Another EU referendum on the way

nacho libre · 10-12-2011 10:10pm

No doubt if there is to be a referendum the carrot dangled... will be a reduction in our debt.

later12 · 10-12-2011 11:15pm

ilovesleep wrote: »

What's being proposed by the EU with the financial tax and tax harmonisation is tying a noose around our necks and strangling us slowing.

Oh FFS.

Please, please tell me where tax harmonisation is mentioned in the out come of the heads of states' meeting.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/126658.pdf

It has become clear that the fiscal arrangement is nothing more than an Excessive Deficit Procedure, which is basically a an automatic fine if we overspend.

Any alteration to our corporation tax would require a referendum spelling that out.

Are you deliberately misinterpreting the outcome of the summit or what?

K-9 · 10-12-2011 11:57pm

ilovesleep wrote: »

I admire Cameron for not bowing down to Merkozy and having the UKs interests on his sleeve. What's being proposed by the EU with the financial tax and tax harmonisation is tying a noose around our necks and strangling us slowing.

The Eurozone has a huge debt problem and to some degree I can see where Merkozy is coming from with the tax harmonisation and financial tax in that it will bring more taxes/revenue into the debt ridden eurozone but at a huge cost to both - the uk and ireland in that it will deepen our recessions but it won't solve the debt problem. It may go a little towards it but certainly it won't fix the problem of the huge debt. The debt is just too large.

As if Intel and the likes are responsible for the debt and have billions to pay into the eurozone.

Do you have a copy of the proposal?

Mike 1972 · 11-12-2011 1:33am

I thought there was supposed to be some provision in the Lisbon treaty about it being "self amending" which meant that any subsequent changes didnt require further referenda in Ireland (or elsewhere) was this a pile of shyte ?

As for Coropration tax I seem to remember it being 10% The EU (quite rightly) took a dim view of this and forced Ireland to increace it to 12.5% (There were calls for 16%). The many dire predictions RE: the sky falling in never really came to pass but why do so many people persist in believing that EU control/influence of Irelands CT rate is either unprecedented or necessairly a bad thing ?

And the idea of a common currency wasnt concieved at the fall of the Berlin wall. It actually goes back to the very early days of the EEC. The EMS/ERM (which Ireland joined in 1979) was envisaged as an eventual precursor to monetary union which -a couple of hiccups notwithstanding it was.

While the quality of debate on European issues in Ireland was always pretty poor it is rapidly decending to the depths of jingoistic bull$hit one typically sees in the UK tabloids.

K-9 · 11-12-2011 2:04am

Mike 1972 wrote: »

I thought there was supposed to be some provision in the Lisbon treaty about it being "self amending" which meant that any subsequent changes didnt require further referenda in Ireland (or elsewhere) was this a pile of shyte ?

As for Coropration tax I seem to remember it being 10% The EU (quite rightly) took a dim view of this and forced Ireland to increace it to 12.5% (There were calls for 16%). The many dire predictions RE: the sky falling in never really came to pass but why do so many people persist in believing that EU control/influence of Irelands CT rate is either unprecedented or necessairly a bad thing ?

And the idea of a common currency wasnt concieved at the fall of the Berlin wall. It actually goes back to the very early days of the EEC. The EMS/ERM (which Ireland joined in 1979) was envisaged as an eventual precursor to monetary union which -a couple of hiccups notwithstanding it was.

While the quality of debate on European issues in Ireland was always pretty poor it is rapidly decending to the depths of jingoistic bull$hit one typically sees in the UK tabloids.

No, our standard rate was about 32/36%.

There were reliefs from 0-10%, manufacturing, Shannon and the IFSC.

All the rates were standardised to 12.5%, abolishing the other reliefs. Lax tax laws was the compensation to the IFSC.

Mike 1972 · 11-12-2011 2:09am

K-9 wrote: »

There were reliefs from 0-10%, manufacturing, Shannon and the IFSC.

Why were these tax breaks considered appropriate for companies locating in/around Shannon as opposed to say the Western half of the country generally ?

K-9 · 11-12-2011 2:11am

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Why were these tax breaks considered appropriate for companies locating in/around Shannon as opposed to say the Western half of the country generally ?

I suppose the airport was seen as an asset, I don't know how far it went back.

ejmaztec · 11-12-2011 2:48am

A bit of light relief from the Daily Rag trying to con their readers again..

Yes, Cameron got it right: Most voters agree with PM vetoing treaty changes - and half think we should now quit the EU

...and this wild generalisation resulted after millions of 1020 people took part in a poll

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2072616/Yes-Cameron-got-right-Most-voters-agree-PM-vetoing-treaty-changes--half-think-quit-EU.html

later12 · 11-12-2011 7:11pm

Mike 1972 wrote: »

I thought there was supposed to be some provision in the Lisbon treaty about it being "self amending" which meant that any subsequent changes didnt require further referenda in Ireland (or elsewhere) was this a pile of shyte ?

Basically yes.

The Lisbon Treaty is not self amending as far as increasing the power or the the EU goes, or in terms of giving perogative to the EU where previously no such perogative existed.

The blanket suggestion that Lisbon was self amending was a lie.

(And by the way, I opposed the Treaty, so that's not pro EU propaganda)

steve9859 · 11-12-2011 8:29pm

sensibleken wrote: »

so it looks like there definetely wont be an EU treaty since the UK has backed out. There may still be a eurozone treaty, a new phenomenon which may or may not require a referendum.

And because of that there will be a lot of European governments which are very thankful to DC (in private of course). DC has taken a bullet and stopped, for now at least, Merkel's plans for domination of Europe on germany's terms. And because the treaty has been shot down, many countries are having their cake and eating it - staying in Europe, keeping Merkozy happy, and at the same time not having to sign a crappy treaty and giving away their sovereignty. A good few European prime ministers owe DC a pint

Chips Lovell · 11-12-2011 8:57pm

I think you've misunderstood what's happened.

steve9859 · 11-12-2011 11:34pm

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I think you've misunderstood what's happened.

Now it isn't a treaty change, it is just an agreement, therefore no referendums. Even in Ireland the referendum is only a 50:50 possibility. DC made exactly the right call and there will be others happy that it isn't going to be full treaty change

later12 · 11-12-2011 11:42pm

steve9859 wrote: »

Now it isn't a treaty change, it is just an agreement, therefore no referendums. Even in Ireland the referendum is only a 50:50 possibility. DC made exactly the right call and there will be others happy that it isn't going to be full treaty change

You don't seem to get it.

It's nothing to do with David Cameron. If the EU26 wanted, or want, their own new treaty they are, naturally, entitled to one.

The reason David Cameron is in the news isn't because he has blocked something. He hasn't. He's just kept Britain out of the plans.

sensibleken · 12-12-2011 11:28am

steve9859 wrote: »

Now it isn't a treaty change, it is just an agreement, therefore no referendums. Even in Ireland the referendum is only a 50:50 possibility. DC made exactly the right call and there will be others happy that it isn't going to be full treaty change

Its not that we have a referendum on all EU treaties by law. The constitution says laws can only be enacted by the oireachtas. every time we go to vote on an EU treaty we put in 'except in the case of lisbon/mice/maastrict' etc. Its basically if any new legislative powers (not oversight) are passing to Europe then we need a referendum. there was great debate as to whether lisbon actually needed a reerendum.

It seems in this place the attorney general will decide if new powers of oversight and sanction will require a constitutional change

steve9859 · 12-12-2011 1:36pm

Ok. Many newspapers are drawing a clear distinction between a treaty and an international agreement though. Why would that be? And if the treaty change will go ahead as if nothing has happened, why do people accuse the Uk of imperiling the euro due to their veto of the treaty changes?

In any case, DC played a blinder IMO. And most Brits agree. Populus poll had those opposed to the veto at 14%. even accounting for any bias, that is pretty overwhelming

My name is URL · 14-12-2011 7:12pm

I see the government are already gearing up for a campaign full of fear mongering and lies.. saying that any referendum will ultimately be about whether Ireland wants to remain part of the €

Nate--IRL-- · 14-12-2011 7:14pm

My name is URL wrote: »

I see the government are already gearing up for a campaign full of fear mongering and lies.. saying that any referendum will ultimately be about whether Ireland wants to remain part of the €

Ehh... isn't it about that? We vote no and Europe will say "OK" and move on, like they did with the brits.

Nate

Orando Broom · 14-12-2011 7:16pm

Remember boys and girls; vote yes to Lisbon for jobs.

Lots of lovely jobs.

Chips Lovell · 14-12-2011 7:16pm

My name is URL wrote: »

I see the government are already gearing up for a campaign full of fear mongering and lies.. saying that any referendum will ultimately be about whether Ireland wants to remain part of the €

That's about the size of it, yes. Do you honestly think the Eurozone can remain in the current status quo? As it is, the current deal mightn't be enough to fix it.

My name is URL · 14-12-2011 7:21pm

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Ehh... isn't it about that? We vote no and Europe will say "OK" and move on, like they did with the brits.

Nate

The first draft hasn't even been drawn up yet, so making any claims about possible outcomes or repercussions for Ireland is premature at best.

And I doubt there'll be any mention of Ireland been expelled from the Euro area in the final document.

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

That's about the size of it, yes. Do you honestly think the Eurozone can remain in the current status quo? As it is, the current deal mightn't be enough to fix it.

Weren't you giving out about people jumping to conclusions a few pages back? Funny how scruples can go out the window when the tone changes! =p

edit- Actually it wasn't you.. sorry about that :pac:

blue diver · 14-12-2011 7:25pm

**** the EU

Nate--IRL-- · 14-12-2011 7:27pm

My name is URL wrote: »

The first draft hasn't even been drawn up yet, so making any claims about possible outcomes or repercussions for Ireland is premature at best.

And I doubt there'll be any mention of Ireland been expelled from the Euro area in the final document.

Fair point, but I get the feeling this time the rest of the EU (but mainly Merkozy) won't hang around for us faff about and vote a second time.

Nate

Anita Blow · 14-12-2011 8:11pm

I think someone in the Politics section said that this is an opt-in treaty so if it gets voted against in any of the countries holding a referendum, it won't stop the treaty going ahead, it just means those countries won't be apart of it.

14-12-2011 8:49pm

This referendum assumes that the Euro doesn’t abandon Ireland or is simply abandoned by all Eurozone countries first.

Remember how the UK got dumped out of the ERM, the markets moved against the UK pound and forced the Government to abandon the peg to the DM.

If the markets decide to kill the Euro, they will!

K-9 · 14-12-2011 8:53pm

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Fair point, but I get the feeling this time the rest of the EU (but mainly Merkozy) won't hang around for us faff about and vote a second time.

Nate

It would be an odd situation though, we'd be a beneficiary of bailout funds but not willing to take on budgetary controls, though I suppose hopefully that would only last for a few years anyway. I can't imagine they could go ahead without Ireland though, Britain didn't really matter as they aren't in the Euro and are more a hindrance than a help.

Augmerson · 14-12-2011 8:55pm

I've voted No 4 times in 2 European referendums. Something tells me that if I were to vote against what the European and Irish establishment wants this time, it will be ignored, and if enough of us vote against them, it will also be ignored and we will be told to vote again.

The Euro is over in January anyway. Italy won't raise the money it needs, it will need a bailout, can't be bailed out, everything is ****ed. In this situation, which would you rather - to owe someone money or to be owed money? That's the position Germany is in right now. Everybody owes them money. Saving the Euro is saving Germany.

Sheeps · 15-12-2011 12:47am

Fuck it, what's wrong with saving Germany? If their economy goes, all of ours do too... back to the fucking stone age.

15-12-2011 5:19am

Sheeps wrote: »

Fuck it, what's wrong with saving Germany? If their economy goes, all of ours do too... back to the fucking stone age.

Germany's too BIG to save!

later12 · 15-12-2011 6:53am

steve9859 wrote: »

Ok. Many newspapers are drawing a clear distinction between a treaty and an international agreement though. Why would that be?

Because it doesn't compromise new EU Law. Therefore there are issues about (i) who will oversee the budgetary plans for signatories to the agreement, will it be the European Commission and (ii) who will enforce the fiscal compact in practice.

In fairness these issues are not insurmountable and the issue of whether this is a treaty or an intergovernmental agreement is probably overstated.

The three biggest issues that matter right now are the monetization of debt, Eurobonds, and the size of the EFSF/ESM.

The David Cameron issue is not of life or death concern for the Euro, but those issues I just mentioned are.

professore · 15-12-2011 7:15am

This argument that it's not going to affect our corporation tax rate "but don't be stupid (rolleyes) you're mixing up corporation tax again but it's only the common corporation tax base (CCCTB) so that's grand" argument doesn't hold water. One is as bad as the other for us.

If say Intel make chips here and sell 80% of them in Germany then under CCCTB rules they would pay 80% of their corporation tax at the German rate. So even if we had 0% CT it would make almost no difference to Intel etc. - they're certainly not here to sell to the Irish market.

Another EU referendum on the way

Comments