course, there won't be any jobs if we don't get this passed."

He said he would play an "active part" in ensuring the treaty is passed after he resigns on May 6.

Last night, at a Fine Gael-hosted meeting on the issue, Enda Kenny said he would actively support the passing of the treaty.

- Aine Kerr Political Correspondent

Scofflaw

dathi1 wrote: »

and the quote you quoted from me:

Ms Lagarde's support for the commission's plan to introduce a common consolidated corporate tax base throughout the EU will alarm the Government. It has lobbied hard at EU level to have the proposal scrapped in the run-up to the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, fearing it could persuade some business people to vote no.

The relevant part in bold as specified by the govenment itself.

Er, yes, but then they also fear that rain may affect the result, and it too is unrelated to the Treaty. Same for the question of what money Bertie may have trousered.

I was looking for some relationship between the Lisbon Treaty and the tax proposal other than that some people might find it off-putting despite its irrelevance.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dathi1

Er, yes, but then they also fear that rain may affect the result,

Er, No. Rain is precipitation of water from the sky due to the condensing of cold and hot air. It presents no threat to jobs or the outcome of the lisbon treaty.
Tax harmonisation is so relevant to the new Euro superstate that the government thinks the threat from the Franco German axis should be covered up until after polling day. Hey...you cant get any more relevant than that!

Scofflaw

dathi1 wrote: »

Er, No. Rain is precipitation of water from the sky due to the condensing of cold and hot air. It presents no threat to jobs or the outcome of the lisbon treaty.
Tax harmonisation is so relevant to the new Euro superstate that the government thinks the threat from the Franco German axis should be covered up until after polling day. Hey...you cant get any more relevant than that!

Well, you could - but only if the tax harmonisation were actually a result of the Treaty. Are you saying it is?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Breezer

dathi1 wrote: »

Er, No. Rain is precipitation of water from the sky due to the condensing of cold and hot air. It presents no threat to jobs or the outcome of the lisbon treaty.
Tax harmonisation is so relevant to the new Euro superstate that the government thinks the threat from the Franco German axis should be covered up until after polling day. Hey...you cant get any more relevant than that!

Rain may have a negative effect on turnout, which, in a referendum where a smaller number of people on one side are a lot more passionate than a larger number of people on the other side, could swing the vote in favour of the smaller side.

Your quote has no relevance to the treaty. Under the treaty, Ireland will still be able to veto this proposal. However, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the average person who has only a passing interest in politics may see this as 'Europe proposing taxes that will damage our economy; referendum on Europe; I'm voting No,' without stopping to see that Lisbon will have no impact on this proposal or its likelihood of becoming reality. Hence the Government's alarm.

Scofflaw

The issue of tax harmonisation is very similar to the issue of water charges for schools - neither has anything to do with Lisbon, yet both are raised as reasons to vote No.

From [url]www.voteno.ie:[/url]

www.voteno.ie wrote:

The debacle over water charges for schools encapsulates why we should Vote No to the Lisbon Treaty.
Soon after the Lisbon Treaty was drafted, schools in Ireland were informed that they had to pay for water charges. Schools were defined as non-domestic users and so, according to the Irish Times, ‘Taoiseach Bertie Ahern and Minister Mary Hanafin, insist the Government is powerless to block the charges because of the EU water framework directive’.
The only positive result was that curiosity about the EU Water Framework directive was raised. Let’s look exactly at what it states. According to Article 9 of the Water Framework Directive,

‘Member states shall take account of the principle of recovery of the costs of water services, including environmental and resource costs…
‘Member states shall ensure by 2010 that water-pricing policies provide adequate incentives for users to use water resources efficiently … [and that there be] an adequate contribution of the different water uses, disaggregated into at least industry, households and agriculture, to the recovery of costs of water services’

The language is, typically, cumbersome but here is a concrete example of how the EU treats a vital public service.
Member states are instructed to make their populations pay for water from 2010 – no matter what their population think.
The announcement that schools had to pay is only the first step towards getting the population used to the idea of water charges.
A Vote No will show that there is a strong opposition to these neo-liberal measures.

Fortunately, others on the No side are somewhat more honest:

breakingnews.ie wrote:

MEP for Munster Kathy Sinnott has demanded the Government explain why it is not availing of an exemption from water charges in the Water Framework Directive from the EU, and is instead charging schools, hospitals and farms for water use.

Article 9 (4) of the Water Framework Directive provides for an exemption from the EU requirement to recover the full cost of water treatment. This exemption is attainable at the discretion of the Minister for Environment, John Gormley.

Ms Sinnott says: "There is an easily attainable exemption available to the government on water charges written into the Water Framework Directive.

"Brussels has expressed surprise that Ireland did not take it up. In fact they tell me that it was known as the 'Irish Exemption' within the Commission because of its obvious application for Ireland.

"I call on the Government to explain why they have added yet another stealth tax, and blamed it on the EU?"

Amazing, eh? People claim that the EU is railroading this terrible measure through against helpless populations, and it isn't actually the case at all!

Just to reiterate, the CCCTB proposals have nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty, as this article from back in 2006 makes clear. The EU has been pushing this idea for 20 years, apparently.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dathi1

Your quote has no relevance to the treaty. Under the treaty, Ireland will still be able to veto this proposal.

With our diminished say as a result of yes Lisbon outcome I don’t believe this will be the case. We will be a mere county council in Europe and no matter what Ireland says despite assurances by the Aherns OR Fine Gael hacks. (its all bums on Euro seats in the end)
The fact of the matter is that a common corporate taxation base is the number one item on the agenda for the European Union after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. These recent dictats from France and others confirm this.

Scofflaw

dathi1 wrote: »

With our diminished say as a result of yes Lisbon outcome I don’t believe this will be the case. We will be a mere county council in Europe and no matter what Ireland says despite assurances by the Aherns OR Fine Gael hacks. (its all bums on Euro seats in the end)
The fact of the matter is that a common corporate taxation base is the number one item on the agenda for the European Union after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. These recent dictats from France and others confirm this.

Interesting use of language. Still, it's all one - the tax harmonisation issue has been on the agenda for a couple of decades. It's not the "next item on the agenda", but a prior item.

People like IBEC, who presumably are not especially interested in getting their bums on Euro seats*, have declared that they are not only satisfied that Lisbon has no adverse impact on the fight against tax harmonisation, but that voting Yes is the best way to fight against it - so if you're worried about tax harmonisation, vote Yes.

*do we really have to have these ritual accusations of self-interest every time a politician does something someone disagrees with? It can hardly be the explanation every time, particularly since it's clear that our politicians don't aspire to Europe - they get dumped there.

regards,
Scofflaw

dathi1

Interesting use of language. Still, it's all one - the tax harmonisation issue has been on the agenda for a couple of decades.

For that "last few decades" there was no EU constitution.

Scofflaw

dathi1 wrote: »

Still, it's all one - the tax harmonisation issue has been on the agenda for a couple of decades.

For that "last few decades" there was no EU constitution.

So you actually do think the Lisbon Treaty has some link to tax harmonisation? What exactly is the link, then?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Breezer

dathi1 wrote: »

With our diminished say as a result of yes Lisbon outcome I don’t believe this will be the case. We will be a mere county council in Europe and no matter what Ireland says despite assurances by the Aherns OR Fine Gael hacks. (its all bums on Euro seats in the end)
The fact of the matter is that a common corporate taxation base is the number one item on the agenda for the European Union after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. These recent dictats from France and others confirm this.

It could be argued that Lisbon will give us an increased say in many areas due to the new system of double majority voting, not a diminished say. Regardless of that, our veto on matters relating to taxation will not be affected. Article 223.2 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as amended by Lisbon, states:

The European Parliament, acting by means of regulations on its own initiative in accordance with a special legislative procedure, after seeking an opinion from the Commission and with the approval of the Council, shall lay down the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the duties of its Members. All rules or conditions relating to the taxation of Members or former Members shall require unanimity within the Council.

Ireland is represented within the European Council by the Taoiseach. Since unanimity is required to change matters relating to taxation, Ireland has a veto. Should we forego that veto, it will be due to a decision made by our Goverment, not the EU. This is not Fianna Fáil spin, this is not Fine Gael spin, this is not spin: this is the text of the treaty.

dathi1

All rules or conditions relating to the taxation of Members or former Members shall require unanimity within the Council.

Thats it?.....Thats our guarentee? unanimity within the Council :eek:

Breezer

dathi1 wrote: »

Thats it?.....Thats our guarentee? unanimity within the Council :eek:

Well... yes. Unanimity among the highest body within Europe. I genuinely don't see what you're getting at here. What would you consider a good guarantee, if not the knowledge that every member of a group that includes the Taoiseach needs to agree on a tax reform for it to be implemented? In other words, if the Taoiseach, elected by the Irish people to serve our interests, does not agree, the reform does not happen.