Ireland and EU money

Kovik

Over the last few days, quite a few (admittedly, mainly British) commentators have made statements to the effect of "European money dragged the Irish economy out of poverty" (some guy on Sky).

I don't know enough on the issue to respond to these suggestions. My view has mostly been that the turn around in the economy can be attributed to a few policy changes that the EU would not generally have welcomed, such as the drastic reformation of our tax philosophy and the investment in education as capital expenditure.

Naturally, EU development funds have been critical to the development of infrastructure in particular, but is it proper to claim EU money simply flooded the country?

Ponster

€60 billion over 25 years I think is what has been quoted in several other threads.

Up to you if you think the money has been well spent or not but looking at other EU countries like Portugal I personally think that Ireland would be a 'poorer' country had it not been for those structural funds.

Scofflaw

Kovik wrote: »

Over the last few days, quite a few (admittedly, mainly British) commentators have made statements to the effect of "European money dragged the Irish economy out of poverty" (some guy on Sky).

I don't know enough on the issue to respond to these suggestions. My view has mostly been that the turn around in the economy can be attributed to a few policy changes that the EU would not generally have welcomed, such as the drastic reformation of our tax philosophy and the investment in education as capital expenditure.

Naturally, EU development funds have been critical to the development of infrastructure in particular, but is it proper to claim EU money simply flooded the country?

EU money was paid directly to the state as structural funds and CAP, thereby subsidising both our infrastructure and our rural communities.

That, in turn, enabled the Irish government to opt for a lower tax rate while still building infrastructure and investing in education.

Add in the value of access to the EU market, and the FDI that we gathered by virtue of our low tax rate and said market access, and you'll find that EU membership has been worth absolutely staggering quantities of money to Ireland.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Kovik

Scofflaw wrote: »

EU money was paid directly to the state as structural funds and CAP, thereby subsidising both our infrastructure and our rural communities.

That, in turn, enabled the Irish government to opt for a lower tax rate while still building infrastructure and investing in education.

Add in the value of access to the EU market, and the FDI that we gathered by virtue of our low tax rate and said market access, and you'll find that EU membership has been worth absolutely staggering quantities of money to Ireland.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Certainly, there's no question that EU membership has been absolutely invaluable to Ireland, but would you agree with the assessment that I cited above (that the EU essentially dragged the Irish economy out of ruin or, in other words, that the success of the Irish economy can be essentially credited to Europe)?

mike65

The total monies given over has been 33 billion so far but I doubt that is inflation adjusted (though the bulk of the cash has come in the last 15 years or so).

Of course its not a one way street, now Ireland is Moneybags Inc. the cash will be flowing the other way so slowly we'll be "paying off" the funding.

Mike.

Scofflaw

Kovik wrote: »

Certainly, there's no question that EU membership has been absolutely invaluable to Ireland, but would you agree with the assessment that I cited above (that the EU essentially dragged the Irish economy out of ruin or, in other words, that the success of the Irish economy can be essentially credited to Europe)?

Not entirely. The money came in, but our economic and social policies were dire - high tax rates with no ability to enforce them, tax bands where a pay rise left you worse off, dirigisme, red tape, loathsomely tight banks, appalling utility companies. A friend of mine in the early 80's was a telephone engineer - he spent his whole time on nixers. It could take you a week physically getting a phone installed while the engineer popped in and out doing nixers for other people - that would be after waiting months because each 'official' phone install was cover for several nixers....so, eventually, you got on the nixer list as well.

The EU money could have gone on being poured down the drain, but there was a sea-change in the late 80's and early 90's - I remember them having government "lateral thinking" workshops with people like Edward de Bono, out of which things like the "Back to Work" scheme and low corporation tax emerged.

So the money by itself didn't create the Celtic Tiger, any more than capital investment by itself could create a world-class company. EU money and Irish nous did it together - and to be fair, it was Irish nous that won a lot of the money from the EU in the first place, over and above what might have been expected.

It's instructive to look at how aid money is spent in third world countries - you can blow the lot on vanity projects, like a huge motorway from the capital to somewhere pointless, and which you'll never have the money to maintain - and ten years later you'll have nothing to show for it. Examples are endless.

cordially,
Scofflaw

A Random Walk

Multinationals locate here because they get access to EU markets. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking that low corporation tax is the primary reason, the primary reason is access. Without access to EU markets, Ireland is a market of 4 million people - with EU access, you can supply 500 million people from Ireland.

marco_polo

A Random Walk wrote: »

Multinationals locate here because they get access to EU markets. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking that low corporation tax is the primary reason, the primary reason is access. Without access to EU markets, Ireland is a market of 4 million people - with EU access, you can supply 500 million people from Ireland.

A slight flaw in your argument is that there are 26 other countries that would supply the same level of access to the EU market.

turgon

Oh Yes. They gave us loads of money, and what ungrateful loafes you were to vote No. Bad Irish, bad Irish, haven't you learned that you must accept all that we throw you, given the money you have harvested off of us???

Triangle

marco_polo wrote: »

A slight flaw in your argument is that there are 26 other countries that would supply the same level of access to the EU market.

Marco,
Read his post and THINK before posting..... as was said ..... the pirmary reason for setting up in ireland is the access to 500 million people.
out of four options

1) 4 million people and low taxation
2) 500 million and low taxation
3) 500 million and standard taxation
4) 4 million and standard taxation

I'd say option one would not be of much benefit to companies outside EU who want to access the power of selling to 500 million people......

Triangle

turgon wrote: »

Oh Yes. They gave us loads of money, and what ungrateful loafes you were to vote No. Bad Irish, bad Irish, haven't you learned that you must accept all that we throw you, given the money you have harvested off of us???

nice to have meaningful arguments again.......Turgon - please stay on topic (this has nothing to do with the vote). The OP asked if the money Ireland got from EU help us out of recession or 'delivered' us from recession. (Sorry OP if i got that wrong)

nhughes100

Take the money(structural funds, cap etc) out of the EU and tell me what incentives there are for further integration. It's one thing that baffles me about the last group of states to join. They realise their independance again or for the first time in a long time and then within 10-20 years and some sooner then they can't wait to sell their new found sovereignty to the EU.

I could understand it if it was just a trading community ala the EEC Ireland a lot of the new accession states are chasing rainbows. They can't all have the boom that Ireland experienced and during my travels through some of these places I'd have to say their infrastructure wasn't half bad - Mulitple tram lines through city centres- imagine....

Triangle

I'd say a big one is security - we take it for granted, but alot of countries worldwide have issues with it (constant threat of invasion/rebels etc)
Give a country membership to a secure EU and provision to expand it's trading and it's like honey ot bees.

But to be honest, i've only started taking an interest in the EU since the Lisbon treaty (sorry i mentioned it after one of my last posts!!!)

A Random Walk

nhughes100 wrote: »

Take the money(structural funds, cap etc) out of the EU and tell me what incentives there are for further integration. It's one thing that baffles me about the last group of states to join. They realise their independance again or for the first time in a long time and then within 10-20 years and some sooner then they can't wait to sell their new found sovereignty to the EU.

It would be worthwhile to do some reading on the founding of the EU (google Jean Monet). The problem for Ireland is we've always defined our membership of the EU in economic terms so I understand your bafflement because the EU was never intended to be simply a free trade area.

The EU was setup in response to the World Wars and frankly 1000 years of European countries at war with each other. The intention was to form closer bonds, pool sovereignty and to foster mutual interdependence such that Europe would never have to suffer through such devastating wars in the future. The economic aspect was simply a tool in all this, the real destination was political and cultural.

Ireland didn't suffer devastation in the 20th century and joined primarily for the money on offer. This notion has persisted to the present day and comes through in the last vote. As you say yourself "what incentives are there for further integration"? If you were German and have relatives who lived through the devastation of Berlin you would know, as would most of the rest of Central and Eastern Europe. European aid money is used partly as an enticement but really it is intended to try and smooth out differences in wealth across the continent and to encourage stable democracies. Wealthy democratic countries simply don't go to war with each other.

At European summit meetings, when difficult decisions were on the agenda to drive forward the EU – to introduce more majority voting in the Single European Act or to launch the euro in the Maastricht treaty – he would quote the words of his ageing mother to insist European integration must make another European war unthinkable. He never lost sight of that idea.

(an FT comment on Helmut Kohl, ex German Chancellor)

I hear many Irish people talking about rejecting Lisbon because they are happy with the status quo. I'm sorry, but the status quo is not on offer. The "core" Europeans want to move forward with their political project and they're not going to let what they see as aa greedy money grabbing Ireland stand in their way. They'd like to see us on-board and have helped us immensely, but we don't have the same guttural imperative that most Europeans have.

We need to decide what we want. Do we want the enormous financial benefits of being part of an integrating Europe or do we want to go our own way. Do we believe in the European "ideal" or not?

i57dwun4yb1pt8

on a slightly humourous note ,after all this subsidising and after posting a for sale ad on Adverts

maybe the EURO should now be called the EUNO

thehighground

Ireland suffered greatly because of the 2nd World War - because of its neutral stance (which was viewed as siding with Germany) we didn't receive Marshall Aid. When the EEC (European Economic Community)was set up and what we joined eventually in 1973, Ireland was a very young country.

There has been very little discussion about all the social aspects to the EU and maybe its timely now that we figure out where we want to be.

I think when you are discussing Ireland's financial gain from the EU, most European like to forget that our main (only) natural resource, fishing rights were handed over (I believe in today's money worth about 100 bn) so we don't owe anything to anyone in Europe. Major beneficiaries (largest fishing fleets) were UK, Spain & France! These stocks in our territorial water are now fairly well depleted.

I think I read somewhere that what received over the 25 years or so, would amount to something like 5% of any of our annual GDP. Most of this went in farming subsidies, where it could be argued they were subsidising large, industrialised European populations as their was a food shortages in Europe after the war.

Another thing that annoys me greatly, is that other countries were in the same boat as Ireland (though, not as badly off) and had the same opportunities as ourselves (Portugal comes to mind - they have some very good roads and football stadia!), and we made the most of what we were given - and our GDP is greater, we work longer hours than most other people in Europe.

Worth reading up on is The Emergency and aftermath to get the Irish angle on this whole European project.

FrankGrimes

thehighground wrote: »

Ireland suffered greatly because of the 2nd World War - because of its neutral stance (which was viewed as siding with Germany) we didn't receive Marshall Aid. When the EEC (European Economic Community)was set up and what we joined eventually in 1973, Ireland was a very young country.

There has been very little discussion about all the social aspects to the EU and maybe its timely now that we figure out where we want to be.

I think when you are discussing Ireland's financial gain from the EU, most European like to forget that our main (only) natural resource, fishing rights were handed over (I believe in today's money worth about 100 bn) so we don't owe anything to anyone in Europe. Major beneficiaries (largest fishing fleets) were UK, Spain & France! These stocks in our territorial water are now fairly well depleted.

I think I read somewhere that what received over the 25 years or so, would amount to something like 5% of any of our annual GDP. Most of this went in farming subsidies, where it could be argued they were subsidising large, industrialised European populations as their was a food shortages in Europe after the war.

Another thing that annoys me greatly, is that other countries were in the same boat as Ireland (though, not as badly off) and had the same opportunities as ourselves (Portugal comes to mind - they have some very good roads and football stadia!), and we made the most of what we were given - and our GDP is greater, we work longer hours than most other people in Europe.

Worth reading up on is The Emergency and aftermath to get the Irish angle on this whole European project.

The more I see posts like this, the more convinced I am that there is a very significant portion of the Irish public out there that have a highly misinformed 'we don't owe Europe anything' attitude. Please refer to this thread for clarification on two points:

1. The value of the fisheries money 'handed over' to Europe is dramatically lower than you and many others seem to believe (this asks the question - where does this level of misinformation come from)?

2. It is indisputable that Ireland has been a massive beneficiary of EU funding over the course of our involvement (and have only recently become net contributors).

Now, that doesn't mean that we owe Europe anything or that we have to vote Yes because we benefitted economically (in my opinion the fact we didn't spend the cash all that well is our own fault, not the EU's), but at least let's form whatever opinion we come to based on real facts and not gross misinformation.

thehighground

You are basing it on Irish tax take

I'm basing it on the fact that UK, French & Spanish trawlers fished in Irish territorial waters (we own what is under, in etc 200 mile radius of the Irish coast going into Atlantic for example) and landed their catch in their own countries, so we get absolutely nothing from them. And its legal.

Spain's 2005 fishing industry has halved since 1995. That is not due to people eating less fish you know! (Its a bit late now to actually sort out the figrues for you).

limklad

Here a picture just formulated in my head about the EU.


It is beginning to look like that the EU was just bribing us off to vote their way all along that our Politicians never told us (the electorate). I thought they were just generous to give us a helping hand up to straighten ourselves and now we are net contributors and ready to pay back to help other poorer countries, they (the EU) now start battering us because they cannot bribe us anymore to vote their way.

Are we sure that our Politicians own bank balance is not swelled with EU black money?

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

You are basing it on Irish tax take

I'm basing it on the fact that UK, French & Spanish trawlers fished in Irish territorial waters (we own what is under, in etc 200 mile radius of the Irish coast going into Atlantic for example) and landed their catch in their own countries, so we get absolutely nothing from them. And its legal.

Spain's 2005 fishing industry has halved since 1995. That is not due to people eating less fish you know! (Its a bit late now to actually sort out the figrues for you).

No, the figures are based on what all the other nations got out of Irish waters - the French, Spanish, British, etc. The original source for the figures is a Department of the Marine paper on how much comes out of the Irish Box (€460m in 2004), and how much of that is fished by Ireland (30%).

What is being calculated is what the Irish government would have made out of that fish (€1.4 bn), or the value of the fish that the other EU nations have caught in Irish waters since we joined the EU (€11.27 bn) - because that is what we have "lost", either to State coffers or to the Irish economy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

limklad wrote: »

Here a picture just formulated in my head about the EU.


It is beginning to look like that the EU was just bribing us off to vote their way all along that our Politicians never told us (the electorate). I thought they were just generous to give us a helping hand up to straighten ourselves and now we are net contributors and ready to pay back to help other poorer countries, they (the EU) now start battering us because they cannot bribe us anymore to vote their way.

Are we sure that our Politicians own bank balance is not swelled with EU black money?

We joined the EU in 1973, and immediately started receiving aid from the EU. The Crotty case, which required us to put EU treaties to referendum, wasn't until 1987.

Why not just face facts? We have done well out of the EU. That's why we want to stay in it. It's why no Irish political party, including Sinn Fein, actually admits to being anti-EU. If that makes you feel guilty for voting No, that's between you and your conscience. It didn't make me feel guilty for voting No at Nice, but I didn't pretend that "really" we hadn't benefited, because anyone who was adult in the 80's knows full well we did.

cordially,
Scofflaw

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, the figures are based on what all the other nations got out of Irish waters - the French, Spanish, British, etc. The original source for the figures is a Department of the Marine paper on how much comes out of the Irish Box (€460m in 2004), and how much of that is fished by Ireland (30%).

What is being calculated is what the Irish government would have made out of that fish (€1.4 bn), or the value of the fish that the other EU nations have caught in Irish waters since we joined the EU (€11.27 bn) - because that is what we have "lost", either to State coffers or to the Irish economy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

(1) Do you believe Dept. of Marine figures (considering most intelligent people think it was a crime against Irish people what happened about our territorial fishing rights)

(2) The 2004 Spanish fish catch has halved since 1995 - I wonder why they chose those 2004 - the fact that fishing off the coast of Ireland was finished at that stage might have something to do with that, don't you think?

3) Can you explain the mechanism how a Spanish fishing trawler contributes to the Irish exchequer considering he lands his fish in Spain, he sells them in Spain and he pays his tax in Spain?

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

We joined the EU in 1973, and immediately started receiving aid from the EU. The Crotty case, which required us to put EU treaties to referendum, wasn't until 1987.

Why not just face facts? We have done well out of the EU. That's why we want to stay in it. It's why no Irish political party, including Sinn Fein, actually admits to being anti-EU. If that makes you feel guilty for voting No, that's between you and your conscience. It didn't make me feel guilty for voting No at Nice, but I didn't pretend that "really" we hadn't benefited, because anyone who was adult in the 80's knows full well we did.

cordially,
Scofflaw

No we didn't join the EU (European Union) in 1973. We joined the EEC (European Economic Community).;)

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

(1) Do you believe Dept. of Marine figures (considering most intelligent people think it was a crime against Irish people what happened about our territorial fishing rights)

I may not be willing to believe what a Minister says in public, but I have no problem with technical papers. If you're willing to believe that the entire Irish civil service, root and branch including the scientific staff, lie in every publication, we're really not going to have a very fruitful discussion.

thehighground wrote: »

(2) The 2004 Spanish fish catch has halved since 1995 - I wonder why they chose those 2004 - the fact that fishing off the coast of Ireland was finished at that stage might have something to do with that, don't you think?

They chose it because it was the year they were interested in in the paper they wrote - almost certainly because it was the last year on record at the time the paper was written. I in turn chose it because it was an available expert paper with hard numbers in it.

Further, one should consider that Spain only joined in 1986, and still do not have unrestricted access to the Irish box. Until 1996, vessels had to register in Ireland before being granted licenses to fish in the Irish Box, and after 1996 only 40 Spanish vessels a year were granted licenses.

thehighground wrote: »

3) Can you explain the mechanism how a Spanish fishing trawler contributes to the Irish exchequer considering he lands his fish in Spain, he sells them in Spain and he pays his tax in Spain?

He doesn't. I'm afraid you may have missed the whole point of the calculations - the whole argument that the EU has had more out of us in fish than they have given us in funds relies on an estimation of what the Irish fisheries would have been worth to the Irish economy (as an industry, not an asset) over the period of EU membership.

In order to calculate that figure, I am using the total landed EU catch from Irish waters, including all countries - Spain, France, etc - and subtracting the Irish catch to get a figure that shows how much catch we were foregoing by allowing other EU countries to fish in our waters. For 2004, the total amount of fish caught by everyone in Irish waters was €460m. Of that, the Irish caught 30% (€140m). Therefore, in 2004, we "lost to other EU countries" €320m worth of fish that we could have fished, had we done an Iceland and stayed out of the EU (and developed our fishing industry).

That is what the calculations are based on - the amount of fish harvested in Irish waters by non-Irish EU vessels over the period we have been in the EU. That is the value "the EU" has had out of our waters.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

A Random Walk wrote: »

Multinationals locate here because they get access to EU markets. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking that low corporation tax is the primary reason, the primary reason is access. Without access to EU markets, Ireland is a market of 4 million people - with EU access, you can supply 500 million people from Ireland.

Considering the degree of transfer pricing going on, I wouldn't dismiss the tax rate as irrelevant, it's not the sole factor that politicians often would like to think it is, but it was a factor.

A Random Walk

This fishing argument is utterly spurious and I'm surprised so many otherwise intelligent individuals are falling for it. The Irish economy is a €100bn economy, about half of which is generated by multinationals. Those multinationals are located here because they get access to the EU markets, remove that access and they wouldn't have located here. It doesn't matter whether fishery was worth 1 or 100 billion to us, access to EU markets is generating 50 billion a year on its own.

Besides which, in the negotiations to join the EEC we essentially sacrificed our fisheries to get more money for our farmers. Considering we didn't have a major fishing fleet, that was probably a wise move. Our farmers as a result are receiving several billion euro a year from the EU.

marco_polo

Triangle wrote: »

Marco,
Read his post and THINK before posting..... as was said ..... the pirmary reason for setting up in ireland is the access to 500 million people.
out of four options

1) 4 million people and low taxation
2) 500 million and low taxation
3) 500 million and standard taxation
4) 4 million and standard taxation

I'd say option one would not be of much benefit to companies outside EU who want to access the power of selling to 500 million people......

Just to clarify your I interpreted your point as being that that Ireland membership of the EU was the key factor in Multinationals locating here rather than the low corporation tax rate. My point was simply that that they could have the exact same access to the EU markets from any one of 26 other countries, so our low corporation tax is an equally important factor.

Although perhaps you are measuring importance by which of these it would be worse to do without, in that case I would agree that low taxation without EU membership is worthless.

nhughes100

Agreed that the fishing argument is somewhat spurious to this thread but I do have sympathy for the Irish fishermen as I have stated in other relvevant threads. I don't see fishing as being our greatest natural resource, there's far more people employed in agriculture and it creates more of our GDP then fish.

My initial argument was about taking the grants out of the EU and what do we have left. I having read any of Monet's stuff so I can't dispute his arguments but history shows us that the present EU was setup as the European coal and steel community and then evolved into the European Economic Community. It wasn't until Maastricht that things started to swerve towards further integration and the first mentions of a more federal union.

The thought that member states operate on even remotely close to a level playing field with regards to infrastructure, economies and even the cost of basic necessities across the EU is simply not true. I don't personally think it ever will either. The US which is far more federal has huge gaps in the cost and quality of life from city to city, nevermind state to state. Yet they share far more culturally then the European states.

A lot of the bleating from Brussels about the no vote last week has centered around all the money Ireland got in the past. My view is that money carried no preconditions on further integration and all the projects are subject to EU ratificaton which I can tell you is very strict. Anyone who has ever done a tender for a public sector body will tell you that. Let me make a day to day example, I got a patio in my back garden last week, I got a contracter to do it and we agreed a price. Once the job was done it was paid for and he has a guarentee on the work he has done. Using the EU's logic the contracter is now committed to any further work in the garden and also should any faults arise with the front garden he should also fix them as well.

The same way in which laws can't be retrospective I do not believe that any funding committed in the past in any way obliges us to be pro EU no matter what route that takes.

The Corinthian

nhughes100 wrote: »

I having read any of Monet's stuff so I can't dispute his arguments but history shows us that the present EU was setup as the European coal and steel community and then evolved into the European Economic Community. It wasn't until Maastricht that things started to swerve towards further integration and the first mentions of a more federal union.

Actually the 1950 Schuman Declaration that called for the formation of the European coal and steel community specifically cited it as a step in the direction of European unification:

"Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity."

The same way in which laws can't be retrospective I do not believe that any funding committed in the past in any way obliges us to be pro EU no matter what route that takes.

The problem is that we do not appear to feel any obligation. We were happy to take the funds when it suited us and now that we have them we appear to have forgotten about it.

Scofflaw

My view is that money carried no preconditions on further integration

I agree with you entirely there. The problem I have with the fisheries argument (and other such) is that they are patently false. However, that they are false does not leave us obliged to simply rubberstamp anything the EU does - I voted for the Treaty on its merits, not because of what the EU has done for us in the past.

cordially,
Scofflaw

limklad

Scofflaw wrote: »

Why not just face facts? We have done well out of the EU. That's why we want to stay in it. It's why no Irish political party, including Sinn Fein, actually admits to being anti-EU. If that makes you feel guilty for voting No, that's between you and your conscience. It didn't make me feel guilty for voting No at Nice, but I didn't pretend that "really" we hadn't benefited, because anyone who was adult in the 80's knows full well we did.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Of course we did well under previous treaties because the larger nations wanted to improve Europe because of socialist ideals. Times have change and the EU is expanding at fast rate. The Lisbon treaty is changing that form and the form of the EU governing structures and that does not gives the right for leaders of each country to bypass the people.

To be emotionally bullied by using the money argument is wrong in any sense of the world and as it goes against the principles in which the EU was built upon, and it would be very foolish to give in under that pressure.
I will never feel guilty for protecting democracy by been cautious and I would be very foolish not to read the fine print of futures treaties and foolish not to listen to other people concerns and finding competent answers to those concerns before giving away more powers or changing the rules in which the EU is to be govern by.

I am also concern about the self amending part of the treaty in which EU leaders can change without going to the people. I have got no full clarification on that, and any questions about it was never explained, it kept been brushed off and attention was drawn to Past benefits of the EU. The Past benefits were because of previous treaties, so I did not want them to change the current treaties, since the politicians kept talking about them in how good they were to us, so there was no point to change the status quo. Therefore it is a perfectly good reason to vote NO.

I watch some time back on a UK TV interview on youtube ( I think) with a British MP who was defending Lisbon treaty said that 60 New areas been transferred under Lisbon treaty to the EU. None of the areas was explain by our government. No full mention of the list though as the interview changed topic to other parts of the ratification process. I was looking for it now but cannot find the link. I think it was a BBC political programme, I post the link when I find it. I would appriciate if someone could help me find it again.

I already know the full history of Ireland and the reason about why we had a referendum for each EEC/EC/EU treaty. I mention it many times in other posts.

Scofflaw

limklad wrote: »

Of course we did well under previous treaties because the larger nations wanted to improve Europe because of socialist ideals. Times have change and the EU is expanding at fast rate. The Lisbon treaty is changing that form and the form of the EU governing structures and that does not gives the right for leaders of each country to bypass the people.

To be emotionally bullied by using the money argument is wrong in any sense of the world and as it goes against the principles in which the EU was built upon, and it would be very foolish to give in under that pressure.
I will never feel guilty for protecting democracy by been cautious and I would be very foolish not to read the fine print of futures treaties and foolish not to listen to other people concerns and finding competent answers to those concerns before giving away more powers or changing the rules in which the EU is to be govern by.

I am also concern about the self amending part of the treaty in which EU leaders can change without going to the people. I have got no full clarification on that, and any questions about it was never explained, it kept been brushed off and attention was drawn to Past benefits of the EU. The Past benefits were because of previous treaties, so I did not want them to change the current treaties, since the politicians kept talking about them in how good they were to us, so there was no point to change the status quo. Therefore it is a perfectly good reason to vote NO.

Well, I don't know whether you'll accept my clarification, but I'll give it a go anyway. That clause does not make the treaties "self-amending". It means they can be altered by single amendments - not a "self-amendment clause" but an "amendment clause".

In the same sense, our Constitution is "self-amending" - it doesn't require a whole new Constitution every time (which is how Eu treaties currently operate), but can be changed by a paragraph here and there - by referendum.

This is the first sentence of Article 48:

1. The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures.

So, there are two ways of amending the EU Treaties - the 'ordinary' and the 'simplified'. This is the ordinary:

Ordinary revision procedure

2. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties. These proposals may, inter alia, serve either to increase or to reduce the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties. These proposals shall be submitted to the European Council by the Council and the national Parliaments shall be notified.

3. If the European Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, adopts by a simple majority a decision in favour of examining the proposed amendments, the President of the European Council shall convene a Convention composed of representatives of the national Parliaments, of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, of the European Parliament and of the Commission. The European Central Bank shall also be consulted in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. The Convention shall examine the proposals for amendments and shall adopt by consensus a recommendation to a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States as provided for in paragraph 4.
The European Council may decide by a simple majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, not to convene a Convention should this not be justified by the extent of the proposed amendments. In the latter case, the European Council shall define the terms of reference for a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States.

4. A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to the Treaties.
The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

5. If, two years after the signature of a treaty amending the Treaties, four fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter shall be referred to the European Council.

This is the same as the only method we currently have. The Treaties can be amended by holding an Inter-Governmental Conference (IGC), and drafting up a new Treaty - exactly as was done with Lisbon. Everyone has to ratify it - "amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements" - which is a referendum, normally, for us.

This is the simplified procedure, which is new:

Simplified revision procedures

6. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the European Council proposals for revising all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relating to the internal policies and action of the Union.

Any government, the EP, or the Commission, may put forward an amendment that relates to internal Union policies (Part 3 of the TFEU Treaty) - which covers all, and only, the things that are within the EU remit.

The European Council may adopt a decision amending all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The European Council shall act by unanimity after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, and the European Central Bank in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area.

The Council decides whether the amendment should be put forward for ratification.

That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

In order for the amendment to actually become legal, it must be ratified by all the member states in the same way they ratify treaties. In our case, that will normally be by referendum as at present.

The decision referred to in the second subparagraph shall not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties.

None of these amendments can extend the powers of the EU.

Finally, in respect of QMV areas:

7. Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or Title V of this Treaty provides for the Council to act by unanimity in a given area or case, the European Council may adopt a decision authorising the Council to act by a qualified majority in that area or in that case. This subparagraph shall not apply to decisions with military implications or those in the area of defence. Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides for legislative acts to be adopted by the Council in accordance with a special legislative procedure, the European Council may adopt a decision allowing for the adoption of such acts in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure.

Areas can be moved from unanimity to QMV....but not ones with military implications...

Any initiative taken by the European Council on the basis of the first or the second subparagraph shall be notified to the national Parliaments. If a national Parliament makes known its opposition within six months of the date of such notification, the decision referred to in the first or the second subparagraph shall not be adopted. In the absence of opposition, the European Council may adopt the decision.

...but only if no national Parliament objects within six months...

For the adoption of the decisions referred to in the first and second subparagraphs, the European Council shall act by unanimity after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, which shall be given by a majority of its component members.

...and it's not vetoed by any government, or not accepted by more than half the MEPs.

I watch some time back on a UK TV interview on youtube ( I think) with a British MP who was defending Lisbon treaty said that 60 New areas been transferred under Lisbon treaty to the EU. None of the areas was explain by our government. No full mention of the list though as the interview changed topic to other parts of the ratification process. I was looking for it now but cannot find the link. I think it was a BBC political programme, I post the link when I find it. I would appreciate if someone could help me find it again.

I can't help you with the BBC link, but the list of the new QMV areas is here. Actually, by the time you take out the ones Ireland has opt-outs on, you're left with about 34 or so.

Hope that is of some use to you.

cordially,
Scofflaw

kevteljeur

I'm coming to this party a little late, but here's a link that everyone should have a read of; it won't be readily apparent what the relevence is, but essentially it's about the fallout from the Suez Crisis, an event that barely touched Ireland (it overlooks the Benelux arrangement too, which I believe was the model of the EEC).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jul/13/egypt.ianblack

In a nutshell, this is how the EU got started, and goes a long way to explaining why France and Germany are so protective of the Big Project. Together we stand, divided we fall, and they've never forgotten that.

For what it's worth, I think the anger in other European states has a lot to do with the accomodation they made for Ireland in the treaty, only to see that time and effort rejected. It doesn't help that Ireland as a nation has been rubbing their faces in it over the economic progress of the last few years. Two years ago Dutch economists mapped out the downturn that the Irish economy would take in due course, and observed that Ireland as a nation would do well to be a bit more humble; when the economy would go down, it would help to have some friends... (I'm paraphrasing here, and I'll try to dig out the link later on)

The Corinthian

kevteljeur wrote: »

In a nutshell, this is how the EU got started, and goes a long way to explaining why France and Germany are so protective of the Big Project. Together we stand, divided we fall, and they've never forgotten that.

That is the unfortunate truth of modern geo-politics. The USA is already a major World power. Russia has more or less re-established itself as one and China has all but done so. Countries such as India and Brazil are rapidly reaching the point where they will be as influential.

Meanwhile the European countries are becoming dwarfed in comparison. The UK and France are the only ones who are able to 'run with the big boys', but even there their influence is falling. Suez was a serious turning point for the UK and France in that they realized that they had become second rate powers, dependant upon American benevolence. The Iraq war was a reminder of Suez, in that a major power was able to happily do what it wished again with little regard for what anyone else thought.

In this New World Order (as coined by the Americans) most nation states really have three options. One is to stay small and hope that no one bothers you. Not a very realistic option, TBH. Just ask Belgium.

The second is to become a de facto protectorate of a major power - this is the basis of the UK's special relationship, or as Harold Macmillan argued on after Suez, that the UK should be "wise Greeks to the bumptious Romans" (the latter referring to the US). If we ever ended going down this route, we can expect NATO membership and permanent bases in Shannon.

Finally there is the super-national approach of forming a cohesive bloc, which the EU is ultimately all about.

Like it or not that is the World we live in. You can pretend that we can go on as we have been, but only a fool would do that. Nations, like anyone else, must adapt and evolve or die.

Two years ago Dutch economists mapped out the downturn that the Irish economy would take in due course, and observed that Ireland as a nation would do well to be a bit more humble; when the economy would go down, it would help to have some friends... (I'm paraphrasing here, and I'll try to dig out the link later on)

I've heard this argument being mooted before by diplomats. Even Switzerland, which is an example of an 'independent' nation, is a good example because when it does (rarely) get into trouble - such as the case of the Nazi gold scandal - it's on its own. It actually has very few friends internationally and ultimately can be forced to bow to the wishes of other nations.

In short, there is no such thing as independence or sovereignty.

limklad

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, I don't know whether you'll accept my clarification, but I'll give it a go anyway. That clause does not make the treaties "self-amending". It means they can be altered by single amendments - not a "self-amendment clause" but an "amendment clause".

In the same sense, our Constitution is "self-amending" - it doesn't require a whole new Constitution every time (which is how Eu treaties currently operate), but can be changed by a paragraph here and there - by referendum.

This is the first sentence of Article 48:



So, there are two ways of amending the EU Treaties - the 'ordinary' and the 'simplified'. This is the ordinary:



This is the same as the only method we currently have. The Treaties can be amended by holding an Inter-Governmental Conference (IGC), and drafting up a new Treaty - exactly as was done with Lisbon. Everyone has to ratify it - "amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements" - which is a referendum, normally, for us.

This is the simplified procedure, which is new:



Any government, the EP, or the Commission, may put forward an amendment that relates to internal Union policies (Part 3 of the TFEU Treaty) - which covers all, and only, the things that are within the EU remit.



The Council decides whether the amendment should be put forward for ratification.



In order for the amendment to actually become legal, it must be ratified by all the member states in the same way they ratify treaties. In our case, that will normally be by referendum as at present.



None of these amendments can extend the powers of the EU.

Finally, in respect of QMV areas:



Areas can be moved from unanimity to QMV....but not ones with military implications...



...but only if no national Parliament objects within six months...



...and it's not vetoed by any government, or not accepted by more than half the MEPs.




I can't help you with the BBC link, but the list of the new QMV areas is here. Actually, by the time you take out the ones Ireland has opt-outs on, you're left with about 34 or so.

Hope that is of some use to you.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hi Scofflaw,
Thanks for this information, you gave lot of very informative information, most I already know.

But there is one section you and the Referendum Commission are in contradiction and this area I am most concerned about. I highlight it in Bold for you and quote their whole statement about the issue.

Read their Booklet on the Lisbon Treaty, link & statement provided.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

www.lisbontreaty2008.ie wrote:

http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/HandBookEng.pdf
Page 9 to 10
Proposed Changes - Power to Change the Treaties
At present the Treaties governing the EU are amended only
by the Member States agreeing to an amending treaty which
must then be approved by the Member States in accordance
with their own constitutional traditions. In almost all cases
this involves parliamentary approval. In some cases, for
example in Ireland, a referendum may be required.

The Lisbon Treaty now proposes to give the European Council
(Heads of Government) the power to propose changes to
certain parts of the governing Treaties. Any such changes
cannot increase the competence of the EU. Any such
proposals must be agreed unanimously by the European
Council. This means that any national government may
veto such a proposal. If the European Council does agree
a proposed change, then in order for it to come into effect,
it must be ratified by the Member States in accordance
with their own constitutional traditions. This may require a
referendum in Ireland as happens at present.

The Lisbon Treaty also proposes to give the European Council
the power to amend the Treaties so as to allow Qualified
Majority Voting to operate in certain areas where unanimity
is now required. It will also give them the power to apply
the Ordinary Legislative Procedure in certain areas where a
Special Legislative Procedure applies at present. Any such
proposals must be agreed unanimously by the European
Council.

This means that any national government may veto
such a proposal. If the European Council does agree a
proposed change, any national parliament may prevent
these changes coming into effect. Under the proposed
amendment to the Constitution of Ireland the approval of
the Dáil and Seanad will be required for Ireland to agree
to such proposed changes. Such changes would not
require a referendum in Ireland.

The power to change from unanimity to Qualified Majority
Voting or from the Special Legislative Procedure to an
Ordinary Legislative Procedure does not extend to military
and defence issues.
It could apply, for example, to taxation where unanimity is
required at present. However as outlined earlier in this
handbook, any such proposed change could be vetoed by
the Irish government.

As Far as I am concern that government and parliament are one, you cannot have them seperated as you well know government will fall without support of parliament or in other words. Governments have majority of parliaments, therefore the parliament will not vote against Governments. With one or two exceptions, fragile coalitions and rebel members to name some.

Scofflaw

Actually, I did cover those, I think. Moving areas from unanimity to QMV doesn't impact Irish sovereignty unless they're foreign policy areas - and so would not have required a referendum in any case. The moves do require unanimity.

However, taxation per se is not an EU competence - indirect taxation is, but not direct taxation (such as Corporation Tax), so it isn't in there even as a unanimity area.

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

limklad wrote: »

Hi Scofflaw,
Thanks for this information, you gave lot of very informative information, most I already know.

But there is one section you and the Referendum Commission are in contradiction and this area I am most concerned about. I highlight it in Bold for you and quote their whole statement about the issue.

Read their Booklet on the Lisbon Treaty, link & statement provided.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

As Far as I am concern that government and parliament are one, you cannot have them seperated as you well know government will fall without support of parliament or in other words. Governments have majority of parliaments, therefore the parliament will not vote against Governments. With one or two exceptions, fragile coalitions and rebel members to name some.

Fair point but I feel you missed the most important sentance in the paragraphs that you quoted.

"Any such proposals must be agreed unanimously by the European Council."

Whatever powers we hand over, we must agree to first. The treaty is very limited in its self amending properties.

Scofflaw

limklad wrote: »

As Far as I am concern that government and parliament are one, you cannot have them seperated as you well know government will fall without support of parliament or in other words. Governments have majority of parliaments, therefore the parliament will not vote against Governments. With one or two exceptions, fragile coalitions and rebel members to name some.

Actually, with the exception of quite a few other states. We have a party whip system, a purely oppositional system, and a totally supine upper house consisting primarily of single-term political appointees. Other parliaments allow unwhipped votes, develop cross-party consensuses, or have upper houses that have no issues contradicting the government.

Again, our political system is not the only way of doing things.

cordially,
Scofflaw

limklad

marco_polo wrote: »

Fair point but I feel you missed the most important sentance in the paragraphs that you quoted.

"Any such proposals must be agreed unanimously by the European Council."

Whatever powers we hand over, we must agree to first. The treaty is very limited in its self amending properties.

You also missed another point, the "Lisbon Treaty" is agreed unanimously by the European Council after a lot of horse trading.
Also the Failed EU Constitution reject by both French and Dutch voters was agreed unanimously by the European Council.

So getting unanimously agreement can be done, depending what each country wants badly enough. Each country will want something that they feel they want badly and our country is no different. Our Government will want to be Yes men and do not feel they can hold others up and give in hopefully with sweeter to try and soften the blow.

We do not know what goes on behind close doors and I do not trust the government, to prove this point to use one example: Aer Lingus -Shannon-Heathrow recent issue, there was more there than meets the eye.

marco_polo

limklad wrote: »

You also missed another point, the "Lisbon Treaty" is agreed unanimously by the European Council after a lot of horse trading.
Also the Failed EU Constitution reject by both French and Dutch voters was agreed unanimously by the European Council.

So getting unanimously agreement can be done, depending what each country wants badly enough. Each country will want something that they feel they want badly and our country is no different. Our Government will want to be Yes men and do not feel they can hold others up and give in hopefully with sweeter to try and soften the blow.

We do not know what goes on behind close doors and I do not trust the government, to prove this point to use one example: Aer Lingus -Shannon-Heathrow recent issue, there was more there than meets the eye.

That was an Aer Lingus decision, albeit one that the governemt stood idely by on.

They can still not agree to any changes in the treaty that would result in a conflict with our constitution as it stands. And a veto would stand on any area that we currently have them in.

If you are suggesting that the Government does not have the courage to use their vetos, then that is a different issue and the vetos are useless already. Lisbon will not change that one way or the other.

It seems you have issues with the government, which is fair enough nothing wrong with that at all.

You can correct me if I am wrong but would it be somewhat fair to say that your biggest concern is that you don't trust our Government to do the right thing?

BTW - You're not the guy that put the shannon letter in the Ballot box by any chance?

limklad

marco_polo wrote: »

That was an Aer Lingus decision, albeit one that the governemt stood idely by on.

They did have a veto, and when they sold Aer Lingus, they told us there were keeping 25% stake for a veto, in case of National Interest. West of Ireland to Heathrow route is very important to local business and Jobs. It was highlighted and Aer Lingus decision did not make sense.
http://www.rte.ie/business/2006/0706/aerlingus.html

Minster for Transport Cowen 18 October, 2006 wrote:

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0625/D.0625.200610180016.html
We decided to hold 25.1% at a minimum so that we could have that minority holding to allow us to continue to play some role in the development of the company and to ensure the future of the Heathrow slots. The slots cannot be disposed of without a change in the articles of association, which a shareholding of 25.1% can prevent. In addition, under these articles the Minister for Finance’s shareholding, along with an additional 4.8% of shares, can block any disposal of a London Heathrow slot.

They never explain their decision, Just renege on their promise.

marco_polo wrote: »

They can still not agree to any changes in the treaty that would result in a conflict with our constitution as it stands. And a veto would stand on any area that we currently have them in.

If you are suggesting that the Government does not have the courage to use their vetos, then that is a different issue and the vetos are useless already. Lisbon will not change that one way or the other.

A week before The Referendum, The IFA forced the government to say they will use their Veto on Mandelson's talks. So Do they (the Government) really have courage ? They have proven that they have no courage when pushed. So NO Courage.

marco_polo wrote: »

It seems you have issues with the government, which is fair enough nothing wrong with that at all.

You can correct me if I am wrong but would it be somewhat fair to say that your biggest concern is that you don't trust our Government to do the right thing?

Government have a proven record not to be trusted and will pull the wool over anyone eyes, as they have done many times. It does not mean I will not listen to their proposals.

marco_polo wrote: »

BTW - You're not the guy that put the shannon letter in the Ballot box by any chance?

No, but I do watch their behaviour on Issues.
Sound like to me you are either a politician/government supporter or just into trying to slander me for been a NO voter.

marco_polo

limklad wrote: »

They did have a veto, and when they sold Aer Lingus, they told us there were keeping 25% stake for a veto, in case of National Interest. West of Ireland to Heathrow route is very important to local business and Jobs. It was highlighted and Aer Lingus decision did not make sense.
http://www.rte.ie/business/2006/0706/aerlingus.html



They never explain their decision, Just renege on their promise.

Look where I am originally from, I share your sentiments entirely on this matter.

A week before The Referendum, The IFA force the government to say they use their Veto on Mandelson's talks. So Do they (the Government) really have courage ? They have proven that they have no courage when pushed. So NO Courage.

I am not an expert on WTO matters or farmers concerns about it but it seemed to be an attempt by the IFA to highjack debate on the Lisbon treaty to achieve this. Which is not in any way related to the WTO talks.

While I sympathise that they felt they had no option but to had to go down this road, I cannot but feel that this action and SIPTUs attempt to do something similar had a serious negative impact on voters.

Government have a proven record not to be trusted and will pull the wool over anyone eyes, as they have done many times. It does not mean I will not listen to their proposals.

No, but I do watch their behaviour on Issues.

That is a fair sentiment based on their record in office. I am no fan of the current government either.

Sound like to me you are either a politician/government supporter or just into trying to slander me for been a NO voter.

The letter comment was entirely in jest I promise , I meant no offense by it and please don't take any.

All I am saying is that however much you dislike the Government, they impact of our decisions on Lisbon Treaty will affect us long after they are gone from office (Unless we vote them in again ). So while it is a difficult thing to do in reality, negative sentiment against the government should be left out of any decision on Lisbon

PHB

Ireland suffered greatly because of the 2nd World War - because of its neutral stance (which was viewed as siding with Germany) we didn't receive Marshall Aid.

That's a bit of an historical myth. Marshall Aid wasn't really all that effect bar maybe staving the tide of Communism for a couple of months until Europe's actual economic recovery.

--

The Irish economy is based on the EU. Knowledge based economy with low taxation rates for a big market.
The reason the 15% corporation tax is effective is because it means somebody can use Ireland to do business in all of the EU.

If we were not in the common market, even a 1% corporation tax wouldn't do **** to attract investment. That said, there's no real danger of us ever leaving the common market.

The corporation tax issue isn't really about us, it's about Eastern Europe. Because they are following Ireland's model, problem is, there is a ****load more of them, so it actually really hurts the six and Spain and Italy.

The building industry was maintained by our economic growth in other areas. People don't just want to build for the hell of it. Without the corp tax and big market, we would not have grown anywhere near where we are today.

Still hasn't stopped us having 3rd world infrastructure though

Irish and Proud

A Random Walk wrote: »

Multinationals locate here because they get access to EU markets. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking that low corporation tax is the primary reason, the primary reason is access. Without access to EU markets, Ireland is a market of 4 million people - with EU access, you can supply 500 million people from Ireland.

As a person campaigning for a NO vote, I also think that EU market access is vital for Ireland. However, if we say NO to Lisbon #2, the rules of the EU (Nice Treaty etc) will remain as is - refer to Referendum Commission's booklet. The EU leaders can huff and puff, but they can't blow the house down. AFAIK, our access to the said markets is protected under Nice and that in itself is one the core aspects for Ireland!

Also, under Nice, Ireland's low corporation tax rate will still be safe. The only way in which the current rules of the EU can change is with a new treaty, which would require ratification on the part of all 27 member states! The various statements concerning Ireland being punished for voting NO is IMO, just a load of spin to scare us!!! If Lisbon is put to another referendum - I would not think of it as being a second chance for Ireland (out of the goodness of EU hearts), I would think of it as being an act of desperation on the part of EU leaders in the hope that scare tactics will get them the result they want!

Well, I know what way I'll be voting!!!

Regards!

K-9

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Also, under Nice, Ireland's low corporation tax rate will still be safe. The only way in which the current rules of the EU can change is with a new treaty, which would require ratification on the part of all 27 member states!

Under Lisbon, tax still requires 27 countries to agree.

I can just imagine Cowen coming back to Ireland after agreeing to the EU to raise our taxes!

PHB

Can you? Can you imagine him getting re-elected afterwards?

bush doctor

While there is no doubt that Ireland has benefited greatly from access to EU markets and EU structural funds, it certainly hasn't been a one-way street.

A few points come to mind:

- Companies of other EU members have been heavily involved in the major infrastructural projects here which the EU funds have been spent on.

- The growth of the Irish economy has led to high demand here for EU goods and services, and investment by Irish individuals / companies in different parts of the EU.

- The fisheries argument has been done to death here, but access to our fishing waters has been very beneficial to certain EU member states.

- Access to the Irish jobs market for nationals of new Eastern European members has benefited the economies of those countries in terms of repatriated wages (a la David McWilliams article last week in the Indo).

If we were to leave the EU overnight I don't think we would be beholden to them economically. However as continuing members we will be expected (quite rightly so) to become net contributors.

Irish and Proud

Seanies32 wrote: »

Under Lisbon, tax still requires 27 countries to agree.

I can just imagine Cowen coming back to Ireland after agreeing to the EU to raise our taxes!

That's if you consider the front door in relation to corporate taxes. What about the back door? ...the door by which (as some people say) our corporate taxes could be harmonised (whether directly or indirectly) by an EU court ruling, on the grounds of the proposed distorted competition laws under Lisbon. Here's a link to one source:

http://www.euinfo.ie/index.php?page=faq&op=read&id=6

Regards!

marco_polo

Irish and Proud wrote: »

That's if you consider the front door in relation to corporate taxes. What about the back door? ...the door by which (as some people say) our corporate taxes could be harmonised (whether directly or indirectly) by an EU court ruling, on the grounds of the proposed distorted competition laws under Lisbon. Here's a link to one source:

http://www.euinfo.ie/index.php?page=faq&op=read&id=6

Regards!

The point in the article is all those mechanisms are there already not that the Lisbon treaty adds anything, as we have gone over dozens of times here before. And it is by no means clear that that scenarion that that scenario is even possible.


**EDIT** I just noticed the "source" is Kathy Sinnott :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

bush doctor wrote: »

While there is no doubt that Ireland has benefited greatly from access to EU markets and EU structural funds, it certainly hasn't been a one-way street.

A few points come to mind:

- Companies of other EU members have been heavily involved in the major infrastructural projects here which the EU funds have been spent on.

- The growth of the Irish economy has led to high demand here for EU goods and services, and investment by Irish individuals / companies in different parts of the EU.

- The fisheries argument has been done to death here, but access to our fishing waters has been very beneficial to certain EU member states.

- Access to the Irish jobs market for nationals of new Eastern European members has benefited the economies of those countries in terms of repatriated wages (a la David McWilliams article last week in the Indo).

If we were to leave the EU overnight I don't think we would be beholden to them economically. However as continuing members we will be expected (quite rightly so) to become net contributors.

I don't think for a minute it's been a one-way street, although much of the value we have given to Europe has been our negotiating skills. Nor do I feel any guilt whatsoever over the money we have undoubtedly received, although it seems many people do - they want to dislike the EU, and find it conflicts with the way the EU gave us a helping hand out of the quagmire national self-sufficiency had got us into.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Irish and Proud

marco_polo wrote: »

The point in the article is all those mechanisms are there already not that the Lisbon treaty adds anything, as we have gone over dozens of times here before. And it is by no means clear that that scenarion that that scenario is even possible.

Eh, you were saying? :rolleyes: - From the same source:

The Lisbon Treaty directly invites the Court to outlaw the low Irish corporate rate by important changes which were never discussed in the Constitutional Convention.

1. The tax clause in Art. 113 (TFEU) would be radically changed. Currently, taxes can only be harmonised when it is a necessity for the functioning of the Internal Market, but the Lisbon Treaty widens the scope unlimitedly by adding "and to avoid distortion of competition". This concept is much broader and prone to interpretation: what small difference between one member state and another does not distort competition?

2. This broader concept is also found in the new Protocol No. 27, which widens the definition of the internal market with "a system ensuring that competition is not distorted". The Protocol even
invites the Council to use the "flexibility clause" in this new area if there is no other legal base (flexibility to amend the treaty, that is).

3. There is an easy legal base for fighting distorted competition. This is Art. 116 TFEU, allowing the Council to decide by a majority vote. The Commission initiates the process by sending a letter to the Member State concerned. If the Member State does not change the distorting element the Commission can go to the EU Court or propose a law to be adopted by qualified majority.

4. On 17 January 2008 the EU Court overruled a Danish law on the taxation of Danes possessing secondary housing in Denmark and/or abroad. There was no connection to the common market at all. Finland was forced to change their taxation of pensions in the Danner case. Denmark lost a tax case on pensions as well. It is naïve to believe that the new Union could not reach the low Irish corporate tax by other means than direct harmonisation of tax rates.

5. The Commission has already initiated the work for harmonisation of the corporate tax base. It is included in the annual programme for 2008. The draft has been prepared and will make it impossible for the Irish state to gain revenue from Irish companies' turnover in other Member States. The proposal has been archived – until the Irish referendum is over.

6. There is only one way to safeguard the low Irish tax, a Protocol stating: 'Nothing in the European treaties shall hinder Ireland from maintaining its lower taxes on companies for their turnover in the EU.'

marco_polo wrote: »

**EDIT** I just noticed the "source" is Kathy Sinnott :rolleyes:

Eh, so what???

Anyway, she is:

1) an MEP
2) pro Europe, but...
3) anti Lisbon!

...and yes, you can be pro-Europe and Anti-Lisbon...

...however IMO, what you can't be is: in favour of power hungry EU politicians and at the same time, anti-Lisbon!

Regards!