The Official Lisbon Treaty Thread

[Tankie]

US Troops in shannon is because of the Nice Treaty? - stop talking crap we can stop them landing there at anytime but we choose not too.

Please stop making up stuff!

[Zapatista]

US Troops in shannon is because of the Nice Treaty? - stop talking crap we can stop them landing there at anytime but we choose not too.

Please stop making up stuff!

I was suggesting that the No side on Nice were saying it would erode our neutrality and with the troops landing in Shannon since it could be seen as evidence they were right. It is an example of how subtle changes are being made without us connecting them to where it started or to where it is going. The passing of the Nice treaty is used to argue we are not actually Neutral at all when it suits us and so no one can object to troops landing in Shannon.

http://www.struggle.ws/wsm/pamphlets/eu/militarism.html

[Tankie]

US Troops in shannon is because of the Nice Treaty? - stop talking crap we can stop them landing there at anytime but we choose not too.

Please stop making up stuff!

I was suggesting that the No side on Nice were saying it would erode our neutrality and with the troops landing in Shannon since it could be seen as evidence they were right. It is an example of how subtle changes are being made without us connecting them to where it started or to where it is going. The passing of the Nice treaty is used to argue we are not actually Neutral at all when it suits us and so no one can object to troops landing in Shannon.

http://www.struggle.ws/wsm/pamphlets/eu/militarism.html

The NO side may want to argue that Nice eroded our Neutrality but that has nothing got to do with troops landing in Shannon. The Irish government can refuse entry and stop the landings if they want. If there are so many people annoyed with troops landing in shannon why aint they on a March or something.

But this is just more crap coming from the NO side try to link too unlinkable things. NO evidence at all to back up your statement!

[magickingdom]

I was diving home today and say a NO poster saying to Vote NO and not give Europe a chance to control our taxes. I think we can all agree that that is pure scaremongering and that is why i think alot of people sitting on the fence will go Yes.

The European Court of Justice will have final say in all such matters, not us, the Irish, in our own jurisdictional parliament. You call it scaremongering, I'd call it a reality-check.

We have a VETO on Taxation! every knows this but the NO try argue that our government may not use it - that has nothing to do with the treaty!

Thats total crap you are taking about the EU Court of Justice being able to force it on us.

Tankie, The NO camp have agreed that we have a Veto but I think it's only fair for them to point out that a Veto isnt the "Be All, End All" that the Yes camp are making it out to be. This has everything to do with the Treaty. If passed, can you say for certain that at some stage in the future we wont be forced to change our taxes?? I certainly cant.

for certain under the lisbom treaty we cannot be forced to change out taxes now or in the future!!! the reason the treaty is not understood is because of all the lies of the no camp, they said our taxes could rise. sinn fein supposidily wanted to raise corporation tax at the last general election now their saying dont vote yes because it will raise taxes. go figure

[TacadoirArdMhacha]

sinn fein supposidily wanted to raise corporation tax at the last general election now their saying dont vote yes because it will raise taxes. go figure

Sinn Féin are campaigning against the treaty because that's what they've done for every EU treaty since Ireland's ascension. The reasons they come up for the opposition are a side issue for them.

[stevo-08]

Tankie, The NO camp have agreed that we have a Veto but I think it's only fair for them to point out that a Veto isnt the "Be All, End All" that the Yes camp are making it out to be. This has everything to do with the Treaty. If passed, can you say for certain that at some stage in the future we wont be forced to change our taxes?? I certainly cant.

What part of a VETO are you missing? if we have a VETO we can say NO to taxation.

Can say No and Will say No are very different. And my point is that it's fair enough for the No camp to highlight this, just as it's fair enough for somebody to vote No next week due to some doubt over the security of our Tax system.

But if you believe that just cos we have a veto, everything is hunky dorey, then fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion.

[Tankie]

Tankie, The NO camp have agreed that we have a Veto but I think it's only fair for them to point out that a Veto isnt the "Be All, End All" that the Yes camp are making it out to be. This has everything to do with the Treaty. If passed, can you say for certain that at some stage in the future we wont be forced to change our taxes?? I certainly cant.

What part of a VETO are you missing? if we have a VETO we can say NO to taxation.

Can say No and Will say No are very different. And my point is that it's fair enough for the No camp to highlight this, just as it's fair enough for somebody to vote No next week due to some doubt over the security of our Tax system.

But if you believe that just cos we have a veto, everything is hunky dorey, then fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion.

Stevo are you winding us up here or do you really just not have a clue what you are talking about?

This is how politics works:

1. If we have a VETO and choose not to us it we cannot blame the Lisbon treaty and if it is such an issue the people can demand that the government step down but a stike or March.

2. Voting NO does not mean that our government will not agree to taxation as this treaty does not give us a VETO as we already have a VETO and by voting NO the government can still agree to the change.


Total Rubbish being talked here by the NO lads. You boys will convince anyone with a brain to vote yes as you clearly are just making up stuff or just aint got a clue!

[magickingdom]

Tankie, The NO camp have agreed that we have a Veto but I think it's only fair for them to point out that a Veto isnt the "Be All, End All" that the Yes camp are making it out to be. This has everything to do with the Treaty. If passed, can you say for certain that at some stage in the future we wont be forced to change our taxes?? I certainly cant.

What part of a VETO are you missing? if we have a VETO we can say NO to taxation.

Can say No and Will say No are very different. And my point is that it's fair enough for the No camp to highlight this, just as it's fair enough for somebody to vote No next week due to some doubt over the security of our Tax system.
But if you believe that just cos we have a veto, everything is hunky dorey, then fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion.

people may well have valid reasons for voting no (eg some people dont want ireland in the eu) but voting no for the security of out tax system? its not an issue in this vote..

[Zapatista]

Stevo are you winding us up here or do you really just not have a clue what you are talking about?

This is how politics works:

1. If we have a VETO and choose not to us it we cannot blame the Lisbon treaty and if it is such an issue the people can demand that the government step down but a stike or March.

It does seem to be a big issue. The fact is if you don't trust the Government to use the Veto on tax then it is best to not provide them with the opertunity. IF taxation is not within the Lisbon treaty then there are no worries but if it is vote no (veto it) until it is removed.

2. Voting NO does not mean that our government will not agree to taxation as this treaty does not give us a VETO as we already have a VETO and by voting NO the government can still agree to the change.

They can't agree to change if taxation is dealt with by member states without interference from the EU.

Total Rubbish being talked here by the NO lads. You boys will convince anyone with a brain to vote yes as you clearly are just making up stuff or
just aint got a clue!

You are lowering the debate.

sinn fein supposidily wanted to raise corporation tax at the last general election now their saying dont vote yes because it will raise taxes. go figure

Sinn Féin are campaigning against the treaty because that's what they've done for every EU treaty since Ireland's ascension. The reasons they come up for the opposition are a side issue for them.

I have not seen SF campagining on Taxation. I think you mean Liberates.

Are you seriously talking about SFs position on the EU in the early 70s? Where have you been the last 40 years? Besides if SF are bad for saying No then the others are bad for being Yes men.

[Tankie]

Sinn Fein in the last General Election wanted to raise corporation tax and that is why their argument on tax for the NO campaign makes no sense.

And Zapatista whatever way you try spin this tax issue it has nothing to do with the treaty and nothing more than scaremongering

[Zapatista]

Sinn Fein in the last General Election wanted to raise corporation tax and that is why their argument on tax for the NO campaign makes no sense.

And Zapatista whatever way you try spin this tax issue it has nothing to do with the treaty and nothing more than scaremongering

What is their arguement on Tax? They do want to raise corperation tax but they do not want a European wide Corp Tax Rate. Can you point out to me where SF are saing the Lisbon treaty is going to raise taxes? If they want to raise corp tax then they put it in their manifesto and let the people decide. But as you keep saying tankie that has nothing to do with the treaty. 

[Tankie]

Sinn Fein in the last General Election wanted to raise corporation tax and that is why their argument on tax for the NO campaign makes no sense.

And Zapatista whatever way you try spin this tax issue it has nothing to do with the treaty and nothing more than scaremongering

What is their arguement on Tax? They do want to raise corperation tax but they do not want a European wide Corp Tax Rate. Can you point out to me where SF are saing the Lisbon treaty is going to raise taxes? If they want to raise corp tax then they put it in their manifesto and let the people decide. But as you keep saying tankie that has nothing to do with the treaty. 

It does seem to be a big issue. The fact is if you don't trust the Government to use the Veto on tax then it is best to not provide them with the opertunity.

i think the NO lads are really trying to link the two.

[magickingdom]

sf ran an add in the times this week saying vote no, one of the reasons they gave was to stop taxes increasing. i spat out my cornflakes with the shock...

[Zapatista]

sf ran an add in the times this week saying vote no, one of the reasons they gave was to stop taxes increasing. i spat out my cornflakes with the shock...

I stand corrected. I think that is a foolish arguement.

[muppet]

For some clarification.......so the No people understand and the Yes people stop calling them liars.....the position on Lisbon presented by both camps onTax is incorrect.

The no camp claims it could increase taxes. It could. But they are suggesting that it could increase Coporation Tax. It cant.

The difference is that the Lisbon Treaty allows for the harmonisation of 'indirect' taxation. That includes VAT etc but not Corporation tax. VAT could go up (it is more likely to go down) but whatever happens it will have nothing to do with the requirements of the Irish economy.

I intend to vote no until the EU present me with an accountable democratic process for electing policy makers in the EU. I cant vote to retain or get rid of the EU president or any of its commissioners. They are not accountable to me and therefore it is not a Democracy in any sense of the word.

The behavior of the pro-Treaty parties, especially their not even bothering to read it, highlights the lack of democratic process even further. Finally as has been mentioned the fact that other EU members, due to limitations in their Constitutions, are not even getting a chance to vote on these Treaties tells me all I need to know.

Imagine if some one asked you to sign a contract that they said they had never read, they admitted they didn't understand but said there would be hell to pay if you didn't sign it. What would you do?