Have you been conscripted into a European Army

mountainyman

Wasn't this claim made at the time of the NICE treaty referendum (Article 26).

What other lies were told at the time of the Nice referendum?
MM

BlitzKrieg

*rome wasnt built in a day*

we were going too quick with enlargment and that the new members would flood the current members and the EU would collapse.

I remember that was the argument used in my school debates running up to the treaty.

It got applauded quite alot and won it for the debates.

Quite annoyed me at the time as I had been chosen to oppose and I had this massive book in front of me that I had gone and got from the EU shop in the city centre about the ascension programme. This thing was f*cking huge and had all the requirements and planning the EU had done over the years running up and everytime I pointed this out they parroted back to me *ROME WASNT BUILT IN A DAY!*

stupid bias debate...

Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

*rome wasnt built in a day*

we were going too quick with enlargment and that the new members would flood the current members and the EU would collapse.

I remember that was the argument used in my school debates running up to the treaty.

It got applauded quite alot and won it for the debates.

Quite annoyed me at the time as I had been chosen to oppose and I had this massive book in front of me that I had gone and got from the EU shop in the city centre about the ascension programme. This thing was f*cking huge and had all the requirements and planning the EU had done over the years running up and everytime I pointed this out they parroted back to me *ROME WASNT BUILT IN A DAY!*

stupid bias debate...

I'm afraid that's a good summary of most EU debates, whether school or public. One side has massive, detailed, fully worked out plans and blueprints that make people's eyes glaze over, whereas all the other side needs is a smartypants slogan.

I look forward with some anticipation to a referendum which I oppose.

malignantly,
Scofflaw

turgon

Scofflaw wrote: »

I look forward with some anticipation to a referendum which I oppose.

As Orwell put it, ignorance is strength.

djpbarry

"Against logic, there is no armor like ignorance."

Laurence J. Peter

partholon

well there was the

"you wont lose your comissioner !"

and

"less that 20 thousand immigrants will come to ireland from he accession countries, anyone that say there will be flood of immigrants is spreading xenophobic racist slurs"

BOTH of them came from dick roche, whos now telling using the first to browbeat us into saying yes to LISBON and has forgotten all about the latter since the population of the country's gone up by a tenth (thats 400k, clearly maths aint dics forte)

mind you this is the same guy who said on his website that the lisbon treaty would be "Dead" if we voted no to it and there will be no lisbon 2 so his credibiltiy is shot to shyte anyway.

both of these LIES have been reiterated by others in differing forms too. proinsias de rossa for instance tried to trump dick by saying less than 2 thousand people would come here. and some other bloke said saying yes to NICE would mean we couldnt lose our comissioner for 130yrs.

load of bollocks THAT turned out to be.

Scofflaw

partholon wrote: »

well there was the

"you wont lose your comissioner !"

and

"less that 20 thousand immigrants will come to ireland from he accession countries, anyone that say there will be flood of immigrants is spreading xenophobic racist slurs"

BOTH of them came from dick roche, whos now telling using the first to browbeat us into saying yes to LISBON and has forgotten all about the latter since the population of the country's gone up by a tenth (thats 400k, clearly maths aint dics forte)

mind you this is the same guy who said on his website that the lisbon treaty would be "Dead" if we voted no to it and there will be no lisbon 2 so his credibiltiy is shot to shyte anyway.

both of these LIES have been reiterated by others in differing forms too. proinsias de rossa for instance tried to trump dick by saying less than 2 thousand people would come here. and some other bloke said saying yes to NICE would mean we couldnt lose our comissioner for 130yrs.

load of bollocks THAT turned out to be.

So you're saying we should re-fight Nice?

amused,
Scofflaw

partholon

im saying dick roche is either a lying bollocks or he's completlely incompetant .

but hey , i voted NO to NICE TWICE because i saw through the shyte

Id be prefectly happy to vote a third time on it.

seeing as were voting on LISBON again maybe we can slap that back up again too ?

and read the OP. "What other lies were told at the time of the NICE referendum"

these are an example of two big whoppers. or can only the NO side be ridiculed?

Scofflaw

partholon wrote: »

im saying dick roche is either a lying bollocks or he's completlely incompetant .

but hey , i voted NO to NICE TWICE because i saw through the shyte

Id be prefectly happy to vote a third time on it.

seeing as were voting on LISBON again maybe we can slap that back up again too ?

and read the OP. "What other lies were told at the time of the NICE referendum"

these are an example of two big whoppers. or can only the NO side be ridiculed?

I have no problem with ridiculing Dick Roche...however, since he has nothing to do with my support for Lisbon (well, except for putting me off slightly), his credibility or lack of it has nothing to do with my support for Lisbon, if you see what I mean.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Eurosceptic2008

Well Scofflaw that is your right, but I believe the Irish people have a right to take into consideration the credibility of those on both sides calling on them to vote a particular way, and it is a fact that a lot of the predictions of the no side from Nice I and II have materialised. The yes side can no longer say (but that didn't stop them) credibly that the no side has always been wrong and are wrong again. This time the yes side was proven to be wrong. And another nail in the coffin of Minister Roche's credibility: he told Declan Carty on Late Night Live on Newstalk when asked before the referendum that there wouldn't be a second referendum. While I won't go as far as a previous poster by calling him a liar, I will say that his credibility on EU issues has taken a battering because of all this. BTW, I don't ever recall figures in the no campaign citing conscription as an issue. The only people I have heard talking about it in either campaign are people like Micheal Martin. To be it's just an canard thrown around to further denigrate the no side.

oscarBravo

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

...it is a fact that a lot of the predictions of the no side from Nice I and II have materialised.

Such as?

Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote: »

...it is a fact that a lot of the predictions of the no side from Nice I and II have materialised.

Such as?

Immigration. Admittedly that's not "a lot of predictions", being more in the nature of one prediction - and admittedly it had to do with the government's decision to waive the 7-year waiting period, so it's more of a prediction about the government's policies - but still, when you're clutching straws...

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

Scofflaw wrote: »

Immigration. Admittedly that's not "a lot of predictions", being more in the nature of one prediction - and admittedly it had to do with the government's decision to waive the 7-year waiting period, so it's more of a prediction about the government's policies - but still, when you're clutching straws...

It's also debatable whether it was a good or a bad thing, which is off-topic for this thread. I was aware that immigration would be raised - nothing like good old xenophobia to get the blood up - but I'm curious to hear what the rest of the predictions were that have materialised.

Eurosceptic2008

oscarBravo wrote: »

Such as?

Such as what Anthony Coughlan predicted would happen during Nice II, when he predicted a large influx of cheap labour. This of course was rubbished by the yes side, including Willie O'Dea, Dick Roche, and Pronsias de Rossa. It's not about xenophobia OscarBravo. It's about social-dumping i.e. the exploitation of migrant-labour (e.g. as exposed by the recent Prime Time Investigates episode on truckers and the restaurant sector, and by a study released by the Migrant Rights Centre to the effect that most migrant workers in the restaurant sector are being paid under the minimum wage) to drive down pay and conditions in the economy. The days when debate on this issue could be silenced in this country have to end. The Left need to realise their internationalism is being exploited by Big Business to undermine pay and conditions. As for whether or not that is relevant to this thread, surely it is tangentially relevant to the credibility of those same people from the political-class begging us to vote yes?

Here is the evidence from the national platform (Anthony Coughlan's group) website:

QUOTES ON EAST EUROPEAN IMMIGRATION FROM THE 2002 NICE TREATY REFERENDUM:

" There is no reason to believe ... that large numbers of workers will
wish to come" [Minister for Europe Dick Roche, I.T. Letters, 12/7/2002 ]

_______

"Mr. X also repeats the line propagated by the No to Nice campaign that
only four countries are to permit immigration after enlargement. This
statement grossly misrepresents the position of the other member states."
[Dick Roche, I.T.Letters, Aug/Sept. 2002]

_______

"Ireland will be in precisely the same position as all other member states
on the question of free movement following any enlargement of the
Community." [Dick Roche, as reported in the Irish Times, September 2002)

__________

"It is the view of the Irish Government and a number of other governments
that this idea that there is going to be a huge influx of immigrants is
just not supported. The evidence is just not there for it. They are not
going to flood to the west. The same rules are going to apply in all 15
states. There is no evidence to suggest that the people of the Czech
Republic or Poland are less anxious to stay in their home as (sic) we are.
[ Dick Roche, transcript of interview with The Irish Catholic, 19/9/2002.]

___________

" It is a deliberate misrepresentation to suggest that tens of thousands
will suddenly descend en masse on Ireland." [Proinsias De Rossa, I.T.
Letters, 20/8/2002 ]

____________

" The expected trickle of immigration to Ireland will on balance benefit the
Irish economy." [P. De Rossa, I.T. Letters,20/8/2002

___________

" I estimate that fewer than 2,000 will choose our distant shores each
year." [P.De Rossa, I.T. Letters, 20/8/2002 ]

____________

"There is no evidence there would be a problem with free movement of
workers on accession." [Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, Dail Eireann,10/9/2002 ]

____________

"Efforts have been made to foment fears that migrants from the new member
states could flock to Ireland. This is not only unpleasant but plainly
wrong." [Brian Cowen, Sunday Business Post, 7/7/2002 ]

____________

"Ireland is already benefiting from the skills and energy of workers from
the applicant states, about 7,000 of whom received work permits last year.
There is no basis whatever for expecting a huge upsurge in these numbers."
[Brian Cowen, Sunday Business Post, 7/7/2002 ]

---

" The second myth is that the Nice Treaty will mean mass immigration from
the new EU member countries in Eastern Europe. This is probably the most
odious of the myths propagated by some in the "No" campaign." [Minister
Willie O'Dea, Sunday Independent,Summer 2002]

___________

oscarBravo

OK, we had immigration, check.

What else?

K-9

Well, there was also the problem that we had full employment then and needed extra labour.

Anyway, Immigration is yesterdays problem, emigration is the new one.

BlitzKrieg

emigration is the new one.

Its like fashion, new is the new old and old old is the new new.

Eurosceptic2008

Seanies32 wrote: »

Well, there was also the problem that we had full employment then and needed extra labour.

Anyway, Immigration is yesterdays problem, emigration is the new one.

I wonder is that true. The available data indicates that for every 141 Poles leaving per day, 94 are arriving. Also evidence of Irish emigration up to last September or so in the UK suggested it hasn't really risen more than the usual 10,000 per annum. Maybe the social-welfare system will keep a ceiling on emigration this time in a way it wouldn't have in the past. You also have to remember that unlike the 1980's, there is no obvious escape route from what is a global recession.

Scofflaw

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

I wonder is that true. The available data indicates that for every 141 Poles leaving per day, 94 are arriving. Also evidence of Irish emigration up to last September or so in the UK suggested it hasn't really risen more than the usual 10,000 per annum. Maybe the social-welfare system will keep a ceiling on emigration this time in a way it wouldn't have in the past. You also have to remember that unlike the 1980's, there is no obvious escape route from what is a global recession.

There wasn't at the end of the Eighties either, or the beginning of them - and in those days the social welfare was quite a reasonable thing to live on.

I don't mean to be rude, but it's quite clear that you will argue absolutely anything and everything as long as it paints the EU, and Irish membership of the EU, in as bad a light as possible. Is there any point in actually discussing these things with you?


regards,
Scofflaw

K-9

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

I wonder is that true. The available data indicates that for every 141 Poles leaving per day, 94 are arriving. Also evidence of Irish emigration up to last September or so in the UK suggested it hasn't really risen more than the usual 10,000 per annum. Maybe the social-welfare system will keep a ceiling on emigration this time in a way it wouldn't have in the past. You also have to remember that unlike the 1980's, there is no obvious escape route from what is a global recession.

That would be roughly 17,000 Net leaving every year and also more from other countries.

I wouldn't go on figures to September for Irish emigration. Could be well into 09 before you see the real figures. People generally don't want to be on welfare, especially graduates, plumbers, electricians etc. who are going to Australia were there is demand.

Eurosceptic2008

Scofflaw wrote: »

There wasn't at the end of the Eighties either, or the beginning of them - and in those days the social welfare was quite a reasonable thing to live on.

I don't mean to be rude, but it's quite clear that you will argue absolutely anything and everything as long as it paints the EU, and Irish membership of the EU, in as bad a light as possible. Is there any point in actually discussing these things with you?


regards,
Scofflaw

I'm surprised you take that perspective given I have repeatedly said that this was my first no vote in an EU referendum. I am not opposed to EU membership, but I am implacably opposed to the Lisbon Treaty, and I defend my right to hold the EU to the same standards as we hold our national elected politicians and government as well. Am I "anti-Irish" if I criticise Fianna Fáil's disasterous stewardship of our economy? No. And so it is with the EU as well where I find fault with it. The EU will be all the better for constructive criticism, than it would turn out if blindly praised and treated like a sacred-cow by the Europhiles. When traditionally pro-EU countries like Ireland, France and Holland are voting no, it's time Brussels accepted no for an answer and that Irish misgivings are not confined to Ireland or to the usual suspects. What is happening with Lisbon is healthy for democracy. Europe is being held to account at the ballot-box. If the European project is a democratic one, then they will accept that reality. If it isn't on the other hand, then they won't and the mask will have slipped. Like it or not Scofflaw, I am the kind of voter you need to win over if you're going to get some form of this Treaty passed. I voted yes to Nice (both times) and to Amsterdam, so I am not one of the usual suspects.

Scofflaw

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

I'm surprised you take that perspective given I have repeatedly said that this was my first no vote in an EU referendum. I am not opposed to EU membership, but I am implacably opposed to the Lisbon Treaty, and I defend my right to hold the EU to the same standards as we hold our national elected politicians and government as well. Am I "anti-Irish" if I criticise Fianna Fáil's disasterous stewardship of our economy? No. And so it is with the EU as well where I find fault with it. The EU will be all the better for constructive criticism, than it would turn out if blindly praised and treated like a sacred-cow by the Europhiles. When traditionally pro-EU countries like Ireland, France and Holland are voting no, it's time Brussels accepted no for an answer and that Irish misgivings are not confined to Ireland or to the usual suspects. What is happening with Lisbon is healthy for democracy. Europe is being held to account at the ballot-box. If the European project is a democratic one, then they will accept that reality. If it isn't on the other hand, then they won't and the mask will have slipped. Like it or not Scofflaw, I am the kind of voter you need to win over if you're going to get some form of this Treaty passed. I voted yes to Nice (both times) and to Amsterdam, so I am not one of the usual suspects.

I have a certain amount of difficulty with that. Your username is "eurosceptic", and thus far everything you've said has been both very anti-EU (there's a difference between 'constructive criticism' and knocking) and mostly inaccurate.

Nothing you've put forward as reasons against Lisbon have any relevance to Lisbon, you're opposed to the Charter, you recall McCreevy as "standing up to the EU during the reprimand crisis of 2001" - a 'crisis' which consisted of the Commission criticising McCreevy's pro-cyclic policies (policies which have indeed turned out to be disastrous), you believe that declarations are suspect, etc etc etc.

Not one bit of that says 'typical No voter', I'm afraid - it says what you say on the tin - eurosceptic. If Ireland's voters were all of your opinion, then opting out of the EU would be the only reasonable approach - but you're not typical, and to go as far as would be necessary to win you over would alienate a far larger number of voters than it gained. A time-wasting exercise, I'm afraid. There are perfectly valid criticisms of the EU, but you're not making them, and probably wouldn't even recognise them.

On the other hand, your inaccurate understanding of how the EU works is fairly typical across both No and Yes voters, and is worth addressing.

Scofflaw

ChocolateSauce

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

When traditionally pro-EU countries like Ireland, France and Holland are voting no, it's time Brussels accepted no for an answer and that Irish misgivings are not confined to Ireland or to the usual suspects.

It seems to me that 24 other states have already said to Brussels that they're doing it right, and the other 2 will do so too if we say yes.

slimjimmc

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

It seems to me that 24 other states have already said to Brussels that they're doing it right, and the other 2 will do so too if we say yes.

I don't have a great knowledge in the workings of politics but why are 2 other sovereign states waiting on us to vote yes? Surely if they're committed to ratifying then why not go ahead?

Hitman Actual

slimjimmc wrote: »

I don't have a great knowledge in the workings of politics but why are 2 other sovereign states waiting on us to vote yes? Surely if they're committed to ratifying then why not go ahead?

In the Czech case, it seems to be internal political wranglings, more than anything else, although there is a sizable eurosceptic presence there anyway. In Poland's case, I'm not sure. It passed by a big margin in both the House Of Representatives and the Senate, and was given assent by the President. More political wranglings, maybe?

Edit to add: Poland also considers itself one of the major powers in Europe, so I doubt they'd mind negotiations being reopened, especially as it looks like their economy will be one of the best in Europe in the coming years. It's not that they're against Lisbon per se, but they actually believe they could get a better deal. Unlike us here, where Lisbon is almost definitely the best deal we can get. (All my opinion, of course.)

Hitman Actual

Scofflaw wrote: »

I have a certain amount of difficulty with that. Your username is "eurosceptic", and thus far everything you've said has been both very anti-EU (there's a difference between 'constructive criticism' and knocking) and mostly inaccurate.

Nothing you've put forward as reasons against Lisbon have any relevance to Lisbon, you're opposed to the Charter, you recall McCreevy as "standing up to the EU during the reprimand crisis of 2001" - a 'crisis' which consisted of the Commission criticising McCreevy's pro-cyclic policies (policies which have indeed turned out to be disastrous), you believe that declarations are suspect, etc etc etc.

Not one bit of that says 'typical No voter', I'm afraid - it says what you say on the tin - eurosceptic. If Ireland's voters were all of your opinion, then opting out of the EU would be the only reasonable approach - but you're not typical, and to go as far as would be necessary to win you over would alienate a far larger number of voters than it gained. A time-wasting exercise, I'm afraid. There are perfectly valid criticisms of the EU, but you're not making them, and probably wouldn't even recognise them.

On the other hand, your inaccurate understanding of how the EU works is fairly typical across both No and Yes voters, and is worth addressing.

Scofflaw

This is quite possibly the best post I've read on Boards all year. I'm of exactly the same view, but there's no way I could put in such a respectfully caustic manner.

Eurosceptic2008

Scofflaw wrote: »

I have a certain amount of difficulty with that. Your username is "eurosceptic", and thus far everything you've said has been both very anti-EU (there's a difference between 'constructive criticism' and knocking) and mostly inaccurate.

Nothing you've put forward as reasons against Lisbon have any relevance to Lisbon, you're opposed to the Charter, you recall McCreevy as "standing up to the EU during the reprimand crisis of 2001" - a 'crisis' which consisted of the Commission criticising McCreevy's pro-cyclic policies (policies which have indeed turned out to be disastrous), you believe that declarations are suspect, etc etc etc.

How can you say the Charter has nothing to do with Lisbon, when Lisbon enshrines it into EU law?

Not one bit of that says 'typical No voter', I'm afraid - it says what you say on the tin - eurosceptic. If Ireland's voters were all of your opinion, then opting out of the EU would be the only reasonable approach - but you're not typical, and to go as far as would be necessary to win you over would alienate a far larger number of voters than it gained. A time-wasting exercise, I'm afraid. There are perfectly valid criticisms of the EU, but you're not making them, and probably wouldn't even recognise them.

I think I am a typical no voter. Like many typical no voters, this was my first no vote in an EU referendum (I voted yes in the previous 3).

On the other hand, your inaccurate understanding of how the EU works is fairly typical across both No and Yes voters, and is worth addressing.

Scofflaw

I follow the EU closely and I think I have a fair understanding of the evolution and practice of the project.

Scofflaw

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

How can you say the Charter has nothing to do with Lisbon, when Lisbon enshrines it into EU law?

I haven't said the Charter has nothing to do with Lisbon. Your arguments in respect of the Charter have nothing to do with Lisbon - or indeed the Charter.

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

I think I am a typical no voter. Like many typical no voters, this was my first no vote in an EU referendum (I voted yes in the previous 3).

I can see that you think that. So does every other No voter. Unfortunately, virtually every single post you've made is along the lines of "I'm not a eurosceptic, but...".

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

I follow the EU closely and I think I have a fair understanding of the evolution and practice of the project.

Yes, I can see that you think that.

Scofflaw

mountainyman

I accept that the No camp was right on migration. That could have been dealt with by an opt out if Ireland had competetent diplomats (assuming -which point is not given- that net immigration is somehow a bad thing).

I have not been conscripted into a European army nor has abortion been introduced.

What other lies did the 'No' camp tell and what lies were told about Noce that they are now telling about Lisbon.

Scofflaw

mountainyman wrote: »

I accept that the No camp was right on migration. That could have been dealt with by an opt out if Ireland had competetent diplomats (assuming -which point is not given- that net immigration is somehow a bad thing).

We didn't require an opt-out - the government waived the seven-year bar on free movement from the accession countries. Indeed, Belgium, France, Denmark and Germany won't open their labour markets until next year.

mountainyman wrote: »

I have not been conscripted into a European army nor has abortion been introduced.

What other lies did the 'No' camp tell and what lies were told about Nice that they are now telling about Lisbon.

The corporate tax argument was used, as was our old friend loss of neutrality.

cordially,
Scofflaw

O'Morris

Scofflaw wrote: »

The corporate tax argument was used

The people who were using corporation tax as a reason to vote no were not saying that the Lisbon Treaty would directly lead to Ireland being forced to lower its tax rate. Everyone accepted that our tax veto was secure. What they were saying was that it would make it easier for the bigger countries in Europe to push ahead with their tax harmonisation plans and to find a way around the tax vetos.

The economist Ray Kinsella described the position well when he was quoted in this article

Mr Kinsella said there was very compelling grounds for believing that, if passed, Ireland's current rate of 12.5% would be 'harmonised out of existence' in the short term.

While acknowledging that Ireland would retain a veto over tax affairs, he said 'real politic' would ultimately lead to tax harmonisation.

He said the larger countries such as France, Germany and Britain had a vested interest in finding a way around the veto.

He said a 'No' vote could ensure that Ireland's tax regime would be protected for 10 years.

This was a point made by people like Shane Ross as well.

Scofflaw

O'Morris wrote: »

The people who were using corporation tax as a reason to vote no were not saying that the Lisbon Treaty would directly lead to Ireland being forced to lower its tax rate. Everyone accepted that our tax veto was secure. What they were saying was that it would make it easier for the bigger countries in Europe to push ahead with their tax harmonisation plans and to find a way around the tax vetos.

The economist Ray Kinsella described the position well when he was quoted in this article

This was a point made by people like Shane Ross as well.

The point, though, is there is nothing specific in Lisbon that allows CCCTB. The argument relies on the use of enhanced cooperation to bring in CCCTB for a number of consenting countries, and was made at Nice when enhanced cooperation was first brought in (by, for example, Anthony Coughlan).

That's the issue - because Lisbon does not materially change the enhanced cooperation rules under which it is (inaccurately) claimed CCCTB could be "brought in by the back door". If it is possible, it is already possible - it is irrelevant to Lisbon.

As to the issue itself - any Member State that is not part of an enhanced co-operation agreement cannot be forced to participate in or be subject to any of the decisions made by the group of Member States establishing the agreement. If a group of states were to create a tax harmonisation enhanced cooperation group, and another state found that the existence of that group pressured the state to apply tax harmonisation, that is sufficient to render the legal basis for the tax harmonisation group illegitimate.

In brief - you can't use the enhanced cooperation mechanism to force member states outside it to do what the enhanced cooperation group wants. That applies to tax harmonisation as much as anything else.

The argument was false at Nice, and is not only still false at Lisbon, but not even relevant.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's the issue - because Lisbon does not materially change the enhanced cooperation rules under which it is (inaccurately) claimed CCCTB could be "brought in by the back door". If it is possible, it is already possible - it is irrelevant to Lisbon.

As to the issue itself - any Member State that is not part of an enhanced co-operation agreement cannot be forced to participate in or be subject to any of the decisions made by the group of Member States establishing the agreement. If a group of states were to create a tax harmonisation enhanced cooperation group, and another state found that the existence of that group pressured the state to apply tax harmonisation, that is sufficient to render the legal basis for the tax harmonisation group illegitimate.

In brief - you can't use the enhanced cooperation mechanism to force member states outside it to do what the enhanced cooperation group wants. That applies to tax harmonisation as much as anything else.

The argument was false at Nice, and is not only still false at Lisbon, but not even relevant.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Indeed, it is highly unlikely that Ireland would join an enhanced cooperation group that wants to raise our Corporation tax rate.

I really wish though that the EU would use its powers on indirect taxes. Maybe abolish VRT and lower our high VAT rates! Hasn't happened just like raising our Corporation tax will not!

PS. The point that France, Germany and maybe the UK would want tax harmonisation ignores the point that the majority of States don't. Seems to be another example of irrational fear of France and Germany having too much power.

Hitman Actual

O'Morris wrote: »

The people who were using corporation tax as a reason to vote no were not saying that the Lisbon Treaty would directly lead to Ireland being forced to lower its tax rate. Everyone accepted that our tax veto was secure.

You might have believed that, and a very small minority of people may have believed that, but the general public believed that corporation tax was under direct threat with Lisbon. Such was the strength of the spin put on the CCCTB issue. And in that regard, I'm actually happy to see the (unnecessary) declaration proposed for the second referendum. Anything that nullifies the mis-information offered by several No campaigners is a good thing, imo.

O'Morris wrote: »

What they were saying was that it would make it easier for the bigger countries in Europe to push ahead with their tax harmonisation plans and to find a way around the tax vetos.

The economist Ray Kinsella described the position well when he was quoted in this article



This was a point made by people like Shane Ross as well.

That link can hardly be taken as "describing the position well". There isn't even a mention of what the "compelling arguments" actually are. On the other hand, both IBEC (before the referendum) and the Irish Taxation Institute acknowledge that Lisbon has no affect on our direct taxation. Surely people should have more faith in those sources than on the isolated opinions of guys like Shane Ross and Ray Kinsella.

Zebra3

The answer to OP's question is no.

Or no, not yet. Not that long since the people voted against the LT, not that those pushing the EU superstate project seem anyway bothered by what the people voted. :rolleyes:

One thing we were told in the past was that we wouldn't need passports for travelling within the EU. Another lie from those who support Irish home rule within a European superstate.

Guy:Incognito

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

I think I am a typical no voter. Like many typical no voters, this was my first no vote in an EU referendum (I voted yes in the previous 3).

.

The typical no voter I encountered through any of the straw polls and interviews revolved around voting no for various reasons not actually anything to do with the contents of the treaty ("dont understand it", "anti -VRT" :rolleyes:, "anti FF")

Furious-Dave

One of my friends said he spoke to a girl who voted no because she felt it would help fight global warming...

ShooterSF

One of my mate's cousin step sisters boyfriend heard a guy say he voted Yes because he felt it'd help bring back the dodo.

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

One of my mate's cousin step sisters boyfriend heard a guy say he voted Yes because he felt it'd help bring back the dodo.

What an eejit - that was in Nice.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

What an eejit - that was in Nice.

cordially,
Scofflaw

No, hundreds of thousands of Eastern Europeans wouldn't come to Ireland was in Nice.

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Topics/PPSN/Pages/ppsn_all_0007.aspx

cordially,
Dresden

K-9

Zebra3 wrote: »

One thing we were told in the past was that we wouldn't need passports for travelling within the EU. Another lie from those who support Irish home rule within a European superstate.

If we didn't have them a section of No voters would say our borders are too open, bloody immigrants etc. etc.

Furious-Dave

Zebra3 wrote: »

One thing we were told in the past was that we wouldn't need passports for travelling within the EU. Another lie from those who support Irish home rule within a European superstate.

What about The Schengen Convention? This actually includes Norway and Iceland who are not even in the EU. As far as I always understood, though I could be wrong, Ireland and Britain are not included because of security issues, IRA etc. Am I right in saying that Bulgaria and Romania are also not included?

BlitzKrieg

wait i am confused?

Are we saying that the no side was right in that there was migration to ireland, was the yes side actually saying we wouldnt get any/much migration? or are we saying that the no side was wrong and that the migration has not destroyed the country/irish culture as it was painted in the run up to Nice from my sometimes foggy memory?

Furious-Dave

I don't really remember much about the time of Nice, but what I do know is that the 'Yes' campaign from then lied about there not going to be mass immigration. There obviously was but it turned out to be good for our economy as it gave Ireland a huge workforce. Still no excuse though for the lies.

K-9

Furious-Dave wrote: »

I don't really remember much about the time of Nice, but what I do know is that the 'Yes' campaign from then lied about there not going to be mass immigration. There obviously was but it turned out to be good for our economy as it gave Ireland a huge workforce. Still no excuse though for the lies.

I wouldn't say they lied. They didn't foresee the huge numbers based on the few years before it. Lying is being a little over dramatic.

Furious-Dave

Seanies32 wrote: »

I wouldn't say they lied. They didn't foresee the huge numbers based on the few years before it. Lying is being a little over dramatic.

But lying sounds more insidious!

Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

wait i am confused?

Are we saying that the no side was right in that there was migration to ireland, was the yes side actually saying we wouldnt get any/much migration? or are we saying that the no side was wrong and that the migration has not destroyed the country/irish culture as it was painted in the run up to Nice from my sometimes foggy memory?

Well, we're agreeing that people like Prionsias deRossa said that he only expected a couple of thousand immigrants. We're disagreeing that this would have been a necessary result of Nice, because if the government hadn't waived the 7-year moratorium on movement - and been pretty much been the only country to do so - it wouldn't have happened.

We're also, I suspect, disagreeing on whether the resulting immigration was a bad thing. However, I'd rather not be dragged into such a debate, because I don;t think the two sides of it will ever see eye to eye.

Dick Roche, if you look at what he actually said, never did nail his colours as firmly to the mast as is often made out. I don't mean that as a compliment - I think the government was well aware that immigration would be at least on the same scale as emigration had been, but saw it as absolutely necessary. I think you'll find that Dick Roche actually said that it had never happened before, that it was unlikely, that there were measures that could be taken, and so on.

I don't think "mass immigration" was a necessary result of Nice. Had we not opted out of the "transitional arrangements" that were in Nice, our first immigrants would have been due next year, and I don't think there would have been any great numbers. I do think it was intentional, and I do think that government spokespeople lied about the levels of immigration that they expected.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Have to disagree. I don't think they seen the huge Construction boom, though they did encourage it. We had Full Employment more or less and our Economy boomed for 5/6 years after Nice, that wasn't foreseen to the extent that did happen.

I do think they genuinely thought waiving the 7 year moratorium was a good idea because we had full employment, they just didn't realise it would be so big.

Scofflaw

Seanies32 wrote: »

Have to disagree. I don't think they seen the huge Construction boom, though they did encourage it. We had Full Employment more or less and our Economy boomed for 5/6 years after Nice, that wasn't foreseen to the extent that did happen.

I do think they genuinely thought waiving the 7 year moratorium was a good idea because we had full employment, they just didn't realise it would be so big.

You might be right - they may have been assuming at the time that our economy would grow as it had been doing 1996-2001 - real growth as opposed to a property and construction industry bubble. It would still have amounted to a good deal more than a couple of thousand, though - but then, that was deRossa, an opposition MEP, not a Minister.

cordially,
Scofflaw

trellheim

What has this to do with a European Army ?

partholon

so now you accept the yes side lied about mass immigration are you willing to accept they lied about not losing the comissioner now as well?

remeber that? the thing were being told to vote for lisbon 2 to "Retain" ?

and bringing it up to date dick roche spectacularly lying about there being no chance of a lisbon 2 ?