EU tax harmonization proposals vetoed

Meh

From the Irish Times, via eircom.net:
http://home.eircom.net/news/TopStories/story.asp?id=0

Efforts to ensure that greater tax harmonisation forms a key part of the next EU treaty are being blocked by a coalition including Ireland, Britain and EU applicant states, it has emerged.

The convention's Economic Governance Committee has been unable to agree on any extension of the EU's powers to dictate the tax structures of individual member states.

There was a good deal of debate about this issue on this board during the Nice campaign. Seems that the Yes side have now been proven correct, and that the Irish government is well capable of standing up for itself...

pertinax

Capable of standing up for itself with britain and a host of applicant countries, Yes.

Typedef

In this regard, I'd have to say that the end justifies the means. Really what that amounts to for me is that, in no instance of a possible future for this country will taxation be an edict that imposed from Brussels in any way shape or form.

It is a matter of soveringty and prosperity. Generally one of the mainstay's of having a soverign parliment or a representative form of governance, is that the body in question has the ability to vary taxes. Tax varying powers is one of the most important, if not the most important power of any parliment or body and I have to say that for Ireland which has one of the lowest taxation regiemes in the Western world, 'harmonisation' to a German or Swedish levels of tax, where Ireland would have no tangable control over the rates set, is an unacceptable diminution of soveringty, but moreover of Ireland's ability and the ability of it's citizens to have a real level of representation and control over their lives.

In short I oppose tax harmonisation in every single notion of the word, the people of this Republic stand too much to loose from a tax harmonisation motif and in my opinion there will not be adequate representation for the people of Ireland as a nation in any tax infrastructure that is imposed from Europe.

In the words of the Americans "No taxation without representation" and in this regard I do not see Ireland's voice in a Europe of 400 million people as being of sufficient weight as to give adequate representation to the needs nor desires of this nation and thus taxation in the European context is utterly unacceptable, to me as an Irish citizen and voter.

Typedef

The pro-harmonisation group said that minimum indirect and corporation tax levels were needed to ensure the EU was not hurt by harmful tax competition or serious trade distortions.

My god I just read this.
Under no circumstances will I ever support the notion that the European Union has a right to dictate to Ireland what rates of corporate taxation this country sets. Corporate taxation rates are one of the ways Ireland attracts inwards investment and to allow diminution of that power to influence and bolster the Irish economy will in my view amount to an unreasonable curtailment of Irish competitveness.

Why must Ireland raise it's taxes to appease the Europeans? Why can the Europeans not compete? What is so wrong with competition? In a capitalist world, competition is the watchword, not bleating when your competitors lower prices and make no mistake, lowering Corporate tax rates is Ireland's way of lowering prices the same way Tesco and SuperQuinn might lower prices.
To my mind what the countries who are bleating about Ireland's low Corporate tax rate are doing is refusing to compete with low Irish prices and are instead trying to make Ireland raise it's prices to suit their own. To use the allegory further, it's like SuperQuinn trying to pressurise Tesco to raise the price of milk sold in Tesco, because SuperQuinn can't or wont' compete with that price.
Excuse me kids but, that is not how capitalism works.

Originally posted by pertinax
Capable of standing up for itself with britain and a host of applicant countries, Yes.

Well, the countries of the E.U as they are now and after the current enlargement aren't exactly a federalist's dream bunch.
That would have been clear to anyone during the Nice Treaty campaign as it is now.
I don't ever see a situation where Britain would ever be in favour of Brussels deciding on it's income tax rates and neither would many other countries.
While thats the case, scaremongering regarding taxation was and is unfounded.
mm

Typedef

I'd just wonder if there are any Federalists or others who would really support a regieme where the European Union has the ability to dictate Corporate Tax rates to this Republic?

I think that bonkey might make a point that Ireland's Corporate Tax rate 'hurts' other countries, but before he even makes that point, Tesco's milk price might hurt SuperQuinn, but in a competitive situation as attracting inwards investment is, is it not beholdant on a government to make their country as attractive as possible for multinational companies to invest in and thus is it not beholdant on Irish politicians to have low rates of Corporate tax, if said politicians think that such a regieme will be ultimately good for inwards investment and thus good for jobs?

Now one might make the argument that access to the common market implys that Ireland should acede to new rules regarding taxation rates, but fundamentally I don't believe the good of the European Union comes before the good of Ireland, that's why Ireland is a soverign country as opposed to a subservient constitutant of a Federal State and thus if the premis that this country's interests come before other country's interests in the Union in terms of decisions taken by the Irish government is taken as true, I see no 'moral imperitave' to acede to tax harmonisationist demands. Perhaps economic or political power from pro-Federal quaters can be brought to bear to make Irish politicians support the notion of tax harmonisation, but what that kind of pressurisation really is, is a form of economic coercion and from the point of view of Ireland's best interests (as is my duty to take as a point of view as a citizen of this country I believe) I do not see economic coercion as a valid reason to capitulate on the point of tax harmonisation.

Meh

I see no reason why we should harmonize taxes. Look at the USA -- that's a much closer union than Europe will ever be. And US states set whatever corporation taxes they like. Some states don't even have income tax, or sales taxes. Does this mean that Texas is "stealing" jobs from California? Of course not.

There's nothing about an economic or political union that requires tax harmonization.

(...although I would like us to harmonize with European alcohol duties )

Typedef

Originally posted by Meh
I see no reason why we should harmonize taxes.

Thank god. I hope this means if a European Constitution were to have references to 'Federal competences' pertaining to taxation in Ireland that you and other people who voted Yes to the Nice Treaty would vote No to the European Constitution.

I'm not rejecting the Constitution before I even read it, I hope when the times comes I can support it, but if tax harmonisation or 'Federal Competence' to the same is part of that document I will most surely resist such a Constitution in perpetuity.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Typedef
Thank god. I hope this means if a European Constitution were to have references to 'Federal competences' pertaining to taxation in Ireland that you and other people who voted Yes to the Nice Treaty would vote No to the European Constitution.

I for one would vote No.

mike65

These's no surprise in this news which I think I predicted somewhere else around here (honest!), its also very handy for Ireland to have a heavy-weight ally in the UK who wuill never be slow to make thier views known in tax and such like.

I see no reason why tax haromisation is required withing a single currency, I belive the states of the US don't all read off the same
sheet, states compete by variying the levels of local taxes levyied
on different economic activities.

I can see some merit in a cabon tax which is the same for all, simply because we all share the one evironment.

Mike.

Sand

The importance of Irelands power over its taxation regime cannot be overstated. Taxation can serve to encourage growth in areas which are not as developed as others and Ireland is simply not as developed as many of its European partners, nor can it offer huge markets or even cheap transport to huge markets such as the Low Countries can. Lower tax rates encourage investment and economic activity and act as Irelands main "equaliser" in economic development.

Im a european federalist, not a Frenchman. I dont see how anyone can argue that harmonised tax rates are of benefit to anyone except high tax rate regimes ( France ? ) which are beginning to feel the pinch when it comes to trying to keep an unsustainable nanny state whilst also trying to attract investment.

And I dont see tax harmonisation and federalism being inextricably linked either. Only tax harmonisation I would like to see is tax harmonisation which reduces the tax levels we face.

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
I think that bonkey might make a point that Ireland's Corporate Tax rate 'hurts' other countries, but before he even makes that point, Tesco's milk price might hurt SuperQuinn, but in a competitive situation as attracting inwards investment is, is it not beholdant on a government to make their country as attractive as possible for multinational companies to invest in and thus is it not beholdant on Irish politicians to have low rates of Corporate tax, if said politicians think that such a regieme will be ultimately good for inwards investment and thus good for jobs?

No, thats not the point I would have made at all.

The point is that intra-EU competition will ultimately benefit the international companies setting up shop here, coming from outside the EU, and weaken the EU.

The more that member-states try to under-cut each other in any form of tax-incentives to attract foreign investment, the less money that actually comes into the EU from these external companies.

Secondly, I doubt very much if you would keep such a high-minded attitude if any of the larger nations started offering terms and conditions so attractive that Ireland couldnt hope to compete without going bankrupt. We are a minnow, and should the giants wish it, they could crush us. It is more in our interest to avoid intra-EU trade wars than Germany or France. They can kick us back into the 17th century economically with only a little belt-tightening in their own part to compensate, when you consider the scale of their economies.

Thirdly, lets assume that some nation does benefit massively from this. Whats the net result? Other EU nations suffer. And what happens from this? The net contribution from the benefiting nation will increase, to offset the loss from the other nations caused by their failing economies. In other words, much of the gains would be offset by the costs incurred from rising up the economic ladder at the expense of other nations on the same ladder.

Given that you were always in favour of an economic union, Im amazed to hear you now proposing that an economic union should not involve something like co-operation...because its still all competition to you.

I'm curious as to how a union can work without co-operation, if youd care to explain?

jc

Meh

Originally posted by bonkey
The point is that intra-EU competition will ultimately benefit the international companies setting up shop here, coming from outside the EU, and weaken the EU.

You're assuming that these companies have already decided to set up in the EU, and they just need to decide which member state. Increasingly, this assumption is not valid -- companies can locate their factories in India or China rather than in the EU. Our low corporation tax competes against Malaysia and Turkey just as much as it competes against France or Italy.

Given that you were always in favour of an economic union, Im amazed to hear you now proposing that an economic union should not involve something like co-operation...because its still all competition to you.

I'm curious as to how a union can work without co-operation, if youd care to explain?

So how does the USA, the most successful federation in the world, survive without tax harmonization between states?

bonkey

Originally posted by Meh
You're assuming that these companies have already decided to set up in the EU, and they just need to decide which member state. Increasingly, this assumption is not valid -- companies can locate their factories in India or China rather than in the EU. Our low corporation tax competes against Malaysia and Turkey just as much as it competes against France or Italy.

Setting up in China, India et al does not provide you with costless access to the EU market. There are few other single-markets in the world as big. This is a huge attraction.

So how does the USA, the most successful federation in the world, survive without tax harmonization between states?

Because the US does not have as large a dependance on foreign investment, and also has much stronger ties between states.

The lack of foreign investment dependance means that the vast majority of corporate investment is from within the US. Undercutting another state doesnt remove money from the nation. On the other hand, Ireland and (say) Scotland underbidding each other for an American company to come over here results in more money for the US and less for the successful bidding nation, and by extension less for the EU.

In terms of stronger ties...yes, individual states try and attract investment when they can...sure. But you'll find that at a national level, Congress gets involved as well - making sure that states get funding and support to help them out when they are making large economical losses....to help them become competetive again.

In other words, if the EU had a comparable system, then trade wars would be perfectly legitimate, as long as the EU itself helped fund nations who werent able to compete on their own. In short - it would pay nations to level the playing field.

Yeah - thats a much better solution. Let us have our tax independance, but pay other nations for lost investment accordingly. Oh - hang on - wheres that money gonna come from? Gee - from the nations who won the investment I guess...

jc

Typedef

The only real problem with the proposition is bonkey, that there is 'no moral' implication that implys Ireland must compensate other nations for the competitive way Ireland attracts investment. You seem to be suggesting that Ireland should acquiece to harmonise taxes, because the large coutries could if they choose, put large economic pressure on Ireland. The flaw in that logic is that by virtue of the fact Ireland is so small in comparison to these large countries, it similarly doesn't make sense for large economic blocks to 'belt tighten' as you put it, simply to compete with little old Ireland and it's 3.9x million people.

Essentially if the large nations don't like the Irish tax regieme, they can either compete or lump it, because the economic hardball you are exponenciating doesn't make sense for Germany or France to play, just to detract from the potential investment a State the size of Ireland could hope to attract.

Moreover by virtue of the fact Ireland is a soverign nation and has access to international institutions as a recognised nation as opposed to simply being a constituant State of a large Federation, I believe that Ireland is infinitely more capability to attract investment, act in an extraneous manner at an international level to enhance the quality of life and affluence of it's citizens and so on. It is this power to affect and promote the quality of life and prosperity of life of a State's citizens that the Soverign Nation State has as advantage over the constituant State of a Federal Union.

In this regard constitutant States of a Federal Union like the US have to compete for a share of the pie, that the US as an entity can carve for itself, so, whilst the US may have more power and influence internationally, Ireland for it's size has more power and influence internationally then a US state of roughly 4 million people has and thus has better prospects for protecting, exponenciating and ultimately endowing it's citizens with the best potential for long term self determination, independance and power to action to promote their own affluence.

Basically a country has more scope to act extraenously in the interests of it's self and it's citizens then a member of a Federal Union and more for this reason then for Nationalism, I do not support Federalism in the European context.

Meh

Originally posted by bonkey
at a national level, Congress gets involved as well - making sure that states get funding and support to help them out when they are making large economical losses....to help them become competetive again.

In other words, if the EU had a comparable system, then trade wars would be perfectly legitimate, as long as the EU itself helped fund nations who werent able to compete on their own. In short - it would pay nations to level the playing field.

But the EU does have a comparable system -- structural funds and farm subsidies. These transfer huge amounts of money from richer regions to poorer regions. So if Ireland becomes rich by attracting investment at the expense of Germany, the poor Germans will pay less into the EU and the wealthy Irish will pay more. And the Union as a whole will have a net benefit, because of the companies who wouldn't have invested in the EU at all if it wasn't for low Irish tax rates.

Yeah - thats a much better solution. Let us have our tax independance, but pay other nations for lost investment accordingly.

You mean like we're going to become a net contributor to the EU over the next few years?

Originally posted by Meh
You're assuming that these companies have already decided to set up in the EU, and they just need to decide which member state. Increasingly, this assumption is not valid -- companies can locate their factories in India or China rather than in the EU. Our low corporation tax competes against Malaysia and Turkey just as much as it competes against France or Italy.

I know, but would the companies in question risk setting up en masse outside the E.U in say India or china and risk tarriff discrimination by the E.U?
They may if they wish move to lower wage areas of the E.U instead and that to my mind is why I would not like to see tax harmonisation.
Our Lower corporation rates counter that risk and therefore we and others quite rightly vetoed harmonisation.
If Rates in other countries become as low or lower, then thats competition we have to deal with.
Over time of course the new entrant states will lose their wage competitiveness as E.U membership drives up their standards of living and wage expectations.
It is much easier to vary taxes, than it is to lower wages.
Expectations in new entrant countries would be that the only way for their pay packets is up That has positive implications for their spending power and for potential markets,some thing that might incline multi nationals to maintain a significant presence here.

(as an aside and playing devils advocate, assuming Mr McCreevy continues to be flaithúlach with the nations purse, like governments were in the 80's and Taxes have to go way up as a result...maybe we would all be screaming for harmonisation then:D ... not a prospect I would relish:eek: )

mm

Cork

The conomic success or failure of this country depends on attacting foriegn industry. Tax policy is a very important componant. We are competing aganist other EU countries for the same foriegn direct investment. Tax policy is a big carrott.

It is not the only carrott.


Take off Offence - Pat Rabbitte

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
Basically a country has more scope to act extraenously in the interests of it's self and it's citizens then a member of a Federal Union and more for this reason then for Nationalism, I do not support Federalism in the European context.

OK. Im lost.

In the Nice debate, you were categorically against political Union, but countered this by saying that you were all for economic co-operation and economic union (to a degree).

Now, youre saying that each nation should act in its own interest, regardless of who it is competing against.

How can you have economic co-operation at all when each nation should act in its own interest? The two concepts are mutually incompatible that I can see.

Tax harmonisation is a form of co-operation. We are agreeing to set lower limits on certain taxes to prevent internal trade-wars when it comes to attracting foreign investment.

You constantly see this as something which is removing a benefit we have. Its not a benefit. If we entered into a trade-war with any one of about 75% of the nations in the EU, we would lose.

If they decided they had enough of Ireland enticing foreign investment with big tax breaks, they could offer better terms than we ever could. Their economies are big enough that they can afford to price us out of the market.

Yet you dismiss this as not a threat. They have no reason to do this. Why not? If our economy is no threat to them, then why do they want our tax rates harmonised? Exactly what benefit does it give them? Either we're a threat or we're not. If there is a benefit in harmonising taxes, then there is also a benefit in them going up against our tax regime should harmonisation fall apart.

Essentially if the large nations don't like the Irish tax regieme, they can either compete or lump it

So the question is why isnt it happening today. Why are they complaining rather than competing. Well, simple. As Ive mentioned before in previous threads, there is an informal agreement already in place which the current harmonization talks are simply trying to formalise.

Personally, if harmonisation doesnt occur, then I believe the other nations will cease with this gentlemen's agreement which has prevented bidding wars for foreign investment heretofore - an agreement which never included the emerging economies such as Ireland and Scotland.

In other words, failure to harmonise will not[/] leave the situation as it is today. It will free up all the other nations to do as they will to attract foreign investment...to compete....and given that theyve already expressed displeasure at Ireland continuing its attraction policies, you can be pretty damned sure they will not simply sit by and do nothing and let us keep winning the contracts.

Failure to harmonise will give these nations the freedom they currently lack to counter our offers, and counter they will...and they can offer better terms than anything we can should they wish.

You honestly think this is a preferable situation? Youre entitled to that view, but never be under the assumption that failure to harmonize will leave the situation unchanged to how it is today. Today, the other nations cannot compete. Failure to harmoize will open the door to allow them to compete freely once more.

jc

Typedef

How can you have economic co-operation at all when each nation should act in its own interest? The two concepts are mutually incompatible that I can see.

I think you might be a little confused as to what I would support as 'economic co-operation'. In this regard, I do not see any real reason for anything more then a free trade area of sorts. Thus in my view structures like the CAP are totally outside what the European Union should be about.

Tax harmonisation is a form of co-operation.
Or dictat from Europe, that really depends on whether you are a country who is harmonising or doing the dictation in this regard I'd venture. For example it is unlikely that in a tax harmonisation structure that other European countries would lower taxes to Irish levels, but rather a European edict would pervail as to the rate of tax (x) in the European Union, that is not so much co-operative as quasi dictatorial. No wait, it is dictatorial.

We are agreeing to set lower limits on certain taxes to prevent internal trade-wars when it comes to attracting foreign investment.

Funny that I thought the rate of Corporate tax had been raised from 10% to 12.5% because the British had put pressure on Ireland to do so. In any case, Ireland's taxation regieme is a matter for Ireland, not a matter for Paris, Rome, London or Berlin. You are arguing that if Ireland were not to capitulate that a trade war is the likely outcome. Funnily enough this negates the notion of co-operation and rathermore implys the notion of coercion. Whats more, attracting foreign investment is just that bonkey, a trade war as different countries or states depending on your political view of the EU attempt to make themselves more attractive for investment than others and I don't see how it is that harmonisation under coercion or implied threat of a questionable inter-European trade war, will change the basis of attracting foreign investment, ie making your particular block as attractive as possible in terms of your competitors for investment, or simply undercutting and outperforming competition until such time as you or they prevail.
The Japanese have a saying in this regard "Business is War!".


If they decided they had enough of Ireland enticing foreign investment with big tax breaks, they could offer better terms than we ever could.

I don't think so, considering that countries like France, Germany and Sweden have public services that have been the beneficiaries of bloated tax regiemes for years and I don't see the French, German or Swedish people swallowing a serious dimunition of funds available for the same. If other countries were capable of offering better terms, then that is what they would do.

Their economies are big enough that they can afford to price us out of the market.

I'm not entirely with you here, because it is the Irish government's policy that has priced countries world wide out of the market, with our low rates of tax. Lets see the Germans lowering their own tax regiemes to compete with the Irish and see how it swings with the German electorate, when literally half the money from corporate tax is coming into government coffers due to a dimunition of tax from 30% to Irish levels of 12.5%.

They have no reason to do this. Why not? If our economy is no threat to them, then why do they want our tax rates harmonised?

If the emergent Irish 100 billion Irish economy is such a threat to the 1.7 trillion UK economy then why is it the UK has not 'already' reacted in an extraneous way to protect it's own self interests, via the vaunted trade war you say is on the horizon if the Irish do not accept dictation of tax policy from Europe?
Shall I tell you why? It's because Ireland's economy is so small in comparitive terms to the French, German and UK economies that it is not worth their while to use the vaunted 'economic muscle' to 'undercut Ireland somehow'.
To answer your question though, who honestly cares if the European's noses are out of joint because of the Irish tax regieme? I don't and quite simply when it comes to the economic prosperity of Ireland, it is a case of Ireland comes first, so umm, sorry to any country that can't play by the rules of capitalism and compete with the Irish economy, that is not my problem as an Irish citizen. Yes when Ireland gets investment instead of France that is beneficial to Ireland and damaging to France, I accept that, but if Ireland were to raise it's tax to appease that what would happen is that Ireland would loose out. Now excuse me, do I live in France ? No. Do I care if France looses out in favour of Ireland? Yes, because I live in Ireland. In reality though what would happen if Ireland raised it's taxes it that Ireland would get less investment and the Europeans more. Now excuse me if I don't see logic in appeasing European selfishness and lack of competitive spirit, that is their own problem, unless those countries can find a way to make inwards investment in Ireland a problem for Ireland somehow.

Bit of a catch 22 that one.
Ireland raises tax and gets less investment, but if it doesn't raise it's tax, you say a trade war will ensue. If so it will be the first trade war in histroy to try and make an economy 'less competitive'.

Exactly what benefit does it give them? Either we're a threat or we're not. If there is a benefit in harmonising taxes, then there is also a benefit in them going up against our tax regime should harmonisation fall apart.

I fundamentally agree with the notion that if other countries have a problem with the Irish tax regieme vis-a-vis attracting inwards investment that, they may at their respective discressions as a soverign decision compete. That is their right. What is not their right is to attempt to use the European Union to advance their own invesment policies, specifically to detract from Ireland and ultimately the Irish do not have to and probably will not accept dictation of taxation policy from Europe. Why? Because as a small peripheral country, with no traditional heavy industry, not a huge labour force and pithe raw materials one of Irelands main and only attractive investment points is the low tax regieme and ultimately Ireland cannot afford to loose out on competitiveness in this regard globally, because Ireland never really went through the industrial revolution. Now finally Ireland is picking itself up and is creating industry in the new emergant high tech age and in order to best capitalise on this, with all the factors working against Ireland, it is the government's duty to make this country as attractive an investment opportunity as it possibly can be and in the abscence of an actual trade war to redress Irish taxation policy waged illegally from European country(x), that policy can, should and must stay in place.

So the question is why isnt it happening today. Why are they complaining rather than competing. Well, simple. As Ive mentioned before in previous threads, there is an informal agreement already in place which the current harmonization talks are simply trying to formalise.

Informal agreement my eye, this is me not caring in the least. Informal agreement is not something the Irish electorate have ever agreed to, this is a soverign nation and the Irish people have not acquieced to harmonised taxation dictated by Europe or 'Gentlemens agreement' and until such time as they do, the taxation regieme in Ireland is at the discression of the respective Ministers and their competences delegated to them via the elected government of Ireland.

Personally, if harmonisation doesnt occur, then I believe the other nations will cease with this gentlemen's agreement which has prevented bidding wars for foreign investment heretofore - an agreement which never included the emerging economies such as Ireland and Scotland.

Business is war, what is the problem? There is no problem in having a free market where countries can bid for investment with lower taxes, that is competition, that is capitalism and that is the nature of the game one must play when attracting international investment, because I assure you, Irish far eastern competitors have no 'Gentlemens agreement' to keep taxes such that the 'wealth of international investment globally is shared'. What you are describing is a cartel of sorts and that cartel would be just fine and dandy, except outside the euroacracy of the European Union, attracting international (largely US invetment) is a darwinian affair, survival of the fittest.

The British SAS have a saying too. "Who dares, wins".

In other words, failure to harmonise will not leave the situation as it is today. It will free up all the other nations to do as they will to attract foreign investment...to compete....and given that theyve already expressed displeasure at Ireland continuing its attraction policies, you can be pretty damned sure they will not simply sit by and do nothing and let us keep winning the contracts.

Forgive me bonkey, but competition is capitalism and if Ireland wants to compete with Malaysia, South Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, China and so on for multinational corporate investment, Ireland must tax and lobby and fight for it's interests on more then the narrow scope of placating our 'European partners'.

Failure to harmonise will give these nations the freedom they currently lack to counter our offers, and counter they will...and they can offer better terms than anything we can should they wish.

Ironically even though it was the UK, which initially complained about Irish Corporate taxation rates, it will probably prove the UK that is Ireland's greatest allay in preventing Federal Union and by implication tax harmonisation too. Ironic that the old enemy becomes the bulwark to prevent erosion of Irish soveringty in the European context.

If the emergent Irish 100 billion Irish economy is such a threat to the 1.7 trillion UK economy then why is it the UK has not 'already' reacted in an extraneous way to protect it's own self interests, via the vaunted trade war you say is on the horizon if the Irish do not accept dictation of tax policy from Europe?

I thought designating ROI as a tax haven,thus penalising UK companies operating here, would be the U.K reacting.

I fundamentally agree with the notion that if other countries have a problem with the Irish tax regieme vis-a-vis attracting inwards investment that, they may at their respective discressions as a soverign decision compete. That is their right. What is not their right is to attempt to use the European Union to advance their own invesment policies, specifically to detract from Ireland and ultimately the Irish do not have to and probably will not accept dictation of taxation policy from Europe. Why? Because as a small peripheral country, with no traditional heavy industry, not a huge labour force and pithe raw materials one of Irelands main and only attractive investment points is the low tax regieme and ultimately Ireland cannot afford to loose out on competitiveness in this regard globally, because Ireland never really went through the industrial revolution. Now finally Ireland is picking itself up and is creating industry in the new emergant high tech age and in order to best capitalise on this, with all the factors working against Ireland, it is the government's duty to make this country as attractive and investment opportunity as it possibly can be and in the abscence of an actual trade war to redress Irish taxation policy waged illegally from European country(x), that policy can, should and must stay in place.

The problem , I have with that is ,how on Earth would Ireland have dragged itself up to the level, it is at today without the Billions other E.U countries poured in here.
Our personal tax rates would be at the Sky high levels they were at in the 80's if we had to pay for it ourself.
OK,the government without E.U monies could have spent all it could on infrastructure and left the Corporation taxes at near zero to attract in multi nationals....But who would be left to work here for them if 60% of their wages went in Tax??
Those multi nationals would have gone elsewhere.
mm

Typedef

I thought designating ROI as a tax haven,thus penalising UK companies operating here, would be the U.K reacting.

With respect to the UK, American and Japanese multinational investment is what Ireland is trying to attract. It is unfortunate the UK government would rather brand Ireland a tax haven then compete, but that is a choice for the soverign government of the UK.

The problem , I have with that is ,how on Earth would Ireland have dragged itself up to the level, it is at today without the Billions other E.U countries poured in here.

Tell me, how does that create employment? What about when Ireland becomes a Net contributor to EU funding in 2007? Will you still use the argument that somehow Ireland owe's it's soveringty in exchange for structural funds? Perhaps it is your contention that once Ireland reaches some magic number of Structural Fund contribution that Ireland has the right to dictate tax policy to Eastern Europe? Well how come the Americans don't dictate tax policy to Germany or Britiain, after all the Marshall plan poured the equivalent of Trillions into rebuilding Europe after the last war, so why no American dictats to internal German taxation policy, if and when it suits the USA? Hmm? I'll bet that particular piece of small print about soveringty in exchange for short term structural funding was never voted for by the people of Ireland. And again what about 2025 (or whenever) when Ireland has contributed more then it has ever taken from structural funds, will the argument that Ireland has sold it's soveringty to the EU hold water? Perhaps another Gentleman's agreement negated to mention the soveringty tradeoff implied by accepting structural funding?

But I have no problem with your premis. I would ask for all of Ireland's lost revenue from fishing back, staggered of course and will concede to pay the structural funds to whatever country you deem necessary staggered of course, if it means that the argument that soveringty is a purchasable comodity in the eyes of the pro-Federalist can be put to bed.

Tell me, how does that create employment? What about when Ireland becomes a Net contributor to EU funding in 2007? Will you still use the argument that somehow Ireland owe's it's soveringty in exchange for structural funds? Perhaps it is your contention that once Ireland reaches some magic number of Structural Fund contribution that Ireland has the right to dictate tax policy to Eastern Europe?

My point is simply that,Ireland would not have the workforce to attract multinationals, if because of personal tax rates being in the 60's most of the educated workers moved abroad, like they did for generations and as recently as the early ninties.
If we had stayed out of the E.U are you seriously suggesting that we would have had the resources to build the infrastructure that we have today?
Not with fishing income surely?
And it follows if we weren't, the problems of being so wealthy that we might have to be net contibutor to the E.U would not arise.
mm

Sand

I agree with Typedef scarily enough. The European Common market leads to a higher standard of living by encouraging competition and privitisation - why is competition between tax regimes tailored to suit regional demands ( another big European ideal, Europe of the Regions I think they call it ) suddenly a bad thing?

While Irelands economy in and of itself should not bother most people ( if theres more work in Oslo, move to Oslo ) an Irish government would be absolutely suicidal to go for tax harmonisation. Irelands one "natural resource" is its low tax regime which, surprisingly enough, encourages economic activity.

Without it Irelands economy would hit a slump, unemployment would sky rocket and the government would be overthrown by firebrand weilding mobs.

And we need never fear about a trade war, Germany and France are finding it hard to support their bloated quasi worker states as it is and will find it harder as their populations get older (probably the reason theyre getting uppity about competition) - cutting tax rates to compete with Irish rates would mean theyd have to cut spending significantly and out the next general election they go. They may huff and puff but theyve very little room to maneuvere, especially as theyve got the sort of social welfare systems that leads to near constant 10% + unemployment regardless of economic conditions.

Yet you dismiss this as not a threat. They have no reason to do this. Why not? If our economy is no threat to them, then why do they want our tax rates harmonised? Exactly what benefit does it give them? Either we're a threat or we're not. If there is a benefit in harmonising taxes, then there is also a benefit in them going up against our tax regime should harmonisation fall apart.

Actually I think the harmonised tax rates is more a point of priniciple for Federalists who dream of a Parisian style government, where everythings determined at a central point (Paris? Brussels? ) with as little regional/state representation ( of any meaningful power ) as they can get away with. This would be terrible imo but how and ever. I get that impression from the quote that the decision reached "lacked ambition". Can only assume ambition re: that particular federalists dream of Europe.

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
I think you might be a little confused as to what I would support as 'economic co-operation'. In this regard, I do not see any real reason for anything more then a free trade area of sorts. Thus in my view structures like the CAP are totally outside what the European Union should be about.

Ah. Now I see. Your view of what the EU should be is something which is actually far less in cohesion than the EEC we joined three decades ago was about.

To be honest, Type, I cant argue against that stance. I can safely say that there can never be a single balance found in the existing structures which can satisfy you, and yet you claim not to be anti-euro.

Tax harmonisation is a form of co-operation.
Or dictat from Europe, that really depends on whether you are a country who is harmonising or doing the dictation in this regard I'd venture.

Sorry, I forgot about your "French and German seekrit alliance to rule Europe on the sly" theory. Nothing unfavourable to Ireland will ever be anything but a dictate imposed on us according to you, will it.

Funny that I thought the rate of Corporate tax had been raised from 10% to 12.5% because the British had put pressure on Ireland to do so.

Funny, because this is at least the third thread where someoe has had to clarify to you that the Irish tax rate had to be harmonized with itself - that the rate for foreign investment had to match the rate applied to domestic cormpanies.

Ireland was free to choose any tac rate it so desired once it met those conditions. Unfortunately, it discovered that offering all of our national industry the same rates as it offered the outside investment would bankrupt the nation.

In any case, Ireland's taxation regieme is a matter for Ireland, not a matter for Paris, Rome, London or Berlin.

Yes yes. We are masters of our own destiny and will not be dictated to by blah blah blah.

Look, we chose to join the EEC via referendum. It was already more cohesive than would suit your stated wishes. We chose to progress through the EC and on to the EU, all through referenda. These tax harmonisations are pre-Nice issues, so your distaste of that re-run doesnt even figure in here.

The bottom line is that we, as a nation, have chosen to allow these foreign nations to have this degree of influence over us. It is not dictatorial, because we chose to be here. We choose to remain. We are meeting our end of an already-agreed bargain.

You dont like the bargain we made, fine. I accept that. But for the love of god please give up with this "No-one has a right to..." horse, because they do have a right. Its a right we as a nation have chosen to allow them to have.

If other countries were capable of offering better terms, then that is what they would do.
...
I'm not entirely with you here, because it is the Irish government's policy that has priced countries world wide out of the market, with our low rates of tax. Lets see the Germans lowering their own tax regiemes to compete with the Irish and see how it swings with the German electorate, when literally half the money from corporate tax is coming into government coffers due to a dimunition of tax from 30% to Irish levels of 12.5%.

If Germany, France, et al, decided that they wanted to offer a seperate tax bracket to foreign investment, it would not cost them a fraction of what you are implying.

If they went one step further and started offering "package deals" to major incoming investment potential, like the Irish have been doing, it would cost them a big fat nothing in their current scheme, and boost employment, the economy, and in general be a good thing for the exact same reason that it worked for the Irish.

There is no downside for them. Increase employment, increase domestic spend, increase related industries. OK - no tax, but hey...its better than "no company" was.

And why havent they been doing this? Well, as I pointed out, they havent been doing this because of an agreement made decades ago amongst EEC members that they would not get involved in such activities to try and steal investment from one another, because it was ultimately not mutually beneficial.

quite simply when it comes to the economic prosperity of Ireland, it is a case of Ireland comes first, so umm, sorry to any country that can't play by the rules of capitalism and compete with the Irish economy, that is not my problem as an Irish citizen.

When you, as a citizen, are part of a nation which has signed contracts to the effect that captialism against fellow member-nations is no on, then tough crap Typedef, but it most definitely is your problem.

You may not like what the EU is, but that doesnt change reality. There are many aspects of the EU which are categorically about lack of competition (read capitalism) between the member nations. Tax harmonization has been a long-stated goal...going back to at least the inception of the EU, if not the EC. We have agreed in principle to these things....and we have agreed in principle by referendum.

When you get over your phase of denial, maybe you can give this "us, us, and always us" thing a break, because it has absolutely no bearing on the real world.

jc

Meh

Originally posted by bonkey
If Germany, France, et al, decided that they wanted to offer a seperate tax bracket to foreign investment, it would not cost them a fraction of what you are implying.

If they went one step further and started offering "package deals" to major incoming investment potential...

They can't do that -- they have to have the same tax rate for foreign and domestic companies. Just as we do, as you pointed out.

bonkey

Originally posted by Meh
They can't do that -- they have to have the same tax rate for foreign and domestic companies. Just as we do, as you pointed out.

Type's argument is that we are being forced to do it, but that this is because these country's cant compete.

I was pointing out that if we didnt have to harmonise domestic and foreign corporate rates, then neither would they, at which point they could easily compete with us.

AS for Sand's point that :

an Irish government would be absolutely suicidal to go for tax harmonisation. Irelands one "natural resource" is its low tax regime which, surprisingly enough, encourages economic activity.

Without it Irelands economy would hit a slump, unemployment would sky rocket and the government would be overthrown by firebrand weilding mobs.

I cant agree with this at all.

Ireland has three major attractions :

1) low corporate tax rate for foreign investors
2) access to the EU market as a member-state, which means no customs going from here to the mainland or the UK
3) Our skilled workforce

We now have to sacrifice the first, in effect to keep the second. We werent even forced to abandon the first...we abandoned it because lowering our domestic rate to the same level was untenable.

As I have said time and time before, if people really believe that such moves will cripple the economy, then please do something about it. Start petitioning for Ireland to leave the EU....because its the only way you can change things.

jc

Sand

You can get similar access across the EU, in fact you can better access to the major markets on the continent thanks to the nice transport links.

Our skilled workforce is hardly unique in Europe, and given the free movement of labour inside the EU its not nessassary to locate in Ireland to have access to Irelands skilled workforce - though indeed it is beneficial. Also we appear to have major probs getting people to study practical courses as opposed to the History of Marxism- Why Capitalism Sucks!

I believe that Irelands major advantage is its tax regime. With tax harmonisation investors look at at everything *other* than taxes and theyll find Ireland wanting compared to a nice location right at the heart of the market theyre trying to crack.

A federal europe doesnt mean that well instantly have all the power, or even most of the power located in the European federal decision making body - indeed given the checks and balances ideal (which is very wise ) it would make sense to keep power diversified - I dont see that opposing tax harmonisation on important areas such as Corporation tax and income tax suddenly means we cant desire a more integrated europe.

Cork

It looks that the whole tax harmonisation thing is back on the political agenda. The French and German seem to be pushing like mad for it and We, the Irish eeem to be like Turkeys who have just votyed for Christmas.

Typedef

Originally posted by bonkey
I was pointing out that if we didnt have to harmonise domestic and foreign corporate rates, then neither would they, at which point they could easily compete with us.

I think that is a completely erroneous argument. The other countries are as free as Ireland to set their own tax rates, moreso if one factors in your argument that the big countries can use economic muscle to dictate economic policy. Therefore given that each country is as bound as Ireland to harmonise tax (ie not at all bound to do so), it is within their power to compete with the Irish tax regieme if they so choose. The point is that even if France, Germany or Sweden did choose to do so, the trade off in public services would be unacceptable to their citizens and so in effect the countries in question are bound.

Moreover until such time as a European or Federal competence governs Corporate and Personal taxes, Ireland, Britain, Germany and whoever is free to set their own tax rates and in no Treaty that Ireland has ever ratified to my knowledge have the Irish people accepted that low taxes are an unfair form of competition within the Eurozone.

Therefore Ireland is not obliged to harmonise taxes. Ironically it is the British who will probably prevent the eunuciation of a Federal Union and a Federal competence governing taxes and it was the British who initially complained about Ireland's low rates of Corporate tax. In this matter it's a pot and kettle case with the British, because everyone knows full well that the British themselves have some of the lowest rates of taxation in the Western World as it stands.

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
I think that is a completely erroneous argument. The other countries are as free as Ireland to set their own tax rates, moreso if one factors in your argument that the big countries can use economic muscle to dictate economic policy.

OK,

this is pointless.

Type - when you accept that the EU is not the entity that you would like it to be, and accept that our choice to be members of the EU behooves us to play by the rules we have agreed to play by, then there might be a point in continuing this discussion.

Until that time, you can tell me all you like about the EU having no right to dictate to us, or that each nation has its own right to follow its own destiny, but the fact is that these arguments are dissociate from the reality we exist in.

I'm not really interested in the "what should be" of this issue. We're discussing what is. The reality is that we agreed to internally harmonize our corporate taxes, as did every other member nation, as part of the "fair competition" concept. We are free to set that rate at anything we so choose, but we must have a common rate between domestic and foreign investment.

All I was trying to point out is that if we were not obliged to have this common rate, then the other nations would equally not be obliged to have a common rate, and could (if they so choose) beat us soundly at our own game. This is not what is happening, so its a moot point. I should never have made it. Its like saying "if the EU didnt exist then....". It does, so who cares.

jc

Cork

Turning the EU Commission into a quasi-EU Government, and the Commission President into an EU analogue of a national Prime Minister, is the most important political change in the Treaty of Nice after its two-class two-tier EU provisions (miscalled "enhanced cooperation").

Neither of these key changes to the EU decision-making rules have anything logically or legally to do with EU enlargement.

Politically, the Nice Treaty's replacement of unanimity by qualified
majority voting(QMV) for appointing national Commissioners and the Commission President, opens the way for the Big States to control the Commission in quite a new way if Nice is ratified, for it is the Big States that will dominate the qualified majority as regards these matters.

Most Irish voters seem to be unaware - despite the Government's Summary White Paper and the Referendum Commission's efforts - that if Nice is ratified it means that, from January 2005, THE IRISH TAOISEACH AND GOVERNMENT WILL NO LONGER HAVE THE FINAL SAY IN WHO IRELAND'S COMMISSIONER
IS. That will be decided by Council majority vote,and if the Big States do not like a particular national nominee, they can always insist on another in behind-the-scenes bargaining over nominations.

Post-Nice, the next EU Commission, to be appointed in January 2005, will be radically different from the Commission of today.

The first step under Nice will be to decide the President of the Commission by majority vote,which the Big States will determine because this is a key appointment. Also under Nice the new President will be able to shuffle and reshufle his Commissioners, much as a national Prime Minister shuffles a
Cabinet.That cannot happen now.

The President will also be able to require a Commissioner's resignation. This will make national Commissioners much more compliant with the President's views than they need be at present. If a Taoisecah dismisses a Minister, the Minister remains a TD and can hope to become a Minister
again in some future administration. If the EU Commission President dismisses a Commissioner, that will be the end of his career.

Nice also provides that nominations for national Commissioners - to be appointed by majority vote - must be such as to ensure that the Commissioners are congenial to the Commission President and the qualified majority on the Council. The President thus has a key role in appointing national Commissioners, unlike today.

These provisons of Nice move the Commision towards becoming an EU Government, and the President of the Commission towards becoming an EU Prime Minister.

The Big States will be able to control or have decisive influence on the the EU Commission through its President,with his new powers, and his and their role in appointing individual national Commissioners.

That is why the Big States such as France and Germany can look with equanimity on the prospect of being unrepresented themselves form time to time on a rotating Commission in an enlarged EU of 27 States.

Together with the provisions on "enhanced cooperation," these changes to the Commission provided for in Nice amount to what the Portuguese Prime Minister has termed an "institutional coup d'etat" in relation to the EU as we have known it up to now - on the part of France and Germany.

I think the way the CAP negotiations were carried out was a sign for the future. Germany agreeing with France and agreement is reached.

^^^^^^

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I thought the above copy and paste tract
was soundly rejected by the people on
october 19th.
mm

Cork

I thought the above copy and paste tract
was soundly rejected by the people on
october 19th.

It was - but - I pasted it for a reason that France and Germany are now the Masters of Europe.

They agreed on CAP - Negotitions ended.

Now - they will push to tax harmonisation.

Do you think Ireland will stand up aganist these?

Meh

Originally posted by Cork
Do you think Ireland will stand up aganist these?

Well, if you'd read the article I'd linked in the first post in this thread (disappeared now, thanks to eircom), you'd see that Ireland is standing up to them very successfully.

Cork

I think that should the government fail the Irish fishermen by not protecting the 50 mile limit oround our island - it be be very worrying.

I think - the Eurocrats have no respect for Irish democracy or accountability.

I would not be a assured as as you that we will make a stand.

Victor

Originally posted by Cork
I think that should the government fail the Irish fishermen by not protecting the 50 mile limit oround our island - it be be very worrying.

I think there is one way to protect it. Charge them all royalties on the fish they catch.

Typedef

Originally posted by Cork
Now - they will push to tax harmonisation.

Not likely, so long as the UK opposes Tax Harmonisation and it has allies like the Swedish, Irish and Austrians to envigorate this position.

The same goes for a Federal Union, sort of, the Germans are cooling to the idea of a Federal Union I think, here is a pdf that would seem to back up that claim.
http://www.cdu.de/englisch/europapolitik_engl.pdf
From my thread here.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=68649


EU behooves us to play by the rules we have agreed to play by, then there might be a point in continuing this discussion

Jc. I accept that Ireland as a State must play by the rules it has agreed to. Ireland has 'not' agreed to tax harmonisation and in no Treaty that the Irish people have ever ratified has taxation been labled as 'unfair' competition. You say tax harmonisation is implied by 'the rules' (of the Union), I say that until such time as Ireland agrees to that via Plebiscite that such an assertion is erroneous.
Furthermore I take serious issue with acts of ceding soveringty to Europe under the umbrella of 'plebiscite' as being valid, when it is quite obvious that people do not vote for or against a measure based on that measure's merits, but on the 'perception' of which 'side' is to be believed in such campaigns to accept or reject in this case European integration measures. In this regard putting Treaties to the people is merely for show, clearly the people do not understand the Treaties they vote for.

For example Ireland signed up to a Treaty that gave Europe jurisdiction over fishing of Irish waters. People voted for this measure, so logically this implies that people 'want' Europe to have this jurisdiction over Irish fishing rights. This is not the case, most people in Ireland are shocked that the Common fishiers policy can allow a mere 3% of the EU's catch to Ireland, where Ireland has 11% of the waterspace. Now Federalists or others might turn around and say "the people voted for this", but in reality if you asked the people of Ireland to vote tomorrow on whether or not the EU should have jurdiction over Ireland's allowable fishing catch, the measure would be defeated, without doubt. Thus when the people ratified the measure that allowed the EU to dictate this policy, the people did so in ignorance of what the measure would ultimately mean.

Thus the notion that the EU is a body the Irish people have willingly walked into is true, but it is also true to say that the Irish people don't really understand what that Union implies as the Irish people would most certainly never have willingly decimated the fishing industry of their own country. To argue against this view is in my opinion to stick ones head in the sand and rationalise in perpetuity.

Again, ask ordinary Irish people tomorrow if they think it was a 'good' idea to given Europe jurisdiction over fishing in Irish waters in the light of small fishing communities being given only access to 25% of the potential Irish fishing stock and see if that measure passes. It wouldn't pass, quite obviously, so how can one claim that European jurisdiction in this and in many other areas is actually what the Irish people want, when the Irish people would not in many cases support such ceding of soveringty if the people at large understood the full ramifications of such acts of ceding?

Victor

Originally posted by Typedef
The same goes for a Federal Union, sort of, the Germans are cooling to the idea of a Federal Union I think, here is a pdf that would seem to back up that claim.
http://www.cdu.de/englisch/europapolitik_engl.pdf
From my thread here.

Aren't the CDU in opposition?

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
Thus the notion that the EU is a body the Irish people have willingly walked into is true, but it is also true to say that the Irish people don't really understand what that Union implies as the Irish people would most certainly never have willingly decimated the fishing industry of their own country. To argue against this view is in my opinion to stick ones head in the sand and rationalise in perpetuity.

So what you're saying is that the result of the previous plebiscite isnt relevant because the people didnt know what they were agreeing to? Sounds horribly like a stance you were vehemently condemning only a few short weeks ago

As for the current round of negotiations, I have very little interest in how much faith people like Cork profess to have or not have. The Irish are opposing tax harmonisation - something Cork has no faith that they will do. As soon as this is pointed out, we have another area he has no faith in our government to protect.

As with all negotiations, there is a degree of give and take. Ireland will no doubt end up keeping some benefits it should no longer really be entitled to based on its economic position. This, of course, can be spun as "we lost some benefits - see, I knew our government would let us down".

Here's a really scary thing....they're your government. They are the collected choice of you and the rest of the people. If the people are as unhappy as Typedef claims, or have as little faith as Cork, then what in the name of all that is sense and reason are they doing re-electing the usual suspects in every party election after election?

This boils back to an old debate which has resurfaced here plenty of times. Democracy gives a nation the government it deserves. If the people of this country are consistently agreeing to "bad" agreements and electing "bad" governments, then one must simply ask why? Are they incapable of learning their lessons?

If people are not willing to think about an issue when the opportunity to decide arises, then they deserve what they get. Any idiot can tell you how they should have chosen in an issue once they can see whether their actual choice was good or not. Of course, they can never know what a different decision might have cost, but thats not important (apparently). And yet, time after time, we continue, as a nation, to make these apparently bad choices....

Would the people make the same choice if presented with the issue of fishing grounds again? Probably not - you're dead right. On the other hand, if faced with a new issue, would they learn their lesson and pay attention first time round? I very much doubt it. Given the multitude of bad decisions you guys can come up with - either by the people or their chosen representatives - I think you more or less prove my point.

Part of life is abiding by our decisions. If we want to exist in any form of international community, there isnt a hope of hell of being able to make decisions on the basis of "well, let us decide now, but we reserve the right to change our minds on each issue which wasnt to our advantage". Because that's in effect what you're advocating - that we shouldnt have to abide by decisions that when taken in isolation, in hindsight, appear to have been the wrong ones. We shouldnt be bound to accept these impositions that turned out to be disfavourable....but we should keep the ones that were advantageous.

We, as a nation, continue to make bad choices. We elect people who cant fight our corner, or pick a team to fight it for us. We make the wrong decisions....as viewed in a very narrow-vision hindsight. And yet somehow, we are the wronged ones? Please.

Secondly, just consider the implications of Ireland having some "sovereign right" to redecide on issues that werent to our advantage. Well, then, so must every other sovereign nation have similar rights. So no-one must abide by anything which is disadvantageous....

Given that most things in the EU involve taking from one nation and giving to another....you can quickly see the logical conclusion, cant you? No-one has to give anything. This, of course, would be Typedef's idealistic pre-EEC loose economic community of nations who only make agreements which are mutually beneficial, but who can backstab each other all they like when its to their own advantages.

jc

sceptre

Originally posted by bonkey
then what in the name of all that is sense and reason are they doing re-electing the usual suspects in every party election after election?

I think I can explain that one. Had a (brief) conversation with GF about Irish politics yesterday. I mentioned (again - purely to rise her) that I do actually vote for the party/candidate that I think is best for the country at the time of the election and for the duration of the next government, making me a dictionary definition floating voter. She said that she votes for the party/candidate that impresses her most at the time (fair enough - at least she's thinking about it[1]) but where no party impresses her at all she'll vote FF by default. I suspect many people think that way (on either side of the artificial divide), even ignoring the people that will just vote in a particular manner based on some argument that happened 80 years ago.

Ultimately, as you've pointed out, the people get the government they deserve. If they don't make a conscious decision about their vote and more importantly, know why they're voting in a particular manner they don't deserve a good government.


[1] Just in case she reads this, this is a Good Thing. She refuses to discuss politics or economics with me but as long as there's actually a decision being made, I couldn't give a fig which way she votes. I do however suspect that if I ran for election under any banner but deValera's she'd have to seriously think whether to vote for me or not:)

Cork

If there was an election tomorrow morning - I would vote FF - They are the best we have got.

We do not want tax harmonisation - If it comes in - we will be like the Outback.

We'll be like the Las Vagas of Europe - Holiday Ireland.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
If there was an election tomorrow morning - I would vote FF - They are the best we have got.

Then I would strongly suggest you stop constantly complaining about how you have no faith in our government to do X, Y, and Z.

If you are happy to elect them, then you must accept their decisions, and the resultant outcomes.

Personally, if I couldnt find a candidate worth voting for, I would spoil my vote, or choose not to vote. I sure as hell wouldnt vote for "the best we have" if they're not good enough, because how will they get the message to improve otherwise?

jc

Cork

I would never spoil my vote - It was hard won.

No party is perfect. But I think FF for all their faults are the best we have.

When you look at the North before they got back into office - no ceasefire & no Good Friday agreement.

FG would not have done a good a job as FF on this.

Tax harmonisation would sound the Death Knell for our total economy. We do not have oil - one of the few competitive advantages we have is taxation.

Originally posted by Cork
I would never spoil my vote - It was hard won.

No party is perfect. But I think FF for all their faults are the best we have.

When you look at the North before they got back into office - no ceasefire & no Good Friday agreement.

FG would not have done a good a job as FF on this.

Tax harmonisation would sound the Death Knell for our total economy. We do not have oil - one of the few competitive advantages we have is taxation.

Cork you sound to me like my next door neighbour.
He's in his eighties, and the new local priest visited him the other day....
My neighbour said to me the next day " I think that new fella is another blue shirt...." why, I said... and yer man said, "well he was asking why I had a picture of Dev above the fire place instead of Our Lord...:rolleyes:
Needless to say that wasn't the first time he called a visitor a blue shirt...
mm

Typedef

I'd tend to agree with bonkey (not on harmonisation, lets agree to disagree like gents on that one), but on the notion that if you vote for Fianna Fial even though you vehemently disagree with some Fianna Fial policies then you can't really bitch about their policies.

For example I specifically voted against Fianna Fial, because of it's stance on the Nice Treaty instead the Green Party will continue to get my first preference vote so long as I believe Fianna Fial is exponenciating a view of a quasi-Federal European Union.

In many ways I'm a nationalist and as a nationalist I would say I subscribe to a kind of Bushist unilateralism vis-a-vis Irish interests, and since I don't believe political Union with the the EU is in Irish interests I don't vote for parties that I think will bring Ireland closer to such a Union. I am a floating voter though, after the Good Friday agreement I was going to vote Fianna Fial, like I say Nice soured me on Fianna Fial.

However since I am prepaired to break with Fianna Fial or the Greens on issues I think merit them the choice for me becomes, is party (x) so divergent from my view that I will refuse to vote for them. In Fianna Fial's case vis-a-vis Europe, yes, that is the case and for me Europe is a big issue.

Perhaps for you Europe is not such a big issue, perhaps it is, but the fact is if you vote for a party, it is no good criticising them after the fact and then voting for them again. How will you ever let the politicians know what you want unless you use your vote to tell them?

Thus Cork you must really want whatever you think it is Fianna Fial have to offer over and above your opposition to European Federalism.

If you are happy to elect them, then you must accept their decisions, and the resultant outcomes.

It makes sense really, so long as you give support to Fianna Fial, you give tacit support to their greater policy motif, carte blanche if you will.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
I would never spoil my vote - It was hard won.

So if there was an election in your local area, and the only two representatives were both from parties you detest utterly (like, say, Sinn Fein - IIRC you're no fan of theirs), you would still feel obliged to vote for one of them because "my vote was hard won" ???

Funnily enough, no-one ever asked me if I wanted a vote. They never gave me a choice. For me, being compelled to vote (or being compelled to vote with no option to spoil) is a loss of my personal freedom. I dont care how hard won it was. If some dictator overtook this country by force, and imposed single-candidate, mandatory voting (like they have in Iraq for example), I would not see it as a "hard won right" although the term would still equally apply.

Its a right, not an obligation, and you have the right to use your vote (or not use as the case may be) any way you choose. That is what was hard won - the freedom of choice.

Originally posted by Typedef
(not on harmonisation, lets agree to disagree like gents on that one)

Certainly, although I would agree that tax harmonisation across the EU nations (as opposed to internally within each nation such as we have just done with our corporate rates) would be a horrifically bad move at this point in time.

jc

Cork

There is not perfect party so we as voters tend to pick the one that we most agree with.

In my constituency - It is a 3 seater. There is one safe FF seat and 1 safe FG seat. We have a choice to give the remaining one to FF or FG. The PDs,Green or SF do not run. Niether do, independants.


But - We have a choice.

Its a right, not an obligation

It is - but it is good to have a say.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
but it is good to have a say.

Sure, and spoiling your vote says "I am not happy with these candidates".

Alternately, you could vote FF, and then mail the TD you voted for and explain in the letter that you voted for him, but think his party's policies on X, Y, and Z are a load of c0ck.

jc

Originally posted by Cork
There is not perfect party so we as voters tend to pick the one that we most agree with.

In my constituency - It is a 3 seater. There is one safe FF seat and 1 safe FG seat. We have a choice to give the remaining one to FF or FG. The PDs,Green or SF do not run. Niether do, independants.


But - We have a choice.



It is - but it is good to have a say.

There are only two parties ever running in your constituency??
Which one, cause I'll run there, I'll bus in my support campaign:p
Will you vote for me:D probably not as I voted yes to Nice:eek:
mm

Cork

Alternately, you could vote FF, and then mail the TD you voted for and explain in the letter that you voted for him, but think his party's policies on X, Y, and Z are a load of c0ck.

I don't expect to agree 100% with a person I vote for. I take a look at what party would do the best for the area and the country.

There are only two parties ever running in your constituency??

No - Labour run as well - but they really have no a hope.

Area: Cork NW