Junker wants all EU countries to be in Eurozone and Schengen

Jim2007

recedite wrote: »

Even the countries that are supposed to be in Schengen have been ignoring it. The EU needs to sort out some kind of effective security for its external borders before getting rid of the internal ones.

The Schengen system is far better than the current UK system, where they are going on estimates of who left etc...

Every entry/exit is scanned - when you walk up to passport control, they know if you have over stayed

Every traffic stop - the police know if you over stayed

Random checks are carried out within the Schengen area

Unlike the UK, the burden of proof is on the person to prove they have the right to be there, not the other way around.

Jim2007

Jim2007 wrote: »

The Schengen system is far better than the current UK system, where they are going on estimates of who left etc...

Every entry/exit is scanned - when you walk up to passport control, they know if you have over stayed

Every traffic stop - the police know if you over stayed

Random checks are carried out within the Schengen area

Unlike the UK, the burden of proof is on the person to prove they have the right to be there, not the other way around.

I doubt if the RoI will ever join Schengen because of the border with NI. The government here will want the CTA to continue I think.

murphthesmurf

ZeroThreat wrote: »

which countries do you mean exactly?

There's already several countries in the EU bordering Russia afaik, the baltics, Finland and Poland (via Kaliningrad).

You're right, there is only the 2 biggest neighbours left, Belarus and Ukraine. With the Russian military drill due next week Belarus may become part of Russia so no chance of them joining EU then. It is mostly Nato that angers Russia, but the prospect of a European army must not sit well wth them either.
I wonder, with a European army what effect this would have on NATO.

Fratton Fred

murphthesmurf wrote: »

You're right, there is only the 2 biggest neighbours left, Belarus and Ukraine. With the Russian military drill due next week Belarus may become part of Russia so no chance of them joining EU then. It is mostly Nato that angers Russia, but the prospect of a European army must not sit well wth them either.
I wonder, with a European army what effect this would have on NATO.

it would be a direct clash, unless the eu army became a member of NATO, which seems pointless because all the significant armies in europe already are,

murphaph

Juncker does not expect Ireland to join Schengen. The border makes that practically impossible, sadly.

jm08

recedite wrote: »

Presumably you can tell us what the difference was, then?

In case you can't, the link has the full assurances given:

The one on Neutrality for example:

Nothing in this Section affects or prejudices the position or policy of any other Member State on security and defence.
It is also a matter for each Member State to decide, in accordance with the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty and any domestic legal requirements, whether to participate in permanent structured co-operation or the European Defence Agency.
The Treaty of Lisbon does not provide for the creation of a European army or for conscription to any military formation,
It does not affect the right of Ireland or any other Member State to determine the nature and volume of its defence and security expenditure and the nature of its defence capabilities.
It will be a matter for Ireland or any other Member State to decide, in accordance with any domestic legal requirement, whether or not to participate in any military operation.

It reiterates that the participation of contingents of the Irish Defence Forces in overseas operations, including those carried out under the European common security and defence policy requires (a) the authorisation of the operation by the Security Council of the General Assembly of the United Nations, (b) the agreement of the Irish Government, and (c) the approval of D reann, in accordance with Irish law.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/lisbon-assurances-the-text-in-full-1.784991

Samaris

murphthesmurf wrote: »

For the liberal left this is how democracy works. If they don't agree with the outcome, the vote should be taken again until they do.

I think you'll find that an outcome being rejected, being renegotiated and presented again for a vote on is kinda how democracy works. What do the right wing want if democracy is a left-wing thing?

murphthesmurf

Samaris wrote: »

I think you'll find that an outcome being rejected, being renegotiated and presented again for a vote on is kinda how democracy works. What do the right wing want if democracy is a left-wing thing?

Not really, take Brexit. Its was a simple question 'in or out', people voted out. Protesters took to the streets immediately and wanted a fresh vote. What if that one gets the in vote, then the out protesters take to the streets for a new vote. That one is then out again. Where do you stop? When it gets to the outcome you want?
What was the aim of the protests in Dublin against the outcome of the US election? The protesters didn't like the outcome and wanted another vote. People from one country wanting the democratically elected leader of another to be thrown out and a new one elected who they like. I don't know what the right would like, but I suspect they'd like the left to respect the outcome of a democrat process.

Samaris

recedite wrote: »

Presumably you can tell us what the difference was, then?

There were differences.

The purpose of the Lisbon Treaty was the ratification of amendments to the Maastricht treaty and the Treaty of Rome - including placing explicit legal right to leave the EU and the procedure to do so into writing for the first time. It was a major reform treaty on updating the de facto constitutions of the EU.

The issues that were most raised by the Irish people were around taxation, neutrality, family, social and ethical issues. Cowen's government went back to the table and negotiated exemptions for Ireland on the following;

Regarding neutrality, Ireland (along with the UK) have an opt-out on committing troops to military agreements, Ireland's neutrality was guarenteed.
Written-in guarentees on various other issues - that nothing was going to change regarding taxation by this bill, that there would be no policy enacted that would affect the Irish constitution in terms of abortion (mostly) and a couple of other things, but those were the ones that really had people up in arms. The abortion thing had been a complete red herring, so that didn't change anything, but the neutrality point was important.

It was returned to the Irish people and we said yes to the amended treaty. The aggro on that is really misplaced.

recedite

Samaris wrote: »

The abortion thing had been a complete red herring, so that didn't change anything, but the neutrality point was important.

All the "assurances" were red herrings. There was nothing in the first version that committed Ireland to joining a European army. That was a rumour started by the far lefties.
The treaty was all about a gradual centralising of power.
In particular giving the larger countries the ability to ram through their proposals using population based majority voting, on a whole range of subjects, which had previously required a unanimous consensus.

Samaris

Yeah there were a lot of red herrings about it. The abortion thing was a complete herring!

The majority voting thing was practical, but yes, it's worth keeping an eye on. the 65% of population isn't actually that awful, it slightly balances off the 55% of countries (which benefits the smaller countries), so you do need both. A decision that all the small countries object to but the big ones want (or that the big ones want and te smaller ones object to) is probably not a good idea for either set in the long run.

No, there are issues with how the EU is run, but I don't think that was one of them.

Do you agree, btw, that a vote, renegotiation and securing of concessions and changes where required, and then a second vote is pretty democractic?

MayoSalmon

Samaris wrote: »

Do you agree, btw, that a vote, renegotiation and securing of concessions and changes where required, and then a second vote is pretty democractic?

Its about as democratic as asking the British to vote on Brexit again with some small renegotiations to the leave conditions..

Chips Lovell

recedite wrote: »

All the "assurances" were red herrings. There was nothing in the first version that committed Ireland to joining a European army. That was a rumour started by the far lefties.

Exactly and a significant proportion of the electorate fell for it:

A total of 33 per cent of the electorate thought that the introduction of conscription into a European army was included in the Lisbon Treaty while 34 per cent believed that it would end Ireland’s control over the country’s abortion policy.

In the circumstances, clearing up those misconceptions made sense.

BlitzKrieg

There is one aspect of Juncker's speech that would have me cautious to see how things proceed.
Thankfully it is something that will go directly to a referendum as it will  require a change to both the the EU treaty but also the Irish constitution in multiple areas:

Irish neutrality is specifically protected by 2 parts

the first in the Irish constitution is this (Added via 2nd Nice Referendum):

9° The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union where that common defence would include the State.

Article 42:

2. The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

Juncker has stated he wants to change the bolded part to QMV. Which is something, I'd be against if it was just simply that. I'd want the constitution and treaty to be updated to protect Ireland from that change.
Saying that I understand why the current system might be unappealing to some other EU members as it makes the article mostly useless as any attempt to do any form of Common Union defence policy, even excluding Ireland in the current form will still need the Irish government to approve it, which i imagine no Taoiseach will be comfortable doing as it could lead to quite a political pickle domestically.
I dont think it's something that will fly beyond the lip service in the speech. It's been reported that most politics in the EU treat the 'EU army' as a sort of ever present political football to kick around with no genuine will to seriously push it beyond what currently exists. Especially with the EPP (Juncker's party) but it's still the only part that raised an eyebrow from me related to Ireland.

murphthesmurf

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

There is one aspect of Juncker's speech that would have me cautious to see how things proceed.
Thankfully it is something that will go directly to a referendum as it will  require a change to both the the EU treaty but also the Irish constitution in multiple areas:

Irish neutrality is specifically protected by 2 parts

the first in the Irish constitution is this (Added via 2nd Nice Referendum):


Article 42:


Juncker has stated he wants to change the bolded part to QMV. Which is something, I'd be against if it was just simply that. I'd want the constitution and treaty to be updated to protect Ireland from that change.
Saying that I understand why the current system might be unappealing to some other EU members as it makes the article mostly useless as any attempt to do any form of Common Union defence policy, even excluding Ireland in the current form will still need the Irish government to approve it, which i imagine no Taoiseach will be comfortable doing as it could lead to quite a political pickle domestically.
I dont think it's something that will fly beyond the lip service in the speech. It's been reported that most politics in the EU treat the 'EU army' as a sort of ever present political football to kick around with no genuine will to seriously push it beyond what currently exists. Especially with the EPP (Juncker's party) but it's still the only part that raised an eyebrow from me related to Ireland.

A European army would be pointless, it would work in much the same way as the UN. The UN always reminds me of the episode of Father Ted where they are protesting against the filum. The EU would be much the same thing, huge atrocities taking place with the EU army and UN standing at the side shouting 'down with that sort of thing'. Not that I want to see the EU start invading countries, just that it would be a toothless dog tied to a lamp post yapping away.

Impetus

recedite wrote: »

The guy is in cloud cuckoo land.

Even the countries that are supposed to be in Schengen have been ignoring it. The EU needs to sort out some kind of effective security for its external borders before getting rid of the internal ones.

So he wants more countries in it. There's already too many countries in the EU to allow us to continue operating by consensus. Its in danger of losing its democratic foundation.

The only way Junkers plan could succeed would be if a strong central authority took control, and everybody else was forced to toe the line.
And I'm guessing he thinks he is just the man for the job.
Heil Junker

Schengen allows a country to pause its operation for up to six months where there are perceived local risks. These pauses can take place for example on the French-Italian frontier if there is concern over teams playing in a football match in Nice. Which is no big deal

Impetus

jacksie66 wrote: »

So he wants a United States of Europe. With Germany and France ruling the roost..

No I don't. While I am a federalist (the Swiss meaning of the word - eg every Canton (county) in Switzerland has a parliament and usually a senate, and is often a republic itself (eg Geneva), Switzerland (and Iceland) are in Schengen but not in the EU. This allows decision to be pushed down to the lowest level - eg city or comune level. There is no connection between federalism or "USE" and Schengen.

Schengen has massive resources (SIS2 communications system) to prevent people who do not meet certain criteria from entering the entire zone. It has a single Schengen visa - for third countries - eg Chinese when visiting Europe - meaning they just need one Schengen visa. Few Chinese tourists end up in Ireland compared with Schengen states.

Malta is in Schengen. It is close to the north African exodus problem - but there are few of these boat people in the country, despite Malta's modest naval system (it is a neutral country). The few that are learn Maltese and do street cleaning and trash collection jobs - which the Maltese (unemployment 4.5%) do not want to do.

If ID checking helped, you might as well have passport control on all the national roads in Ireland, controlling access to each county. And perhaps to be sure to be sure, each town's access roads should have immigration control points! With any luck you could drive from Dublin to Bantry in 10h, allowing for passport control delays.

When a Schengen country for some reason leaves Schengen for a few weeks/months, the checks are random and informal and focused on high risk flights.

There is no central control over the SIS2 system. It is simply a communications platform, allowing a member government frontier point to scan a passport (usually for arrivals from outside Schengen) and check the details of the aspiring entrant with the immigration/security computer systems of all other Schengen countries. Which provides a large intelligence database - unavailable to non-Schengen members.

Relying on the so called common travel area is very risky because Britain is full of (perhaps 7 million) ethnically potential 'terrorists' (to use the Thatcher word). Furthermore many of them are resentful of the treatment they receive, even if they hold British passports. Due to the racist behaviour of fellow passport holders.

I am not in favour of the EU adding a big layer of federal government a la the USA.

Today's Financial Times has a chart showing the number of civil servants working in GB (total 423'000). Of these over 50'000 ("defence") and 22'000 "home office". Both of these categories are security. Other services (like health) which is almost totally state dominated in GB, foreign office, education, treasury, trade etc have (on a bar chart) almost unread-ably small employment levels.

I do not want Europe to have to waste money on another layer of government or massive 'security' adventure like Anglo-Saxon countries, because they can't get on with their neighbours.

Impetus

Louise Mealy Teacup wrote: »

Couple of things:

i) Universal flat-rate Corporation Tax is one of his ambitions, surely this will make certain remote or island locations less attractive than is currently the case.

ii) The 'Barcelona Declaration'... is multilateral cooperation with the MNC's countries of the Mediterranean basin. This seeks to have closer ties with countries such as Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, the Syria, Tunisia and Turkey. Perhaps this will eventually lead to an even more expanded European super state encompassing the entire Mediterranean.

It has noting to do with Corporate income taxes ("Corporation Tax" is a misnomer invented in GB and slavishly copied by IRL). It is a tax on corporate income, not on the corporation itself (like LPT).

If Algeria etc were to enter Schengen - a 1 in a zillion chance - it would have to clear not only politicians but also referenda in several European countries. Anyway these northern Africa countries don't have effective borders to their south. So what you are suggesting is that there is a risk that all of Africa would be admitted to Schengen. Get real.

blanch152

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Did they? Pretty sure we got asked to the same question twice until we gave them the right answer

Don't remember ever being asked the same question a second time in any referendum, even the divorce and abortion referenda had different questions second time around. You must be confused.

Samaris

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Its about as democratic as asking the British to vote on Brexit again with some small renegotiations to the leave conditions..

Can you specify? If everything that the Leavers wanted was solved through talks, you'd still insist on going through with Brexit because it had been voted on last year and thus must be enacted?

I don't quite get the similarities you indicate.

Impetus

The basis of the EU, going back to the Treaty of Rome, was to create a group of nation states that had free trade among them. With no ‘duties’ on intra-community trade.

France recently announced proposals to apply a revenue based tax on sales by multi-nationals based in Ireland and other EU states. A tax of this nature is nothing more than an import duty, as would be applied on goods from a foreign country such as China etc. And a tax that is surely illegal at EU treaty level.

Similar principles apply to the CCTB. It is an attempt to twist corporate income tax into an additional quasi VAT/import duty. VAT rates in Europe are already sky high (most states in the 20 to 25% range) by international standards (eg Switzerland 8% max rate, Australia GST 10%, Japan 8%). If any EU state tries to tax the profits of a company based in country x, based on the "value added" within the destination state, it is not a tax based on a corporate income tax computation, it is a tax based on value added or a duty. Applying different VAT rates to products and services from one member state sold in another is discriminatory, and an abuse of law.

Impetus

Further thoughts....

If I have a business making widgets, somewhere in Ireland, (services or physical products) which are sold internationally for $50 each.
If I sell a box of 10 widgets in the Middle East, I will receive $500, and pay 12.5% Irish CIT on the profit I make. Assuming a profit of $30 each = $300 per box, less $37.50 CIT = a net income of $262.50.

The same taxation applies at the moment to sales to France and Germany from the Irish perspective. (The consumer at the other end pays VAT – but we signed-up for that fact, despite the high level involved). (Before we joined the EU, the Irish sales tax (‘ToT’) was 2.5%, later increased to 5%.) There has been an enormous tax rate inflation since the EU membership started, and it is continuing unabated. There were ‘ad valorem duties’ on many Irish exports in those ‘bad old days’, imposed on Irish goods by the destination countries.

With the proposed CCCITB (common consolidated corporate income tax base), my tax position on sales to (say the Middle East) will remain the same. But in sales to fellow EU states in most cases Irish exporters will be going back to ‘the bad old days’.

Let’s assume I sell a box of widgets to a customer in France after CCCITB, the French will be attempting to tax me at French tax rates (France has a nominal CIT of 33.33% at present). And while the details have not been worked out in detail yet, I face being charged 33.33% CIT on French sales – eg the profit on my box of 10 widgets will be taxed at $100 per box (33.33% of $300), perhaps with credit for the $37.50 I pay in Irish CIT. This is no different to a French imposed import duty on Irish widgets. Because, if I made the same widgets in Germany, they would probably face no extra French CIT.

While France might argue that it provides a large market, infrastructure, etc for me to sell my products into, I am paying directly for this infrastructure in terms of marketing costs, advertising, local French staff, transport services etc myself to get my product to my French customer. I am paying the hefty autoroute tolls for my trucks to travel across France to deliver my goods. So, my first question is what do I owe the French government for ‘providing a market’. It signed up to do so (provide free market access to other EU members) dating back to the Treaty of Rome. In effect, France and other countries who want this CCCITB are welshing on their long-standing treaty obligations.

The impact can vary depending on the type of business. If Google sells a camera for say €1’000 to a French customer from a warehouse in Poland, any sales based tax will hit the company heavily due to the small profit margin. Whereas if Amazon sells ad words to a French customer, which sale is booked in Ireland, the company has a huge margin and no cost of goods sold. This variability of business type makes it even harder to define a common tax base.

If France wants to get more tax from sales of companies based in Ireland – why don’t they increase the VAT rate in France on Irish sourced goods to say 50% or whatever. You can’t mix up CIT which is a tax on income (aka ‘profits’) with VAT, which is a tax on value added. Basically France seems to be suggesting that many Irish companies sales have a large French value added in their total price. If so, France might as well stop trying to distort basic taxation and accounting fundamentals, and up the VAT rate on imports from Ireland on a discriminatory basis, as we can see them in court to recover the excess VAT and interest thereon.

France has special rates of CIT for local industry – far less than the advertised 33.33%. eg If I move my widget plant, especially to the constituency of some powerful French politician, chances are I will get tax concessions – which may be a 15% or less CIT as well as other favours.

CCCITB Common consolidated corporate income tax base
CIT Corporate income tax (aka ‘Corporation tax’ in some island states)

View

Impetus wrote: »

The basis of the EU, going back to the Treaty of Rome, was to create a group of nation states that had free trade among them. With no ‘duties’ on intra-community trade.

France recently announced proposals to apply a revenue based tax on sales by multi-nationals based in Ireland and other EU states. A tax of this nature is nothing more than an import duty, as would be applied on goods from a foreign country such as China etc. And a tax that is surely illegal at EU treaty level.

Similar principles apply to the CCTB. It is an attempt to twist corporate income tax into an additional quasi VAT/import duty. VAT rates in Europe are already sky high (most states in the 20 to 25% range) by international standards (eg Switzerland 8% max rate, Australia GST 10%, Japan 8%). If any EU state tries to tax the profits of a company based in country x, based on the "value added" within the destination state, it is not a tax based on a corporate income tax computation, it is a tax based on value added or a duty. Applying different VAT rates to products and services from one member state sold in another is discriminatory, and an abuse of law.

Last time I checked France wasn't "the EU". And should the proposal become law in France, then it is open to anyone who wishes to challenge its legality under EU law.

Impetus

View wrote: »

Last time I checked France wasn't "the EU". And should the proposal become law in France, then it is open to anyone who wishes to challenge its legality under EU law.

That goes without saying.

However France is influential in some circles (states with big governments).

My postings were simply teasing out the logical/taxation/accounting implications of the proposed measures, and how they in reality to to the root of the EU - ie the Treaty of Rome as amended in subsequent treaties.

I have no doubt that those most impacted by any proposed move will be reaching for their law and accounting firms to fight the matter in the courts. Courts take a long time (aside from Germany), which leads to a period of uncertainty which may put off new ventures being established.

One route would be for an Irish based multi-national to use independent distributors (not owned by the vendor multi-national) in question. This may be tricky for services. However big branding and license agreements with other companies can cover a multitude.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Impetus, please stop opening new threads on the EU when there are existing threads on it.

Mutant z

This man wants to do away with national identity altogether and get rid of border controls he's a dangerous loon and a traitor to Europe.

ancapailldorcha

Mutant z wrote: »

This man wants to do away with national identity altogether and get rid of border controls he's a dangerous loon and a traitor to Europe.

Name calling is unacceptable here. Please refrain from it in future.

Jim2007

Mutant z wrote: »

This man wants to do away with national identity altogether and get rid of border controls he's a dangerous loon and a traitor to Europe.

And why would that be such a bad thing? Nationality is a relative new concept in history and it has not been such a hot idea so far.

recedite

Jim2007 wrote: »

And why would that be such a bad thing?

Less diversity, for a start.

The Rape of Lucretia

Surely a full Schengen is now a possibility. The 'imaginative and innovative' solution to the Ireland border conundrum, given that a border between the 6 and 26 will not happen, will be to have it in the Irish sea. In the end, at the Brexit settlement, northern Ireland British will be thrown to the wolves and having them show their passports and pass trade controls to go to the UK mainland will be price that has to be paid.
Which will then enable the Republic, and the 6, to join Schengen.