Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

1…8384868889…127

Comments

  • #2552
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    There's already exactly such a thread - please check before starting new ones. Merging.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • #2553
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    free-man wrote: »
    3. Economy
    - Again we're constantly told that lisbon will be great for our economy. Tell this to the spanish who have seen their unemployment figures double in almost a year since ratifying lisbon.
    - The refute is that of course this happened because Lisbon hasn't been passed yet. What specifically will Lisbon do to help the Irish and Spanish economy (I am aware of the ECB bailout and special treatment of the Irish in recent months)

    I'm just going to pick on the most obviously wrong thing you said and others will take care of the rest. Firstly, the Spanish ratified the constitution, not Lisbon and secondly, they voted yes but the French and the Dutch voted no so the constitution never came into force. All that happened was the Spanish went out one day and cast some votes but nothing changed. They are still living under Nice rules just like the rest of us. So how in the name of Christ could that have had any effect on their economy?


  • #2554
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    free-man wrote: »
    4. 'Legal' Guarantees
    You could see this one a mile away. I predicted but didn't verbalise it at the time that the guarantees would not turn out to be actual protocols but 'solemn declarations' which is basically a way of saying 'we promise' but with the fingers crossed behind the back.

    What is with the spin from the media about 'cast iron' 'legal' guarantees?

    Declarations are dubious at best and outright misleading at worst. Once ratified the treaty is what will be referred to and not the declarations in the ECJ. I am aware that the plan is to add them as protocols in the next accession treaty whenever that occurs, in the mean time what shade of grey area are we in? Moreover if the accession treaty is not passed how long do we remain in legal limbo land?

    And another one:
    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055617733

    You will notice the following text on that page:
    (iii) the Decision is legally binding and will take effect on the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;
    The people who tell you the guarantees aren't legally binding are lying to you.


  • #2555
    Dinner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,132 ✭✭✭Dinner


    free-man wrote: »
    In terms of reasons for voting no I see many, reasons for voting yes i see few.

    Congratulations on gathering up nearly every bullshit argument to vote no and placing it in one easily accessible place.

    All of your points have been dealt with a number of times in this forum, probably in this very thread. A brief search should turn up a rebuttal for each of your points.


  • #2556
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I'm just going to pick on the most obviously wrong thing you said and others will take care of the rest. Firstly, the Spanish ratified the constitution, not Lisbon and secondly, they voted yes but the French and the Dutch voted no so the constitution never came into force. All that happened was the Spanish went out one day and cast some votes but nothing changed. They are still living under Nice rules just like the rest of us. So how in the name of Christ could that have had any effect on their economy?

    I think your missing my point.

    Allow me to elaborate, I don't believe Lisbon has any effect on the economy of Spain or Ireland.

    The unemployment issue with Spain was not because they ratified just as Ireland's position will be unchanged if we ratify although we're being told the opposite from the Yes side.

    And we're not going to get into a debate between the difference between the constitution and the treaty.. are we? I think that's been argued to death at this stage..


  • Advertisement
  • #2557
    Johnnnybravo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,115 ✭✭✭Johnnnybravo


    Dinner wrote: »
    Congratulations on gathering up nearly every bullshit argument to vote no and placing it in one easily accessible place.

    All of your points have been dealt with a number of times in this forum, probably in this very thread. A brief search should turn up a rebuttal for each of your points.


    But what if the poster doesnt want feedback on his points??? Maybe hes just doing as he is well entitled to and posting his reasons for voting no. Just because youve had this conversation before doesnt mean he wants it:rolleyes: Hes entitled to his say.


  • #2558
    Dinner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,132 ✭✭✭Dinner


    Johnnnybravo wrote: »
    But what if the poster doesnt want feedback on his points??? Maybe hes just doing as he is well entitled to and posting his reasons for voting no. Just because youve had this conversation before doesnt mean he wants it:rolleyes: Hes entitled to his say.

    I take it you didn't read his post then.
    Lets have some real debate


  • #2559
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    free-man wrote: »
    In terms of reasons for voting no I see many, reasons for voting yes i see few.

    My reasons:

    1. Anti democratic
    - Any organization that despises its members so much that they feel they can ignore the popular vote and ask citizens to re-vote on the exact same treaty is not to be trusted.
    - Nothing has changed in this treaty, we are asked to vote on the exact same thing, more or less the same document that was shot down by France and Holland.
    - The arrogance of the European elite and the pandering of the Irish government in the days that followed was shameful - "don't
    worry lads we'll fix this" as opposed to "our citizens have spoken, please respect our vote"
    - I've heard all the arguments that our small nation is holding back the rest of Europe (see above for French & Dutch) and that we
    should be allowed time to 'reflect' and 'reconsider' as people can change their mind right? If that logic holds lets make it best of 3, something tells me if we vote yes we'll never have another chance to reconsider a no.

    All of that is relevant to our government - the one we elected - not either the EU or Lisbon. If you want a government that wants a No vote, elect Sinn Fein.
    free-man wrote: »
    2. Spin
    - The sheer amount of spin by the Irish media is unbelievable, with the Irish times forcing the agenda daily with their opinion pieces and skewed polls with leading questions.
    - We then had 'celebrities' endorsing the treaty until this backfired when they get asked heavyweight questions on it.
    - If I hear the phrase 'heart of europe' again I'm going to kill someone. What exactly does this mean??
    - This has now extended to spin on the economy (see below)

    So?
    free-man wrote: »
    3. Economy
    - Again we're constantly told that lisbon will be great for our economy. Tell this to the spanish who have seen their unemployment figures double in almost a year since ratifying lisbon.
    - The refute is that of course this happened because Lisbon hasn't been passed yet. What specifically will Lisbon do to help the Irish and Spanish economy (I am aware of the ECB bailout and special treatment of the Irish in recent months)

    The second one has been covered many times, and the former is complete gibberish. You're not even getting it right - the correct Open Europe myth is that Spanish unemployment went up after voting Yes to the Constitution.

    Our unemployment has gone up massively after voting No, so by the same logic...
    free-man wrote: »
    4. 'Legal' Guarantees
    You could see this one a mile away. I predicted but didn't verbalise it at the time that the guarantees would not turn out to be actual protocols but 'solemn declarations' which is basically a way of saying 'we promise' but with the fingers crossed behind the back.

    What is with the spin from the media about 'cast iron' 'legal' guarantees?

    Declarations are dubious at best and outright misleading at worst. Once ratified the treaty is what will be referred to and not the declarations in the ECJ. I am aware that the plan is to add them as protocols in the next accession treaty whenever that occurs, in the mean time what shade of grey area are we in? Moreover if the accession treaty is not passed how long do we remain in legal limbo land?

    If they were genuine about it why not attach a protocol to the existing treaty? Obviously this will not be done as each country would need to re-ratify the new text. It may delay the time line a little but it would turn a lot of voters - whats the rush?

    Please don't spread falsehoods about the guarantees. There are 5 things we negotiated after the No vote, and only one of them is a Solemn Declaration. If you're in some doubt on the matter, please review the "Text of the Guarantees" thread stickied at the top of the forum.
    free-man wrote: »
    5. Lack of trust
    I am having difficulty placing my trust in an organisation that appears to strive for fairness and equality across the eurozone but on closer investigation we find that the organisation has been cooking the books for at least 13 years last time i checked

    No, they've passed a standard audit every year. They've failed to qualify on an extra target they set themselves, of ensuring that not only are the accounts a "fair and true statement", which they always do pass, but that there are no late payments or mistakes made.
    free-man wrote: »
    6. Government endorsement
    First they endorsed it when they hadn't read the thing now they're fully behind it. Why would you trust any government that recommends policy without even reading policy documents. Is the EU working for the people are are the governments just securing their 'retirement' on the political gravy train?

    What "retirement on the gravy train" is possible apart from the Irish Commissioner position - which covers one politician at a time? The Irish quango sector has 2500 government-appointed board members and the Seanad has more. There's no "EU gravy train".
    free-man wrote: »
    7. EU President
    I'm hearing that Tony Blair may be put forward for EU President. I have a bitter taste in my mouth on this one. The same guy who supported the invasion of Iraq with Bush and co, allowed falsified 'evidence' as a justification to invade and is being pursued as a war criminal in the Hague could be made president and be given a voice to speak for all of Europe. How can I vote this guy out? Is it even possible?

    Tony Blair was President in 2005. Did you complain then that you couldn't "vote him out"?
    free-man wrote: »
    8. Status Quo
    I am pro european (shock). I would consider myself more Berlin than Boston BUT I am also quite happy with the status quo - a United Europe centered around economic policy and free trade. The political posturing that now seems to be occurring is something we really don't need. I am quite happy with our own constitution and I don't need a new charter of fundamental rights.

    Our Constitution doesn't apply against EU legislation, the COFR does - and that's without considering that the Constitution contains an absolutely pitiful set of rights.
    free-man wrote: »
    9. Referendum on the current government
    Although this isn't my reason I can see many Irish using Lisbon II to give the current government another kicking. Now logic dictates that you should separate out anger for the government with any reactionary vote, especially one as important as Lisbon however I'm happy to let the irish public exercise their anger in the form of a No vote especially since we won't get another chance.

    Completely irrelevant.
    free-man wrote: »
    I'm sure there's lots of other reasons I can't think of but the above sums up my position on Lisbon. In contrast the reasons for voting Yes appear to be

    a. If we vote no we'll no longer be at the 'heart of europe' which may lead to US MNCs pulling out.
    b. If we vote no the EU wont be our 'friends' and we'll get less financial support
    c. If we vote yes the EU will be more efficient

    Refutes
    a. One of the main reasons US MNCs are here is - our corp tax rate. We lose the ability to control this or become uncompetitive we lose the MNC
    b. The ECB are supplementing us at present. If we vote yes how long with this continue for? Months? Years? This is not an incentive to vote yes. We need to resolve our own problems here.
    c. Simply put, I don't care, given all the negatives above.

    I have been a member here for some time and I expect this thread not to be locked (as some other posters have suggested is occurring here).

    Lets have some real debate and use this thread for people to post their reasons for voting yes or no!

    If you didn't post straw men and irrelevancies in your call for "real debate" (what have we been having so far, exactly?), you might convince people that's what you actually want.

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • #2560
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    There's already exactly such a thread - please check before starting new ones. Merging.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw

    Noted Scofflaw, thanks for moving..


  • #2561
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    free-man wrote: »
    I think your missing my point.

    Allow me to elaborate, I don't believe Lisbon has any effect on the economy of Spain or Ireland.

    The unemployment issue with Spain was not because they ratified just as Ireland's position will be unchanged if we ratify although we're being told the opposite from the Yes side.
    Spain ratified a treaty that never happened. If the Irish ratify the treaty it will happen. Do you not see any distinction between those two scenarios?

    You might as well be saying that you ordered a pizza to your house that never arrived but you died of food poisoning from it anyway.

    free-man wrote: »
    And we're not going to get into a debate between the difference between the constitution and the treaty.. are we? I think that's been argued to death at this stage..

    I think we should because your opinion of it is at odds with reality. Here is a quote from one of the hundred or so times I've responded to that point:
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    You will find many people who will make claims like the treaty is 90% the same as the constitution. The thing that these people unfortunately overlook is that the 10% difference is what the French and the Dutch wanted taken out/put in.

    It seems this is how it's supposed to go:

    The people: We don't like this treaty because of articles 2, 5 and 7
    The EU: Ok, here's a new treaty without articles 2, 5 and 7.
    The people: WTF??? That's 90% the same. Feck off!!!
    The EU: *head explode*


  • Advertisement
  • #2562
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    Wow, a lot of animosity here! Let me try to respond..
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    All of that is relevant to our government - the one we elected - not either the EU or Lisbon. If you want a government that wants a No vote, elect Sinn Fein.

    I happen to believe that our government are not as immaterial to the treaty as you think. They had a part in negotiating it and be extension promoting it. Like I said it appears they are more concerned with appeasing Europe than the Irish citizens who voted No in majority last time out.

    I don't favour Sinn Fein at all but at the moment I can't vote for any Government as the current Government pretends it has a mandate when their approval rating is less than 15% of the country.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    So?

    I don't believe Spin is a good thing to maliciously or intentionally convince voters who are undecided. That goes for both sides, but i've seen a LOT more spin by the Yes side.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    The second one has been covered many times, and the former is complete gibberish. You're not even getting it right - the correct Open Europe myth is that Spanish unemployment went up after voting Yes to the Constitution.

    Our unemployment has gone up massively after voting No, so by the same logic...
    See my other post on this.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Please don't spread falsehoods about the guarantees. There are 5 things we negotiated after the No vote, and only one of them is a Solemn Declaration. If you're in some doubt on the matter, please review the "Text of the Guarantees" thread stickied at the top of the forum.
    It depends who you believe really? Its a falsehood if you believe the government but not a falsehood if you believe some constitutional lawyers. Given the governments track record on falsehood I will reserve judgement on that.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    No, they've passed a standard audit every year. They've failed to qualify on an extra target they set themselves, of ensuring that not only are the accounts a "fair and true statement", which they always do pass, but that there are no late payments or mistakes made.

    I will look into this further but in quoting from Terry Wynn - President of the EU Budget committee - " It is like the auditors for the supermarket chain, Tesco, doing the audits and saying, overall, the books are in order but they know there is shoplifting going on somewhere yet cannot say exactly where."

    Also from this story - "    Marta Andreasen was sacked as Chief Accounting Officer for the European Commission after she refused to sign off the budget for 2001."

    Maybe your right and they're trying to agree on a standard of excellence that is unattainable but it seems dodgy at best to me.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Tony Blair was President in 2005. Did you complain then that you couldn't "vote him out"?

    I don't believe i was a member of boards back then.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Our Constitution doesn't apply against EU legislation, the COFR does - and that's without considering that the Constitution contains an absolutely pitiful set of rights.

    So you have no respect for our constitution?
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Completely irrelevant.

    While it may be completely irrelevant to you, I believe it will be relevant to a lot of citizens who will use Lisbon as a protest vote, whether that is right or wrong is not the issue, it is reality and thus a factor in the outcome.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    If you didn't post straw men and irrelevancies in your call for "real debate" (what have we been having so far, exactly?), you might convince people that's what you actually want.

    Your right, it is tough to have a debate when you get answers such as 'Completely irrelevant'!


  • #2563
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Spain ratified a treaty that never happened. If the Irish ratify the treaty it will happen. Do you not see any distinction between those two scenarios?

    You might as well be saying that you ordered a pizza to your house that never arrived but you died of food poisoning from it anyway.


    I just realised I've misunderstood your point. It's not that the yes vote damaged their economy because of the provisions of Lisbon but that it didn't save it. Differences between that situation and ours:
    1. Spain is not dependent on foreign direct investment the way we are.
    2. There is no question that Spain wants to be fully involved in the EU in the future but if we vote no Ireland will have rejected 3 EU treaties. To the rest of the world we don't seem to want the same things as the rest of the EU and may not always be members or we may get so many opt outs that the benefits to business of being EU members are negated. Those companies can just as easily locate in cheaper countries that aren't fighting their neighbours every step of the way
    3. They voted yes before recession hit, when things like this didn't make that much of a difference. Recessions are fueled by uncertainty and selecting this treaty creates uncertainty


  • #2564
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Spain ratified a treaty that never happened. If the Irish ratify the treaty it will happen. Do you not see any distinction between those two scenarios?

    You might as well be saying that you ordered a pizza to your house that never arrived but you died of food poisoning from it anyway.

    What I am saying is the argument that Spain's unemployment doubled as a reason to vote no is just as rubbish as the yes sides contention that we should vote yes to 'save jobs' and that the economy will rapidly recover.

    The only difference is the no argument is a minor point argued on Internet forums whereas the yes argument is now being used as the backbone of the campaign and the key message which is duping certain don't knows.

    So do you believe that Lisbon will solve our economic problems? Or that if we vote no we will receive no support from the ECB?
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I think we should because your opinion of it is at odds with reality. Here is a quote from one of the hundred or so times I've responded to that point:

    You will find many people who will make claims like the treaty is 90% the same as the constitution. The thing that these people unfortunately overlook is that the 10% difference is what the French and the Dutch wanted taken out/put in.

    It seems this is how it's supposed to go:

    The people: We don't like this treaty because of articles 2, 5 and 7
    The EU: Ok, here's a new treaty without articles 2, 5 and 7.
    The people: WTF??? That's 90% the same. Feck off!!!
    The EU: *head explode*

    I think it is at odds with your reality which may or may not be correct.

    Perhaps you could point me in the direction of the post referendum research that specifies this is the only reason why the French and Dutch voted No?


  • #2565
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    "NO"

    Just one of my reasons amid a few:

    2dm79g6.jpg

    EDIT: Highlighted the appropriate section


  • #2566
    Dinner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,132 ✭✭✭Dinner


    Biggins wrote: »
    Just one of my reasons amid a few:

    2e1t9w4.jpg

    What an article! Apparently Tony Blair is 'near certain' to be 'our president'.

    I though even the most basic of research was required to be a journalist.

    Guess not.


  • #2567
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Dinner wrote: »
    What an article! Apparently Tony Blair is 'near certain' to be 'our president'.

    I though even the most basic of research was required to be a journalist.

    Guess not.


    Your right to a great deal but the section under "Intolerant" is relevant more so.
    That first paragraph AND the three preceding ones before it!

    Any comment on those in particular?


  • #2568
    Hitman Actual
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,362 ✭✭✭Hitman Actual


    Biggins wrote: »
    Just one of my reasons amid a few:

    2e1t9w4.jpg
    I'm desperately trying to avoid the Lisbon debate at the moment because of how retarded the discussion is getting... but, wow! that article takes some beating on the moron-ometer. The sad thing is that some Irish people will get taken in by that horrible rubbish.


  • #2569
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Hitman Actual wrote: »
    I'm desperately trying to avoid the Lisbon debate at the moment because of how retarded the discussion is getting... but, wow! that article takes some beating on the moron-ometer. The sad thing is that some Irish people will get taken in by that horrible rubbish.
    Absolutely right but to reiterate:

    "The section under "Intolerant" is relevant more so.
    That first paragraph AND the three preceding ones before it!"

    Any one wish to say they know better than a lecturer at Trinity?


  • #2570
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,859 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    free-man wrote: »
    It depends who you believe really?
    No, not really. It's a bit like evolution. Those who are determined to believe in Creationism will say "it depends who you believe really", but - no matter who you believe - the Earth is more than a few thousand years old.
    Its a falsehood if you believe the government but not a falsehood if you believe some constitutional lawyers.
    There's a neat little flaw in your reasoning in there. I'll leave it as an exercise for the discerning reader to find it.
    I will look into this further but in quoting from Terry Wynn - President of the EU Budget committee - " It is like the auditors for the supermarket chain, Tesco, doing the audits and saying, overall, the books are in order but they know there is shoplifting going on somewhere yet cannot say exactly where."
    If Tesco's auditors said precisely that, would you conclude that Tesco's auditors had refused to sign off on its accounts?

    Do you think Tesco's auditors should refuse to sign off on its accounts unless it eliminated any remote possibility of shoplifting? Do you think that's a reasonable standard, or just an ideal to strive for?
    Maybe your right and they're trying to agree on a standard of excellence that is unattainable but it seems dodgy at best to me.
    So you'd be happier if the EU lowered its standards in order to make sure it reached them?


  • #2571
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Biggins wrote: »
    ... Any one wish to say they know better than a lecturer at Trinity?

    Coughlan is not a lecturer at Trinity; he was one. He is now a full-time Eurosceptic.

    Yeah, he's wrong. Synon is wrong, mainly because she has no regard for accuracy, starting with the fact that there is no proposal for a President of Europe.


  • Advertisement
  • #2572
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    Dinner wrote: »
    What an article! Apparently Tony Blair is 'near certain' to be 'our president'.

    I though even the most basic of research was required to be a journalist.

    Guess not.

    Perhaps the Independent , FT or the Guardian might help?


  • #2573
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Biggins wrote: »
    Absolutely right but to reiterate:

    "The section under "Intolerant" is relevant more so.
    That first paragraph AND the three preceding ones before it!"

    Any one wish to say they know better than a lecturer at Trinity?

    Is that the same Trinity Professor who doesn't know the difference between a Direct and an Indirect Taxation? And has opposed every single european referendum since 1973?

    By the way this should cheer you up no end.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/5802926/Tony-Blair-faces-disappointment-in-bid-to-become-European-Unions-president.html

    http://euobserver.com/9/26091

    And don't read the Daily Mail for European news.


  • #2574
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    free-man wrote: »
    Perhaps the Independent , FT or the Guardian might help?

    Perhaps something more recent (see above)


  • #2575
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    marco_polo wrote: »
    Is that the same Trinity Professor who doesn't know the difference between a Direct and an Indirect Taxation? And has opposed every single european referendum since 1973?

    I don't believe so but good try!

    The section referred to by myself have nothing to do with Blair by the way!
    Couldn't give a toss about Blair.

    Still waiting for someone to argue with the legal points made by our man at Trinity.


  • #2576
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Biggins wrote: »
    I don't believe so but good try!

    The section referred to by myself have nothing to do with Blair by the way!
    Couldn't give a toss about Blair.
    11. FOREIGN INVESTMENT AND HARMONISING TAXES: Lisbon would amend the existing treaties to give the EU exclusive power as regards rules on foreign direct investment(Arts.206-7 TFEU). It would give the EU Court of Justice the power to order the harmonisation of national indirect taxes if it judges that these cause a “distortion of competition” (Art.113 TFEU, Protocol 27 on the Internal Market and Competition). These steps could threaten Ireland’s 12.5% company profits tax, which is the principal incentive that attracts foreign companies to Ireland and keeps them here when they come.

    Point 13 of his 'reasons' to vote no, another couple of which were the basis of that article you posted.
    He has been described as a eurosceptic in his and he opposed EU enlargement and EU treaties such as the Single European Act, Maastricht Treaty, Amsterdam Treaty, Nice Treaty, Nice Treaty re-run and the Lisbon Treaty.[1]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Coughlan


  • #2577
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    No, not really. It's a bit like evolution. Those who are determined to believe in Creationism will say "it depends who you believe really", but - no matter who you believe - the Earth is more than a few thousand years old.

    So your likening No voters to supporters of Creationism now? Misrepresenting maybe? At least your not positing that the majority of the electorate in Ireland are lunatics


  • #2578
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    marco_polo wrote: »
    Point 13 of his 'reasons' to vote no, another couple of which were the basis of that article you posted.
    11. FOREIGN INVESTMENT AND HARMONISING TAXES: Lisbon would amend the existing treaties to give the EU exclusive power as regards rules on foreign direct investment(Arts.206-7 TFEU). It would give the EU Court of Justice the power to order the harmonisation of national indirect taxes if it judges that these cause a “distortion of competition” (Art.113 TFEU, Protocol 27 on the Internal Market and Competition). These steps could threaten Ireland’s 12.5% company profits tax, which is the principal incentive that attracts foreign companies to Ireland and keeps them here when they come.

    Thank you. So what he says is right then?
    In the above section ALONE (and we can assume there is others?), the EU over-rides the Irish Dail powers!

    Being labelled a "eurosceptic" by those that oppose him - doesn't make him necessarily wrong (although like all folk, he could be).
    Its just a convenient way by opposition to also try to stigmatise any one that speak out against them.
    Convenient or what!


  • #2579
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Biggins wrote: »
    I don't believe so but good try!

    The section referred to by myself have nothing to do with Blair by the way!
    Couldn't give a toss about Blair.

    Still waiting for someone to argue with the legal points made by our man at Trinity.

    The point that Lisbon gives the EU legal personality? Well, currently the EU has legal personality through the EC, which is one of the constituent parts of the EU. The EC, along with the pillar structure, is being abolished, and the EU is taking on the legal personality directly.

    As to the claim that Lisbon creates "real" citizenship of the EU "for the first time" - it's not based on anything at all, so there really isn't anything to refute. If you can find any differences between the EU citizenship you currently have and the new one, share them with us - the reason Coughlan doesn't do so is because there aren't any.

    The sad thing is that Coughlan knows all this. He just believes that only national sovereignty is right, and in the name of that cause is prepared to trot out whatever sounds scariest, same as at every previous referendum.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #2580
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    ...in the name of that cause is prepared to trot out whatever sounds scariest, same as at every previous referendum.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Sounds familiar. Both sides are at it.
    They who has not sinned please cast the first stone (of truth).
    Them, I will have more a tendency to believe!


  • Advertisement
  • #2581
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Biggins wrote: »
    Thank you. So what he says is right then?
    In the above section ALONE (and we can assume there is others?), the EU over-rides the Irish Dail powers!

    Being labelled a "eurosceptic" by those that oppose him - doesn't make him necessarily wrong (although like all folk, he could be).
    Its just a convenient way by opposition to also try to stigmatise any one that speak out against them.
    Convenient or what!

    Biggins, Corporation Tax is not an indirect tax.

    It really is as simple as that.

    "He doesn't know what an indirect tax is!".

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



Advertisement