Merkozy demanding corporate tax harmonization

The Clown Man

I think this deserves a separate thread since the implications of this demand are so high.

So what can the EU possibly offer us in exchange for our low corporate tax rate?

In my opinion there are 10s of thousands of jobs immediately put at risk if we decide to abandon our low corporate tax rate, a large portion of which would be very well paid jobs. The impact on our economy would be catastrophic.

If we take away what, like it or not, is the key reason foreign corporates set up in Ireland, yielding corporate taxes on all their revenue from Europe and quite literally pulling us out of recession and into sustainability once again, are we not irrevocably screwed? What then have we got to offer that we can compete in the short term to avoid a mass exodus?

Sure, we took the rescue package on rates that were not market aligned (but which definitely were keen against the average rates of the last decade), but can we seriously be expected to bury ourselves in return? I don't think any rescue package would have been agreed if this was one of the initial terms.

How can this demand be construed in any other way than as an opportunistic attempt to kick us while we are down? How can we expect to hit our rescue package targets when our key competitive distinction is taken away? Logistically, we cannot compete at the same level as the rest of mainland Europe so the only foreseeable outcome is a severely rough readjustment served with plenty of finger wagging (and maybe even sanctions to boot) by those who would have placed us in our new economic reality in the first place!

So, what leverage does Merkozy really have here?

- If we point blank refuse and the markets do react as predicted and the Euro falls, can we be pinned with the blame and be seen as the economic outcast?
- Can we then opt to burn the Franco/German bondholders, leave them with what was arguably their own mess in the first place (I think it was equally shared myself), and start from scratch?
- If we opt to exit the Euro cordially and gracefully, can we devalue and realistically look to stay friends and trading associates? Would Britain take us back readily after we got into bed with someone else?
- If we opt to accept the harmonization and effectively burn our foreign investors and economic saviours, is there any future hope for our economy and standards of living?

I certainly wouldn't like to be in Enda Kenny's shoes tomorrow but I sure hope he has something pretty damn eloquent prepared!

So what do you all reckon is the likely outcome? Where do you see us in one week's time and then year's time?

Sterling anyone? :eek:

rodento

If Enda can promise a handicapped girl he won't cut her benefits, I hold out no hope here:(

AllGunsBlazing

Gilmore has stated today that any changes arising from tomorrow's summit may have to go to a referendum here. To me this is the first sign that the government is going to actually try and play a little hardball with Merkle and Sarkozy.


If anything it might turn out that it will be the likes of the Dutch and the Finns who will take the most convincing - and potentially pose the biggest stumbling block to the Merkozy plan. It's one thing to put the likes of us and the other PIGS on the naughty step, but the grade A students aren't going to like having their budgets being ok'd by Brussels imo. Enda may only have to sit there and be quiet while others throw a spanner in the works for him.

The Clown Man

I suppose it seems that the tax harmonization is a direct punt at us and us alone so it seems that they must have something specific in mind for us and us alone. I can't see anything obvious that they might want in return for backing down so maybe it is a genuine threat. Either way, I see Enda having to respond one way or another - I don't know if silence is an option ...

It's true that there are wider concerns in terms of general agreement, and it can only be assumed that there is some political tactic in mind* to concede and agree. I think we'll be the one's lumped with any concession around corporate tax though, and I don't see any room to concede.


*At least I damn well hope there is some tactic in mind and it's not some lunatic plot to walk into these discussions blissfully and negligently unaware that posturing will achieve nothing at all.

You know what they say: If you p*ss into the wind, expect to get your own back!

strandroad

I kinda don't get it. Wasn't it reported that France has higher nominal tax but with discounts it's actually lower than in Ireland? What's stopping us from "harmonizing" it the same way so that companies do not lose out?

creeper1

I think the term "Merkozy" is misleading here. Merkel doesn't have a big problem with Ireland's corporation tax.

It is Sarkozy that has a major problem with it.

He has been most vocal about it and is known to be very unhappy about the situation.

femur61

mhge wrote: »

I kinda don't get it. Wasn't it reported that France has higher nominal tax but with discounts it's actually lower than in Ireland? What's stopping us from "harmonizing" it the same way so that companies do not lose out?

Yes, it is widely reported that some companies can actually get 0% CT and most go as low as 8% in France. Latavia, Lithuania, Switzerland are 15% and I think the Netherlands are about 19%. If corporation tax was such a driving force to encourage companies to come here, why have so many left, Dell, Talk Talk, Intel.

Sponge Bob

creeper1 wrote: »

He has been most vocal about it and is known to be very unhappy about the situation.

He is a dickhead, it is thanks to his posturing and weekly microsummiting with Merkel that matters have disimproved to the way things are now.

Kohl and Mitterand or Schroder and Chirac on their watch could make clear decisions and stick to them while nobody trusts Sarkozy to do anything of the sort.

tara73

creeper1 wrote: »

I think the term "Merkozy" is misleading here. Merkel doesn't have a big problem with Ireland's corporation tax.

It is Sarkozy that has a major problem with it.

He has been most vocal about it and is known to be very unhappy about the situation.

living in germany at the moment and can back this up. there's absolutely nothing to hear in any media or 'politician talk' that they are concerned about the ct in ireland. [...think there are far bigger issues to tackle at the moment...:)]

actually today there was a quite positive, yes, very short but positive! report about ireland in the news that the hard times are not over but that the country with their steady export and consequent austerity enforcements might be on the right way and out of it in 2013...

I'm not following the french news. op, do you have a link to back up your fear? honestly interested!

ednwireland

Sponge Bob wrote: »

He is a dickhead, it is thanks to his posturing and weekly microsummiting with Merkel that matters have disimproved to the way things are now.

Kohl and Mitterand or Schroder and Chirac on their watch could make clear decisions and stick to them while nobody trusts Sarkozy to do anything of the sort.

sarkozy is playing to his home audience the next election is april 2012 last thing eu needs is sarkozy showboating

McTigs

creeper1 wrote: »

I think the term "Merkozy" is misleading here. Merkel doesn't have a big problem with Ireland's corporation tax.

It is Sarkozy that has a major problem with it.

He has been most vocal about it and is known to be very unhappy about the situation.

It's all Bono's fault for shagging his wife, if he kept it in his pants sarkozy wouldn't even know where ireland was

nesf

mhge wrote: »

I kinda don't get it. Wasn't it reported that France has higher nominal tax but with discounts it's actually lower than in Ireland? What's stopping us from "harmonizing" it the same way so that companies do not lose out?

Nothing is stopping us. This is pure parish politics by Sarkozy. We have a low headline rate but our real rate isn't that low but it looks to the uninformed like we're free riders. Ditto with us clinging to our present scheme, we could do what France does and have a high headline rate with loads of schemes for reducing it but people here would see it as giving into Europe so it won't happen and the Eurosceptics would go mad and twist it into a weapon to use at every referendum going forwards again preying on people's lack of knowledge and understanding of the issue like they did with the European Army plan and similar.

tara73

Sponge Bob wrote: »

He is a dickhead, it is thanks to his posturing and weekly microsummiting with Merkel that matters have disimproved to the way things are now.

Kohl and Mitterand or Schroder and Chirac on their watch could make clear decisions and stick to them while nobody trusts Sarkozy to do anything of the sort.

don't think there's any need to praise kohl, mitterand, schroeder and the likes.
kohl and mitterand where the inventors and implementors of the euro so obviously now their 'baby' wasn't thought well through, eh?

schroeder disregarded the maastricht treaty 'under 3% budget deficit' completely.

i'm not a big fan of sarkozy.
but there wasn't anything comparable to this crisis before, does anybody here criticising the politicians involved have the ultimate solution to this crisis??? additionally a solution which is IN FAVOR OF EVERY OF THE 27 NATIONS?
who should take the lead, how should decisions be made?
I'm wondering as well why is it only merkel and sarkozy who are on the 'red carpet'? why is not every leader from all the 27 eu nations involved???

Crazy Horse 6

If Enda had any balls he'd make an annoucement tomorrow morning we are lowering our Corp tax rate to 10%. Time for us to start playing hardball and stop taking it from behind from the bully boys in Europe.

R P McMurphy

femur61 wrote: »

Yes, it is widely reported that some companies can actually get 0% CT and most go as low as 8% in France. Latavia, Lithuania, Switzerland are 15% and I think the Netherlands are about 19%. If corporation tax was such a driving force to encourage companies to come here, why have so many left, Dell, Talk Talk, Intel.

A lot is to do with IDA grants or lack thereof for reinvestment by these companies in comparison to what they can obtain abroad, if CT goes up there will be an even less attractive reason to stay. The movement of some operations of Intel is a prime example

eth0

femur61 wrote: »

Yes, it is widely reported that some companies can actually get 0% CT and most go as low as 8% in France. Latavia, Lithuania, Switzerland are 15% and I think the Netherlands are about 19%. If corporation tax was such a driving force to encourage companies to come here, why have so many left, Dell, Talk Talk, Intel.

Outsourcing to China.

kennyb3

According to Elmar Brok on Prime Time, tax harminsation isn't on the table this weekend. Unfortunately the 2 irish idiots were too busy point scoring to listen to him

meglome

kennyb3 wrote: »

According to Elmar Brok on Prime Time, tax harminsation isn't on the table this weekend. Unfortunately the 2 irish idiots were too busy point scoring to listen to him

To be fair it was mainly Shane Ross who was disagreeing with him. Even when Elmar Brok told him point blank it wasn't going to be discussed. I think Ross had revved himself up and wasn't ready for being told it just wasn't happening.

kennyb3

meglome wrote: »

To be fair it was mainly Shane Ross who was disagreeing with him. Even when Elmar Brok told him point blank it wasn't going to be discussed. I think Ross had revved himself up and wasn't ready for being told it just wasn't happening.

They gave him very short shrift really - i would of been interested in hearing whether he thought referendum's might be required, i couldnt care less what the the other two thought. We know their views. You have a guy on with an inside line, as evidenced by him tax comment yet he was ignored for large parts.

meglome

kennyb3 wrote: »

They gave him very short shrift really - i would of been interested in hearing whether he thought referendum's might be required, i couldnt care less what the the other two thought. We know their views. You have a guy on with an inside line, as evidenced by him tax comment yet he was ignored for large parts.

Well the good news is someone close to Merkel is saying they have no interest in changing our corporate tax rate. Not sure if it will stop some of the xenophobic ranting about the Germans but you never know.

thebman

meglome wrote: »

Well the good news is someone close to Merkel is saying they have no interest in changing our corporate tax rate. Not sure if it will stop some of the xenophobic ranting about the Germans but you never know.

It is Sarkozy that seems to want it anyway. Says the French people demand it basically but in reality I think he has spoke about it at home and is hoping to boost himself in the polls in France if he gets it.

nesf

thebman wrote: »

It is Sarkozy that seems to want it anyway. Says the French people demand it basically but in reality I think he has spoke about it at home and is hoping to boost himself in the polls in France if he gets it.

Exactly.

bcmf

Well it looks like UK, Sweden,Hungary and and 2 others have stood their ground and said 'No' to a referendum on a new Euro treaty.
With such division on Euro matters it really does look like the Euro has 1 foot over the cliff!
I was wondering why Merkozy were pushing for a treaty change before March.French go to the polls in April so that's that answered!

RichardAnd

creeper1 wrote: »

I think the term "Merkozy" is misleading here. Merkel doesn't have a big problem with Ireland's corporation tax.

It is Sarkozy that has a major problem with it.

He has been most vocal about it and is known to be very unhappy about the situation.

That's true, the little man with the big voice. The thing is, it's very possible that he won't retain the presidency for much longer as there's to be an election next year. I wonder, will the next french president will be as vocal?

The Corinthian

bcmf wrote: »

Well it looks like UK, Sweden,Hungary and and 2 others have stood their ground and said 'No' to a referendum on a new Euro treaty.
With such division on Euro matters it really does look like the Euro has 1 foot over the cliff!

Actually, just the UK and Hungary. Sweden and the Czech Republic have not rejected anything, but have said they need to consult their respective parliaments. All of the Eurozone have signed up.

So as things stand we're looking at a two-speed Europe scenario, with principally the UK on the outside, which will probably be implemented via a series of bilateral treaties and will likely avoid the need for referenda.

I was wondering why Merkozy were pushing for a treaty change before March.French go to the polls in April so that's that answered!

Naturally. It's very unlikely that, if Sarkozy loses, a PS government would oppose this process, but naturally any change in government would result in an unwelcome delay to its ratification.

syklops

femur61 wrote: »

Yes, it is widely reported that some companies can actually get 0% CT and most go as low as 8% in France. Latavia, Lithuania, Switzerland are 15% and I think the Netherlands are about 19%. If corporation tax was such a driving force to encourage companies to come here, why have so many left, Dell, Talk Talk, Intel.

In the case of Dell it is worth pointing out that most of the workers in Dell were basically unskilled, yet in many cases commanded more than the minimum wage. It was only a matter of time before they moved to a cheaper economy. When it comes to manufacturing Ireland priced itself out of the market. Rents in Poland for a similar sized plant were about a third of what they were in Ireland, wages a quarter. CT is one thing, but the margins were too wide in this case.

Actually, just the UK and Hungary. Sweden and the Czech Republic have not rejected anything, but have said they need to consult their respective parliaments

Its worth pointing out that the Czech Republic has the strongest currency in Europe at the moment and one of the few countries experiencing growth. So they are not going to do anything to rock the boat nor are they going to make any knee-jerk decisions because Sarkozy is grumpy. They will take their time and watch events unfold. Their very laid back over here

n97 mini

femur61 wrote: »

why have so many left, Dell, Talk Talk, Intel.

Intel haven't left. They're a roaring success: at one point Intel was paying 11% of all tax being paid into the exchequer.

Increases in corporation tax could be offset by lowering other costs, like rent, rates and electricity prices. It's my belief that Corporation Tax is so low to compensate for the other costs being so high, which was very much Charlie McCreevy's way of dealing with things.

The Corinthian

syklops wrote: »

Its worth pointing out that the Czech Republic has the strongest currency in Europe

You've obviously never heard of the Swiss Franc.

So they are not going to do anything to rock the boat nor are they going to make any knee-jerk decisions because Sarkozy is grumpy. They will take their time and watch events unfold. Their very laid back over here

The Czechs are in a good position, granted, but neither can they afford to ignore the economic reality of being almost completely surrounded by the Eurozone (the only exception being Poland, that has declared Euro adoption to be a "strategic" aim for them) and the vast bulk of trade in Euro (Germany alone accounts for over 30%).

This is the problem that relatively buoyant economies, even outside the EU or Eurozone are facing; they cannot ignore the Euro crisis as it has immense implications on their own economies.

K-9

There are rules here that are very liberal, more so than the French ones that got big publicity, Google the big example here.

Finland now saying there needs to agreement from all the Euro countries.
Sky reporting Sweden, Hungary and the Czechs are now back in.

UK on its own.

meglome

bcmf wrote: »

Well it looks like UK, Sweden,Hungary and and 2 others have stood their ground and said 'No' to a referendum on a new Euro treaty.

It looks like the UK are on their own now. I personally wouldn't frame this as 'Standing their ground' especially with the UK. Cameron is in a hole... he has a fairly large number of Euro-sceptic party members, he has promised a referendum on any new treaty and the conservative party gets the largest percentage of it funding from the city of London. IMO he's kowtowing to vested interests and is going to leave the UK worse off.

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

Finland now saying there needs to agreement from all the Euro countries.
Sky reporting Sweden, Hungary and the Czechs are now back in.

According to the official statement, the following countries are at least nominally on-board: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Sweden.

What this means is open to interpretation; it could simply be a prelude to rejecting the agreement through to a rubber-stamping of it. However, as the Finnish government's declaration demonstrates, the proverbial fat lady has not yet sung and the next few days and weeks may produce further horse trading that may see France forced into a compromise that sees Britain return to the fold, a two-tier Europe with the UK (and perhaps one or two minor nations) on the outside form or the whole house of cards collapse.

K-9

Tbh, I get a sense that the 3 big players are happy enough with the way it is, Cameron please the Euro sceptic wing and the London markets, though as you say there's still a lot of horse trading needed.

R P McMurphy

n97 mini wrote: »

Intel haven't left. They're a roaring success: at one point Intel was paying 11% of all tax being paid into the exchequer.

Increases in corporation tax could be offset by lowering other costs, like rent, rates and electricity prices. It's my belief that Corporation Tax is so low to compensate for the other costs being so high, which was very much Charlie McCreevy's way of dealing with things.

Intel have not left but it is clear that their operations in the country are being degraded over the last number of years. Part of this is down to the poor attempts to diversify into memory to the detriment of their core processor business, mainly it is due to the attraction of other countries offering nice packages for plant development. The IDA is not competing in this field anymore. Look at the number of staff being given placements in the states.

The different Intel plants compete against eachother for business, the Irish plant culd spend millions developing a bid only for it to be scuppered by a plant in another country that has a more attractive package for development on offer. This is the reality and it is becoming increasingly obvious that Ireland can no longer compete

liammur

n97 mini wrote: »

at one point Intel was paying 11% of all tax being paid into the exchequer.

To laugh or cry, I don't know which.

T Corolla

Intel Ireland is producing products that are now being manufactured in China. There is a mass of people being asked to go to the states and other sites. Ireland cannot make the cut anymore in relation to manufacturing anymore and every one in the sector realises this. We need to look to other sectors now to create employment here.

The Corinthian

T Corolla wrote: »

Intel Ireland is producing products that are now being manufactured in China. There is a mass of people being asked to go to the states and other sites. Ireland cannot make the cut anymore in relation to manufacturing anymore and every one in the sector realises this. We need to look to other sectors now to create employment here.

TBH, we really should have done this a long time ago - and kind of did...

The benefits of low corporate taxes are a historical accident. Back in the 1970's we had to get rid of export relief, due to our entry in the EEC, and because of the complex nature of Irish taxation we found that simply having a low corporation tax fulfilled our treaty obligations with the least amount of hassle.

Then something odd happened; multinational companies started moving to Ireland, so that by the late 1980's we'd cottoned on to it and started selling this 'feature' of the Irish economy via the IDA.

It was a win-win; creating lots of jobs quickly, with a minimum of cost.

Problem is that it was never our industry - it was someone else's - and so, especially after the dotcom crash of 2000, it became apparent that we would actually have to invest in something indigenous, lest the golden egg laying geese flew away in the future.

Regrettably, we decided to invest in property and the rest is history.

the keen edge

The Corinthian wrote: »

TBH, we really should have done this a long time ago - and kind of did...

The benefits of low corporate taxes are a historical accident. Back in the 1970's we had to get rid of export relief, due to our entry in the EEC, and because of the complex nature of Irish taxation we found that simply having a low corporation tax fulfilled our treaty obligations with the least amount of hassle.

Then something odd happened; multinational companies started moving to Ireland, so that by the late 1980's we'd cottoned on to it and started selling this 'feature' of the Irish economy via the IDA.

It was a win-win; creating lots of jobs quickly, with a minimum of cost.

Problem is that it was never our industry - it was someone else's - and so, especially after the dotcom crash of 2000, it became apparent that we would actually have to invest in something indigenous, lest the golden egg laying geese flew away in the future.

Regrettably, we decided to invest in property and the rest is history.

So our (apparently) low Corporation Tax, the jewel in our fiscal crown that Enda et al are going to fight to maintain, is a historical accident.

You have to wonder why people (myself included) are so adverse to supposedly ceding more sovereignty\fiscal control to people outside of the state.
The country has basically been ran in to the ground as it is by ourselves.

liammur

the keen edge wrote: »

So our (apparently) low Corporation Tax, the jewel in our fiscal crown that Enda et al are going to fight to maintain, is a historical accident.

You have to wonder why people (myself included) are so adverse to supposedly ceding more sovereignty\fiscal control to people outside of the state.
The country has basically been ran in to the ground as it is by ourselves.

No. reducing corporation tax was a key strategy introduced by Ruairi Quinn in the rainbow government. But yes I agree, we can only blame ourselves.

the keen edge

What is the general consensus.

Do people here on this forum believe that in 20, 25, 30 years time the Irish state and its people will emerge form this period of mindbogglingly ineptitude, having actually learnt its lesson with regard to "How to run your Country and its Economy".

I don't mean to come across as slating ourselves, but surely aside from sorting out the impending doom, making sure Ireland NEVER EVER finds itself in this position again must be the essential lesson.

I'm not sure if I have confidence that this will occur.

The Corinthian

the keen edge wrote: »

So our (apparently) low Corporation Tax, the jewel in our fiscal crown that Enda et al are going to fight to maintain, is a historical accident.

It's origins are accidental, but once we had realized were were onto a good thing it became the cornerstone economic policy of successive governments, in particular from the early 1990's onwards, as liammur pointed out. However, where he is incorrect is saying that it was introduced by Ruairi Quinn in the rainbow government - it's effects were already being noticed a decade earlier. What Quinn did was formalize it into what it is today.

You have to wonder why people (myself included) are so adverse to supposedly ceding more sovereignty\fiscal control to people outside of the state.

I wouldn't run into the arms of the Germans and French, just yet. The EU is still a union of independent states and this means that collective interests are still a secondary priority to national ones (this is especially evident of the French).

Truth be told, we should have done something about this long ago, when we were in a stronger bargaining position. But as often happens, these things are not politically expedient (or a priority) when our bargaining position is strong because we don't need them. And when we do need them, it's too late because our bargaining position has become weak.

bcmf

I think Cameron is in a bit of 'fooked if I do and fooked if i dont'.
The UK cant really afford to be outside the Euro but they really dont wanna lose the Queens currency.
A bit simplisticly put but yis all know what I mean.
In the long term will this really solve the problem or will it solve one problem to create another.
What I mean is this:
Lets say we get some sort of tax/fiscal harmonisation will it just not lead to a further strenghting of the stronger economies (maybe that's what France/Germany want...Conspiracy Theory forum

---

> that way) and the weaker one's getting weaker and be left hanging like a useless appendage.

The Corinthian

the keen edge wrote: »

Do people here on this forum believe that in 20, 25, 30 years time the Irish state and its people will emerge form this period of mindbogglingly ineptitude, having actually learnt its lesson with regard to "How to run your Country and its Economy".

No. People have short memories. Or blame others fore their ineptitude (Fianna Fail, bankers, 800 years of oppression, etc). And future generations will have no memory of this at all.

It also doesn't help that the intellectual prowess of most Irish politicians is frightenly low.

hatrickpatrick

the keen edge wrote: »

You have to wonder why people (myself included) are so adverse to supposedly ceding more sovereignty\fiscal control to people outside of the state.
The country has basically been ran in to the ground as it is by ourselves.

For me it's about social freedom more than anything else. I don't want to be banned from doing something in this country because people we never got a chance to vote against decide it shouldn't be allowed.

For example: If the EU parliament ever voted to ban alcohol (hypothetical situation) even if 100% of Irish people voted for people who didn't support that, the entire nation wouldn't have enough weight to overturn that decision.

The smaller a percentage you are of the whole thing, the less your democratic voice counts for anything - in other words, I am a much bigger percentage of all of Ireland than I am of all of the EU. Therefore, within Ireland, my vote has more democratic clout than it does within the EU as a whole.

Obviously therefore I think it's more democratic to do things locally. I'd go further and say I'm the exact polar opposite of an EU integrationalist - I'm in favour of devolving a LOT of national government powers and giving them to local government instead. That way each citizen has more of a say on the laws which affect their lives.

hatrickpatrick

To illustrate the above very bluntly: Not a single Irish person had a chance to vote for or against Merkel or Sarkozy. They were not elected by us, therefore they are not accountable to us.

Therefore, I don't want them telling me how I can or cannot live my life. If I can't vote against you, I don't want you making the law.

The Corinthian

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

For me it's about social freedom more than anything else. I don't want to be banned from doing something in this country because people we never got a chance to vote against decide it shouldn't be allowed.

For example: If the EU parliament ever voted to ban alcohol (hypothetical situation) even if 100% of Irish people voted for people who didn't support that, the entire nation wouldn't have enough weight to overturn that decision.

That's democracy though - tyranny by the majority. If we introduced alcohol prohibition in Ireland, even if 100% of Limerick voted against it they'd still have to accept it.

Beyond that it's a question of regionalism; whether you are willing to accept the will of your local village, country, country or supernational federation. And if a majority of your fellow 'countrymen' are happy to allow the last option, then that's the democratic will of the majority too.

Obviously therefore I think it's more democratic to do things locally. I'd go further and say I'm the exact polar opposite of an EU integrationalist - I'm in favour of devolving a LOT of national government powers and giving them to local government instead. That way each citizen has more of a say on the laws which affect their lives.

That's how India, the US and particularly the Swiss do it. It has both advantages and disadvantages, as with every system.

The Corinthian

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To illustrate the above very bluntly: Not a single Irish person had a chance to vote for or against Merkel or Sarkozy. They were not elected by us, therefore they are not accountable to us.

Then devolve all power to the European parliament and away from the national parliaments - then we would have a chance to vote for or against policy directly.

the keen edge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

For me it's about social freedom more than anything else. I don't want to be banned from doing something in this country because people we never got a chance to vote against decide it shouldn't be allowed.

For example: If the EU parliament ever voted to ban alcohol (hypothetical situation) even if 100% of Irish people voted for people who didn't support that, the entire nation wouldn't have enough weight to overturn that decision.

The smaller a percentage you are of the whole thing, the less your democratic voice counts for anything - in other words, I am a much bigger percentage of all of Ireland than I am of all of the EU. Therefore, within Ireland, my vote has more democratic clout than it does within the EU as a whole.

Obviously therefore I think it's more democratic to do things locally. I'd go further and say I'm the exact polar opposite of an EU integrationalist - I'm in favour of devolving a LOT of national government powers and giving them to local government instead. That way each citizen has more of a say on the laws which affect their lives.

Just to counter your post.

Is it obvious that, in very general terms, Irish people in the coming months will be asked to chose between perceived continued democratic control over our own affairs; or relinquishing our perceived current standard of living.

Furthermore its hard to see the whole European project progressing (to wherever that maybe), without periodically trading nuggets of national democratic for whatever guise safety takes at the time.

hmmm

the keen edge wrote: »

Just to counter your post.

Is it obvious that, in very general terms, Irish people in the coming months will be asked to chose between perceived continued democratic control over our own affairs; or relinquishing our perceived current standard of living.

Furthermore its hard to see the whole European project progressing (to wherever that maybe), without periodically trading nuggets of national democratic for whatever guise safety takes at the time.

Some people seem to be peddling a rather naive view to think that Europe is all or nothing i.e. that we either give up all democratic control or none, so it's either Europe or no Europe.

Every country has the ability to veto anything they don't like. What happens in reality is that countries are continuously horse trading between each other to find an acceptable compromise. The use of a veto usually reflects badly on the negotiating skills of everyone involved.

If a country wants everything its own way, it's welcome to leave the EU and go on its own. However we live in a world where large trading blocs have the power in international trade, so if we wish to maintain the standard of living most Irish people claim to want we need to be inside one of those blocs. And being inside means compromise and means sharing power. It's not undemocratic for democratic governments to share power to achieve a greater goal.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

TBH, we really should have done this a long time ago - and kind of did...

The benefits of low corporate taxes are a historical accident. Back in the 1970's we had to get rid of export relief, due to our entry in the EEC, and because of the complex nature of Irish taxation we found that simply having a low corporation tax fulfilled our treaty obligations with the least amount of hassle.

Then something odd happened; multinational companies started moving to Ireland, so that by the late 1980's we'd cottoned on to it and started selling this 'feature' of the Irish economy via the IDA.

It was a win-win; creating lots of jobs quickly, with a minimum of cost.

Problem is that it was never our industry - it was someone else's - and so, especially after the dotcom crash of 2000, it became apparent that we would actually have to invest in something indigenous, lest the golden egg laying geese flew away in the future.

Regrettably, we decided to invest in property and the rest is history.

We had high enough rates in the 80's but we reliefs like manufacturing, Shannon and the IFSC, that was the basis of the tax policy in the 80's. Labour reduced the standard rate and then when pressure came to standardise rates from Europe, we brought in the low 12.5% rate. What often doesn't get mentioned is the change in tax rules to market us like a tax haven of the EU.

@hmmm, that's the compromise. Sovereignists wanting us to leave the EU want independence, leaving us at the mercy of markets and even more open to the world economy. Being in the EU gives some degree of protection against that.

the keen edge

hmmm wrote: »

Some people seem to be peddling a rather naive view to think that Europe is all or nothing i.e. that we either give up all democratic control or none, so it's either Europe or no Europe.

Every country has the ability to veto anything they don't like. What happens in reality is that countries are continuously horse trading between each other to find an acceptable compromise. The use of a veto usually reflects badly on the negotiating skills of everyone involved.

If a country wants everything its own way, it's welcome to leave the EU and go on its own. However we live in a world where large trading blocs have the power in international trade, so if we wish to maintain the standard of living most Irish people claim to want we need to be inside one of those blocs. And being inside means compromise and means sharing power. It's not undemocratic for democratic governments to share power to achieve a greater goal.

I agree with you.

I didn't mean to come across saying Europe was all or nothing, just that the poster I quoted will(as we all will), have to make compromises to our present social freedoms, in order to acquire other social freedoms.

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

We had high enough rates in the 80's but we reliefs like manufacturing, Shannon and the IFSC, that was the basis of the tax policy in the 80's. Labour reduced the standard rate and then when pressure came to standardise rates from Europe, we brought in the low 12.5% rate. What often doesn't get mentioned is the change in tax rules to market us like a tax haven of the EU.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_tax_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland#Se.C3.A1n_Lemass_and_after