France v Ireland

PeakOutput · 12-05-2011 02:42PM

Alright I was always in the camp of getting abailout will be tough but necessary blah blah now I just think **** em lets default and if they have the balls to let us default we should have the balls to do it right now, we should get onto greece portugal spain and italy and all agree that we are all getting better deals or all defaults on europe. The people of france and germany need to be made realise that our bail out is as much about saving them as it is about saving us and we cant let them continue to be fed the bull**** from their politiicans that we are just trying to gouge the system

sure we would be ****ed for a while but iceland has shown that defaulting wont cause people to be dieing on the streets and can be done in a managed way. Britain would probably be on our side in the negotiaions and if we did default I am sure would help us as it is in their interests to have an economically strong neighbour

12-05-2011 02:43PM

Morlar wrote: »

Your right. I can't find mention of blackmailing a country that's teetering on the verge of the economic abyss anywhere in that lisbon treaty.

Do you imagine that they were incapable of "blackmailing" us if the Lisbon Treaty wasn't ratified? What exactly would be different?

Gunsfortoys · 12-05-2011 02:56PM

Morlar wrote: »

I think the days when Irish people automatically expected the EU to be the good guys are over.

I remember a good few lads in here preaching, "I cannot wait for the IMF to kick ass!". Funneh ****.

Morlar · 12-05-2011 02:58PM

28064212 wrote: »

Do you imagine that they were incapable of "blackmailing" us if the Lisbon Treaty wasn't ratified? What exactly would be different?

I think the difference between then and now is that now Irish people are a lot less likely to presume that our EU partners have our best interests in mind, or that they would show a moment's hesitation in sacrificing us to serve their own interests.

Morlar · 12-05-2011 02:59PM

Gunsfortoys wrote: »

I remember a good few lads in here preaching, "I cannot wait for the IMF to kick ass!". Funneh ****.

There is a world of difference between the IMF and the Ecb/EU.

sensibleken · 12-05-2011 03:00PM

nacho libre wrote: »

We'll see soon enough if it's releveant. We were told the corporate tax rate couldn't be touched due to the guarantees. Sarkozy is playing hardball because his chances of re-election in France are not favourable. He has to be seen to swing to the right to win back support
It's inevitable we're going to have to give something in return for a reduced rate.
Most likely there will be a formula of words where we commit to a common consolidated tax rate across the EU. Which some people will be at pains to out is completely different to raising our corporate tax rate

the guarantees showed that there would be no changes to corporation tax brought in under lisbon. That is true.

Lisbon is nothing to do with this in the slightest

alchemist33 · 12-05-2011 03:03PM

I voted Yes in every Euro referendum so far, but if there was another tomorrow, I would seriously consider voting No. I know it might be cutting off my nose to spite my face, but the attitude from some on the continent has led me to believe they really don't give two s**ts about us, and only really care about keeping the big boys happy.

J. Marston · 12-05-2011 03:05PM

Piss off, Sarkozy.

Fùcking midget.

Gunsfortoys · 12-05-2011 03:07PM

Morlar wrote: »

There is a world of difference between the IMF and the Ecb/EU.

I doubt if very many know the difference.

I heard the Lisbon treaty and Bono not paying his taxes are contributions too.

Join the sensationalism Morlar. It is rad.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 12-05-2011 03:11PM

Such cocks. Like France is a far more industrialised nation with far better natural resources weather and tourism. Of course we have to do mad stuff like 12.5% corporation tax to keep ourselves afloat

If they don't give us the loan at a better rate I say we cut the corpo to 10%

12-05-2011 03:12PM

Morlar wrote: »

I think the difference between then and now is that now Irish people are a lot less likely to presume that our EU partners have our best interests in mind, or that they would show a moment's hesitation in sacrificing us to serve their own interests.

The question was what would be different now in our economic situation if we hadn't ratified the Lisbon Treaty. The answer is very little, and certainly nothing to do with whether or not we will be raising our corporation tax

carwash106 · 12-05-2011 03:55PM

alchemist33 wrote: »

I voted Yes in every Euro referendum so far, but if there was another tomorrow, I would seriously consider voting No. I know it might be cutting off my nose to spite my face, but the attitude from some on the continent has led me to believe they really don't give two s**ts about us, and only really care about keeping the big boys happy.

What I don't get is why its up to France and Germany to tell us what "Europe" wants.
There are lots of countries in Europe, how come they even get a say, surely its the European Union(Or whatever its called now)

Why do they think they are the bosses of Europe, and are they in some way???

Dean820 · 12-05-2011 04:05PM

We should all blast them with piss.

sensibleken · 12-05-2011 04:05PM

carwash106 wrote: »

What I don't get is why its up to France and Germany to tell us what "Europe" wants.
There are lots of countries in Europe, how come they even get a say, surely its the European Union(Or whatever its called now)

Why do they think they are the bosses of Europe, and are they in some way???

No they arent, much to their annoyance they are not dictators to europe and still have to follow the laws and mechanisms set out in the treaties.

I dont like how the EU is behaving but just because you dont like the road doesnt mean you crash the car.

our strategy has been wrong, we have been sucking up to france and germany when we should be forming relations with the smaller countries if we are to have proper influence.

im really really tempted to throw 2 fingers up and shout Fúck you to the whole EU project but I dont want to live in North Korea

Morlar · 12-05-2011 04:12PM

sensibleken wrote: »

im really really tempted to throw 2 fingers up and shout Fúck you to the whole EU project but I dont want to live in North Korea

You really think those are the two options, stay in the euro / EU or become north Korea2 ?

RachaelVO · 12-05-2011 04:16PM

daveyeh wrote: »

First Henry handballs us out of the world cup, now this!

http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/france-scuppers-hopes-of-cut-in-bailout-interest-rate-154340.html

Why do they do dislike us so?

The French don't even like each other, why should they like us???

cml387 · 12-05-2011 04:18PM

The French:
You may have heard this before.

There is a story about a conversation between General de Gaulle, who, as president of the French Republic, telephoned his American counterpart Lyndon B Johnson, to inform him that France had decided to withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty alliance.
Since its foundation nearly two decades earlier, Nato had had its headquarters in France. Now Nato would have to move.
Furthermore, de Gaulle added, it was his intention that all American service personnel should be removed from French soil.
"Does that include," Johnson is said to have replied, "those buried in it?"

sensibleken · 12-05-2011 04:20PM

Morlar wrote: »

You really think those are the two options, stay in the euro / EU or become north Korea2 ?

no thats what im saying, they arent the only options. neither is continuing to be butt fúcked and staying in the euro.

Im no expert in economics but I think pulling out and launching our own currency while we are in recession is not a good idea. Neither is continuing on the same path. So I dont know, the only things im sure of is that we have to fight the French and Germans on this and that economic experts dont know their arse from their elbow.

Topper Harley · 12-05-2011 04:21PM

cml387 wrote: »

The French:
You may have heard this before.

There is a story about a conversation between General de Gaulle, who, as president of the French Republic, telephoned his American counterpart Lyndon B Johnson, to inform him that France had decided to withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty alliance.
Since its foundation nearly two decades earlier, Nato had had its headquarters in France. Now Nato would have to move.
Furthermore, de Gaulle added, it was his intention that all American service personnel should be removed from French soil.
"Does that include," Johnson is said to have replied, "those buried in it?"

God damn cheese-eating surrender monkeys.

nacho libre · 12-05-2011 04:35PM

28064212 wrote: »

Incorrect. We were told that nothing in the Lisbon Treaty made any changes to Ireland's control of its corporate tax rates. Which was exactly right.

Yes, strictly speaking the corporate tax rate had nothing to with what we were voting on, but assurances, rather guarantees, were given to allay people's fears that the rate wouldn't be touched. You know well if such assurances were not given the treaty might not have passed the second time around.

No doubt if we do commit to a common consolidated tax base , you'll be ready to point out the difference between it and increasing our corporate tax rate.

nacho libre · 12-05-2011 04:42PM

sensibleken wrote: »

no thats what im saying, they arent the only options. neither is continuing to be butt fúcked and staying in the euro.

Im no expert in economics but I think pulling out and launching our own currency while we are in recession is not a good idea. Neither is continuing on the same path. So I dont know, the only things im sure of is that we have to fight the French and Germans on this and that economic experts dont know their arse from their elbow.

i know it's frowned upon to read the Daily Mail here, but Senan Moloney(?) had good article in yesterday's Mail weighing up the pro and cons of each arguments about what Ireland should do about the debt.

12-05-2011 04:44PM

nacho libre wrote: »

Yes, strictly speaking the corporate tax rate had nothing to with what we were voting on, but assurances, rather guarantees, were given to allay people's fears that the rate wouldn't be touched. You know well if such assurances were not given the treaty might not have passed the second time around.

Whether it passed or whether it didn't is completely irrelevant, we would still be in exactly the same position with regard to the tax rate. If it wasn't falsely presented as an issue in the first place it might have passed the first time round.

If we had an abortion referendum in the morning and it was made legal, would you be complaining that the Lisbon Treaty made it possible? Even though it had nothing to do with and we received guarantees that it had nothing to do with it?

nacho libre wrote: »

No doubt if we do commit to a common consolidated tax base , you'll be ready to point out the difference between it and increasing our corporate tax rate.

If we do, it will still have nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty.

sensibleken · 12-05-2011 04:56PM

nacho libre wrote: »

Yes, strictly speaking the corporate tax rate had nothing to with what we were voting on, but assurances, rather guarantees, were given to allay people's fears that the rate wouldn't be touched. You know well if such assurances were not given the treaty might not have passed the second time around.

No doubt if we do commit to a common consolidated tax base , you'll be ready to point out the difference between it and increasing our corporate tax rate.

guarantees about the lisbon treaty

they werent going to give assurances that tax will forevermore stay the same. The only people who can change the tax is still the Irish government

nacho libre · 12-05-2011 05:01PM

28064212 wrote: »

Whether it passed or whether it didn't is completely irrelevant, we would still be in exactly the same position with regard to the tax rate. If it wasn't falsely presented as an issue in the first place it might have passed the first time round.

If we had an abortion referendum in the morning and it was made legal, would you be complaining that the Lisbon Treaty made it possible? Even though it had nothing to do with and we received guarantees that it had nothing to do with it?

If we do, it will still have nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty.

Actually it will have something to do with it, as the guarantees we were given will have been rendered meaningless if the corporate tax rate is changed upwards. The corporate tax rate became central to the passing of the Treaty. It is irrelevant now whether the treaty was about something completely separate to begin, it became part of it.
Also isn't a bit a bit rich to talk about non issues that had nothing to with the treaty, when both sides of the campaign were guilty of scaremongering by bringing in issues that had nothing to with the contents of the treaty?

About abortion:
If we voted for Abortion I would have to accept that it was the wishes of the majority. I however might privately not agree with the passing of such a referendum. Still i wouldn't seek a re-run to get my own way.

nacho libre · 12-05-2011 05:04PM

sensibleken wrote: »

guarantees about the lisbon treaty

they werent going to give assurances that tax will forevermore stay the same. The only people who can change the tax is still the Irish government

By persuasion(strong- arming tactics) from bigger EU partners like France and Germany. Of course we won't do it voluntarily.

sensibleken · 12-05-2011 05:07PM

nacho libre wrote: »

By persuasion(strong- arming tactics) from bigger EU partners like France and Germany. Of course we won't do it voluntarily.

yes, and nothing to do with lisbon. at all. even the slightest.

Noreen1 · 12-05-2011 05:09PM

sensibleken wrote: »

guarantees about the lisbon treaty

they werent going to give assurances that tax will forevermore stay the same. The only people who can change the tax is still the Irish government

True. But, maybe we should have got them to guarantee that they would never put us under duress to do anything that the Irish electorate wouldn't consent to?

Let's face it, the Irish people received a guarantee pre-Lisbon.

The French, and, to a lesser extent, the German governments are now using the bailout as a means of trying to force us to change our tax rates.

It may not be related to the Lisbon treaty, but it certainly reveals just how willing our "partners" are to turn the screws on us when the opportunity presents itself.

12-05-2011 05:09PM

nacho libre wrote: »

Actually it will have something to do with it, as the guarantees we were given will have been rendered meaningless if the corporate tax rate is changed upwards.

Seriously, how are you not getting this? We were guaranteed that the tax rates couldn't be changed because of the Lisbon Treaty. How could they possibly guarantee that they wouldn't change at all?

nacho libre wrote: »

The corporate tax rate became central to the passing of the Treaty. It is irrelevant now whether the treaty was about something completely separate to begin, it became part of it.

That's incredibly ridiculous. If we had been guaranteed that the Lisbon Treaty wouldn't cause an earthquake in Japan, would you blame this year's one on the Lisbon Treaty?

nacho libre wrote: »

About abortion:
If we voted for Abortion I would have to accept that it was the wishes of the majority. I however might privately not agree with the passing of such a referendum. Still i wouldn't seek a re-run to get my own way.

Well done, you completely missed the point. Try again:

We were guaranteed that the Lisbon Treaty couldn't affect Ireland's abortion legislation. Subsequently (in this hypothetical), Ireland changed its abortion legislation. Nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty in any way. Would you still be blaming the Lisbon Treaty?

sensibleken · 12-05-2011 05:17PM

Noreen1 wrote: »

True. But, maybe we should have got them to guarantee that they would never put us under duress to do anything that the Irish electorate wouldn't consent to?

Let's face it, the Irish people received a guarantee pre-Lisbon.

The French, and, to a lesser extent, the German governments are now using the bailout as a means of trying to force us to change our tax rates.

It may not be related to the Lisbon treaty, but it certainly reveals just how willing our "partners" are to turn the screws on us when the opportunity presents itself.

absolutely. they are behaving reprehensively. Im just pointing out to Nacho libre (somewhat in vain) that the Lisbon treaty has sweet f all to do with where we are at the moment.

As for the first paragraph. its meaningless. you cant have a dont act the bollox guarantee

K-9 · 12-05-2011 05:24PM

JBnaglfar wrote: »

Yeah, 8.2%. The French Agency for International Investment even advertises this point to attract investment. Source

Makes me wonder why we attract so much Foreign Investment.

It's a bit unfair to pick on effective rates when Google pays just 2.4% on foreign profits aided by Irish tax haven laws.

Google saved $3.1bn in taxes in past 3 years using 'Double Irish ' scheme; Google has paid no tax in UK since 2007 - - one of its biggest overseas markets

France v Ireland

Comments