Bailout 'should cost Ireland double corporation tax'

rumour

So, the pressure mounts, our guarantee (if it existed at all) will be traded to (borrow) pay for public sector salaries. Ironically the lack of self discipline of the beggars that promoted europe as the cure of all our ills will loose most.

http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/bailout-should-cost-ireland-double-corporation-tax-131983.html

All of this was predictable at the time of Lisbon, that was our chance to negotiate indeed even create some leverage, instead the narrow minded fundamentalist Lisbon brigade were so morally convinced of their single argument that Lisbon would cure all ills (jobs etc) we are now again out manouvred.

The heart of Europe my ass.....

Scofflaw

rumour wrote: »

So, the pressure mounts, our guarantee (if it existed at all) will be traded to (borrow) pay for public sector salaries. Ironically the lack of self discipline of the beggars that promoted europe as the cure of all our ills will loose most.

http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/bailout-should-cost-ireland-double-corporation-tax-131983.html

All of this was predictable at the time of Lisbon, that was our chance to negotiate indeed even create some leverage, instead the narrow minded fundamentalist Lisbon brigade were so morally convinced of their single argument that Lisbon would cure all ills (jobs etc) we are now again out manouvred.

The heart of Europe my ass.....

In fact, the Examiner has been rather inaccurate here. Two MEPs, Marcus Ferber and Sven Giegold, have issued the statement off their own bat. Ferber is a member of the Bavarian CSU party, which is a minor constituent member of the EPP, and he's also a bit of a loose cannon. Sven Giegold is a founder member of Attac Germany, and the title he gives himself in the statement - "Green Spokesperson for Economic and Fiscal Policy in the European Parliament" - appears to have been made up on the spot.

There has been no statement by the CSU as a party, no statement by the EPP, no statement by the European Parliament, and no statement by the EU Commission. You can stop panicking - 2 out of 750 members of the Parliament have made a personal statement, that's all. And since the No side considers the Parliament both unrepresentative and powerless, that's presumably even less meaningful.

amused,
Scofflaw

kmick

Its amusing to me that I still cant buy a wine, a car, some cigarettes or a motorbike elsewhere in Europe without incurring a tax but the Germans are still complaining about our CT rate. Plus what bailout - we have'nt applied for one so fcuk off.

rumour

Scofflaw wrote: »

In fact, the Examiner has been rather inaccurate here. Two MEPs, Marcus Ferber and Sven Giegold, have issued the statement off their own bat. Ferber is a member of the Bavarian CSU party, which is a minor constituent member of the EPP, and he's also a bit of a loose cannon.

There has been no statement by the EPP, and no statement by the European Parliament, and no statement by the EU Commission. You can stop panicking.

amused,
Scofflaw

unsurprising quick defense and glad your amused.....it all reeks of inevitably.

We were not responsible and intelligent enough to deal with our affairs and now we will pay price. Sorry I won't pay any price (I organised my affairs when you were busy championing Lisbon, well a little before it). It'll just be our public sector...
The irony is astounding, the very people who so openly advocated it will now loose the most.

rumour

kmick wrote: »

Its amusing to me that I still cant buy a wine, a car, some cigarettes or a motorbike elsewhere in Europe without incurring a tax but the Germans are still complaining about our CT rate. Plus what bailout - we have'nt applied for one so fcuk off.

:eek:We haven't applied for one????....wtf do you think is happening.

I'm going to keep stoking this and watch as you try to worm yourselves out of your fundamentalist convictions.

You guys are doomed....doomed I tell you!!! :pac:

Scofflaw

rumour wrote: »

unsurprising quick defense and glad your amused.....it all reeks of inevitably.

We were not responsible and intelligent enough to deal with our affairs and now we will pay price. Sorry I won't pay any price (I organised my affairs when you were busy championing Lisbon, well a little before it). It'll just be our public sector...
The irony is astounding, the very people who so openly advocated it will now loose the most.

Our inability to restrain our own government's spending (or our willingness to encourage them) means we're currently in a position of weakness in respect of negotiations, because we're at the table with our cap in our hand - but Lisbon made no difference to the EU's competence on tax, which remains entirely a matter for unanimity, nor any difference to CCCTB, which remains on the agenda but no closer to fruition as a result of Lisbon.

I admit I am amused, I fear, by the way that the No proponents, having been taken in by false claims from people like Libertas on the matter, remain whole-heartedly convinced of something that wasn't true in the first place, and desperately willing to see even the tiniest ripple on the surface of the teacup as confirming their belief in the coming tsunami.

The thing is that we are being bailed out, but we haven't had to drop our opposition to CCCTB, or to change our corporation tax rate - and these are things that do annoy some German politicians, since it's largely Germany that's bailing us out. It plays well in Frankfurt, but Frankfurt isn't Berlin, and Berlin isn't Brussels.

Out of interest, why do you point the finger at Lisbon, when the pressure results entirely from our financial position? Do you believe that if Lisbon hadn't passed, we wouldn't need money from the ECB? That it wouldn't be possible for German politicians to call for us to increase our corporation tax rate?

cordially,
Scofflaw

BetterLisbon

Scofflaw wrote: »

Our inability to restrain our own government's spending (or our willingness to encourage them) means we're currently in a position of weakness in respect of negotiations, because we're at the table with our cap in our hand - but Lisbon made no difference to the EU's competence on tax, which remains entirely a matter for unanimity, nor any difference to CCCTB, which remains on the agenda but no closer to fruition as a result of Lisbon.

I admit I am amused, I fear, by the way that the No proponents, having been taken in by false claims from people like Libertas on the matter, remain whole-heartedly convinced of something that wasn't true in the first place, and desperately willing to see even the tiniest ripple on the surface of the teacup as confirming their belief in the coming tsunami.

The thing is that we are being bailed out, but we haven't had to drop our opposition to CCCTB, or to change our corporation tax rate - and these are things that do annoy some German politicians, since it's largely Germany that's bailing us out. It plays well in Frankfurt, but Frankfurt isn't Berlin, and Berlin isn't Brussels.

Out of interest, why do you point the finger at Lisbon, when the pressure results entirely from our financial position? Do you believe that if Lisbon hadn't passed, we wouldn't need money from the ECB? That it wouldn't be possible for German politicians to call for us to increase our corporation tax rate?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well if Lisbon hadnt passed we would have an extra 60 vetoes to play with in any negotiations, if Nice hadnt passed another 30 or so on top of that including a veto on enhanced co-operation.
This is why there was a valid political argument in respect of CCCTB which sadly the No campaign didnt focus on strongly enough. This is also why the semantics and hairsplitting of the Yes camp is very cold comfort.

Scofflaw

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Well if Lisbon hadnt passed we would have an extra 60 vetoes to play with in any negotiations, if Nice hadnt passed another 30 or so on top of that including a veto on enhanced co-operation.
This is why there was a valid political argument in respect of CCCTB which sadly the No campaign didnt focus on strongly enough. This is also why the semantics and hairsplitting of the Yes camp is very cold comfort.

Neither CCCTB nor corporation tax rates were affected by Lisbon, though. That's why these arguments seem bizarre to me - they're harping on about something completely irrelevant.

What's relevant to our bargaining position in Europe is the fact that we're desperately in need of friends and funds, not how many vetoes on other issues we have (unless one prefers an EU consistently paralysed by national interests). On CCCTB, though, we already have friends (or at least allies) - although I will say that still nobody has been able to explain to me, despite my repeated requests, why CCCTB would have quite such a damaging effect on the Irish economy as is apparently believed by people like IBEC. I can see why Irish accountants and tax specialists might be opposed to it even as currently proposed as a voluntary system, but I can't see why it would result in wholesale flight of FDI companies as is usually claimed.

regards,
Scofflaw

kmick

rumour wrote: »

:eek:We haven't applied for one????....wtf do you think is happening.

I'm going to keep stoking this and watch as you try to worm yourselves out of your fundamentalist convictions.

You guys are doomed....doomed I tell you!!! :pac:

Well can I ask what you think is happening because as far as I can see we are raising funds on the money markets and not drawing down on any specific european fund.

The fact we are raising those funds at a rate quickly approaching 7% means we are essentially fcuked no doubt there.

I dont have any fundamentalist convictions I try to keep them fluid as possible. I am generally though in agreement with Scoflaw that it has no bearing on our CT rate no matter how much the Germans ponder it.

rumour

Scofflaw wrote: »

Neither CCCTB nor corporation tax rates were affected by Lisbon, though. That's why these arguments seem bizarre to me - they're harping on about something completely irrelevant.

If it is so irrelevant why was this guarantee included and agreed in the amendment to the Irish constitution.

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.

It is disengenious and in character with Irish politics to suggest, even promote the idea that they are not related. This guarantee was offerred to the Irish people by our Government and all proponents of the Treaty as surety that our corporation tax could not be set by Europe. Why might I ask do the MEP's keep demending it? The answer yes was given on this proviso.

Scofflaw wrote: »

What's relevant to our bargaining position in Europe is the fact that we're desperately in need of friends and funds, not how many vetoes on other issues we have (unless one prefers an EU consistently paralysed by national interests). On CCCTB, though, we already have friends (or at least allies) - although I will say that still nobody has been able to explain to me, despite my repeated requests, why CCCTB would have quite such a damaging effect on the Irish economy as is apparently believed by people like IBEC. I can see why Irish accountants and tax specialists might be opposed to it even as currently proposed as a voluntary system, but I can't see why it would result in wholesale flight of FDI companies as is usually claimed..

For you information check out what happened in New York in 1962-63 when JFK changed the corporation tax rate. This event alone created London as the financial capital of the world.
In Ireland, if you can't understand the permutations of what happens when we increase tax's on multi nationals that already find our country to expensive I suggest you either

• inform your self (some basic maths is all that is required) or
• continue to be amused as 'we', a nation, sink.

Regarding friends we've almost used them all and I mean 'used' to pay ourselves fat salaries and to enjoy the high life at the same time convincing ourselves that were not really that well off.

Scofflaw

rumour wrote: »

If it is so irrelevant why was this guarantee included and agreed in the amendment to the Irish constitution.

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.

It is disengenious and in character with Irish politics to suggest, even promote the idea that they are not related. This guarantee was offerred to the Irish people by our Government and all proponents of the Treaty as surety that our corporation tax could not be set by Europe. Why might I ask do the MEP's keep demending it? The answer yes was given on this proviso.



For you information check out what happened in New York in 1962-63 when JFK changed the corporation tax rate. This event alone created London as the financial capital of the world.
In Ireland, if you can't understand the permutations of what happens when we increase tax's on multi nationals that already find our country to expensive I suggest you either

• inform your self (some basic maths is all that is required) or
• continue to be amused as 'we', a nation, sink.

Regarding friends we've almost used them all and I mean 'used' to pay ourselves fat salaries and to enjoy the high life at the same time convincing ourselves that were not really that well off.

The guarantees were given for things that were concerns, however ill-founded those concerns actually were. That's why we had yet another guarantee on abortion, even though the Irish Constitutional position on abortion was already guaranteed by a Protocol, which itself was also unnecessary, since the EU has never had any competence on abortion. Lisbon made no changes to the EU's competences on taxation, or on CCCTB, but those were manufactured into issues by people cunning enough to spot that the ignorant are easily panicked.

It's like a child using its parents' reassurances to claim that there really were monsters under the bed all along - "otherwise, why would Dad have to tell me there weren't?".

Nor is it anything other than really silly to claim that two MEPs issuing a personal statement is "EU pressure".

Taking the two together, I remain,

amused,
Scofflaw

View

rumour wrote: »

So, the pressure mounts, our guarantee (if it existed at all) will be traded to (borrow) pay for public sector salaries. Ironically the lack of self discipline of the beggars that promoted europe as the cure of all our ills will loose most.

http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/bailout-should-cost-ireland-double-corporation-tax-131983.html

All of this was predictable at the time of Lisbon, that was our chance to negotiate indeed even create some leverage, instead the narrow minded fundamentalist Lisbon brigade were so morally convinced of their single argument that Lisbon would cure all ills (jobs etc) we are now again out manouvred.

The heart of Europe my ass.....

As a matter of curiousity, if Lisbon had NOT passed and the EU was still operating under the post-Nice EU Treaties, how exactly would things be different?

Was there, for instance, a clause in the post-Nice EU Treaties that Lisbon deleted, which prevented MEPs from making calls on us to raise our corporate tax rate? If so, please point out the exact clause(s) concerned...

horacewimpole

View wrote: »

As a matter of curiousity, if Lisbon had NOT passed and the EU was still operating under the post-Nice EU Treaties, how exactly would things be different?

Was there, for instance, a clause in the post-Nice EU Treaties that Lisbon deleted, which prevented MEPs from making calls on us to raise our corporate tax rate? If so, please point out the exact clause(s) concerned...

Lisbon did pass, and now matter what the "people" of Europe thought, Lisbon was never in any danger of not passing. Or so my cynical side says.

Ireland? Oh dear. what a shambles, and all the current mess confirms is the impression to the rest of the world that the country is incapable of self govenrnment, with the Taosieach on prime time tv in the USA being called a drunk by Jay Leno and others.

Of course Ireland will have to sell its soul to the EU and, possibly, the IMF, in order to try to get things straightened out, and no one really believed the promises given about our corporate tax rates - an excuse was always going to be found to bring those "into line" with the rest of the EU.

censuspro

Going off topic slightly but URL="http://www.lisbon2.ie/WhathappensifwevoteNO/tabid/86/Default.aspx"]This[/URL] is the link to lisbon.ie, it lists out the consequences if we vote no, but its actually an uncanny description of our current situation.

Whilst nobody can be certain what will happen if we vote no ,we believe that from an Irish perspective alone , it is reasonable to assume the following:

• On the world stage there will be uncertainty over Ireland’s political future
• Ireland’s influence in Europe will diminish
• Ireland’s international influence will diminish
• Foreign Direct Investment both from existing Irish Based businesses and potential investors will reduce
• International confidence in Ireland will diminish leading to an increase in the cost of National Borrowing
• There will be significantly less appetite in Europe for assisting Ireland in our current economic difficulties
• We expect that existing jobs will be lost and potential new jobs will not be created
• Ireland will not retain a commissioner
• Other EU countries may want to reopen the debate on our corporation tax rate

rumour

Scofflaw wrote: »

Our inability to restrain our own government's spending (or our willingness to encourage them) means we're currently in a position of weakness in respect of negotiations, because we're at the table with our cap in our hand - but Lisbon made no difference to the EU's competence on tax, which remains entirely a matter for unanimity, nor any difference to CCCTB, which remains on the agenda but no closer to fruition as a result of Lisbon.

Agreed and if you had read my posts at the time instead of trying to brand me as libertas or an abortion campaigner you would understand that I was advocating sorting our problems before we agreed to any Treaty. At that point in time the situation with our finances was abundently clear and we had something to negotiate with, our leaders choose the cowardly route and used Lisbon as the panacea for all our ills. I have reservations about empire europe however I have never come out against an integrated europe because ultimately i believe in it. That does not mean I absund my responsibilities and omit to get my house in order. Indeed we will need it more and more as we loose the hedgmoney of the USA and china start to play their part.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I admit I am amused, I fear, by the way that the No proponents, having been taken in by false claims from people like Libertas on the matter, remain whole-heartedly convinced of something that wasn't true in the first place, and desperately willing to see even the tiniest ripple on the surface of the teacup as confirming their belief in the coming tsunami..

The Corporation tax was always on the agenda and will continue to be. We will shortly trade this beggars as we are to keep our current account spending going. Just as we all did when voting for Lisbon. Remember 'yes for jobs' :pac:. Seems to me it is the yes campaign the told most of the lies, but i guess thats because they shouted loudest. Like beggars for food at a UN refugee camp.

Scofflaw wrote: »

The thing is that we are being bailed out, but we haven't had to drop our opposition to CCCTB, or to change our corporation tax rate - and these are things that do annoy some German politicians, since it's largely Germany that's bailing us out. It plays well in Frankfurt, but Frankfurt isn't Berlin, and Berlin isn't Brussels...

I know you always divide and compartmentalise the functions of the EU and continually challenge anyone to prove any connection. Which is of course difficult unless you are one of the 40,000 lobbyists operating between the EIB, ECB, financial institutions,governments and brussels. Surely some of this was explained to the boards team on their visit to Brussels?? You are right though the bail out is in full swing, we issue bonds paying 6% interest, institutions but them borrowing at 1-2% from the ECB, who pays the bill Irish tax payers for what are essentially French and German institutions. If you think Irish banks are in a bad way German banking exposure to peripheral EU countries is enormous. But they had a choice and indeed their ambassador knew well what was going on here...german banks are as much responsible for our predicament as our own banks, if not more so as they were the people who had the fuel and they knew well what they were doing.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Out of interest, why do you point the finger at Lisbon, when the pressure results entirely from our financial position? Do you believe that if Lisbon hadn't passed, we wouldn't need money from the ECB? That it wouldn't be possible for German politicians to call for us to increase our corporation tax rate?...

In our current predicament we loose, we are being forced to asssume responsibility for the errors of bankers, true we blame the government and our own banks but the lenders play a game where they take risk also, that risk was not guaranteed by tax payers. At the time of Lisbon all of this was known and with a tiny bit of analysis it was obvious, where was all the money coming from when we effectively had a small and reducing manufacturing sector from at least 2001???
I believe we had an opportunity to negotiate at that stage with some dignity. But in any negotiation you are obliged to play some brinkmanship. The problem with this is you must be prepared to pay the price. The price was as it is now being broke. But we were destined to that anyway. Saying no to Lisbon would not derail the european project it was not a do or die situation but it was a unique opportunity for us to apportion blame correctly, instead we have been lumbered with all the woes, why because we were bullied by German banks in the main who frightened the crap our of our weak lilly livered uneducated politicians. They were of course in panic mode behaving like rabbits headlights. Compounding that we had all the nonsense of 'heart of europe' , 'vote yes for jobs' it was so embarassing, then to add insult to injury anyone who tried to voice an opinion was labelled as some sort of right wing weirdo. Infact I think I even wrote at the time i'm not against Lisbon just the timing, but that got lost also and wasn't neatly fitted into the for or against stance.
Personally I have no problem telling Germans French or whoever to take a ride and get lost. Moreover I am paid to do things like that, but what I saw from our government and the irish people was capitulation.

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

Our inability to restrain our own government's spending (or our willingness to encourage them) means we're currently in a position of weakness in respect of negotiations, because we're at the table with our cap in our hand - but Lisbon made no difference to the EU's competence on tax, which remains entirely a matter for unanimity, nor any difference to CCCTB, which remains on the agenda but no closer to fruition as a result of Lisbon.

I admit I am amused, I fear, by the way that the No proponents, having been taken in by false claims from people like Libertas on the matter, remain whole-heartedly convinced of something that wasn't true in the first place, and desperately willing to see even the tiniest ripple on the surface of the teacup as confirming their belief in the coming tsunami.

The thing is that we are being bailed out, but we haven't had to drop our opposition to CCCTB, or to change our corporation tax rate - and these are things that do annoy some German politicians, since it's largely Germany that's bailing us out. It plays well in Frankfurt, but Frankfurt isn't Berlin, and Berlin isn't Brussels.

Out of interest, why do you point the finger at Lisbon, when the pressure results entirely from our financial position? Do you believe that if Lisbon hadn't passed, we wouldn't need money from the ECB? That it wouldn't be possible for German politicians to call for us to increase our corporation tax rate?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sorry, but I can't but be reminded of the 'ludicrous' claims that there would be mass immigration from eastern Europe upon the accession of the former Iron Curtain states.

Don't make me drag up the oodles of out-of-date references because I don't have the time/energy to get into long debate on the issue.

Okay the accession of the states had nothing to do with our control of immigration - OSTENSIBLY - but the indirect consequences of it are so blindingly obvious that... well... it isn't even worth mentioning.

So along with the continued promises of sovereignty not being eroded, of European laws not being passed that would affect Irish citizens, etc. which have long since gone by the board; one can only assume that when there is a general 'itch' to create tax harmonisation that it will happen (even if no official line has been taken on it, and various internal hurdles have to be overcome).

The fact that a couple of EPP members have spoken out of turn on the matter may be indicative of their indiscretion rather than ideological isolation.



Besides which, when talking about fiscal deficit and Irish politics, what other option was there for the electorate? FF-PDs were about as careful as you wee going to get in terms of an Irish coalition... not that that's saying much :pac:

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

Sorry, but I can't but be reminded of the 'ludicrous' claims that there would be mass immigration from eastern Europe upon the accession of the former Iron Curtain states.

Don't make me drag up the oodles of out-of-date references because I don't have the time/energy to get into long debate on the issue.

Okay the accession of the states had nothing to do with our control of immigration - OSTENSIBLY - but the indirect consequences of it are so blindingly obvious that... well... it isn't even worth mentioning.

So along with the continued promises of sovereignty not being eroded, of European laws not being passed that would affect Irish citizens, etc. which have long since gone by the board; one can only assume that when there is a general 'itch' to create tax harmonisation that it will happen (even if no official line has been taken on it, and various internal hurdles have to be overcome).

The fact that a couple of EPP members have spoken out of turn on the matter may be indicative of their indiscretion rather than ideological isolation.

That sounds awfully like the previous argument, where the existence of a guarantee that something wasn't the case was being trotted out as showing that it was - now we have the fact that it's only a couple of MEPs being dressed up as "they're just the ones who can't keep quiet".

CCCTB has been on the agenda for years without happening. That doesn't mean it won't, but it certainly indicates there's little appetite for the reality of it, even though there's a nod for the idea in principle.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Besides which, when talking about fiscal deficit and Irish politics, what other option was there for the electorate? FF-PDs were about as careful as you wee going to get in terms of an Irish coalition... not that that's saying much :pac:

The only reason that they were "about as careful as you were going to get in terms of an Irish coalition" is because Fianna Fáil have been most of the other coalitions. As far as what was possible in terms of fiscal rectitude goes, they were criminally irresponsible.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

rumour wrote: »

Agreed and if you had read my posts at the time instead of trying to brand me as libertas or an abortion campaigner you would understand that I was advocating sorting our problems before we agreed to any Treaty.

I haven't claimed you were a Libertas or abortion campaigner - I merely pointed out that those campaigns produced a lot of disinformation, such as the connection between Lisbon and CCCTB/corporate tax or the connection between the EU and abortion, both of which are equally incorrect.

rumour wrote: »

At that point in time the situation with our finances was abundently clear and we had something to negotiate with, our leaders choose the cowardly route and used Lisbon as the panacea for all our ills.

I don't think, realistically, our government could negotiate using consent to Lisbon as a card, if that's what you mean, because that consent is not in the hands of the government but the electorate, and the government had just demonstrated that it couldn't deliver a yes vote.

Besides, negotiate for what? ECB bailout? We're being kept afloat at least partly by ECB purchases of our bonds. A veto on CCCTB or corporation tax rate changes? We have that. We couldn't indefinitely hold out a Yes vote on Lisbon.

rumour wrote: »

I have reservations about empire europe however I have never come out against an integrated europe because ultimately i believe in it. That does not mean I absund my responsibilities and omit to get my house in order. Indeed we will need it more and more as we loose the hedgmoney of the USA and china start to play their part.


The Corporation tax was always on the agenda and will continue to be. We will shortly trade this beggars as we are to keep our current account spending going. Just as we all did when voting for Lisbon. Remember 'yes for jobs' :pac:. Seems to me it is the yes campaign the told most of the lies, but i guess thats because they shouted loudest. Like beggars for food at a UN refugee camp.

Really not - the No campaign told a really vast number of lies. One for everyone in the audience, really - whatever your possible gripe was, there was a lie that played to it. Neutrality, abortion, tax, justice, immigration, conscription, fish, minimum wage, public services...the list is immensely long.

By contrast, the official Yes campaigns told a number of truths - we've done well out of Europe, we need Europe to see us through the current crisis, both of which are the case - and used one big political slogan, which was "Yes for Jobs", which is at least arguable, if non-concrete in the usual political promise way.

You really can't claim the No side told fewer lies, or shouted less loudly - all you're doing is adding to the number.

rumour wrote: »

I know you always divide and compartmentalise the functions of the EU and continually challenge anyone to prove any connection. Which is of course difficult unless you are one of the 40,000 lobbyists operating between the EIB, ECB, financial institutions,governments and brussels. Surely some of this was explained to the boards team on their visit to Brussels??

Couldn't say, since I didn't go! However, when someone makes a claim that a statement by two MEPs is "EU pressure" I don't feel any compunction about saying that that's a ridiculous claim. Mind you, it's par for the course, going back to the previous point - throughout Lisbon, every idiotic utterance by Sarkozy was treated as if it was EU policy and set in steel, even though the guy had long since stopped having any EU function.

rumour wrote: »

You are right though the bail out is in full swing, we issue bonds paying 6% interest, institutions but them borrowing at 1-2% from the ECB, who pays the bill Irish tax payers for what are essentially French and German institutions. If you think Irish banks are in a bad way German banking exposure to peripheral EU countries is enormous. But they had a choice and indeed their ambassador knew well what was going on here...german banks are as much responsible for our predicament as our own banks, if not more so as they were the people who had the fuel and they knew well what they were doing.

Indeed, there's something of a moral case that those countries whose banks came and profited out of our idiotic and apparently insatiable desire for mortgages and property development loans can hardly get snotty about us borrowing their money to bail out our banks.

However, the idea that Irish tax payer is paying for "what are essentially French and German institutions" is a bit of a new one on me - is Anglo German? Or AIB?

I'm not sure you're not confusing things there, since the Germans are bailing out their Hypo Real Estate on much the same scale as our Anglo, as a result of the bad loans picked up by its Irish subsidiary:

Germany's troubled Hypo Real Estate bank, which last year narrowly avoided bankruptcy before being nationalised, wants another 40 billion euros in state aid, the Stern's website reported Friday.

So far, HRE has received 7.85 billion euros in cash from the German financial market stabilisation fund SoFFin along with 103.5 billion euros in loan guarantees.

Hypo Real Estate collapsed in late 2008 amid a global crisis owing to investment mistakes made by its German-Irish subsidiary Depfa.

Thing is, you see, that the Irish state was responsible for the regulation of Depfa:

At the end of the 1990s, the bank went through a legal restructuring, which led the bank to move its headquarters to Dublin, Ireland. Depfa Bank was purchased by German mortgage giant Hypo Real Estate in October 2007. The bank ran into liquidity problems in 2008 as a result of the economic and financial turmoil in the United States. Depfa underwrote a group of municipal bonds in the U.S. that subsequently had their ratings downgraded. Under the terms of the underwriting, Depfa was required to buy back the securities after downgrade in the ratings. Because of the difficulties in obtaining short-term funding in the markets at that time, Depfa's liquidity became a major concern.[2][3]Through a series of bailouts, the German government ended up with 100% ownership of Depfa's parent company, Hypo Real Estate.

So the Germans are perhaps a little bit annoyed because something costing them as much as Anglo is actually an Irish company, which paid Irish corporation taxes.

rumour wrote: »

In our current predicament we loose, we are being forced to asssume responsibility for the errors of bankers, true we blame the government and our own banks but the lenders play a game where they take risk also, that risk was not guaranteed by tax payers. At the time of Lisbon all of this was known and with a tiny bit of analysis it was obvious, where was all the money coming from when we effectively had a small and reducing manufacturing sector from at least 2001???
I believe we had an opportunity to negotiate at that stage with some dignity. But in any negotiation you are obliged to play some brinkmanship. The problem with this is you must be prepared to pay the price. The price was as it is now being broke. But we were destined to that anyway. Saying no to Lisbon would not derail the european project it was not a do or die situation but it was a unique opportunity for us to apportion blame correctly, instead we have been lumbered with all the woes, why because we were bullied by German banks in the main who frightened the crap our of our weak lilly livered uneducated politicians. They were of course in panic mode behaving like rabbits headlights. Compounding that we had all the nonsense of 'heart of europe' , 'vote yes for jobs' it was so embarassing, then to add insult to injury anyone who tried to voice an opinion was labelled as some sort of right wing weirdo. Infact I think I even wrote at the time i'm not against Lisbon just the timing, but that got lost also and wasn't neatly fitted into the for or against stance.
Personally I have no problem telling Germans French or whoever to take a ride and get lost. Moreover I am paid to do things like that, but what I saw from our government and the irish people was capitulation.

See the earlier points - we couldn't hold up Lisbon indefinitely, the government couldn't negotiate with something it hadn't the power to actually deliver (having already negotiated Lisbon itself on the basis of having to seek approval at referendum, and failing to get that approval), and there was no clarity whatsoever on what we would have been negotiating for - some people wanted x, other people wanted y, where frequently x was already the case and y was impossible or nothing to do with the EU.

If there had been a clear single set of demands presented by the No side, or clear from the No voters - and there was plenty of analysis done - then I'm sure we could have negotiated it in the 18 months between Lisbon 1 and 2. There was no such clear demand, though, and the few things that did emerge fairly strongly were meaningless. People wanted the EU not to interfere with our corporation tax rate - but they can't anyway. The EU can't do anything more than suggest we change our rate - and the EU have never suggested we do so. The EU can't enforce CCCTB either. Nor can it do anything about abortion. Nor can it do anything about allowing the US to use Shannon. It doesn't have an army to conscript anyone into, and it can't force Ireland to follow a foreign policy it objects to.

This is the problem, and it seems to me to be a problem that's repeated in this thread by your posts - what you seem to want is that the EU somehow prevents anyone in Europe from calling for us to change our corporation tax, and that if it doesn't prevent anyone doing so, then the EU is somehow exerting pressure on us - but that's completely false. The EU has no power to muzzle individual MEPs - and shouldn't - it has no power to prevent a German or French politician speaking their mind on our tax haven status - and it shouldn't.

The EU isn't in charge of Europe - it's a cooperative framework for joint action, not the federal government of a united Europe. It gets portrayed in eurosceptic circles as something it isn't, and then eurosceptics call on it to do things it can't do, because they've followed their own fantasy version of it to the logical conclusion that it can do anything it likes - thus the very silly idea that two German MEPs calling for something means it's going to happen. I do find it extremely hard to respect that kind of "logic", because it has no relevance or value in the real world, and it reduces a good deal of the debate about Europe to an irrelevant muppet show.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BetterLisbon

Scofflaw wrote: »

Neither CCCTB nor corporation tax rates were affected by Lisbon, though. That's why these arguments seem bizarre to me - they're harping on about something completely irrelevant.

What's relevant to our bargaining position in Europe is the fact that we're desperately in need of friends and funds, not how many vetoes on other issues we have (unless one prefers an EU consistently paralysed by national interests). On CCCTB, though, we already have friends (or at least allies) - although I will say that still nobody has been able to explain to me, despite my repeated requests, why CCCTB would have quite such a damaging effect on the Irish economy as is apparently believed by people like IBEC. I can see why Irish accountants and tax specialists might be opposed to it even as currently proposed as a voluntary system, but I can't see why it would result in wholesale flight of FDI companies as is usually claimed.

regards,
Scofflaw

Our legal right to set our own tax rates is irrelevant and a classic strawman. Annex B of the "legal guarantees" merely restated this strawman in sly language. The issue is whether our tax base can be narrowed via a CCCTB or whether we can be bullied into changing the corporation tax rate.
The latter is more likely due to the loss of 60 vetoes and the introduction of a universal passarelle clause (except on defence) whos application is covered by the Lisbon constitutional amendment.
The former does not appear to be affected however i have no faith in the ECJ.

Scofflaw

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Our legal right to set our own tax rates is irrelevant and a classic strawman. Annex B of the "legal guarantees" merely restated this strawman in sly language. The issue is whether our tax base can be narrowed via a CCCTB or whether we can be bullied into changing the corporation tax rate.
The latter is more likely due to the loss of 60 vetoes and the introduction of a universal passarelle clause (except on defence) whos application is covered by the Lisbon constitutional amendment.
The former does not appear to be affected however i have no faith in the ECJ.

If you believe the legality is irrelevant, as apparently you do, then the legality is irrelevant, and all that is really relevant is our position as a nouveau poor beggar. In turn, despite that position, and despite the fact that we're being bailed out already, there is still no call from the EU for us to drop our opposition to CCCTB or to change our corporation tax rate. That's a matter of fact, which can only be waved aside by pretending that two Bavarian MEPs personally dictate the course of the EU.

I regularly have to make this point - we're not the only small country in the EU, we're not the only (or even lowest) corporation tax country in the EU, and we're not the only country that opposes CCCTB. If we are to be bullied into abandoning a sovereign right, as is apparently the belief of eurosceptics, then more than half the membership of the EU will take note of that, because it will represent a fundamental change in the way the EU operates.*

regards,
Scofflaw

* again, though, that's the actual EU, as opposed to the eurosceptical fantasy EU, which already operates by bullying.

BetterLisbon

Scofflaw wrote: »

Really not - the No campaign told a really vast number of lies. One for everyone in the audience, really - whatever your possible gripe was, there was a lie that played to it. Neutrality, abortion, tax, justice, immigration, conscription, fish, minimum wage, public services...the list is immensely long.

By contrast, the official Yes campaigns told a number of truths - we've done well out of Europe, we need Europe to see us through the current crisis, both of which are the case - and used one big political slogan, which was "Yes for Jobs", which is at least arguable, if non-concrete in the usual political promise way.

You really can't claim the No side told fewer lies, or shouted less loudly - all you're doing is adding to the number.

Have to react to this one. Lisbon does affect neutrality due to our obligation to assist a state at war in some shape or form.
Given that we dont have a protocol on our abortion laws like the maltese have (ours merely prevents the ECJ overruling our supreme court on a judgment relying on article 40.3.3. It doesnt stop the ECJ declaring the 1861 act incompatible with the treaties) wacky conspiracy theories about an EU Roe vs Wade based on TCOFR are not impossble.
Our VAT rates can be challenged under article 113 and our ability to fight off pressure on corporation tax has been weakened.
Our veto on justice affairs is gone that is a fact. Our opt-out can be abolished by the oireachtas.
Immigration was raised by whom exactly?
Conscription was raised by whom exactly?
Fish was raised to counter the "we owe europe" stuff.
The wacky stuff on the minimum wage claimed Lisbon would put downward pressure on wages which is not impossible.
Lisbon foresees "liberalisation" of public services, ironically something i support.
So the "lies" of which you speak are really the fantasies of the Yes camp and the associated strawmen.

The yes camp told porkies about any future treaty needing a referendum, Lisbon being implemented without us, Chaos and gridlock without Lisbon etc. Lisbon addressing the democatic deficit, Article 28 of TCOFR creating collective bargaining rights, Ireland losing a commissioner under Nice.
Plus the absurdities about jobs, recovery, cost of borrowing, we owe europe, women safer in europe etc.

In the end the financial resources of the yes camp was the difference especially when the multinationals rowed in.

Scofflaw

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Have to react to this one. Lisbon does affect neutrality due to our obligation to assist a state at war in some shape or form.

We have no such obligation - our obligation is to assist a fellow member state which is the victim of a natural disaster or major terrorist attack.

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Given that we dont have a protocol on our abortion laws like the maltese have (ours merely prevents the ECJ overruling our supreme court on a judgment relying on article 40.3.3. It doesnt stop the ECJ declaring the 1861 act incompatible with the treaties) wacky conspiracy theories about an EU Roe vs Wade based on TCOFR are not impossble.

Utter rubbish. The EU has no competence in the matter, and the Protocol (and then the guarantee) are only there because of idiots who believe it does.

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Our VAT rates can be challenged under article 113 and our ability to fight off pressure on corporation tax has been weakened.

Again, utter rubbish. Our VAT rates can't be "challenged" - they're a matter for unanimity, as per the article:

Article 113 (ex Article 93 TEC) 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.

Our direct taxes are entirely unaffected by that article, which deals only with indirect taxes.

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Our veto on justice affairs is gone that is a fact. Our opt-out can be abolished by the oireachtas.

Who we elect.

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Immigration was raised by whom exactly?

Immigration as an issue was all over the web - see the following for example:

VOTE NO UNLESS YOU WANT UNLIMITED IMMIGRATION FROM A COUNTRY WITH 80 MILLION UNSKILLED ... queue Lisbon Treaty Campaign Launch Part 1 - Speech b...by ..

and Coir, of course:

If the Lisbon Treaty is passed Ireland will lose her control over immigration - even when immigrants are coming from countries outside the EU. ...

A quick search on Google will provide a convenient refresher, if you've forgotten.

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Conscription was raised by whom exactly?

Again, Google is your friend here.

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Fish was raised to counter the "we owe europe" stuff.

And grossly inaccurate the claims were too, as well as completely unsupported by any evidence.

BetterLisbon wrote: »

The wacky stuff on the minimum wage claimed Lisbon would put downward pressure on wages which is not impossible.

It was bull, and made Coir a laughing stock in places they weren't already.

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Lisbon foresees "liberalisation" of public services, ironically something i support.

Lisbon contains rules on public services which are liberalised, not a commitment to liberalising them.

BetterLisbon wrote: »

So the "lies" of which you speak are really the fantasies of the Yes camp and the associated strawmen.

No, they're utter rubbish, and the best thing that can be said for you repeating them is that you appear to believe them.

BetterLisbon wrote: »

The yes camp told porkies about any future treaty needing a referendum,

Which it does, under exactly the same conditions as now.

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Lisbon being implemented without us,

I don't think anyone officially ever claimed that - the claim was that we would be left behind, and that was denied repeatedly and quite vigorously by the EU as well as the government.

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Chaos and gridlock without Lisbon etc.

Not "chaos and gridlock" but stagnation, and if you'd prefer to claim it wouldn't, you'd need to show that the Treaty was unnecessary.

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Lisbon addressing the democatic deficit,

It certainly helps a good bit - increasing the powers of the EP, as well as increasing the involvement of the various national legislative assemblies.

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Article 28 of TCOFR creating collective bargaining rights, Ireland losing a commissioner under Nice.

We would have lost a Commissioner under the Nice setup - there was no room for another option as there was under Lisbon. Also, you've reminded me that Libertas claimed we'd lose our Commissioner under Lisbon but not under Nice, which is the exact reverse of the truth.

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Plus the absurdities about jobs, recovery, cost of borrowing, we owe europe, women safer in europe etc.

We do "owe" Europe a lot of money, if one wants to look at it that way. We also owe it most of our progressive legislation.

BetterLisbon wrote: »

In the end the financial resources of the yes camp was the difference especially when the multinationals rowed in.

Partly, but partly the lies spun in Lisbon 1 by the No side came back to bite them. Still, it certainly appears that they were sufficient to fool some of the people all of the time.

regards,
Scofflaw

View

horacewimpole wrote: »

Lisbon did pass, and now matter what the "people" of Europe thought, Lisbon was never in any danger of not passing. Or so my cynical side says.

Ireland? Oh dear. what a shambles, and all the current mess confirms is the impression to the rest of the world that the country is incapable of self govenrnment, with the Taosieach on prime time tv in the USA being called a drunk by Jay Leno and others.

Of course Ireland will have to sell its soul to the EU and, possibly, the IMF, in order to try to get things straightened out, and no one really believed the promises given about our corporate tax rates - an excuse was always going to be found to bring those "into line" with the rest of the EU.

Well, that is interesting but doesn't really answer the questions. Namely:

View wrote: »

As a matter of curiousity, if Lisbon had NOT passed and the EU was still operating under the post-Nice EU Treaties, how exactly would things be different?

Was there, for instance, a clause in the post-Nice EU Treaties that Lisbon deleted, which prevented MEPs from making calls on us to raise our corporate tax rate? If so, please point out the exact clause(s) concerned...

It is only really credible to claim Lisbon made a difference, if Lisbon actually changed something in this case.

As it is, I understand Joe Higgins is due to call for the establishment of a Socialist's Utopia throughout the EU any day now in the European Parliament. I suppose everyone here believes that we'll be unable to resist this "EU pressure" and Grafton Street will be renamed Karl-Marx Alley before long.

Denerick

Reading all of this I've just come to realise that our version of the euroskeptic isn't a skeptic at all. Indeed they want Ireland to be over represented in the EU according to our size and relevance. When you really abstract it its quite a selfish attitude and highly unrealistic.

Scofflaw

Denerick wrote: »

Reading all of this I've just come to realise that our version of the euroskeptic isn't a skeptic at all. Indeed they want Ireland to be over represented in the EU according to our size and relevance. When you really abstract it its quite a selfish attitude and highly unrealistic.

I've no objection to Ireland trying to punch above its weight, but certainly I've no time for those whose views appear to be based on the idea that either things go entirely our way or else it's an outrageous imposition of foreign dictatorship.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Denerick

Given that we have always been a net reciepient of EU funds, and that companies like Intel and Google wouldn't invest here were we not a member of the EU, I think the typical Irish 'skeptic' is living in cloud cuckoo land. We've been indulged far beyond what we deserve, frankly.

pat_mas

I think the corporate tax thing has nothing to do with Lisbon at all. Fact is that France and Germany have never been happy with it and wether we like it or not they've got quite a dominant position in the EU when they talk as one.
By the EU constitution, the ECB is not allowed to lend money to a country, it's up to the country to raise money through the bond market .. which seems to become harder as time goes by for Ireland.

Then there's the EMF and in that very context Germany or France can indirectly veto a lending to whatever country for whatever reasons. The EMF is no part of EU as originally designed ; it just became a mandatory tool/fund to (virtually !?!) rescue the Euro quite rencently.

To sum up, in the context of a EMF funding, Germany and France have very strong positions and in that context they could force Ireland to revisit its corporates taxes and maybe even more. A YES or NO to the Lisbon treaty does not change anything to this point.

The way out for Ireland is not to call for any EMF help but can it ?

BetterLisbon

"We have no such obligation - our obligation is to assist a fellow member state which is the victim of a natural disaster or major terrorist attack."

We are obliged to provide assistance to a state under armed agression or a terrorist attack in concert with those who are providing military aid even if we are not providing military aid ourselves. Funny definition of neutrality you believe in although not surprising upon reading Sean LeMasses biography.

"Utter rubbish. The EU has no competence in the matter, and the Protocol (and then the guarantee) are only there because of idiots who believe it does."

You might want to read up on the Grogan case which ruled abortion to be a service under the EEC treaty. The ECJ declined the request of the advocate general to declare our laws incompatible with the treaties, a new panel of judges might grant such a request especially with TCOFR in play. Although i do say this is a remote possibility. Protocol 35 merely states that the supreme courts interpretation of article 40.3.3 cant be appealed to the ECJ, it doesnt protect our laws unlike the protocol in the Maltese accession treaty.

"Again, utter rubbish. Our VAT rates can't be "challenged" - they're a matter for unanimity, as per the article:"

They can be challenged in the ECJ if they distort competition.

"Our direct taxes are entirely unaffected by that article, which deals only with indirect taxes."

I never said they were, sorry but you are dealing with someone who has read the treaties and ECJ judgments not a campaign group parrot.

"Who we elect."

Once the opt-out is conceded its gone without treaty revision so punishing the government that concedes it at the ballot box is futile.

"Immigration as an issue was all over the web - see the following for example:"

Is a youtube the best you can do???

"and Coir, of course:"

Fringe group held up as being representative of treaty opponents as a whole, quelle surprise.

"A quick search on Google will provide a convenient refresher, if you've forgotten."

Is a google search the best you can do???

"Again, Google is your friend here."

Is a google search the best you can do???

"And grossly inaccurate the claims were too, as well as completely unsupported by any evidence."

I condemned anyone who did this sort of thing but note the Yes side could not explain why those figures were wrong other than shout lies.

"It was bull, and made Coir a laughing stock in places they weren't already."

It was a tragedy as it distracted from the real issue of the anti-worker judgments of the ECJ which now have a stronger legal base.

"Lisbon contains rules on public services which are liberalised, not a commitment to liberalising them."

???? Which treaty are you reading.

"No, they're utter rubbish, and the best thing that can be said for you repeating them is that you appear to believe them."

They are only utter rubbish because you say so, part of the feigned shock routine you get from europhiles.

"Which it does, under exactly the same conditions as now."

Misleading statement. Of course if a treaty changes the essential scope or objectives of the EU it needs a referendum. However the only angle not covered by Lisbon is QMV on defence which even NATO cant agree on. Thus there will not be anymore referenda unless a government wants to call one.

"I don't think anyone officially ever claimed that - the claim was that we would be left behind, and that was denied repeatedly and quite vigorously by the EU as well as the government."

Where were you during the campaigns?

"Not "chaos and gridlock" but stagnation, and if you'd prefer to claim it wouldn't, you'd need to show that the Treaty was unnecessary."

The EU was clearly ticking over under Nice, there was no need for a new treaty at least for a decade.

"It certainly helps a good bit - increasing the powers of the EP, as well as increasing the involvement of the various national legislative assemblies."

The EP has no power, it has scope. The EP cannot initiate legislation and it only votes after the council of ministers has compromised i.e it votes on a fait accompli like our Seanad. National assemblies gain the right to file a complaint boo-hoo. The Commission remains top dog and national assemblies are weakened by the concession of vetoes so the DD is alive and kicking.

"We would have lost a Commissioner under the Nice setup - there was no room for another option as there was under Lisbon. Also, you've reminded me that Libertas claimed we'd lose our Commissioner under Lisbon but not under Nice, which is the exact reverse of the truth."

Not true. Someone would have lost a commissioner under Nice, that someone would have to volunteer for it. Plus we only have a political promise to call off the 2/3rds commission in 2014.

"We do "owe" Europe a lot of money, if one wants to look at it that way. We also owe it most of our progressive legislation."

Your analysis is based on the minimisation of the consequences of the CFP, omits the cost of overregulation, omits the fact that Farmers had to obey CAP rules and neglects to include the bank bailout sthat are due to our eurozone membership.

"Partly, but partly the lies spun in Lisbon 1 by the No side came back to bite them. Still, it certainly appears that they were sufficient to fool some of the people all of the time."

Partly, we simply didnt have the financial resources to mount a campaign. Again these lies are just fantasies and strawmen.

Scofflaw

I'm really not going to re-fight the whole Lisbon campaign with you, BetterLisbon. It was dull, repetitive, and exasperating at the time, becaue of exactly the kind of loose and self-serving interpretations and assumptions contained in your post, and absolutely everything you've said I gone over a hundred times on these boards. If you'd like to see my responses to the points you're making, you can look back over the many threads from the period, which will also answer your question as to where I was during the campaigns.

wearily,
Scofflaw