Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

Sage'sMama

turgon wrote: »

"The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter."

Cheers,you have now made my mind up to which way i'll vote

Scofflaw

alan4cult wrote: »

So are you saying then that those who have read it and understood vote yes?

If you look at what PopeBuckfast actually wrote, he's referring to understanding Article 48 versus believing it means no more referendums - and believe it or not there are people who misunderstand the effect of Article 48 and vote Yes.

Sam Vimes wrote:

Just to put my mind at ease I'd like something cleared up. People keep saying that article 48 is self amending and the European council can change things from unanimity to QMV or take competences or generally make decisions from then on without our approval and I often hear the emotive statement "we'll never have a referendum again".

Reading article 48, it says:
"1. The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures."

Then in the ordinary revision procedure it says:
"The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."

and in the simplified revision procedure it says:
"That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."


Are the people who keep saying that it overrules our constitution and we won't have any more referendums just retarded, are they being deliberately misled by people who quote parts of the article but leave those two sentences out or are they actually right and am I misreading it? I'd be straight over to the no side if they were right.

As would I, but they're not. There's a huge fudge being used by the No campaigns here. Some amendments proposed under the simplified procedure would probably not require a referendum here. They wouldn't require it if they were part of a treaty, and they wouldn't require it as single amendments. If, on the other hand, they would require a referendum as part of a treaty, then they continue to require a referendum as amendments - because what dictates whether we require a referendum is our Constitution, and that requirement does not change with Lisbon.

What's tricky for the government to determine, though, is which amendments require referendums. Crotty doesn't lay down any hard and fast rules on what can be ratified by the Oireachtas and what cannot - the judgement specifically reserves the question of whether future changes to the EU, its competences, and its voting methods, are automatically to be considered constitutional. If we look at the proposed amendments to the Constitution for Lisbon, we can see that the government believes that changes to the opt-out on justice matters would require a referendum if the necessary amendments were not introduced in this referendum.

The likelihood, therefore, is that initially the government will err on the side of caution, and present amendments for referendum if they're anything more than utterly trivial. If the simplified revision procedure is much used, we may eventually find ourselves suffering from referendum fatigue...

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

Sage'sMama wrote: »

Cheers,you have now made my mind up to which way i'll vote

you're voting against churchill?

Scofflaw

Hitman Actual wrote: »

Does the simplified procedure allow some sort of enhanced cooperation like the Euro, whereby some member states wouldn't be involved?

Pure guess on my part...

Sort of correct, I think. If leaving out the word does have any significance, then it's simply because the Simplified Revision Procedure only applies to Part 3 of the TFEU, of which some states have some opt-outs. For example, Title V of Part 3 covers "Freedom, Security and Justice", of which ourselves and the UK have opt-outs, so we wouldn't be involved in the Decision referred to in the Simplified Revision Procedure. But nor would we be obliged to implement any parts of the Decision.

When the Ordinary Revision Procedure is used, then every state must be involved regardless, or so it appears from the wording.

If some subset only of the member states were capable of ratifying the simplified revision procedure, the number of states required would need to be stated. Otherwise, the assumption has to be that all the member states are required, as usual. Again, it's necessary to remember that, at heart, the EU treaties are just that - treaties, between sovereign nations. Except where clearly defined and agreed to, there is no such thing as majority rule for nations.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The problem is that it would levy the tax in the country of sales-destination rather than where the company is headquartered. So Irish/multinationals companies exporting to the EU would have to pay their corporate-taxes there rather than here. Because 90% of what we produce is exported, the govt would lose billions in revenue. It seems likely that countries using E.C. to engage in CCCTB would try to force Irish companies doing business in the participating countries to comply.

Unfortunately for that theory, enhanced cooperation cannot be used if there is an impact on other members. Therefore, any enhanced cooperation group that chooses to use CCCTB can only go ahead as long as they don't have the impact you suggest.

Finally, and just to reiterate the point, all the necessary provisions for enhanced cooperation and CCCTB are already in place. The issue is not relevant to Lisbon.

cordially,
Scofflaw

alan4cult

Scofflaw wrote: »

If you look at what PopeBuckfast actually wrote, he's referring to understanding Article 48 versus believing it means no more referendums - and believe it or not there are people who misunderstand the effect of Article 48 and vote Yes.

I thought he was referring to the Lisbon Treaty as a whole as I corrected here:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61071587&postcount=168
and here:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61071887&postcount=174

PopeBuckfastXVI

alan4cult wrote: »

I thought he was referring to the Lisbon Treaty as a whole as I corrected here:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61071587&postcount=168
and here:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61071887&postcount=174

Not those posts, but I saw the one you are talking about

Scofflaw

alan4cult wrote: »

I thought he was referring to the Lisbon Treaty as a whole as I corrected here:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61071587&postcount=168
and here:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61071887&postcount=174

Yes, sorry to say it took me a while to write that post (real life interrupted!).

apologies,
Scofflaw

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

Again, it's necessary to remember that, at heart, the EU treaties are just that - treaties, between sovereign nations. Except where clearly defined and agreed to, there is no such thing as majority rule for nations.

International treaties which just happen to change the manner in which laws are made, laws are ratified, the manner in which the people are represented, and the amount of power various legislative bodies are granted.

I wonder what an internal treaty would look like? What it would be like if, granted that FF and FG could agree on the terms of a treaty, they could change the entire make-up of the state?

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

International treaties which just happen to change the manner in which laws are made, laws are ratified, the manner in which the people are represented, and the amount of power various legislative bodies are granted.

...in the international body created by those agreements, and the laws created when Ireland acts as part of that organisation.

RandomName2 wrote: »

I wonder what an internal treaty would look like? What it would be like if, granted that FF and FG could agree on the terms of a treaty, they could change the entire make-up of the state?

They'd need an Irish referendum to do that....much like the EU does.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Parser

Currently it's ~46% Yes, ~52% No. I'm actually looking forward to October and the weeks leading up to it. Should be quite exciting.

I'll be voting No. Not specificity against the content of the Lisbon Treaty, but the concept of of an EU being anything more than economical links between member states.

The ultimate goal of the EU is to become a proper federation, with centralized control (full) in the European parliament.

With each treaty that is passed, the individual states power erodes, and the EU federation grows stronger.

Scofflaw

Parser wrote: »

Currently it's ~46% Yes, ~52% No. I'm actually looking forward to October and the weeks leading up to it. Should be quite exciting.

I'll be voting No. Not specificity against the content of the Lisbon Treaty, but the concept of of an EU being anything more than economical links between member states.

The ultimate goal of the EU is to become a proper federation, with centralized control (full) in the European parliament.

With each treaty that is passed, the individual states power erodes, and the EU federation grows stronger.

Personally, I'd be bitterly opposed to a centralised European federation, but the EU isn't one, and adding a couple more competences to the existing intergovernmental joint decision-making framework doesn't make it one either. The EU has no powers except what the member states lend it, and no existence apart from what the member states are prepared to allow it. It has neither legitimacy nor force of its own, and shouldn't be given them, but to date it hasn't been.

Something to remember is that the democratic deficit is part of what keeps the EU within its current box. There is no possibility of creating a European federal state unless the peoples of Europe give it legitimacy, and they won't do that as long as the EU retains its current largely intergovernmental and imperfectly democratic form. That was why Ganley, who actually wanted a USE, pushed ideas like an elected President of the Council, and tried to put together a pan-European party - because the act of electing across Europe together lends a legitimacy and mandate to the EU that it doesn't have as it's currently structured, and shouldn't have if we prefer not to have it supplant the member states.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

alan4cult wrote: »

I didn't say that none of the vetos concern me, I said none in particular concern me.

And yet you’re opposed to their removal? That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. In fact, I’ve yet to see anyone point out one these vetoes and say “I’m concerned that we’re losing this”, which sort of leads me to believe that everyone knows they’re not terribly important.

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately for that theory, enhanced cooperation cannot be used if there is an impact on other members. Therefore, any enhanced cooperation group that chooses to use CCCTB can only go ahead as long as they don't have the impact you suggest.

Finally, and just to reiterate the point, all the necessary provisions for enhanced cooperation and CCCTB are already in place. The issue is not relevant to Lisbon.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The question though is whether the ECJ would consider the impact on other states like Ireland to be sufficiently direct to be struck down?

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The question though is whether the ECJ would consider the impact on other states like Ireland to be sufficiently direct to be struck down?

What you've outlined is a very large effect. More importantly, why are you bringing this up in the context of Lisbon?

cordially,
Scofflaw

alan4cult

djpbarry wrote: »

And yet you’re opposed to their removal? That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. In fact, I’ve yet to see anyone point out one these vetoes and say “I’m concerned that we’re losing this”, which sort of leads me to believe that everyone knows they’re not terribly important.

I'm concerned that we are losing vetoes, none in particular.

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

What you've outlined is a very large effect. More importantly, why are you bringing this up in the context of Lisbon?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Because Article 113 of the TFEU as amended by Lisbon outlaws "distortions of competition".

FutureTaoiseach

AuRevoir wrote: »

One thing we know for sure, is that if Ireland says no again, then Britain also won't ratify and neither will the Czechs.

More accurately, David Cameron will revoke the British ratification that has already taken place and hold a referendum calling for a no vote. It is inevitable that the British will say no. The Czech president may be able to hold out long enough for the Tories to be in a position to do this before Lisbon comes into force through ratification by all 27 member states.

Hitman Actual

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Because Article 113 of the TFEU as amended by Lisbon outlaws "distortions of competition".

Wow. Ganley lives on through his supporters. Article 113 is about indirect taxes, as you know full well.

Article 113 TFEU wrote:

The Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition.

The legal base for CCCTB is Article 94 TEC, which in Lisbon will be Article 115 (and it is from this that we see where the unanimity requirement for CCCTB comes in):

Article 115 TFEU wrote:

Without prejudice to Article 114, the Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, issue directives for the approximation of such laws, regulations or administrative provisions of the Member States as directly affect the establishment or functioning of the internal market.

Edit: But again, it's important to note that absolutely nothing changes in Lisbon as regards direct taxation (e.g. CCCTB). As far as I can see, FT, you're just trying to bring your failed arguments on P.ie over here. Guess what, they'll fail here as well.

FutureTaoiseach

A small but possibly significant difference is that Article 113 mentions "to combat distortions of competition", whereas the old wording spoke of "avoid"ing it. It implies an activist impulse. To be honest though, this is not the main reason I'm voting no. It's about the Charter, the expansion of QMV, the new voting system and a general sense that hardwon sovereignty is being ceded without good reason.

Hitman Actual

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

A small but possibly significant difference is that Article 113 mentions "to combat distortions of competition", whereas the old wording spoke of "avoid"ing it.

And what has that to do with direct taxation?!!! You brought up Article 113, an article about indirect taxation, in response to Scofflaw questioning you on what CCCTB (a direct taxation issue) has to do with Lisbon.

Do you acknowledge that nothing changes in Lisbon as regards direct taxation?

snollup

IMO it's is an disgrace to restage a vote because the first run did not go the way that was wanted.

Also, the tone of some of the posters on this form is so self-righteous that it would turn me off anything that there were asking me to do.

Will be a NO from me.

Iwasfrozen

snollup wrote: »

IMO it's is an disgrace to restage a vote because the first run did not go the way that was wanted.

Also, the tone of some of the posters on this form is so self-righteous that it would turn me off anything that there were asking me to do.

Will be a NO from me.

You know that makes you sound like such an idiot.
Rather than give reasons in the treaty you choose to give us that same boring anti europe rhetoric.
Give it a rest.

AuRevoir

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You know that makes you sound like such an idiot.
Rather than give reasons in the treaty you choose to give us that same boring anti europe rhetoric.
Give it a rest.

You know he does have a point that some of the posters on this forum are so self-righteous.

Scofflaw

..and now we'll all put the handbags down, please.

moderately,
Scofflaw

K-9

AuRevoir wrote: »

You know he does have a point that some of the posters on this forum are so self-righteous.

Yep and I think it applies to both sides tbh.

force eleven

No yet again.

Don't see the need for Europe to become a superstate,or to want to be part of that.

I see Ireland's influence in making economic gains diminished by this.

Don't need to be told you have to vote Yes to be a good European.

Don't like the European Court having greater powers with this treaty.

Don't believe it is good for workers rights.

Don't believe that those so called guarantees are anything but a smokescreen.

To be honest, I'm sick of Lisbon at this stage. It's relevance to the average person in Ireland is minimal,despite what Messrs Roche,Martin,Fitzgerald and Sutherland would have you believe.

Finally, democracy had its day a year ago.Let it rest at that.

FutureTaoiseach

Hitman Actual wrote: »

And what has that to do with direct taxation?!!! You brought up Article 113, an article about indirect taxation, in response to Scofflaw questioning you on what CCCTB (a direct taxation issue) has to do with Lisbon.

Do you acknowledge that nothing changes in Lisbon as regards direct taxation?

I have concerns that corporation-tax could be remodelled as a turnover tax under the CCCTB proposals. A turnover tax is a tax on sales after all, and CCCTB is about paying the taxes proportionately to the govts of the countries of sales-destination.

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I have concerns that corporation-tax could be remodelled as a turnover tax under the CCCTB proposals. A turnover tax is a tax on sales after all, and CCCTB is about paying the taxes proportionately to the govts of the countries of sales-destination.

It wouldn't be Corporation Tax then.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I have concerns that corporation-tax could be remodelled as a turnover tax under the CCCTB proposals. A turnover tax is a tax on sales after all, and CCCTB is about paying the taxes proportionately to the govts of the countries of sales-destination.

...amazing! You think you can reclassify a direct tax as an indirect tax? Reclassify corporation tax - a tax on profits - as a sales tax? And you're basing your concerns on this piece of absolute fiction?

Look, this is a forum for political discussion. It's not a forum for people who are literally going to invent impossible things, and run their "politics" around those impossibilities. If you're going to come out with this kind of nonsense, you'll have to post in After Hours or Conspiracy Theories, because you're not sufficiently in touch with the real world to discuss the real world's politics.

Sorry to be so blunt, but people are trying to discuss reality here. Other posters have put forward things that are arguable, but this point is not arguable. You are simply saying that black can be reclassified as white, and therefore zebras are really unicorns. Take it elsewhere.

moderately,
Scofflaw