CCTB back on the agenda again

censuspro

It appears that the EU is determined to push through a common corporation tax base.

http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2259482/ireland-enraged-eu-unveils-tax%22%20class=%22

So much for the "guarantees"

prinz

censuspro wrote: »

It appears that the EU is determined to push through a common corporation tax base.

Any links to this so-called plan? More info on it?

Edit: I am presuming Accountancy Age is referring to one of these speeches? None of which mention a CCTB

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/10/51&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/10/56&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/10/109&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

sink

censuspro wrote: »

It appears that the EU is determined to push through a common corporation tax base.

http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2259482/ireland-enraged-eu-unveils-tax%22%20class=%22

So much for the "guarantees"

The rules in regards to CCTB have not changed. The legislative procedure is the exact same now under Lisbon as it was under Nice. Lisbon had no impact. It will still require a referendum in this country if it is ever to be introduced.

ei.sdraob

apparently they will also be pushing euthanasia on us via an Australian doctor

damn it those nutcases were right :P

sirromo

prinz wrote: »

Edit: I am presuming Accountancy Age is referring to one of these speeches? None of which mention a CCTB

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/10/51&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/10/56&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/10/109&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Read his speech from the first link:

In addition, I will seek to address the long-standing issues of double taxation and discrimination. The implementation of rules for computing tax bases that are common for all Member States, as envisaged by the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base initiative, would be a major step to the removal of cross-border tax obstacles for business.

censuspro

sink wrote: »

The rules in regards to CCTB have not changed. The legislative procedure is the exact same now under Lisbon as it was under Nice. Lisbon had no impact. It will still require a referendum in this country if it is ever to be introduced.

Problem is if it's introduced in other countries.

prinz

sirromo wrote: »

Read his speech from the first link:...

Yes, but that doesn't say anything about the CCTB as it was being back on the table/forced upon us, rather appears to me as aspects of it may be revisited to improve coordination in the taxation area, and as Sink pointed out any change would still require a referendum.

prinz

censuspro wrote: »

Problem is if it's introduced in other countries.

Are you suggesting that we should have a say in what other countries do with regards to their Corporation Tax rate?

sink

censuspro wrote: »

Problem is if it's introduced in other countries.

That's their prerogative, it has zero impact on us. Don't forget we're no alone in opposition to CCTB, many other nations are with us including Britain, Denmark and all the newer eastern states.

censuspro

prinz wrote: »

Are you suggesting that we should have a say in what other countries do with regards to their Corporation Tax rate?

Yes that's exactly what I suggested.

FYI, CCTB does not change the tax rate, it determines where profits are taxed.

prinz

censuspro wrote: »

Yes that's exactly what I suggested..

Should other countries have an equal input into our taxation system?

censuspro wrote: »

FYI, CCTB does not affect the tax rate, it affects where profits are taxed.

Given it's basis in 'fair competition' the natural eventual outcome IMO would be harmonisation or at least a set of parameters for the CT rate itself.

censuspro

prinz wrote: »

Should other countries have an equal input into our taxation system?



Given it's basis in 'fair competition' the natural eventual outcome IMO would be harmonisation or at least a set of parameters for the CT rate itself.

The tax rate would need to be changed by referendum unless it was done so in the budget. So you're wrong on both counts.

Larger nations could go ahead with CCTB via enhanced co-operation.

prinz

censuspro wrote: »

So you're wrong on both counts..

In which case it would be due to nobody but our own elected representatives... so what was your point about the "guarantees" then? You made the point about the "guarantees" as if we would be forced into a change by Europe, now you are saying that the government could change it of their own free will, well yes they could, but your points don't link up in that case.

censuspro wrote: »

Larger nations could go ahead with CCTB via enhanced co-operation.

Yes. Again I'm baffled by your point tbh. If that's what some nations wish to do..

sink

censuspro wrote: »

The tax rate would need to be changed by referendum unless it was done so in the budget. So you're wrong on both counts.

Larger nations could go ahead with CCTB via enhanced co-operation.

Any agreement restricting our governments competence to control direct tax would no doubt be considered by the supreme court as a diminishment of sovereignty. Our constitution states that the source of our countries sovereignty is the people of the Irish Republic any diminishing of said sovereignty would require the people to be consulted via plebiscite as per Crotty v. An Taoiseach 1987.

censuspro

prinz wrote: »

In which case it would be due to nobody but our own elected representatives... so what was your point about the "guarantees" then? You made the point about the "guarantees" as if we would be forced into a change by Europe, now you are saying that the government could change it of their own free will, well yes they could, but your points don't link up in that case.


Yes. Again I'm baffled by your point tbh. If that's what some nations wish to do..

I take it you're not familiar with sarcasm?

It means that there is less revenue for the Irish exchequer because profits of Irish resident companies are no longer being tax in Ireland. Regardless of the CT rate, 12.5% x 0 = 0!!!

censuspro

sink wrote: »

Any agreement restricting our governments competence to control direct tax would no doubt be considered by the supreme court as a diminishment of sovereignty. Our constitution states that the source of our countries sovereignty is the people of the Irish Republic any diminishing of said sovereignty would require the people to be consulted via plebiscite as per Crotty v. An Taoiseach 1987.

CCTB does not affect our direct taxes, it affect where the profits are taxed!

K-9

censuspro wrote: »

CCTB does not affect our direct taxes, it affect where the profits are taxed!

Corporation Tax is a Direct Tax. If you change it to a destination tax like VAT, it ceases to be a Direct tax.

Scofflaw

censuspro wrote: »

CCTB does not affect our direct taxes, it affect where the profits are taxed!

It could be said to affect the capacity of the Irish state to control its tax base.

cordially,
Scofflaw

censuspro

K-9 wrote: »

Corporation Tax is a Direct Tax. If you change it to a destination tax like VAT, it ceases to be a Direct tax.

?

censuspro

Scofflaw wrote: »

It could be said to affect the capacity of the Irish state to control its tax base.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It could also be said otherwise, which is what the larger nations are currently trying to do.

The issue of tax harmonisation is not just a Lisbon issue, this has on the agenda for years even before the Nice treay.

A CCTB would not be a good thing for Ireland!

K-9

censuspro wrote: »

?

You said CCTB does not affect Direct Taxes. Corporation Tax is a Direct Tax.

censuspro

K-9 wrote: »

You said CCTB does not affect Direct Taxes. Corporation Tax is a Direct Tax.

Read my post again.

K-9

censuspro wrote: »

Read my post again.

Ok, where would profits be taxed?

Scofflaw

K-9 wrote: »

You said CCTB does not affect Direct Taxes. Corporation Tax is a Direct Tax.

It should probably read "CCCTB doesn't affect our tax rates".

cordially,
Scofflaw

censuspro

K-9 wrote: »

Ok, where would profits be taxed?

Under a CCCTB the profits are taxed in the country that they are made. e.g. Profits made in Germany are taxed in Germany.

Currently, if a company is resident in Ireland for Corporation Tax purposes they pay tax on their world wide profits in Ireland. Under a CCCTB, Irish resident companies would pay tax in the countries that the profits are made. This means that our low CT rate of 12.5% is no longer an advantage because companies that are resident in Ireland for tax purposes would also be taxed in other countries under a CCCTB. What the larger nations would like to do under a CCCTB is for them all to get together and agree that because none of them are receving any corporate tax revenue from large multinationals becuase their all located in low tax jurisdictions e.g. Ireland, they agree to a CCCTB (Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base) in which they will divvy up the profits made in each country and the company pays taxes in that country. At least that way they are getting some tax revenue as opposed to getting none at all.
So although they cannot change our Corporation Tax rate of 12.5%, they can change the jurisdiction in which the profits are taxed.

View

censuspro wrote: »

Under a CCCTB the profits are taxed in the country that they are made. e.g. Profits made in Germany are taxed in Germany.

Currently, if a company is resident in Ireland for Corporation Tax purposes they pay tax on their world wide profits in Ireland. Under a CCCTB, Irish resident companies would pay tax in the countries that the profits are made. This means that our low CT rate of 12.5% is no longer an advantage because companies that are resident in Ireland for tax purposes would also be taxed in other countries under a CCCTB. What the larger nations would like to do under a CCCTB is for them all to get together and agree that because none of them are receving any corporate tax revenue from large multinationals becuase their all located in low tax jurisdictions e.g. Ireland, they agree to a CCCTB (Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base) in which they will divvy up the profits made in each country and the company pays taxes in that country. At least that way they are getting some tax revenue as opposed to getting none at all.

That was one of a number of methods suggested in a discussion document about the topic. There were others also.

I have only seen one paper that attempted to analyse the effect of these methods. Most were marginally positive or negative for Ireland. Only one had a real adverse effect. On the other hand, Germany wasn't so lucky :-)

censuspro

View wrote: »

That was one of a number of methods suggested in a discussion document about the topic. There were others also.

I have only seen one paper that attempted to analyse the effect of these methods. Most were marginally positive or negative for Ireland. Only one had a real adverse effect. On the other hand, Germany wasn't so lucky :-)

The Irish Taxation Institute has publicly stated that they are not in favour of a CCCTB and states that how this would not be a good thing for Ireland. You can read their report here,

The other issue with a CCCTB is that it's merely an attempt for larger nations who are annoyed by Irelands low CT rate to get their hands on some extra cash. They are just changing the rules because they are not in a position to compete. A CCCTB makes no attempt to attract or incentivise companies to set up shop in their countries e.g. France or Germany.

As the report says, its not just a bad thing for Ireland but as
"Big multi-nationals, faced with growing costs in Europe, are increasingly looking to the Far East. CCCTB will merely serve to hasten this trend".

K-9

censuspro wrote: »

Under a CCCTB the profits are taxed in the country that they are made. e.g. Profits made in Germany are taxed in Germany.

Currently, if a company is resident in Ireland for Corporation Tax purposes they pay tax on their world wide profits in Ireland. Under a CCCTB, Irish resident companies would pay tax in the countries that the profits are made. This means that our low CT rate of 12.5% is no longer an advantage because companies that are resident in Ireland for tax purposes would also be taxed in other countries under a CCCTB. What the larger nations would like to do under a CCCTB is for them all to get together and agree that because none of them are receving any corporate tax revenue from large multinationals becuase their all located in low tax jurisdictions e.g. Ireland, they agree to a CCCTB (Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base) in which they will divvy up the profits made in each country and the company pays taxes in that country. At least that way they are getting some tax revenue as opposed to getting none at all.
So although they cannot change our Corporation Tax rate of 12.5%, they can change the jurisdiction in which the profits are taxed.

Wonder could they do this under enhanced cooperation though? Could they do it within EU rules?

censuspro

K-9 wrote: »

Wonder could they do this under enhanced cooperation though? Could they do it within EU rules?

I don't see why not. Lisbon treaty has been ratified which enables en-hance co operation with a minimum of eight countries.

K-9

censuspro wrote: »

I don't see why not. Lisbon treaty has been ratified which enables en-hance co operation with a minimum of eight countries.

Seeing as it's to do with Corporation tax rules, I have my doubts they could. Definitely open to challenge I'd say.

Scofflaw

K-9 wrote: »

Wonder could they do this under enhanced cooperation though? Could they do it within EU rules?

No, because you can't use enhanced co-operation:

(1) to interfere with another state's sovereign powers - which means that if Ireland does not join the CCCTB group it cannot be made to give up the corporation tax it charges on the company's EU-wide profits,

(2) or to abrogate existing tax treaties. Using enhanced cooperation in such a way would be exactly equivalent to, say, the Spanish government deciding it will tax corporate profits made in Spain by an Irish-based company, something which is precluded by a bilateral tax treaty between Ireland and Spain:

Double Taxation Agreements

- An extensive double taxation treaty network ensures the elimination or mitigation of double taxation with 50 countries

To facilitate international business, Ireland has signed comprehensive double taxation agreements with 50 countries (as of May 2009), of which 46 are in force which provide for the elimination or mitigation of double taxation with the following countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile China, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Macedonia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovak, Republic Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The Republic of Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Vietnam and Zambia.

Ireland is continuingly expanding this agreement network: Eight new tax agreements have been concluded. (Albania, Azerbaijan, Bosnia Herzegovina, Kuwait, Moldova, Morocco, Serbia and Thailand)

Six new agreements are in the pipeline. (Argentina, Armenia, Belarus, Egypt, Singapore, Tunisia, Ukraine)

Other countries have also been identified by Ireland as having potential for double tax agreements. (Brazil, Hong Kong, Iran, and the Philippines).

A tax cooperation agreement has been signed with the Isle of Man.

In addition, where a double tax agreement does not exist with a particular country, unilateral provisions within the Irish Taxes Acts allow credit relief against Irish tax for foreign tax paid in respect of certain types of income.

You'll note that all 26 other member states of the EU are covered by such double-taxation treaties, all of them having the force of law.

So an EU country that enters a CCCTB enhanced cooperation group cannot require Ireland to stop taxing the full EU profits of an Irish-based corporation (including the profits made in their country), and cannot engage in double taxation of an Irish-based corporation without unilaterally repudiating its existing bilateral taxation treaty with Ireland (and making itself extremely unpopular with FDI).

cordially,
Scofflaw

censuspro

A Double Tax Agreement (DTA) prevents a company from being taxed twice on the same profits in two jurisdictions. Any tax that is paid in one country gets a credit in the country that company is tax resident or as per the DTA. That’s it!

Scofflaw wrote: »

So an EU country that enters a CCCTB enhanced cooperation group cannot require Ireland to stop taxing the full EU profits of an Irish-based corporation (including the profits made in their country), and cannot engage in double taxation of an Irish-based corporation without unilaterally repudiating its existing bilateral taxation treaty with Ireland (and making itself extremely unpopular with FDI).

But the opposite is also true, we cannot stop another EU country from taxing the profits of an Irish resident multi national located in their country the same way they cannot stop us from applying Irish tax to their EU wide profits. A DTA would only give the company a tax credit to offset against its Irish tax. The larger nations would still get their cut!

Scofflaw

censuspro wrote: »

A Double Tax Agreement (DTA) prevents a company from being taxed twice on the same profits in two jurisdictions. Any tax that is paid in one country gets a credit in the country that company is tax resident or as per the DTA. That’s it!

But the opposite is also true, we cannot stop another EU country from taxing the profits of an Irish resident multi national located in their country the same way they cannot stop us from applying Irish tax to their EU wide profits. A DTA would only give the company a tax credit to offset against its Irish tax. The larger nations would still get their cut!

I suppose they could theoretically give a tax credit against the Irish tax on the Spanish part of the company's profits, and then tax the company on the Spanish part of its profits - as for example the UK did, although I see that they had to classify Ireland as a tax haven to do it:

Although Ireland has a double tax treaty with the UK, the latter's Treasury announced in 2002 that it was proposing to classify Ireland as a 'tax haven', and would in future apply its 30% corporation tax rate to the profits of Irish subsidiaries of UK companies.

The Irish Department of Finance later announced that UK companies with subsidiaries based in the Republic were considering launching a legal challenge to the change, which had been brought on by the reduction of Ireland's corporation tax rate to an eventual 12.5%. The situation remains unclear.

However, Ireland's tax treaties generally preclude the other State from taxing Irish resident businesses:

Under this Article, each Contracting State agrees not to tax the business profits of an enterprise of the other State unless the enterprise has a permanent establishment in that other State. If there is a permanent establishment, the other State may tax only the profits attributable to the permanent establishment. The article sets out the rules by which the profits of a permanent establishment are to be attributed.

The profits to be attributed to the permanent establishment are those that it would have been expected to make if it were a distinct and separate enterprise. This is what is known as the arms-length rule.

The article permits the profits of a permanent establishment to be determined on the basis of an apportionment of the total profits of the enterprise, provided such a determination is customary in the Contracting State concerned and the result is in accordance with the
principles of the article. Profits of branches of foreign insurance companies are sometimes calculated on an apportioned basis.

No profit is to be attributed to a permanent establishment by reason of the mere purchase of goods by the permanent establishment. This provision is not concerned with an establishment existing solely for purchasing. Such an establishment would not be a permanent establishment under the principles of Article 5. It is concerned with a permanent establishment which carries on other business but also performs a purchasing function for its head office. In such a case, no profits are attributable to the purchasing function.

Where an enterprise has a permanent establishment in a Contracting State that receives any type of income dealt with in other articles, eg, interest, then the taxation of that income is determined by the rules of that other article.

It seems to me, therefore, that either the other state in a notional enhanced co-operation CCCTB group either can already choose to tax a portion of an Irish-based business' profits, or it cannot. If it cannot, CCCTB does not make it possible. If it can, CCCTB is superfluous.

cordially,
Scofflaw

whatisayis

What an interesting debate. I thought that the CCCTB question had been debunked prior to the Lisbon vote.

Scofflaw

whatisayis wrote: »

What an interesting debate. I thought that the CCCTB question had been debunked prior to the Lisbon vote.

CCCTB figured in the Lisbon debate only as a red herring, because the only relevant change made by Lisbon was to up the number of states required from 8 to 9. Other than that, CCCTB wasn't impacted either way by Lisbon, and has continued being worked on throughout.

cordially,
Scofflaw

whatisayis

Scofflaw wrote: »

CCCTB figured in the Lisbon debate only as a red herring, because the only relevant change made by Lisbon was to up the number of states required from 8 to 9. Other than that, CCCTB wasn't impacted either way by Lisbon, and has continued being worked on throughout.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The increase in numbers from 8 to 9 is only in relation to the number of countries required to proceed using the enhanced cooperation mechanism.

It just sparked my interest because before the Lisbon vote the overriding consensus was that it would never happen.

Scofflaw

whatisayis wrote: »

The increase in numbers from 8 to 9 is only in relation to the number of countries required to proceed using the enhanced cooperation mechanism.

It just sparked my interest because before the Lisbon vote the overriding consensus was that it would never happen.

Indeed - it's been on the books since 2001, after all, but still hasn't happened.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BetterLisbon

CCCTB was a lisbon issue because a no vote would have delayed it by years and years as the EU would have gone into a long period of naval gazing where major projects like CCCTB would have gone on the backburner. But of course every political argument by the no side was met with a tsunami of legalese and accusations of lies.

BetterLisbon

CCCTB became a problem due to the Nice treaty that gave up our veto on enhanced cooperation. Anti-Nice campaigners tried to point this out at the time but were "on the same side as Justin Barrett".

Scofflaw

BetterLisbon wrote: »

CCCTB was a lisbon issue because a no vote would have delayed it by years and years as the EU would have gone into a long period of naval gazing where major projects like CCCTB would have gone on the backburner. But of course every political argument by the no side was met with a tsunami of legalese and accusations of lies.

Legalese...you mean like pointing out what was actually in the Treaty and so on. Dear me, how dreadful.

And yes, forcing the EU to spend the next several years navel-gazing would indeed have delayed CCCTB, as well as delaying everything else, such as CAP reform, CFP reform, responses to the current crisis, etc etc. It takes a very particular type of mind to consider that a good thing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sirromo

Scofflaw wrote:

Legalese...you mean like pointing out what was actually in the Treaty and so on.

This is the definition wikipedia gives for the term:

Legalese is an English term first used in 1914[1] for legal writing that is designed to be difficult for laymen to read and understand, the implication being that this abstruseness is deliberate for excluding the legally untrained and to justify high fees. Legalese, as a term, has been adopted in other languages.[2][3] Legalese is characterized by long sentences, many modifying clauses, complex vocabulary, high abstraction, and insensitivity to the layman's need to understand the document's gist. Legalese arises most commonly in legal drafting, yet appears in both types of legal analysis. Today, the Plain Language Movement in legal writing is progressing and experts are busy trying to demystify legalese.

Scofflaw

sirromo wrote: »

This is the definition wikipedia gives for the term:

Indeed - and one person's "relevant Treaty provisions" is another person's "legalese". You can't realistically argue about an international treaty without any appreciation of what the legal text actually means and how it is likely to be interpreted, much as many people on the No side wanted to...second time round, that is, once their own 'interpretations' from the first campaign had been shown up for the nonsense they were.

cordially,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

BetterLisbon wrote: »

CCCTB was a lisbon issue because a no vote would have delayed it by years and years as the EU would have gone into a long period of naval gazing where major projects like CCCTB would have gone on the backburner. But of course every political argument by the no side was met with a tsunami of legalese and accusations of lies.

I take it you mean things such as the fact that CCCTB was not in any way a Lisbon issue yes? That "legalese" you refer to happens to be the Treaty itself. I read it and it wasn't that hard to understand. See below for an example.

Treaty Legalese 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.

Meaning that the EU will, on unanimous agreement, make provisions for harmonising indirect taxation (not direct taxation like CT) to avoid distortion of competition. Fairly simple.

Why is Lisbon being discussed as part of the CCCTB debate at all? It's completely unrelated. The guarantees we were given just stated that. They never stated that Lisbon was going to utterly abolish any and all talk of CCCTB.

As has already been pointed out CCCTB would require unanimity in the EU. It is a long, long way from that at the moment. If it ever does come into effect it wil do so as a result of being passed by every single member state. Given that at least a half dozen countries are opposed to it at the moment I can't see that happening in the near future.

So yes there are still people talking about it. So what? That doesn't make it any more likely to become a reality.

BetterLisbon

CCCTB was a valid political argument against Lisbon. The legal argument offered by some no groups was piss poor i accept, but the Yes side never addressed the strong political argument only the weak legal argument. As soon as the ink was dry on the yes vote the CCCTB was put back onto the agenda, had we voted no it would have been kicked into row Z. As i said when the no side made a politcal argument it was a "lie" but when the Yes side made political arguments like yes for jobs it was "expert opinion".

molloyjh

BetterLisbon wrote: »

CCCTB was a valid political argument against Lisbon. The legal argument offered by some no groups was piss poor i accept, but the Yes side never addressed the strong political argument only the weak legal argument. As soon as the ink was dry on the yes vote the CCCTB was put back onto the agenda, had we voted no it would have been kicked into row Z. As i said when the no side made a politcal argument it was a "lie" but when the Yes side made political arguments like yes for jobs it was "expert opinion".

CCCTB was never off the agenda of those who want it. What about Lisbon rejection would have "kicked" CCCTB anywhere? I have yet to see any logical relation. Are you now saying you can provide one? If so please do...

Scofflaw

molloyjh wrote: »

CCCTB was never off the agenda of those who want it. What about Lisbon rejection would have "kicked" CCCTB anywhere? I have yet to see any logical relation. Are you now saying you can provide one? If so please do...

The bones of the argument (he has made it on the other thread, I think) is that the EU would have been so busy navel-gazing and generally paralysed that CCCTB would have suffered.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BetterLisbon

Scofflaw wrote: »

The bones of the argument (he has made it on the other thread, I think) is that the EU would have been so busy navel-gazing and generally paralysed that CCCTB would have suffered.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Not quite scoff. The Eu would have kept ticking over doing the things it was already doing, in other words the status quo.

View

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Not quite scoff. The Eu would have kept ticking over doing the things it was already doing, in other words the status quo.

Or in other words, the EU institutions and all 27 member state governments, could have kept working away on CCCTB like they were doing using the post-Nice EU Treaties rules.

So, voting No to Lisbon would have (almost) no effect worth talking about.

Scofflaw

BetterLisbon wrote: »

The bones of the argument (he has made it on the other thread, I think) is that the EU would have been so busy navel-gazing and generally paralysed that CCCTB would have suffered.

Not quite scoff. The Eu would have kept ticking over doing the things it was already doing, in other words the status quo.

Once again, I am confused by your ready denial of what you've very clearly said:

BetterLisbon wrote:

CCCTB was a lisbon issue because a no vote would have delayed it by years and years as the EU would have gone into a long period of naval gazing where major projects like CCCTB would have gone on the backburner.

That's pretty clear, really, and is very much what I said you said. It's back over the page if you need to refresh your memory. CCCTB, however, is something the EU has had ticking over for years.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BetterLisbon

View wrote: »

Or in other words, the EU institutions and all 27 member state governments, could have kept working away on CCCTB like they were doing using the post-Nice EU Treaties rules.

So, voting No to Lisbon would have (almost) no effect worth talking about.

Not my point. My point is that the drive to a CCCTB would have ground to a halt.

BetterLisbon

Scofflaw wrote: »

Once again, I am confused by your ready denial of what you've very clearly said:



That's pretty clear, really, and is very much what I said you said. It's back over the page if you need to refresh your memory. CCCTB, however, is something the EU has had ticking over for years.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Kept ticking over would have meant the big ambitious projects like CCCTB would have ground to a halt, while the boring day to day stuff would have continued as normal.