Tax harmonisation impossible, or is it??

turgon

As I have said in my previous post, Brian Cowen has so far gone on a lot about how much we will be isolated if we vote NO. Now to me this is really pressure from the 26 other countries and the EU to go along.

Now supposing in 5, 10 or 15 years time the EU tries to introduce harmonized taxes. Once again the Irish will be a pain. And once again the other 26 will put on the pressure for us to agree. Now if Brian Cowen is already succumbing to this pressure as regards Lisbon, whos saying he (or some other PM) will not resist this pressure as regards tax harmonization????

We wouldn't be alone against tax harmonisation, the UK do not favour it either. If the treaty is to be rejected, it should be rejected due to flaws inherent in it, not to build up some sort of reputation.

Irish and Proud

turgon wrote: »

As I have said in my previous post, Brian Cowen has so far gone on a lot about how much we will be isolated if we vote NO. Now to me this is really pressure from the 26 other countries and the EU to go along.

Now supposing in 5, 10 or 15 years time the EU tries to introduce harmonized taxes. Once again the Irish will be a pain. And once again the other 26 will put on the pressure for us to agree. Now if Brian Cowen is already succumbing to this pressure as regards Lisbon, whos saying he (or some other PM) will not resist this pressure as regards tax harmonization????

...and not just tax harmonisation I guess. One has to remember the proposed opt-out provisions (in the Lisbon Treaty) regarding Ireland's neutrality at some future date, and that some people fear that if the Irish government wants to get involved in military matters, they may not have to ask the people under the provisions of Lisbon (now, I don't know for sure myself). Also, this opt-out clause may a foot in the door technique to get us gradually more involved in same. In light of this, one could be well justified in applying your argument to the neutrality issue too.

Only full unconditional and indefinite neutrality will suffice as far as I'm concerned. No beating about the bush!

Regards!

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

As I have said in my previous post, Brian Cowen has so far gone on a lot about how much we will be isolated if we vote NO. Now to me this is really pressure from the 26 other countries and the EU to go along.

Now supposing in 5, 10 or 15 years time the EU tries to introduce harmonized taxes. Once again the Irish will be a pain. And once again the other 26 will put on the pressure for us to agree. Now if Brian Cowen is already succumbing to this pressure as regards Lisbon, whos saying he (or some other PM) will not resist this pressure as regards tax harmonization????

Isn't that scaremongering?


amused,
Scofflaw

IRLConor

turgon wrote: »

Now if Brian Cowen is already succumbing to this pressure as regards Lisbon, whos saying he (or some other PM) will not resist this pressure as regards tax harmonization????

Why do you presume he's succumbing to pressure over the Lisbon Treaty? What's to say that he doesn't actually want it?

It's hard to see any government of Ireland agreeing to tax harmonisation now or in the future. It's simply not in anyone's best interest. Any halfwit knows that tax harmonisation would result in higher taxes in Ireland and if there's one thing guaranteed to p*ss off voters it's raising taxes.

The only plausible scenario I would see for tax harmonisation would be if there was a more left wing government that needed to raise taxes to fund public services and wanted a scapegoat. "Look, the mean, evil EU made us do it..." might help them avoid a complete pounding at the subsequent election. They'd need one hell of a spin-doctor to make that referendum pass though...

sink

The thing is there is no scope in this treaty for direct tax harmonisation to be introduced through the back door or otherwise. To do so in the future would require another referendum and I can not see that referendum having a chance in hell of passing. So I don't know why people are getting worked up about it.

On the defence issue, Germany is almost more pacifist than we are. Just look how unwilling the are to get properly involved in Afghanistan. The only reason they got involved was because they were obligated by NATO and the only reason they are in NATO is because if the cold war kicked off they would have been the first country to be obliterated. So I don't ever see the EU becoming a warmongering superpower, there are too many pacifist nations in it.

Scofflaw

sink wrote: »

The thing is there is no scope in this treaty for direct tax harmonisation to be introduced through the back door or otherwise. To do so in the future would require another referendum and I can not see that referendum having a chance in hell of passing. So I don't know why people are getting worked up about it.

On the defence issue, Germany is almost more pacifist than we are. Just look how unwilling the are to get properly involved in Afghanistan. The only reason they got involved was because they were obligated by NATO and the only reason they are in NATO is because if the cold war kicked off they would have been the first country to be obliterated. So I don't ever see the EU becoming a warmongering superpower, there are too many pacifist nations in it.

...been there, done that, owned the country...

cordially,
Scofflaw

sink

Irish and Proud wrote: »

if the Irish government wants to get involved in military matters, they may not have to ask the people under the provisions of Lisbon (now, I don't know for sure myself). Also, this opt-out clause may a foot in the door technique to get us gradually more involved in same.

Depends on what you mean. If they want to get involved in the military planning and co-ordination side of things they can. But they can not commit troops to any military operation no matter what without a security council resolution. I personally thing it's wrong to give the security council this much say over our defence forces, but that's the way it is.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Only full unconditional and indefinite neutrality will suffice as far as I'm concerned. No beating about the bush!

Now that's a bit unrealistic, we can not make anything indefinite and bind the hands of future generations from deciding for themselves. Our neutrality under the Lisbon treaty is not in doubt and it will remain that way until a referendum says otherwise.

turgon

Scofflaw wrote: »

Isn't that scaremongering?

Ah, very witty response!!!!Im actually not trying to swing any voters here, Im just opening up a topic that I was thinking about.

IRLConor wrote: »

Why do you presume he's succumbing to pressure over the Lisbon Treaty? What's to say that he doesn't actually want it?

I'm presume he's succumbing to pressure (whether real or imaginary) on the basis that his whole YES argument is based on the supposed isolation we will receive if we vote NO. That doesn't sound like the opinion of a man free of pressure!

On topic, I suppose I'm not knowledgeable enough to know who would want tax harmonization. I suppose if the U.K. is against it then its not happening, the U.K. begin so influential. But if the big four (UK, FR, GR, IT) were to gang up I would say the smaller countries might feel squeezed.

IRLConor

turgon wrote: »

I'm presume he's succumbing to pressure (whether real or imaginary) on the basis that his whole YES argument is based on the supposed isolation we will receive if we vote NO. That doesn't sound like the opinion of a man free of pressure!

That's utter and total rubbish. There are plenty of good things in the treaty (no, I'm not going to repeat them again, read the other threads). The fact that the Yes campaign is incompetent and they aren't arguing the merits of the treaty doesn't mean that there aren't any merits.

turgon

IRLConor wrote: »

That's utter and total rubbish. There are plenty of good things in the treaty (no, I'm not going to repeat them again, read the other threads). The fact that the Yes campaign is incompetent and they aren't arguing the merits of the treaty doesn't mean that there aren't any merits.

Alright IRLConor chill out for a second. If you find me one post I have written in which I claim the treaty is 100% bad, I will personally buy you a holiday to Strasbourg. Because I HAVENT. I NEVER said that there wasnt any merits in the treaty. Where did I say this?????

I was just pointing out that the YES campaign was only focusing on the negative response we would get if we voted NO. They werent discussing the actual issues.

A response to my question above is in order.

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

Ah, very witty response!!!!Im actually not trying to swing any voters here, Im just opening up a topic that I was thinking about.

Well, it was impossible to resist.

turgon wrote: »

I'm presume he's succumbing to pressure (whether real or imaginary) on the basis that his whole YES argument is based on the supposed isolation we will receive if we vote NO. That doesn't sound like the opinion of a man free of pressure!

On topic, I suppose I'm not knowledgeable enough to know who would want tax harmonization. I suppose if the U.K. is against it then its not happening, the U.K. begin so influential. But if the big four (UK, FR, GR, IT) were to gang up I would say the smaller countries might feel squeezed.

That rather flies in the face of the fact that the original deal was largely negotiated under Cowen during the Irish EU Presidency in 2004, and was regarded as something of a triumph. The Irish then argued to keep much of the Constitution, and again, felt they got most of what they wanted. It's all in the DFA White Paper.

cordially,
Scofflaw

IRLConor

turgon wrote: »

Alright IRLConor chill out for a second. If you find me one post I have written in which I claim the treaty is 100% bad, I will personally buy you a holiday to Strasbourg. Because I HAVENT. I NEVER said that there wasnt any merits in the treaty. Where did I say this?????

I was just pointing out that the YES campaign was only focusing on the negative response we would get if we voted NO. They werent discussing the actual issues.

A response to my question above is in order.

What I said was:

• Cowen probably wasn't pressured, he probably wants what's in the treaty since there are good things in the treaty.
• The fact that the Yes campaign is incompetently hand-waving for a yes does not imply that they are unaware of the good things in the treaty.

On reflection this:

IRLConor wrote:

The fact that the Yes campaign is incompetent and they aren't arguing the merits of the treaty doesn't mean that there aren't any merits.

would be better worded as:

"The fact that the Yes campaign is incompetent and they aren't arguing the merits of the treaty doesn't mean that they are unaware of the merits."

The implication of your post when you said:

turgon wrote:

I'm presume he's succumbing to pressure (whether real or imaginary) on the basis that his whole YES argument is based on the supposed isolation we will receive if we vote NO. That doesn't sound like the opinion of a man free of pressure!

was that Cowen was pro-Lisbon because he was forced to be and not because he wanted to be. IMHO, that's well into tinfoil hat territory.

turgon wrote:

I was just pointing out that the YES campaign was only focusing on the negative response we would get if we voted NO. They werent discussing the actual issues.

The only politicians I've seen attempt to discuss the issues have been Libertas, and they're FUDing like crazy. I don't want to call them liars outright, since there's the possibility that they're simply deluded. When that's the closest you get to real examination of the issues you know you're in trouble.

Frankly, boards.ie has provided better discussion of the treaty than any politician so far. That's a terrible reflection on our current crop of politicians.

turgon

Ok IRLConor I can see where your coming from.

The is no doubt in my mind that Brian Cowen wants the Treaty for whats in it. But his argument for passing the treaty is not based on its merits. Its based on our would be isolation we will receive upon saying NO. I think there is this huge gulf between Brians reasons for YES, and the reasons he wants everyone else voting YES for.

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

Ok IRLConor I can see where your coming from.

The is no doubt in my mind that Brian Cowen wants the Treaty for whats in it. But his argument for passing the treaty is not based on its merits. Its based on our would be isolation we will receive upon saying NO. I think there is this huge gulf between Brians reasons for YES, and the reasons he wants everyone else voting YES for.

Well, the reasons he's given so far, perhaps. Still, that's a question of PR, I think, rather than something sinister as you appear to be suggesting.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sink

turgon wrote: »

Ok IRLConor I can see where your coming from.

The is no doubt in my mind that Brian Cowen wants the Treaty for whats in it. But his argument for passing the treaty is not based on its merits. Its based on our would be isolation we will receive upon saying NO. I think there is this huge gulf between Brians reasons for YES, and the reasons he wants everyone else voting YES for.

I think I know where he is coming from with the scare tactics approach. When some people ask what the treaty means for Ireland and if you give them the short answer "It will help the EU function better" they think you're being vague. If you try to talk about the treaty in detail their eyes glaze over and they stop listening through boredom. Unfortunately there is no big issue in the treaty which you can point to say that's were the benefits are, instead there are lots of little small improvements.

turgon

I agree with above post!!!

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, the reasons he's given so far, perhaps. Still, that's a question of PR, I think, rather than something sinister as you appear to be suggesting.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I didnt think i was suggesting something sinister!!!

IRLConor

sink wrote: »

I think I know where he is coming from with the scare tactics approach. When some people ask what the treaty means for Ireland and if you give them the short answer "It will help the EU function better" they think you're being vague. If you try to talk about the treaty in detail their eyes glaze over and they stop listening through boredom. Unfortunately there is no big issue in the treaty which you can point to say that's were the benefits are, instead there are lots of little small improvements.

That's pretty much what I think is happening.

Some people will say "But scare tactics insult the intelligence of the Irish voter, we can understand more sophisticated arguments". Others will say "The average Joe Soap won't respond to anything other than simplistic slogans, we have to use scare tactics". The truth, as usual, is somewhere in between.

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

I agree with above post!!!

I didnt think i was suggesting something sinister!!!

I wasn't sure you were, I have to say, which was why I emphasised "appear". It just seemed that by saying Cowen's reasons for supporting the Treaty were different from the ones that he wished others to support it for, you could have been suggesting some kind of hidden agenda on Cowen's part.

cordially,
Scofflaw

turgon

No I think he is just trying to reach out to voters in the only way he probably can. Unfortunately for him its negative.

In fairness to him, he cant go around trying to syke up voters with any of the reforms -
Brian - "WHO WANTS MORE Q.M.V. AREAS?????"
General populace - "WE WANT IT BRIAN!!! GIVE US ALL THE Q.M.V. AREAS YOU HAVE!!!"
Old vulnerable lady - "OH BRIAN - YOUR TALK OF Q.M.V. HAS ME ALL WEAK AND CLAMMY"

And then everyone starts chanting
"WE ALL AGREE - GIVE US Q.M.V."
etc etc

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

No I think he is just trying to reach out to voters in the only way he probably can. Unfortunately for him its negative.

In fairness to him, he cant go around trying to syke up voters with any of the reforms -
Brian - "WHO WANTS MORE Q.M.V. AREAS?????"
General populace - "WE WANT IT BRIAN!!! GIVE US ALL THE Q.M.V. AREAS YOU HAVE!!!"
Old vulnerable lady - "OH BRIAN - YOUR TALK OF Q.M.V. HAS ME ALL WEAK AND CLAMMY"

And then everyone starts chanting
"WE ALL AGREE - GIVE US Q.M.V."
etc etc

Actually, I think their problems are more of their own making. The main problem is this one:

Crowd: "Lisbon!"
Brian: "EU GOOD! VOTE YES"
Crowd: "Water charges!"
Brian "EU BAD! VOTE FF!"

Tough sell. Plus, no national politician will happily come out and say "makes the EU more directly accountable to the citizen without going through your national politicians!". Goes against the grain, and all the more so for being true.

cordially,
Scofflaw