Irish Election are pleased to announce our collection of Irish 
Majority don’t care
Read more about: Europe
Ireland must be one of the countries with the least controversy about the EU treaty. Very few blog posts have been written about it compared to the multitude that come from the UK. Possible the reason is the only thing people care about it getting a chance to have a say but really don’t want to use their say. Hence why a whopping 62% of people don’t know or have no opinion. And despite the Irish Times attempt to spin the story as “Support for EU reform treaty has halved” which considering the no vote has gone from 12 to 13% which is in the margin of error of the poll, means that Anti-European sentiment has not risen in Ireland, anti- treaty/constitution has not changed simple fact of the matter is that this far out from the referendum no one cares. By the way if the likes of UKIP and Le Pen want a no vote then my advice to them would be stay away from Ireland. Rejection of the Irish government might swing this, but no one is going to vote the way Brits or French tell us.
Anyone know what the rules for outsiders campaigning in or funding campaigns on referendums here are?
No idea. Considering that only Irish people not British people can vote it might well be banned by some old law. Then again they could always donate to Sinn Fein.
Colman, check the referendum commission website http://www.refcom.ie/
as for the treaty itself. the reason for this is has anyone actually heard anything about the treaty? Now I am a huge euro-federalist, but this treaty is a very slapdash attempt. I have yet to see a hard-copy of it. Nice was out quickly and we still rejected this. The Government need to be clear on the opt-outs they have negotiated.
Good idea Stephen: should have looked there first. Unfortunately their links to legislation don’t work.
The treaty itself is meaningless - we need a look at the consolidated treaties as they will be after they’re amended by the new treaty, and that’s complicated enough that you need to be a lawyer to make much sense of it. That makes it pretty difficult to counter the lies and distortions that are going to be put forward by the anti-side. NATO! ABORTION! COMMUNISM! CAPITALISM! ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT! FREE-MASONS! GAY MARRIAGE! IMMIGRANTS! DARKIES! That’s going to drown out the sensible debate on the no-side, especially if we import a whole pile of crazies from across the EU and the US.
I’m not looking forward to this debate at all. As for opt-outs, I believe the only one is the one on justice that they couldn’t really justify except that the Brits were doing it so it must be a good idea.
I’ll try and find the reference to a consolidated text that somebody had put together.
The treaty is here, but that’s not very helpful!
Consolidated version: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2007/aug/eu-reform-treaty-texts-analyses.htm
Despite being a pro-European who agrees with the Euro currency and voted for Nice both times, I intend voting “No” this time. It simply goes too far in the integration-direction. The following are the reasons we should vote “No”:
A: It makes it easier to implement a plan by the Commission called CCTB (Common Consolidated Tax Base). In particular, the Tax Commissioner Lazlo Kovacz is pushing it - so much so that there have been suggestions that the mechanism called “Enhanced Cooperation” (under Nice it allowed 8 countries to press ahead alone if 72% of the weighted vote on the Council of Ministers agreed) to push it through. Under the Reform Treaty, the % required to block countries entering “Enhanced Cooperation” is raised from 27%+ to 35%+. The reason it is relevant to Ireland irrespective of our theoretical non-involvement is because the CCTB plan favoured by the Commission is said (Down to Business on Newstalk discussed this last Saturday) to favour a plan to tax-companies according to sales-destination. What this means in practice, is that a US multinational based in Ireland, but exporting mainly to Germany, would have to pay a level of tax on its profits equal to the proportion of its profits made in Germany. This can only mean the Irish Exchequer losing billions in tax-revenue. The problem is that even if we choose not to participate in the CCTB, we will still suffer from other countries trying to tax companies based in Ireland that export to other countries. This is my main reason for voting “No”. Remember - the countries pushing this are the same that have been to the fore bullying us to agree to tax-harmonisation. The CCTB plan is a way of getting around our objections while seriously damaging incentives to set up in Ireland.
B: The loss of about 50 vetoes including foreign-policy and social-security. The vetos on these issues are instead given to the European Parliament. At the Council of Ministers, they will be voted on via Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) requiring the consent of 55% of member states representing a 65% weighted-vote (each country has a weighted-vote).
C: The new powers for national-parliaments are inadequate and disappointing. They effectively allow national-parliaments to delay the passage of proposed EU legislation for around 6 weeks. After the 6 weeks are up however, the EU can press on regardless. This is nothing more than a figleaf to claim that the treaty makes the EU ‘more democratic’. In fact the net-effect of all the changes is the opposite.
D: From 2014, each member state will no longer be automatically entitled to a Commissioner. Instead, only 2/3rds of all states will have a Commissioner at one time according to rotation. Think about it - we would have no voice on the EU’s executive arm, which proposes most EU legislation, for all of a 5 yr term (at least). Considering the pressure for tax-harmonisation from people like the Tax Commissioner, this is unacceptable and dangerous for our economy.
E: The rotating-presidency of the Council of Ministers is abolished in favour of a 2-yr President chosen by the Ministers via QMV. This will effectively marginalise the small-countries because the big countries will have the 35%+ blocking-minority to veto any candidate they disapprove of. That will ensure only big countries get the job most of the time. A stark contrast to the existing system which guarantees every state gets their turn every six-months.
F: The Chater of Fundamental Rights is a serious concern. It increases the power of the European Court of Justice to strike down Irish laws that breach the so-called ‘rights’ in this document. It includes a ‘right to collective bargaining’ as well as a prohibition on ‘collective expulsions’. The problem is that we don’t know how the 13 judges of the ECJ (each state has a judge but only 13 sit on it in each case) will interpret these provisions - which will over-ride the Irish Constitution and therefore effectively make the ECJ a European Supreme Court. No longer will the Irish Supreme Court and Constitution be the final interpret of Irish rights. The prohibition of ‘collective expulsions’ will inevitably lead to bogus asylum-seekers whose applications have been rejected applying to the ECJ to block their deportations. It will just drag out asylum-cases even longer, and make the whole system even more expensive - it currently costs this country €350 million per annum. Also the “collective bargaining” provisions could harm the economy by introducing French style closed-shop and easier-strike rules including, among other things, removing Irish requirements for unions to hold secret-ballots on strike action. This is unacceptable.
Brian, yours is a very good analysis of the specific problems with this patchwork of documents that makes up the Reform Treaty. What is of most grave concern, however, is the total disregard towards the citizens of Europe which has been displayed by its leaders. The Treaty has no legitimacy because the people whom it purports to govern have not given their assent in any way to it given that Ireland will be the only member state to offer a referendum on it. The original constitution came about because the leaders of Europe recognised the serious disconnect between the institutions of the EU and Europeans. They have now succeeded in drmatically exacerbating the very problem they sought to solve with this undigestible blueprint for further centralisation of unaccountable power. See more at:
http://www.constitutionwatch.eu/2007/10/18/the-illegitimate-treaty/
Brian Boru’s comments are disconcerting:
1. Ireland’s status as a largely unregulated tax haven and refuge for the tax avoidance industry is not sustainable. The situation is increasingly unacceptable, and will inevitably end, either through international regulation, or Ireland being undercut by another, even more unscrupulouus country. A responsible government would have used the ill-gotten gains to invest in infrastructure, education and the development of a truly “knowledge based” economy. Unfortunately, the present incumbents have prefered to encourage a property speculation based ilusion of wealth. Rather than fighting a losing battle against the spread of fiscal probity, Ireland should be participating in the debate by suggesting measures that would ensure that non-European companies chose to locate in Ireland for real economic reasons rather than short-term tax minimisation.
2. He objects to a measure designed to ensure that all citizens of member states benefit from the same legal guarantees on the basis that this would impinge on Irelands right to organise “collective expulsions”. This prohibition ensures that each individual has the right to have his/her case treated on its merits, rather than simply because they belong to a group deemed indesirable. It would certainly be more convenient if Ireland could expulse people simply because they are Nigerian, Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, Roms, homosexuals or don’t vote for FF… do we really want to live in such a country.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights is the inevitable and logical step forward from the current rights of citizens of member states to live and work anywhere in the EU. Without some uniformisation of rights then the present mess, particularily in respect of family law and employment law will continue to degenerate. Free movement of people and goods requires that there is a common element in the legal situation throughout the area.
Having lived in France for many years I have some difficulty in understanding BB’s reference to French closed shops and easier strike rules. The influence of the EU has eased many restrictions on the employment of non French citizens in the public sector. France continues to import labour for it’s industry. Strikes in France are largely limited to the public service sector, and are more attributable to the absence of a culture of negociation and “partnership” than to the (mythical) absence of constraints on union action. Regretably, French management culture is such that the strike is used not when all other avenues of negotiation have failed, but as a necessary preamble to the opening of any negotiation.
Methinks BB has been reading too much neo-liberal propoganda, which is usually as accurate a Bush’s comment about the French not having a word for “entrepreneur”
3. Only in Bertieland would a Government which is so numerous that they almost have to rent the tent from Galway Races to pack everybody in to hols a meeting be considered acceptable. The number of EU Commissioners has become unworkable. Is there any evidence of Commisioners using their position to advance purely national interest? I would welcome a debate of how a Commission of 27 or more members could work.
4. As a democrat I welcome the increased role given to the elected Parlement rather to a co-opted Commission.
Gordon DAVIES
It’s amazing how representative democracy and sovereignty go out the window when the anti-treaty forces choose, isn’t it?
You want a referendum in your state? Campaign there for one. This is a treaty between sovereign states. It’s not Ireland’s problem if other state’s democracies don’t function as well as ours.
“3. Only in Bertieland would a Government which is so numerous that they almost have to rent the tent from Galway Races to pack everybody in to hols a meeting be considered acceptable. The number of EU Commissioners has become unworkable. Is there any evidence of Commisioners using their position to advance purely national interest? I would welcome a debate of how a Commission of 27 or more members could work.”
It is working as we speak. There are already 27 Commissioners and that seems fair. That is what will be lost under this Treaty from 2014. Imagine - a whole 5 yr Commission term with noone to fight Ireland’s corner against those Commissioners pushing for tax-harmonisation like Lazlo Kovacz, the Tax Commissioner.
The Commissioners pushing for tax harmonisation are doing so more for ideological reasons than in defence of narrow national interests. The whole point of establishing the EU was to create a level playing field. Ireland’s position as largely unregulated tax haven for some of the more questionable tax avoidance activities of multi-national companies is unsustainable.
Arguably, Commissioners should not be nominated by member states, so that they are not seen as representing a countries interests. It would certainly be more democratic if they were nominated by the Parlement. Each member state has equal representation at the Council of Ministers, has representation proportional to population in the Parlement. A Commission of 27 or more members is unworkable, leading to a division of responsibilities into such tiny sectors as to be meaningless. Does any one know what each member of Bartholomew Ahern’s horde of over-paid buck passsers is supposed to be (not) in charge of. Demarcation disputes are ongoing.
Gordon
Charlie McCreevy is said to be opposed to the plan for CCTB. The reality is that a 27 Commission is workable - it already exists. Nothing bad became the Dutch and French after they rejected the Constitution so we have nothing to fear. If we vote No, life will just go on as before. Our ancestors did not fight 700 yrs for our independence for us to just give it away.
1.Just because a 27 member commission exists does not mean that it is working efficiently. An inner circle of super Comissioners is emerging.
2. After the failure of the Constitution things did go on as before - inefficiently, slowly and undemocratically - which is why a new arrangement is necessary.
3.There is a substatial difference between the long struggle to esape from imperial domination and the present tendancy to deal with Europe wide problems at the appropriate level. As far as I am aware the organisation based in Brussels/Luxembourg/Strasbourg has no ambition to set p an imperial government in Ireland nor to establish a colonial economy.
4. Irish politicians and voters may have a particular problem with the notion of treating problems at different levels. This is because Ireland is one of the most centralised States in Europe, has little or no tradition of local government (or rather that the Dail operates as the local government for the whole country) and does not have an independant civil service at the local level.
5. As one of the instigators of Ireland’s rogue state status it is unsurprising that McCreevy is opposed to attempts to establish a fiscal level playing field.
Gordon
“2. After the failure of the Constitution things did go on as before - inefficiently, slowly and undemocratically - which is why a new arrangement is necessary.”
It may have going slower. But if that means less sovereignty is being surrendered then I say a good thing too. That slowness is largely owed to the fact that all voices are being heard. On a smaller Commission the voices of small countries like Ireland would be smothered by our absence. Think about what it would mean: 5 yrs and perhaps longer with noone representing the Irish perspective. That is unacceptable. Don’t forget the reprimand Charlie McCreevy got in 2001. The French and Germans are pushing to use Commissioner Kovacz’s plan for a CCTB (Common Consolidated Tax Base) to erode our competitive advantage and introduce tax-harmonisation by the back door. If passed it would allow 8 countries more easily press ahead with it on their own, meaning that Irish-based companies exporting to other EU states would have to pay taxes to the destination-countries of those sales. This was discussed in detail on “Down to Business” on Newstalk last Saturday. I suggest you educate yourself about this issue because it is deadly serious, and worthy of serious discussion. The point of multinationals coming here is largely our lower rate of corporation-tax. It certainly isn’t our crumbling infrastructure. If companies coming to Ireland are also going to have to pay taxes to Germany and France as the CCTB means, then they simply won’t come here. The Reform Treaty relates to this issue because whereas at present, 27%+ on the Council of Ministers is enough to block it, the Reform Treaty increases that to 35%+. We should vote no and force a rethink on this issue. You are far too trusting.
“3.There is a substatial difference between the long struggle to esape from imperial domination and the present tendancy to deal with Europe wide problems at the appropriate level. As far as I am aware the organisation based in Brussels/Luxembourg/Strasbourg has no ambition to set p an imperial government in Ireland nor to establish a colonial economy.”
Arguments for this Treaty are not unlike the arguments of the Unionists in the Irish Parliament in 1800 for the Act of Union. EU Commission president Barroso has already referred to the EU as an empire:
http://www.youtube.com/v/c2Ralocq9uE
“5. As one of the instigators of Ireland’s rogue state status it is unsurprising that McCreevy is opposed to attempts to establish a fiscal level playing field.”
Sounds to me like your conceding the treaty will help introduce tax-harmonisation so I win on that point thank you very much.
“4. Irish politicians and voters may have a particular problem with the notion of treating problems at different levels. This is because Ireland is one of the most centralised States in Europe, has little or no tradition of local government (or rather that the Dail operates as the local government for the whole country) and does not have an independant civil service at the local level.”
Yes and now this Treaty will take decision-making even further away from the people.
BB,
You conceed then that the present fiscal advantages offered by Ireland are temporary and unsustainable. Thankyou. If succesive FF governments had used the temporary concession of an advantageous tax rate to invest in the future there might have been some justification for prolonging the current situation. Unfortunately this has not been the case. We are now in a situation in which many companies that contribute large sume to the Exchequer may decide to leave. Ireland should be looking to anchor these companies in Ireland, in part by ensuring that they cannot find a more advantageous tax regime elsewhere in Europe.
I am in favour of a degree of tax harmonisation. Low rates of corporation tax may give companies a competitive advantage. However, many forms of competitive advantage are unacceptable - adulterating flour, watering beer, employing slave labour, excessive sub-contracting so that full time employees are legally self-employed, not contributing to statutory employees pension funds… Which is why we have legislation to control such unacceptable practices. There is an onging debate about the degree and the nature of such regulation, but even the most rabid neo-liberal does not wish to abolish all such legislation. International agreements determine much of these rules. The EU is one of many organisations that negotiate and administer such agreements, which are an essential element of internatioanl trading. European customers can buy Irish products knowing that they meet a set of agreed standards.
I am not alone in considering that the perverse accountancy practise of artifically locating profits in tax havens should be countered. The introduction of a common methodology for locating taxable income is a considerable progress on the current situation. This may mean that the present government will have to find other sources of revenue.
Gordon