EU to use Lisbon to impose VAT

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,980
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com


hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,476
This is relevant to the new Treaty demanded by the Merkel-Sarkozy Axis, which would deprive a member state of its voting rights for violating the deficit-target. That could leave Ireland unable to veto tax-harmonisation via 'own resources'. The jigsaw is falling into place. The mask is slipping...
That's not what the Merkel-Sarkozy agreement (which has to be agreed by the other member states anyway, which it won't be) says.
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,476
FT , you didnt emphasis this bit:

"That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. "

The member states will still have to agree unanimously. And that might require referenda in a few of them.

To be honest, I can't see the Germans or French going along with this, let alone the eurosceptic British.
Exactly. At most its a negotiating ploy, to get states to cop on during the annual horse-trading fair that is the construction of the EU Budget.
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,476
How do you know it won't be?
Of course it won't. The Brits will oppose it, and likely the Spanish and Greeks as well. And that's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there's plenty more.
 

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,980
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
But our constitutional-requirements were changed by the second Lisbon referendum which introduced for the first time "Ireland's commitment to the EU" - constitutional code for anything-goes.
hiding behind a poster said:
Of course it won't. The Brits will oppose it, and likely the Spanish and Greeks as well. And that's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there's plenty more.
Are you talking about the VAT or are you talking about the Merkel-Sarkozy agreement on a new treaty?
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,476
But our constitutional-requirements were changed by the second Lisbon referendum which introduced for the first time "Ireland's commitment to the EU" - constitutional code for anything-goes.
There's never been such a "constitutional code" in any constitution, ever. If it was what you claim it to be, then the section permitting the State to ratify Lisbon would be unconstitutional.

Are you talking about the VAT or are you talking about the Merkel-Sarkozy agreement on a new treaty?
I was talking about the agreement, but as it happens it applies to the VAT thing as well. As others have said, the EU has 27 states, hundreds of MEPs, tens of thousands of elected politicians within its member states, and God knows how many think-tanks and other such groups. As a result, lots of things get suggested, all the time. What you have to do is stop leaping to the conclusion, as soon as anyone "over there" says ANYTHING, that it is therefore, by definition, definitely going to happen. Its equivalent to some fruitloop writing an Op Ed in the Irish Times, saying something like Ireland should default on its debts, or leave the Euro, or float itself out to mid-Atlantic, and your equivalent in Germany or Spain leaping up and down saying "Look, I KNEW IT!! Ireland's gonna float out to sea!! I TOLD YOU PEOPLE!!!"

You've become the definitive "boy who cried wolf", FT. Just like a house alarm that's on too sensitive a setting, and goes off anytime there's a breath of wind, people just stop taking you seriously after a while.
 

ocoonassa

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
6,124
Typical rubbish from FT. Someone suggests something is a possibility
Clearly it is a possibility and that possibility did not arrive there by accident.

It think FT is making a very valid point about the anti-democratic thinking of the type of people who could deliberate upon the issue of taxation without representation, and come down in its favour.

How is this to be explained away? It doesn't exactly inspire trust.
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,476
Then why does Madame Editor seem so sure it will happen?
Why does it matter? She's a newspaper editor, and newspaper editors don't decide EU Council meetings. After all, you think it'll happen too, but that doesn't mean you're right either.
 

Verhofstadt

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
6,037
Website
********************
Future Taoiseach is spot on as usual about this outrage from the Evil Union.

Good article here from Paul J Watson about the latest act of tyranny. No doubt the Eurotron fanatics will demonise it, but as Jim Rogers said today of the "economist" Paul Krugman, "he hasn't even been to economics 101, let alone the real world."

EU Dictators Plan Fresh Looting Of Tax Slaves
Are you telling me that we should listen to Paul J Watson before Krugman?

Would you care to post a brief resumé of this guy or at least a link to his other writings so we can take a view?

.. call my question demonising if you wish but I've honestly never heard of the guy and a google search throws up some weird things.
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,293
You sure about that?
I don't think FT is stupid as such - but once he's grasped the wrong end of the stick, he won't let go of it, even though he frequently then grasps the wrong end of another stick in such a way as to have to hold two completely opposing viewpoints simultaneously. If it's stupidity, it's nearly all the way out towards a special kind of inverted genius. He's a sort of savant idiotique.

In this particular case, he's still holding onto an interpretation of the 'own resources' article (311 TFEU) which he made during Lisbon - that because the ability to create own resources by unanimity is clarified in that article, it had come into being only with that article. True, that ignores the fact that the EU already had 'own resources', which must have been created somehow, but what's a fact to FT?

The Nice article was entirely sufficient to create such resources - it just wasn't explicit:

Nice Article 269: Without prejudice to other revenue, the budget shall be financed wholly from own resources. The Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, shall lay down provisions relating to the system of own resources of the Community, which it shall recommend to the Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
So if Lisbon hadn't passed, the EU VAT proposal would involve "lay(ing) down provisions relating to the system of own resources", which has historically been the clause under which new 'own resources' are added - as per the current system of 'own resources', which is governed by a Council Decision from 2007. As you can see, that Decision refers to Article 269.

But, yeah, completely ignoring the fact that the EU already has a system of own resources, and that it must logically therefore have been possible to create them before Lisbon does make him look like an idiot - except of course to the other idiots.
 
Last edited:


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top