Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,566
It has an unfortunate corollary for those Irish that naturally seem to support the democrats.
2) To be sure we are not guaranteed this concession in Europe and there are already those rumbling against it. Rejection of Lisbon would be gris to their mill. In short, Lisbon is the best prospect for the longevity of our favourable CT status and this is an overwhelming reason for voting Yes. Now do you understand why Bertie says voting for the status quo would be a disaster for Ireland?
That says it must be unanimous.
The Irish Government member at least on the Council will not agree, ergo it will not be unanimous.
Kevin Myers should stick to single mothers and leave economics to Brendan Keenan. BK in the same paper points out the very clear ommission in this clause of direct taxes. CT is a direct tax and not any of the taxes mentioned in this Article.Kevin Myer's in his article in the Indo argues that the Lisbon Treaty allows the EU revoke our favourable CT status:
"And I thank Anthony Coughlan for pointing out the following provision to me: "The Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition."
No wonder the public are so confused by this treaty.
Kevin Myers should stick to single mothers and leave economics to Brendan Keenan. BK in the same paper points out the very clear ommission in this clause of direct taxes. CT is a direct tax and not any of the taxes mentioned in this Article.
Ubi, I picked up BK's article from your helpful link. BK did go on to mention the linkage between direct taxation and indirect taxation. If Ireland is required e.g. to reduce VRT (please, pleaseI greatly admired Keenan's article and indeed linked it here earlier today. That said, I still think that the wording quoted above is very loose. I'm not sure how one can achieve harmonisation of indirect taxes across the entire EU without affecting the various mechanisms and systems for direct taxes in member states.
Why is this measure in the treaty then?
One could just as easily argue that the Council has acted unanimously by adopting the treaty in the first instance.
What is a race to the bottom? Does it imply in this context that low taxes are a bad thing? I know in Union Land it stands for opposition to open markets in the EU and affording new EU entrants the same access to labour markets that we were afforded upon joining. Personally I do not think that moving towards equality is a race to the bottom. And before anyone accuses me of being a capitalist pig (or whatever) I doubt that there is another poster on AAM who would benefit more from the sort of protectionism that those in Union Land want.Don't some of the Baltic countries already undercut Ireland on CT? I suppose it is inevitable when you start the race to the bottom that someone else is going to beat you to it.
I agree with the above statement but must differ on the claim that that supporting Lisbon is the way to protect our control over CT. If the EU courts deem our CT to be uncompetitive then me may be forced to increase same, veto notwithstanding.Anyway, back on topic, Harchibald is completely correct; our economic success over the last 15 years is down to CGT cuts and all of the tax we stole from the Americans, Germans, French etc and not much else.
Not true but nothing in Lisbon (or any other treaty) stops countries within the EU from enacting multilateral agreements, which impose corporation tax in the country where the goods or services are consumed. Our only option if this happens is to take a case to the European Court claiming that such agreements are in breach of single market legislation. This may or may not succeed. In order to stop such a situation arising we have to use our political capital (for want of a better phrase). A no vote for Lisbon would weaken our position as good EU members. Those Irish politicians from all parties who play the game in the EU know how things work and they are all* pressing for a yes vote.I agree with the above statement but must differ on the claim that that supporting Lisbon is the way to protect our control over CT. If the EU courts deem our CT to be uncompetitive then me may be forced to increase same, veto notwithstanding.
In order to stop such a situation arising we have to use our political capital (for want of a better phrase). A no vote for Lisbon would weaken our position as good EU members.
Did the previous No votes against the EU constitution in France and the Netherlands weaken these countries position as good EU members?
I thought it was fairly obvious, but perhaps not. In this context, the race to the bottom is where one country (Ireland) thinks it has a strategic advantage by setting a lower tax rate, and then (not surprisingly) other countries follow suit (Cyprus, Montenegro, parts of Bosnia). Eventually, as happened in parts of the US, countries are falling over themselves to compete with each other and end up with zero corporate tax income (check out corporate tax rates for Nevada and Delaware).What is a race to the bottom?
And since we started it our corporation tax take has gone up and our economy has taken off. Are you saying that we should now take a moralistic stance and try to stop the next poor guy into the club from playing by our rules or should we increase it and try to get back to the good old days of the 1980's?The corporates struggle to keep a straight face as they stiff a series of Governments in succession. That's the race to the bottom, and we started it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?