Lisbon and taxation

Zuiderzee

Another worry to think about

Sunday Tribune this week

Lisbon and taxation
On 16 July this year, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) handed down a decision requiring local authorities to charge Vat on the services they provide. This means local authorities in Ireland must soon charge VAT at up to 21% on refuse collection, entry to swimming pools, parking etc.

The EU Water Framework Directive means that schools and farmers etc, are already charged for use of water, but is now compounded by this ECJ tax decision which means that public authorities in competition with private providers will have to charge Vat for services such as water as well.


Asked about this ECJ ruling by a national newspaper, Niall Campbell, head of global indirect tax services at KPMG Ireland, said:
"It is fair to say that, in this case, Ireland lost on all counts."

The ruling also contradicts the government's claim it has "guarantees" that Ireland will have full control over its taxation system. UK foreign secretary David Miliband has already stated, "Every head of state agrees that these guarantees do not change the [Lisbon] treaty." These "guarantees" are a simply PR con job.


EU political leaders including Merkel, Sarkozy and Barroso are already on record stating they want to raise an EU tax. On top of that, an EU Commission report of 14 July 2004, lists four different options for raising this tax, including a new energy-based tax, a fiscal Vat resource and a resource based on corporate income. Article 311 of Lisbon gives the EU power to unanimously "establish new categories of own resources". The last part of article 311 states the rules on this new tax are to be decided by qualified majority voting – ie, we lose our national veto on its details.


Even the government's own white paper (chapter 10) says: "The treaty allows for the implementing measures, such as how 'own resources' are to be made available and accounted for, to be decided by QMV."


In conclusion, the treaty of Lisbon gives EU institutions power to raise new taxes and to tax you and I; surely not a good state of affairs.

oscarBravo

Please link to that article if it's online, thanks. Also, add your own comments as per the forum charter.

Zuiderzee

Irish Times July 17

CONSUMERS ALREADY facing additional charges from local authorities could see those rise further after the Government lost a significant case yesterday at the European Court of Justice.


The court ruled that Ireland was unfairly absolving local authorities from charging VAT for services – such as off-street car parking – when private operators were obliged to charge VAT.
However, it went further in stating that Ireland had failed to properly reflect in its national legal code the provision of European directives on VAT.

As a result of the ruling, local authorities and other State and public bodies are going to have to charge VAT on services where they are in competition with private operators. This extends far beyond off-street parking – the cause of the original complaint to the European courts.
Services likely to be affected include waste collection and recycling, and recreation and amenities such as access to public swimming pools.

Any move to introduce water charges could also raise the spectre of consumers having to pay VAT on top of the actual rate.
Another area where local authorities are likely to face issues is in the leasing of publicly owned property, where the current practice of not charging VAT would place them in an stronger position than private landlords.

Niall Campbell, VAT partner and head of global indirect tax services at KPMG Ireland, said: “It is fair to say that, in this case, Ireland lost on all counts.”

He said EU rules laid down very specific guidelines on whether publicly provided services should be chargeable to VAT.

“If the provision of the service creates a distortion of the market vis-à-vis private sector operators, they should be liable to VAT. Services are always liable to VAT if they are seen as outside the remit of a local authority. Then there are a list of services in an annex to the EU directive and services on this list, such as telecoms and electricity, are always liable to VAT no matter what the public or private status of the group providing them is.”

Mr Campbell said the outcome of the ECJ ruling was that the Government would have to introduce new legislation. “They will then have to examine all local authorities and State and public bodies. They will have to review the services they provide and the charges they levy and see what should be subject to VAT.”

Tom Corbett, VAT partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers, said the effect of the judgment was to create a level playing field.
“There is a bit of good news and a bit of bad news in this for local authorities as they themselves will now be able to claim VAT back on certain costs incurred on materials and equipment purchased for services,” he said. “However, it is only over time that the full ramifications of this judgment will become clear.”

The Government also faces substantial costs arising from the case, which has been rumbling through the EU’s legal process since 2006.
There is also the possibility that companies could take legal action against local authorities for the loss to them of VAT that those companies would otherwise have been able to reclaim from the Revenue.

Confused, seems Government is telling us one thing, and Niall Cambell from KPMG, Tom Corbett from PWC are telling us another??

PopeBuckfastXVI

Zuiderzee wrote: »

the treaty of Lisbon gives EU institutions power to raise new taxes and to tax you and I

This implies, by use of the phrases 'raise...taxes' and 'to tax you and I' that the EU is the beneficiary of the tax.

Is this your intention?

All I see is a levelling of the playing field between local authority services, and privately provided services, which is surely welcomed by the various private refuse businesses, and indeed, the people they employ.

Edit, and incidentally, all this has happened before Lisbon has been ratified.

Hitman Actual

The ECJ ruling is to do with Indirect Taxation, which the EU already has competence over i.e. VAT, excise duties, etc. Direct Taxation currently requires unanimity under Article 94 TEC, and will still require unanimity under Article 115 TFEU should Lisbon come into effect. The fact that it still requires unanimity is basically the scope of the Government guarantee, or to put it a better way, the text of the proposed protocol clearly indicates that there will be no change in the extent of the EU's control over taxation. And there isn't.

wrote:

SECTION B: TAXATION
Nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon makes any change of any kind, for any Member State, to the extent or operation of the competence of the European Union in relation to taxation.

So basically, there are no contradictions between this ECJ ruling and the guarantee obtained by the Government.

Nothing to see here.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Hitman Actual wrote: »

So basically, there are no contradictions between this ECJ ruling and the guarantee obtained by the Government.

Particularly when you consider that the ECJ ruling came under Nice rules, as neither Lisbon nor the guarantee have yet been implemented, as if by magic...

Zuiderzee

So there is reliance on a proposed protocall, and the promises of politicians, to retain proper independence in taxation?

This protocal, proposed protocal or guarantee - whatever it is the politicos and yes supporters are trying to sell - is simply an implication.

I think we pay enough tax, but surely the state should be clear on the right to retain control over fiscal policy, e.g. the ability to reduce VAT to stimulate the economy - and I mean a government that has someone a bit better at the job than Lenehan.

Sarkozy wants to punish countries whose corporate taxation falls below the EU average

Look - can they not use the rejection as a proper period of reflection, and use the time to create a document that is clearer and more honest.

Public services are not in the business of competing with private companies.

Things like rural bus services run at a loss, as does the health service -but are needed for so many people, the profit motive should not be the main drive.
I think we should be putting people before profit.

And depending on the implication of not having unanimity to introduce a EU tax, if that is what you are saying, is dodgy.

Remember we are the only country that have a plebicite or referendum on the treaty, the rest has been done so far via parliamentary ratification.

Thats not a surprise though

Giscard is quoted in The Independent of London in 2007
"The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content ... The proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged….Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary”

K-9

Zuiderzee wrote: »

So there is reliance on a proposed protocall, and the promises of politicians, to retain proper independence in taxation?

This protocal, proposed protocal or guarantee - whatever it is the politicos and yes supporters are trying to sell - is simply an implication.

No, the guarantees are clarifications.

Zuiderzee wrote:

I think we pay enough tax, but surely the state should be clear on the right to retain control over fiscal policy, e.g. the ability to reduce VAT to stimulate the economy - and I mean a government that has someone a bit better at the job than Lenehan.

We still do. Lisbon nor indeed this case changes that. You seem to be misinterpreting what the 2 experts said on this case. Would be nice if the EU could reduce VRT!

oscarBravo

Zuiderzee wrote: »

So there is reliance on a proposed protocall, and the promises of politicians, to retain proper independence in taxation?

This protocal, proposed protocal or guarantee - whatever it is the politicos and yes supporters are trying to sell - is simply an implication.

No. Direct taxation is not an EU competence. Direct taxation isn't proposed as an EU competence. It can't become an EU competence unless every member state wants it to be, and we're far from the only member state that doesn't want it.

I think we pay enough tax, but surely the state should be clear on the right to retain control over fiscal policy, e.g. the ability to reduce VAT to stimulate the economy - and I mean a government that has someone a bit better at the job than Lenehan.

Under EU rules, we can reduce the respective VAT rates to 5% and 15%.

Sarkozy wants to punish countries whose corporate taxation falls below the EU average

Sarkozy can want whatever takes his fancy - direct taxation is not an EU competence.

Look - can they not use the rejection as a proper period of reflection, and use the time to create a document that is clearer and more honest.

What does any of this have to do with Lisbon?

And depending on the implication of not having unanimity to introduce a EU tax, if that is what you are saying, is dodgy.

I don't know what this sentence means.

Hitman Actual

Zuiderzee wrote: »

So there is reliance on a proposed protocall, and the promises of politicians, to retain proper independence in taxation?

Of course there's not a reliance on a protocol, the influence of the EU on taxation is written in black and white in the TEC. Check out Article 93 for Indirect Taxation, and Articles 94 and 95 for (lack of) influence over Direct Taxation (more technically, this area is called Approximation of Laws). In Lisbon, there are some changes in both the numbering and ordering of Articles, and some minor text changes, but the meaning is the same. The main point is that there is NO change in Lisbon as regards taxation.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

This protocal, proposed protocal or guarantee - whatever it is the politicos and yes supporters are trying to sell - is simply an implication.

The guarantee is stating that what a lot of people thought was in Lisbon, isn't in Lisbon. The text of the Treaty itself is where the control over taxation comes, and it is basically the same as before!!!

Zuiderzee wrote: »

I think we pay enough tax, but surely the state should be clear on the right to retain control over fiscal policy, e.g. the ability to reduce VAT to stimulate the economy - and I mean a government that has someone a bit better at the job than Lenehan.

There is a certain amount of flexibility in setting VAT rates, there is no direct regulation or directive which forces a country to set a specific rate. One of the main aims is that there is no protectionism of internal goods in a country, or discrimination of other nations goods, which is very important to the realisation of a single/common-market (and considering that most No-voters claim to be pro-economic-EU, surely that's good thing). In any case, the EC/EU has always had competence over indirect taxation, so voting No to Lisbon won't help.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Sarkozy wants to punish countries whose corporate taxation falls below the EU average

Good for him. Nothing to do with Lisbon though.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Look - can they not use the rejection as a proper period of reflection, and use the time to create a document that is clearer and more honest.

Public services are not in the business of competing with private companies.

Things like rural bus services run at a loss, as does the health service -but are needed for so many people, the profit motive should not be the main drive.
I think we should be putting people before profit.

And depending on the implication of not having unanimity to introduce a EU tax, if that is what you are saying, is dodgy.

Remember we are the only country that have a plebicite or referendum on the treaty, the rest has been done so far via parliamentary ratification.

Thats not a surprise though

Giscard is quoted in The Independent of London in 2007
"The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content ... The proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged….Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary”

I'm not sure if anything there is to do with your original point, but it all looks a bit rhetorical and those arguments bore me to tears. Someone else might have a go at it.

marco_polo

So is the the point where the no camp reverts to the form shown in the last referendum?

Abortion 2: Coming soon to a political forum near you

ChocolateSauce

The Times wrote:

The court ruled that Ireland was unfairly absolving local authorities from charging VAT for services – such as off-street car parking – when private operators were obliged to charge VAT.

So in other words, our government was unfairly distorting free trade, and the ECJ ordered us to have equal tax for public and private operators? I don't see the problem....

Once again, the ECJ has made a fair ruling!

PopeBuckfastXVI

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Giscard is quoted in The Independent of London in 2007
"The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content ... The proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged….Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary”

You already have a link to your blog in your signature, do you really also have to pimp it in your posts?

Why not provide the link to the original Independent article, or do you need the traffic that badly?

Zuiderzee

Well CS -thats where we diverge, if your opinion is that the American way is best then so be it. I believe in things like free health and education, these are public services, not to compete with the private sector.
I'd rather live in Denmark than in Denver.

As for the verbal acrobatics to do with tax and other guarantees which were the basis for running the referendum a second time?

If one says its the same treaty on this forum then one is told about guarantees/assuruances/political promises - its not the same treaty - so its democratic to run the referendum again.

If one states they are worthless as they have nothing to do with whats inside the treaty, as some serious people like McDermott did - then it does not matter because the guarantees/assuruances/political promises have nothing to do with the treaty, therefore it assures us of things that are not there - so its the same treaty - the one we rejected - with assurances , sorry, Pat the Cope calls them legal guarantees - so its still democratic??

Seriously, when it comes to the legal aspects of the whole thing, I tend to listen to people like McDermott over Mary Coughlan, or Biffo or Pat the Cope.
As for the Greens they are really trying to save their skins. FG are FF light, I have no idea what labour are thinking and I dont much go for SF either!!!

Its confusing, its politicians that are causing the confusion.
FFS the TV time allocated to the No campaign has been reduced by the BCI

I really do not like the way this is literally being rammed down our necks.

We have already got an Irish Lobbyist (CIPA) in the EU on behalf of the tobacco companies, who also employ people who run the Yes Campaign
On the other side of the same coin the same lobbyist has a charity gaining huge sums of money from the tax payer. With registration as a charity - the lobby group is not open to scrutiny.

And Marco Polo - I am pro-choice, but throwing up the abortion issue when I'm asking about tax is fairly typical of the Yes side, why not add neutrality, nuclear power and new world order while your at it - after all wasnt Ganley was funded by the CIA?? Christ

PopeBuckfastXVI

Zuiderzee wrote: »

As for the verbal acrobatics to do with tax and 'guarantees' which were the basis for running the referendum a second time?
If one says its the same treaty on this forum then one is told about guarantees/assuruances/political promises - its not the same treaty - so its democratic to run the referendum again.

If one states they are worthless as they have nothing to do with whats inside the treaty, as McDermott did - then it does not matter because the guarantees/assuruances/political promises have nothing to do with the treaty, therefore it assures us of things that are not there - so its the same treaty - the one we rejected - with assurances , sorry, Pat the Cope calls them legal guarantees - so its still democratic??

Its confusing, its politicians that are causing the confusion.
FFS the TV time allocated to the No campaign has been reduced by the BCI

Here's an easy way for you to look at it:

The treaty hasn't changed, but the context of the treaty has.

The basis for running the second referendum, by the way, is that the Government wants to, and has the constitutional right to do so.

If you weren't concerned about anything the guarantees address, then by all means vote 'No' again, but if you were, then maybe they will assuage your fears and allow you to vote 'Yes'.

Also, do you think that the retaining of the power to nominate a commissioner constitutes a significant change, perhaps one to justify holding a second vote?

marco_polo

Zuiderzee wrote: »

And Marco Polo - I am pro-choice, but throwing up the abortion issue when I'm asking about tax is fairly typical of the Yes side, why not add neutrality, nuclear power and new world order while your at it - after all wasnt Ganley was funded by the CIA?? Christ

My point was a related to you telling bare faced lies about tax. I am sure you will get around to the others at some stage. In fact I notice you are banging the neutrality drum on your blog.

...

In conclusion, the treaty of Lisbon gives EU institutions power to raise new taxes and to tax you and I; surely not a good state of affairs.

SECTION B: TAXATION
Nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon makes any change of any kind, for any Member State, to the extent or operation of the competence of the European Union in relation to taxation.

oscarBravo

Zuiderzee wrote: »

I believe in things like free health and education, these are public services, not to compete with the private sector.
I'd rather live in Denmark than in Denver.

Is it your assertion that, in Denmark, government service providers don't charge VAT for services that private service providers do?

Because that's what this story is about. You can try to muddy the water all you want, but this isn't about the EU levying new taxes, or interfering with our tax rates, or anything of the kind: it's about distortion of markets.

K-9

Zuiderzee wrote: »

And Marco Polo - I am pro-choice, but throwing up the abortion issue when I'm asking about tax is fairly typical of the Yes side, why not add neutrality, nuclear power and new world order while your at it - after all wasnt Ganley was funded by the CIA?? Christ

LOL, the irony. You brought up the case, got an on topic reply and then went of on one!

oscarBravo wrote: »

Is it your assertion that, in Denmark, government service providers don't charge VAT for services that private service providers do?

Because that's what this story is about. You can try to muddy the water all you want, but this isn't about the EU levying new taxes, or interfering with our tax rates, or anything of the kind: it's about distortion of markets.

This is your question answered.

Zuiderzee

K-9 wrote: »

No, the guarantees are clarifications.

Well then why are we told by so many politicians that they are legally binding guarantees??
There is so much bluff, waffle and spoof with this and NAMA!!
I simply do not trust the politicos on this one.

Zuiderzee

oscarBravo wrote: »

Is it your assertion that, in Denmark, government service providers don't charge VAT for services that private service providers do?

Because that's what this story is about. You can try to muddy the water all you want, but this isn't about the EU levying new taxes, or interfering with our tax rates, or anything of the kind: it's about distortion of markets.

OB, if anyone is prone to distortion its you. I dont care about how Denmark choose to run their country, its this one I am concerned with.

I simply think that public services should not be subject to open competition.
How much does the education system cost in comparison to how it benefits the nation? Same goes for health, some things are unquantafiable.
When it comes to health how much does cancer treatment cost? sometimes more than a person will ever 'put back' into the system - particularly the elderly.
With the exposure of public services to the open market, are we going to head down the American route? Where it is immoral to pull the plug on a vegitive state patient - until their insurance runs out.

And Buckfast, dont you think we have to do something about referenda? We cant run the same vote again and again until the government forces it through!!!

marco_polo

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Well then why are we told by so many politicians that they are legally binding guarantees??
There is so much bluff, waffle and spoof with this and NAMA!!
I simply do not trust the politicos on this one.

Because they are legally binding.

Reminds me of a funny post I read on p.ie.

The no lies are just like zombies, no matter how many times you kill them with facts they just keep getting up again.

Scofflaw

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Well then why are we told by so many politicians that they are legally binding guarantees??
There is so much bluff, waffle and spoof with this and NAMA!!
I simply do not trust the politicos on this one.

We're told they're legally binding guarantees because they're legally binding, and guarantees. They guarantee that what the No side said was in the Treaty - such as increased tax powers - and the Yes side said wasn't, isn't. They're legally binding because they're international agreements.

If you were unwilling to take a course of medicine because you had heard it had certain unpleasant side-effects, then a legally binding guarantee that it did not have those side-effects makes a difference, even though the medicine remains the same.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Zuiderzee wrote: »

OB, if anyone is prone to distortion its you. I dont care about how Denmark choose to run their country, its this one I am concerned with.

I simply think that public services should not be subject to open competition.
How much does the education system cost in comparison to how it benefits the nation? Same goes for health, some things are unquantafiable.
When it comes to health how much does cancer treatment cost? sometimes more than a person will ever 'put back' into the system - particularly the elderly.
With the exposure of public services to the open market, are we going to head down the American route? Where it is immoral to pull the plug on a vegitive state patient - until their insurance runs out.

I agree with you entirely on those points (indeed, I'd probably go further), but Lisbon has nothing to do with them, unless you believe that Lisbon should somehow exclude the possibility of privatisation. Lisbon doesn't dictate privatisation, but doesn't prevent it. It can't, because the EU doesn't have competence over such services in the first place.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

And Buckfast, dont you think we have to do something about referenda? We cant run the same vote again and again until the government forces it through!!!

Please - mind the hysteria. If the government genuinely tries to force the vote through, by, say, intimidation outside polling stations, or the removal of the secret ballot, or a rigged vote, then you and I will be on the same side. However, the government is not doing any of those things, and we aren't.

The government propose, the people dispose. They can ask as often as they like, and the people can say No as often as they like. Your concern is not with it being "forced through" but with the No vote failing to win, and claiming that being asked again is the same as the result itself being "forced" is ridiculous.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zuiderzee

Scoff, I would not call it hysteria. I honestly believe that we need legislation that a Government can only run a referendum on the same issue once in its lifetime, i.e. in a five year period or after a general election

e.g. FF propose a change to abortion law in the first week of government after a general election and the proposal is rejected.
The next referendum on the same issue could only be run by the next government after a general election.

The recent BCI ruling on airtime was vague, who decides what 'balanced' is?
And the question of funding by corporations - not so much Ryanair but intel and microsoft are of concern.
We are a very small country, in fiscal disarray, and about 51 of the worlds top GDP's are corporations.

The Rivada/Libertas/No and IIEA/CIPA/Gen Yes relationships are equally of concern to me, both are unclear.
But the former funding got a great deal more attention from the press than the latter

As for taxation, we should not be obliged to charge VAT on public services, that should be our choice.

Fiscal control, independence of foreign policy and self determination were all things that Griffith and others gained for us, so to compromise any of those is something I am very cautious about as is control of natural resources, but that is another issue entirely.

Scofflaw

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Scoff, I would not call it hysteria. I honestly believe that we need legislation that a Government can only run a referendum on the same issue once in its lifetime, i.e. in a five year period or after a general election

e.g. FF propose a change to abortion law in the first week of government after a general election and the proposal is rejected.
The next referendum on the same issue could only be run by the next government after a general election.

While that's a debatable proposal - and something I'm by no means convinced of the value of - it's rather separate from the hysteria involved in describing a free vote as "the government forcing the result it wants". That I have no hesitation in calling hysterical.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

The recent BCI ruling on airtime was vague, who decides what 'balanced' is?
And the question of funding by corporations - not so much Ryanair but intel and microsoft are of concern.
We are a very small country, in fiscal disarray, and about 51 of the worlds top GDP's are corporations.

A fair point. There's quite a bit to be said for capping referendum spending, but it would need to be balanced with a much greater emphasis on information.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

The Rivada/Libertas/No and IIEA/CIPA/Gen Yes relationships are equally of concern to me, both are unclear.
But the former funding got a great deal more attention from the press than the latter

COIR funding has received virtually no attention. Libertas made an issue of their own funding, by claiming to be donation-supported when they hadn't done any public fund-raising at all. As I said, billboards and airtime are real money, the rest of the stuff - websites, T-shirts, meetings - aren't.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

As for taxation, we should not be obliged to charge VAT on public services, that should be our choice.

Is that in Lisbon?

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Fiscal control, independence of foreign policy and self determination were all things that Griffith and others gained for us, so to compromise any of those is something I am very cautious about as is control of natural resources, but that is another issue entirely.

That's a position that I have no problem with someone supporting, although I disagree with it. I only have a problem when it becomes hysteria, mysticism, or dishonesty.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Well CS -thats where we diverge, if your opinion is that the American way is best then so be it. I believe in things like free health and education, these are public services, not to compete with the private sector.
I'd rather live in Denmark than in Denver.

enough with the lies already, its not funny anymore


no one here wants or said they want a United States of Europe, and EU is quite far from being one and will more than likely never become one anytime soon as no one wants that level of integration

but once again that has nothing to do with Lisbon, sigh

/

Zuiderzee

Throwing in the abortion issue is fairly cheap, I have never mentioned it, I dont believe it is an issue in the Lisbon Treaty MkI or Mk II - in fact, I believe it is the choice of a woman, her conscience, her body, her god - it should be permitted.
But as we have seen in the Yes campaign before, all the No voters get lumped into the same boat as the COIR gang.

Scofflaw wrote: »

While that's a debatable proposal - and something I'm by no means convinced of the value of - it's rather separate from the hysteria involved in describing a free vote as "the government forcing the result it wants". That I have no hesitation in calling hysterical.

I am sorry but I am far from a hysterical person, I do get fed up though.
I regard the re-run as forcing an issue after it has been previously been rejected.

If you run a referendum again and again and again over a relativly short period of time - you will get the result you want, Chavez did it in Venezuela recently.

Its like an opinion poll, things can be manipulated, change the dates depending on what you want e.g. bank holday weekend Saturday, midweek, late winter, midsummer - every time will affect some demographic.
Change the rules on airtime, dont change the rules on funding or transparency.

Democracy is not about doing what the Government asks us to do, its the other way around.

Scofflaw

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Throwing in the abortion issue is fairly cheap, I have never mentioned it, I dont believe it is an issue in the Lisbon Treaty MkI or Mk II - in fact, I believe it is the choice of a woman, her conscience, her body, her god - it should be permitted.
But as we have seen in the Yes campaign before, all the No voters get lumped into the same boat as the COIR gang.

It's an unfortunate tendency, but it's hard not to draw the parallel, because the number of moderate public objectors always seems very small. That was a very important part of Libertas' image, that they were perfectly reasonable, politically neutral people who just happened to oppose Lisbon on perfectly rational grounds. Unfortunately, it turned out that they largely were Catholic fundamentalists in suits, or at least Ganley was.

I appreciate that it's entirely possible to object to Lisbon on rational grounds - it's just very rare to see it being done as part of the public debate, because most people reasonable enough to do it are reasonable enough to say "well, my view of Article x is that it provides inadequate safeguards against y, and could easily be improved - obviously your view may be different". Those voices tend to be drowned out by the NWO nutters, the loons who believe that everything introduces abortion, and the like.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

I am sorry but I am far from a hysterical person, I do get fed up though.
I regard the re-run as forcing an issue after it has been previously been rejected.

If you run a referendum again and again and again over a relativly short period of time - you will get the result you want, Chavez did it in Venezuela recently.

Its like an opinion poll, things can be manipulated, change the dates depending on what you want e.g. bank holday weekend Saturday, midweek, late winter, midsummer - every time will affect some demographic.
Change the rules on airtime, dont change the rules on funding or transparency.

Democracy is not about doing what the Government asks us to do, its the other way around.

And a referendum is neither of those things - it's the government asking a question, and the people giving an answer. If the answer the people give depends on the time of year or month or week, then it's hardly some kind of rock-solid expression of the electorate's carefully considered wishes.

The government only asks again because they think they might get the answer they want. They can't force the answer they want, they can't ignore the answer they get, but if they can get the answer they want in a free vote then they're entitled to try and do so. If they do, it's because the electorate give that answer - and if the electorate canot be persuaded, then they will not give the answer the government wants, no matter how many times the government asks. I appreciate it doesn't feel fair, but it is democracy. Nor is it some new ruling introduced to get round this issue - it was fully known in advance that a second referendum was possible, and it was fully known in advance that the government would avail of that option.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zuiderzee

Scofflaw wrote: »

The government only asks again because they think they might get the answer they want.

They have been given an answer, and have not changed the context of the treaty. Why do they not accept an answer was given, go back and reflect and give us a treaty that is understandable, clear and enshrines the 'guarantees' in the treaty

Scofflaw wrote: »

They can't force the answer they want, they can't ignore the answer they get

I feel they are trying to push the issue, and they ignored the last answer they got.
Sorry, I think this is just one where we will have to disagree mate

And of course the timing of a vote will always have an effect on a result.
If you run an election on the Saturday or Sunday of the easter bank holiday, there will be a lower turnout than the preceeding Friday or Thursday, that would make a marked difference.
If FF ran a General election now they would do very badly, and the Greens would most likley be wiped out - hang on for 16 months, bring back or increasre the dole X-mass bonus - things are getting better etc. and run it then, say next October, they might still lose, but not as badly.

K-9

Zuiderzee wrote: »

They have been given an answer, and have not changed the context of the treaty. Why do they not accept an answer was given, go back and reflect and give us a treaty that is understandable, clear and enshrines the 'guarantees' in the treaty



I feel they are trying to push the issue, and they ignored the last answer they got.
Sorry, I think this is just one where we will have to disagree mate

That is fair enough. Some people may just want clarification on some of the points raised in the last referenda and our Commissioner retained. I accept it doesn't go far enough for many on the No side.

ixtlan

Zuiderzee wrote: »

They have been given an answer, and have not changed the context of the treaty. Why do they not accept an answer was given, go back and reflect and give us a treaty that is understandable, clear and enshrines the 'guarantees' in the treaty

Though I certainly do not speak for them, the government (and indeed the department of foreign affairs, and to a certain extent the opposition politicians) would say that they had accepted the answer, had reflected on it, and had sought to make the treaty more understandable through the guarantees.

Just to clarify the guarantees again. These will be enshrined in a future treaty. The states have signed international agreements lodged with the UN commiting to putting them in that future treaty. If you believe that the other states will breech that agreement then there's no reason for you to have any more confidence that they would abide by any EU treaty. And indeed once could argue that this kind of distrust level suggests we should be leaving the EU.

As to why they were not put in the current treaty, that would require many of the states to go through their ratification processes again, which are complex (even though they don't involve public votes). We should be able to understand the reluctance to do this, that is to start again to add not changes but simply clarifications of what is NOT in the Lisbon treaty.

Ix.

free to prosper

The EU has no competence in direct taxation yada yada yada....

Perfectly true, the EU has no comptence, but as always it has to interfere doesn't it.

Here an example

Direct taxation: The European Commission requests the United Kingdom to end discriminatory provisions in the area of inheritance tax

The European Commission has formally requested the United Kingdom to amend its legislation which provides for discriminatory inheritance tax relief.

The requests take the form of reasoned opinions (second step of the infringement procedure of Article 226 of the EC Treaty).

If no satisfactory reaction to these reasoned opinions is received within two months, the Commission may decide to refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Communities.

Looks like the EU interfering in Direction Taxation to me.

And that is not all, heres a beezer from the friend of CCCTB:

While speaking on CCCTB, on October 12, 2007, the The EU Commissioner for Tax, Lázló Kovács told his listeners that (cf page 7):

"I want to remind you of the growing number of decisions by the European Court of Justice in the field of company taxation and the effects these rulings have had on Member States tax systems."

One may call this phenomenon of EU interference in areas in which they have no competence - as competence creep.

Others may call it legal imperialism.

Whatever you call it, it's lethal the Irish economy.

K-9

free to prosper wrote: »

The EU has no competence in direct taxation yada yada yada....

Perfectly true, the EU has no comptence, but as always it has to interfere doesn't it.

Here an example



Looks like the EU interfering in Direction Taxation to me.

And that is not all, heres a beezer from the friend of CCCTB:

While speaking on CCCTB, on October 12, 2007, the The EU Commissioner for Tax, Lázló Kovács told his listeners that (cf page 7):

"I want to remind you of the growing number of decisions by the European Court of Justice in the field of company taxation and the effects these rulings have had on Member States tax systems."

One may call this phenomenon of EU interference in areas in which they have no competence - as competence creep.

Others may call it legal imperialism.

Whatever you call it, it's lethal the Irish economy.

Inheritance tax is more a tax on capital, like Stamp Duty, Capital Gains Tax or Gift tax.

Scofflaw

There is such a thing as 'competence creep', but what you have cited is not an example of it, because the EU is acting entirely within its explicitly agreed competences. The EU has competence to request the removal of any member state laws that restrict the basic rules - movement of people, movement of capital, non-discrimination, etc - agreed by the member states as members of the EU:

The commission takes exception to the part of British law which grants inheritance tax relief on agricultural and forestry property on British territory, including the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, but not elsewhere in the EU.

"The limited scope of the relief may dissuade taxpayers from investing in agricultural and forestry property outside the UK," the commission said in a statement.

"Consequently, the Commission considers that the United Kingdom's legislation, in its current state, is not compatible with the free movement of capital," enshrined in European law.

In this case, the problem is that UK inheritance tax law allows relief on property in the UK but not elsewhere. In other words, the tax is geographically discriminatory, and that's explicitly not allowed.

As to what the UK can do, it has all options available to it except maintaining the current arrangement. It can allow the relief on property anywhere in the EU, or it can abolish the relief. The EU, having no competence over taxation, cannot determine what the UK must do - it can only determine that the UK cannot breach the agreed rules of the EU.

Your claim is along the lines of claiming the referee is playing in the match because he's "involved in the game".

regards,
Scofflaw

nesf

free to prosper wrote: »

The EU has no competence in direct taxation yada yada yada....

Perfectly true, the EU has no comptence, but as always it has to interfere doesn't it.

Here an example



Looks like the EU interfering in Direction Taxation to me.

Did you even bother to read the Press Release. The intereference comes because the taxation changes the UK implemented discriminated against capital from outside the UK and thus provided a barrier to the free movement of capital within the EU which is an area of EU competence. That was the grounds for the action. Without such grounds the EU cannot do anything about UK inheritance tax rates because it has no competency in that area.

Specifically, the issue is this. The EU has zero say about our income tax levels, however; if we decided to tax EU nationals at a different rate to Irish nationals then the EU could take issue with it on grounds that it discriminated against free movement of people and capital etc.

Understand the distinction?

free to prosper

Yes the press release from the EU Commission clearly shows that the EU

is interfering in the legislation of nation states in the area of direct taxation -

over which it is not supposed to have any competence.

Besides, EU Commissioner Kovacs also boasted of how the ECJ has had

growing influence over national Corporate Tax areas.

GIven this evidence, it is my opinion that the Lisbon Treaty is a

power grab by the big states

and a power grab by the unelected EU Commission bureaucrats who want

power to build a EU Federal State.

Hitman Actual

When you make the illogical link between this:

free to prosper wrote: »

GIven this evidence, it is my opinion that the Lisbon Treaty is a

power grab by the big states

and a power grab by the unelected EU Commission bureaucrats who want

power to build a EU Federal State.

... and this:

free to prosper wrote: »

Yes the press release from the EU Commission clearly shows that the EU

is interfering in the legislation of nation states in the area of direct taxation -

over which it is not supposed to have any consequence.

Besides, EU Commissioner Kovacs also boasted of how the ECJ has had

growing influence over national Corporate Tax areas.

... your posts lose all credibility.

A first point- the word is "competence", not "consequence", and I don't think you understand how competence works. In this case, direct taxation does not fall under the remit of the EU (except by unanimity) i.e. the competence is with the member states. However, member states must generally exercise said competence in line with Community Law. So member states can't discriminate based on nationality, or pass legislation in conflict with basic EU principles like Freedom of Movement of Capital, etc. Where they do, the Commission has the right to step in to ensure the smooth running of the Internal Market. [This is basically the jist of it, I'm sure others can clarify or explain it better].

But the main point is that the EU already has these powers, and...

Lisbon changes nothing as regards Taxation!!!

marco_polo

Hitman Actual wrote: »

When you make the illogical link between this:

... and this:

... your posts lose all credibility.

A first point- the word is "competence", not "consequence", and I don't think you understand how competence works. In this case, direct taxation does not fall under the remit of the EU (except by unanimity) i.e. the competence is with the member states. However, member states must generally exercise said competence in line with Community Law. So member states can't discriminate based on nationality, or pass legislation in conflict with basic EU principles like Freedom of Movement of Capital, etc. Where they do, the Commission has the right to step in to ensure the smooth running of the Internal Market. [This is basically the jist of it, I'm sure others can clarify or explain it better].

But the main point is that the EU already has these powers, and...

Lisbon changes nothing as regards Taxation!!!

Furthermore such a ruling could just as easily have been applied to an EEA member state on the exact same grounds. So it is in no way a case of the EU extending its competencies in any way.

But whether or not secondary EU legislation such as Directives and Regulations exists, Member States' tax systems and tax treaties must in any event respect the fundamental Treaty principles on the free movement of workers, services and capital and the freedom of establishment (Articles 39, 43, 49 and 56 of the EC Treaty) and the principle of non-discrimination. Moreover, in more general terms, Article 18 of the Treaty provides that every citizen of the Union has the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. The Agreement on the European Economic Area extends to individuals and enterprises of EEA States (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) the principles of free movement of goods, persons, services and capital, as well as of equal conditions of competition and non-discrimination.

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/gen_info/tax_policy/index_en.htm

nesf

free to prosper wrote: »

Yes the press release from the EU Commission clearly shows that the EU

is interfering in the legislation of nation states in the area of direct taxation -

over which it is not supposed to have any competence.

No it doesn't, it merely shows that you don't understand what competence means in this context.

At this stage you are misrepresenting the facts after it's being explained to you. If you continue to do this you and I will have words about your continued ability to post here. Understand?

Daftendirekt

A better thread title for this would be "EU and Taxation" since the ECJ ruling has nothing to do with Lisbon.

Can't really add much to what's been said. Seems like other posters have covered it pretty well.

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

No it doesn't, it merely shows that you don't understand what competence means in this context.

At this stage you are misrepresenting the facts after it's being explained to you. If you continue to do this you and I will have words about your continued ability to post here. Understand?

To be fair, most people have only a very fuzzy idea of what constitutes a 'competence'.

The general assumption would be, I think, that an "EU competence" is anything the EU can make a ruling of any kind on. From that assumption, and the observation that the EU has acted in areas like taxation where it is said to have no competence, follows quite naturally the view that the EU is constantly engaged in giving itself new competences.

However, that view is wrong, because it is based on a misunderstanding of what competences are. Competences are areas where the EU can make legislation or policy initiatives.

In the case cited by Free_to_prosper, the EU is neither making legislation nor a policy initiative. Instead, it is defending the basic principles of the common market. The UK's inheritance tax discriminates between one part of the common market area and the rest, by offering a tax relief on specific UK property that it does not offer on property anywhere else. That's very much the same as a UK government subsidy favouring UK property, which is specifically excluded by the very basic agreed rules of the common market.

So the EU's action here doesn't imply that it has any right to make legislation or policy initiatives on taxation (or succession law), nor does the EU's action create any such right. All the EU is doing is defending the rules of the common market, keeping it a level playing field - and we in Ireland should be very glad that's the case, because we cannot match the level of subsidies the large states can offer, and we don't have their internal markets either.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

To be fair, most people have only a very fuzzy idea of what constitutes a 'competence'.

The general assumption would be, I think, that an "EU competence" is anything the EU can make a ruling of any kind on. From that assumption, and the observation that the EU has acted in areas like taxation where it is said to have no competence, follows quite naturally the view that the EU is constantly engaged in giving itself new competences.

However, that view is wrong, because it is based on a misunderstanding of what competences are. Competences are areas where the EU can make legislation or policy initiatives.

In the case cited by Free_to_prosper, the EU is neither making legislation nor a policy initiative. Instead, it is defending the basic principles of the common market. The UK's inheritance tax discriminates between one part of the common market area and the rest, by offering a tax relief on specific UK property that it does not offer on property anywhere else. That's very much the same as a UK government subsidy favouring UK property, which is specifically excluded by the very basic agreed rules of the common market.

So the EU's action here doesn't imply that it has any right to make legislation or policy initiatives on taxation (or succession law), nor does the EU's action create any such right. All the EU is doing is defending the rules of the common market, keeping it a level playing field - and we in Ireland should be very glad that's the case, because we cannot match the level of subsidies the large states can offer, and we don't have their internal markets either.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Indeed, however; the matter was explained to him clearly and by multiple people. I can appreciate that most people don't understand what competency entails and that's fine, but that cannot be a basis for repeatedly misconstruing facts on here (i.e. the first mistake is genuinely that, a mistake and happens to all of us, repeating the claim after being shown why it is wrong is a different matter).

sceptre

free to prosper wrote: »

Yes the press release from the EU Commission clearly shows that the EU

is interfering in the legislation of nation states in the area of direct taxation -

over which it is not supposed to have any competence.

Besides, EU Commissioner Kovacs also boasted of how the ECJ has had

growing influence over national Corporate Tax areas.

GIven this evidence, it is my opinion that the Lisbon Treaty is a

power grab by the big states

and a power grab by the unelected EU Commission bureaucrats who want

power to build a EU Federal State.

Dude, putting your argument again with bold bits when even a blind mouse can see that your point was ill-considered, badly-informed and utter tosh makes everyone, particularly me, take both that and all the rest of your points less seriously, not more.

It's not as though the bits you didn't understand weren't explained clearly using small words after... because they were.

If you refuse to understand them after that's your prerogative but don't inflict the blindfold and blinkers on the rest of the world, eh?

MrMicra

ei.sdraob wrote: »

no one here wants or said they want a United States of Europe, and EU is quite far from being one and will more than likely never become one anytime soon as no one wants that level of integration

/

I'd like a United States of Europe. The Lisbon treaty is mainly about streamlining decision making and strengthening EU level democracy. It is part of a process that will continue incrementally for a long time until hopefully we have an EU where the Parliament is the main power centre (and hopefully an Irish vote is still worth more than a German vote )

ei.sdraob

MrMicra wrote: »

I'd like a United States of Europe. The Lisbon treaty is mainly about streamlining decision making and strengthening EU level democracy. It is part of a process that will continue incrementally for a long time until hopefully we have an EU where the Parliament is the main power centre (and hopefully an Irish vote is still worth more than a German vote )

Hmm we could start another thread about this (preferably after Lisbon unless you want to be quoted by certain members, and taken out of context!)

I definitely would not like an USE, the current system and direction is quite fine and Lisbon makes it better

i particularly like the exit strategy point of Lisbon that doesn't exist now

this would mean any country can leave if they dont like the direction EU is taking and sets out the protocol to do so,

that imho is highly important and something the USA lacks despite several states making noise about leaving the union but they cant as their constitution is a one way ticket

molloyjh

Zuiderzee wrote: »

They have been given an answer, and have not changed the context of the treaty. Why do they not accept an answer was given, go back and reflect and give us a treaty that is understandable, clear and enshrines the 'guarantees' in the treaty

I feel they are trying to push the issue, and they ignored the last answer they got.
Sorry, I think this is just one where we will have to disagree mate.

Now this bit is something I have a huge issue with. You're trying to say that the EU and the Government should listen to what we want and return with a Treaty that meets that and thus far they have not done so. But this is blatantly untrue.

Last year there was a Eurobarometer poll run to find out why we voted No. They then took the points from this and came up with the guarantees and the solemn declaration re the Commissioner. Therefore they took our feedback on board and made the changes we seemed to want.

Now some complain about the validity of the poll. But the question would then obviously be why commission a poll to bring back false or scewed results as surely this would not appease people and in the end just ensure another No vote.

Secondly the guarantees were not put into the Treaty because there was no need. The guarantees only re-state what is already there so putting them into the Treaty would have no impact on the text of the Treaty but would require ratification all over again in all Member States. There is no time for that. The current Commissions term is up at the end of October. The new rules for the Commission need to be in by then. So the EU need to know that the Treaty is ratified by all Member States in advance of the end of October, because if it is not they need to come up with a new set-up for the Commission, which will take time due to the fact that it would have to be negotiated.

The Government and the EU have not ignored us. They have listened to our reasons for a No, the ones we ourselves gave, and attempted to address those issues in the guarantees. It is, in fact, a prime example of the EU doing the opposite to ignoring us. The guarantees are not in the Treaty because they do not change the content of it and there isn't time to go through ratification in all 27 Member States again.

Scofflaw

I really do feel at this stage that anyone whose complaint is that the guarantees are "not in the Treaty" is really reaching for reasons to vote No. Since the guarantees are legally binding in their current form, are assurances that the treaty doesn't contain things that it never contained, and will be turned into Protocols as soon as possible after the Treaty, the only possible honest reason for insisting they should be in the Treaty itself is that you just don't believe any of the foregoing points - and if you have that degree of distrust, then, frankly, I don't see any way you won't vote No.

cordially,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

Scofflaw wrote: »

I really do feel at this stage that anyone whose complaint is that the guarantees are "not in the Treaty" is really reaching for reasons to vote No. Since the guarantees are legally binding in their current form, are assurances that the treaty doesn't contain things that it never contained, and will be turned into Protocols as soon as possible after the Treaty, the only possible honest reason for insisting they should be in the Treaty itself is that you just don't believe any of the foregoing points - and if you have that degree of distrust, then, frankly, I don't see any way you won't vote No.

cordially,
Scofflaw

More to the point, there is no precedence set where the EU has ignored guarantees, but there is precedence set where they respected them, i.e. Denmark after Maastricht.