Should we leave the EU?

kevteljeur

Rb wrote: »

So are implying that we should just say Yes to everything they propose, given that you feel we owe them so much?

My understanding was that 'we' helped 'them' propose this particular one. 'We' shouldn't really turn to them after getting 'them' to compromise on this, that and the other, and say 'Ahh, no, after all. Not really sure why but, no.'. They want their investment to be returned, if not in kind then with a bit of co-operation.

kevteljeur

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Let's recap here...

Dutch and French people reject the EU constitution which leads to...

The EU changing the name of the document to the Lisbon Treaty and offering only miniscule changes which leads to...

The Dutch and French parliaments ratifying the Lisbon Treaty.

If you think that's democratic you need your head examined.

But that's an issue for voters in those countries to decide on, not for us to second-guess and reject or accept based on what we think voters in those countries might have wanted. So, for Irish voters to vote no because they don't like the decisions of the Dutch or French governments is more about presumption than democracy, no?

force eleven

People are actually raising this proposition today, I've heard it on radio also, though no-one takes such a thought seriously. If we did, wouldn't we go back to the punt, and our own central bank?

Covey

I think we should leave the EU immediately and along with Norway and Switzerland form an alternative EU, maybe call it the UE (Ultra Europeans / Useles Eejits etc.).

That way we can have the best of fishing, plenty of oil/gas and our banking industry could revert to the traditonal norm of secrecy. Lets face it the standard of chocolate would also improve overnight.

We could have an alternative European Soccer Championship with maybe even some hope of success. Our army could come to some use and fill in for the Swiss in the Vatican when they go on their holliers.

We could even look forward to new accession States like the soon to break away UK without hindering our European soccer expectations.

T.

Covey

Covey wrote: »

I think we should leave the EU immediatly and along with Norway and Switzerland form an alternative EU, maybe call it the UE (Ultra Europeans / Useles Eejits etc.).

How about calling it the Judean People's Front?

colly10

dog-man-star wrote: »

People voted no because they didn't know what they were voting yes for.

Or because they didn't agree with certain aspects of the treaty.

@the OP - No we should not leave Europe, the no vote was a vote against the treaty, not a vote against Europe

kevteljeur

force eleven wrote: »

People are actually raising this proposition today, I've heard it on radio also, though no-one takes such a thought seriously. If we did, wouldn't we go back to the punt, and our own central bank?

And we could grow our own vegetables, and tell stories by the hearth, like 'when Da used to be able to afford consumer electronics... '. it would be great, just like old times!

Of course, I'll have emigrated to wealthy Romania by then.

Covey wrote: »

I think we should leave the EU immediately and along with Norway and Switzerland form an alternative EU, maybe call it the UE (Ultra Europeans / Useles Eejits etc.).

That way we can have the best of fishing, plenty of oil/gas and our banking industry could revert to the traditonal norm of secrecy. Lets face it the standard of chocolate would also improve overnight.

We could have an alternative European Soccer Championship with maybe even some hope of success. Our army could come to some use and fill in for the Swiss in the Vatican when they go on their holliers.

We could even look forward to new accession States like the soon to break away UK without hindering our European soccer expectations.

T.

Seriously though.

fitzer1982

Covey wrote: »

I think we should leave the EU immediately and along with Norway and Switzerland form an alternative EU, maybe call it the UE (Ultra Europeans / Useles Eejits etc.).

That way we can have the best of fishing, plenty of oil/gas and our banking industry could revert to the traditonal norm of secrecy. Lets face it the standard of chocolate would also improve overnight.

We could have an alternative European Soccer Championship with maybe even some hope of success. Our army could come to some use and fill in for the Swiss in the Vatican when they go on their holliers.

We could even look forward to new accession States like the soon to break away UK without hindering our European soccer expectations.

T.

By far the best arguement I've heard for leaving the EU!

On a serious level leaving the EU currently would not be an option. We would to renegotiate with evry country in the EU and I doubt that would proceed to smoothly! I don't claim to know the statistics but I doubt our fishing industry would cover any of our potentials lose in trade with mainland Europe.

I'm at heart an Irish person but I'm also a realist, we need to be part of Europe to function in a global market.

raido9

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Now that the Irish people had the courage to reject the Treaty should we leave the EU and become an Independent country again?
I think it is. Taking orders from other countrys is not something any patriot should support.

No. End of.

menoscemo

Kev you are going to have to face it that your little plan has very little support.
Most people like me who voted no are completely opposed to your point of view.

kevteljeur

menoscemo wrote: »

Kev you are going to have to face it that your little plan has very little support.
Most people like me who voted no are completely opposed to your point of view.

I'd like to hear more about how it would work (on a serious level), and how the Irish State would remain solvent, neutrality, trade, stuff like that.

My parents moved here in '67 from the Netherlands, and back then it was as big a jump as moving from Dublin to somewhere in Moldova (a big jump backwards, I mean). I'd like to know how this plan would avoid sliding back there, and how the massive Public Services wages will be maintained, for example, and international investment maintained.

BMH

Rb wrote: »

Hit search and find it yourself. It's been mentioned enough over the past few weeks that had you been paying attention you would have seen it. I don't need to go googling to link an article for you tbh.

That's not how you cite a source.

kerry4sam

We did not vote against the European Union! We are not rejecting all that is the European Union and Ireland won't survive without the European Union

BMH

Rb wrote: »

And what does that matter? Are we leaving the EU? No, no we're not.

The low taxes attracted the companies here, if we lose them it'll be as a result of
A: A hike in taxes
B: A drop in taxes in another country where the cost of labour is a lot lower than here.

They're not going anywhere as a result of today, we're not leaving Europe as a result of today.

As an example of backing up a point, here's a clear argument by Scofflaw with regards the incorrect statement in your post about corporate tax.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Actually, some of the confusion results from thinking about tax as all one thing.

1. the EU has competence on indirect taxation (VAT, customs duties) because it is a customs union - however, EU competence on taxation is a veto area

2. the EU has no competence on direct taxation (income tax, corporation tax) - to give it competence would require another treaty and another referendum

In other words, the EU is entitled to rule on the taxation of things, because it is a customs union and a common market regulator. However, it is not entitled to tax people or companies, because they are legally subject to the member states and not the Union.

3. as a common market and customs regulator, the EU is entitled to put forward proposals on how cross-border taxation can be distributed fairly between countries, because that is part of internal market harmonisation. CCCTB is a system for calculating where taxes should be paid

4. but, because taxation, insofar as it is an EU competence, is a veto area, it can only get such a proposal accepted by unanimity

5. at no point can it set the actual rates of corporate tax, because it does not have the competence to do so.

So much for the general argument that the EU can change our corporate tax rates directly. It can't, because it does not have the competence to do so, is not given it in Lisbon, and is unlikely ever to be given it.

On to the more sophisticated argument that a group of countries could sidestep the veto requirement by using what is called the "enhanced cooperation" mechanism.

1. "enhanced cooperation" allows a group of countries to go ahead with a system like CCCTB. They need (currently) 8 states to form such a group, and the formation of such a group must be accepted unanimously by all the states before it can be formed

2. enhanced cooperation was introduced in the Nice Treaty. The only change made in Lisbon is that you only need 8 countries, not 9 [EDIT]actually the other way round - Lisbon raises it from 8 to 9[/EDIT].

The suggestion has been made that a group of countries could form such a group for CCCTB, and that by the existence of such a group, Ireland would be forced to adopt CCCTB.

The last bit of the argument there is pretty hazy, I'm afraid, because no-one has really suggested how it would actually happen, other than saying that the existence of such a group would put pressure on us, perhaps by forcing Irish-based companies to use CCCTB if they were exporting to other countries.

However, there is first the little matter of the unanimity requirement to allow such a group to form in the first place. Ireland can veto the formation of the group.

Further, there is the issue that enhanced cooperation groups are only allowed to operate as long as what is being adopted by the group does not impact those who choose not to join. If a group of countries does choose to go ahead with a "CCCTB group", they must operate CCCTB in such a way as not to impact Ireland. Irish-based companies cannot be "forced to use CCCTB".

Finally, and most relevantly to discussion of Lisbon, enhanced cooperation already exists. It's not new in Lisbon.

That is why groups like the Irish Taxation Institute and the Irish Association of Chartered Accountants have said that Lisbon doesn't impact Ireland's corporation tax regime - and also why multinationals have been happy to support a Yes vote.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Perhaps you could provide something similar for your claims with regard fisheries.

gordon_gekko

one myth that really needs knocking on the head is that sinn fein are pro europe , sinn fein would like to make ireland a cuba without the sun or cool american cars from the 1950,s

ScumLord

Leave the EU? :rolleyes:

How could anyone think that's a good idea?

jor el

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Dutch and French people reject the EU constitution

The Dutch and French parliaments ratifying the Lisbon Treaty.

This is something that's kind of bothered me since the beginning of the referendum debate. Why was it that both of these countries put the constitution to the people, but not this treaty? Why didn't they just ratify the constitution directly without a vote, or why didn't they feel confident enough in the treaty to put it to their people?

If there really was a vote across Europe on this treaty, what would the outcome be? I'd be thinking that the French and British people anyway, could very well follow Ireland in saying no.

kevteljeur

ScumLord wrote: »

Leave the EU? :rolleyes:

How could anyone think that's a good idea?

Because of the fish, Scum Lord. They're ours, and we're going to fight for freedom and for our fish.

Deep down, we'd all rather fish than have comfortable, well-paid desk jobs at Dell, Intel, Motorola, Apple, etc, etc...

Mr.Nice Guy

jor el wrote: »

This is something that's kind of bothered me since the beginning of the referendum debate. Why was it that both of these countries put the constitution to the people, but not this treaty? Why didn't they just ratify the constitution directly without a vote, or why didn't they feel confident enough in the treaty to put it to their people?

If there really was a vote across Europe on this treaty, what would the outcome be? I'd be thinking that the French and British people anyway, could very well follow Ireland in saying no.

Yes I'm certain you're right about that. The British would reject it comfortably I think it's fair to say.

menoscemo

kevteljeur wrote: »

I'd like to hear more about how it would work (on a serious level), and how the Irish State would remain solvent, neutrality, trade, stuff like that.

My parents moved here in '67 from the Netherlands, and back then it was as big a jump as moving from Dublin to somewhere in Moldova (a big jump backwards, I mean). I'd like to know how this plan would avoid sliding back there, and how the massive Public Services wages will be maintained, for example, and international investment maintained.

You quoted me there Kev, my comment was to the other kev as in the OPKev, Kev.

Kovik

IRONY:

We can't actually secede until Lisbon is passed.

kevteljeur

menoscemo wrote: »

You quoted me there Kev, my comment was to the other kev as in the OPKev, Kev.

Sorry, yes, I knew that, I was agreeing with you there - I should have been clearer about that. Sorry!

Kev

kippy

What kind of a topic is this in fairness.
We vote no to this treaty does not mean we leave Europe.
Leaving Europe is probably the funnist thing I have read there.

Those clowns jumping around the RDS or whereever the count center is, better get some ideas out on the table fairly fast about how we are going to move forward in Europe and get the changes that were in this treaty amended to make them happy.

BMH

jor el wrote: »

This is something that's kind of bothered me since the beginning of the referendum debate. Why was it that both of these countries put the constitution to the people, but not this treaty? Why didn't they just ratify the constitution directly without a vote, or why didn't they feel confident enough in the treaty to put it to their people?

The constitution of those countries required a referendum. It's impossible to say why the other countries didn't put it to referendum. In some countries like Germany, referenda are outlawed, but in England it was likely for fear of losing. Others may have just wanted to avoid the expense, or the issues arising from explaining such a complex legal document.

If there really was a vote across Europe on this treaty, what would the outcome be? I'd be thinking that the French and British people anyway, could very well follow Ireland in saying no.

Well Spain, Luxembourg and Romania all ratified the far more contentious EU Constitution by referendum, so I'd imagine they'd have been safe enough. England would probably have rejected it alright, but the lack of protests in France/The Netherlands may imply that the symbolism of a federal state in the Constitution might have been the cause of much of the opposition in those countries.

jimmycrackcorm

let's have a referendum on leaving the eu soon and really confuse the no people.
Posted via Mobile Device

O'Morris

Kovik wrote: »

IRONY:

We can't actually secede until Lisbon is passed.

We're a sovereign country. We're perfectly free to withdraw our membership if we want to.

kippy

O'Morris wrote: »

We're a sovereign country. We're perfectly free to withdraw our membership if we want to.

I dont think so. Not without a couple of Million Europeans knocking on our doors asking for their money back.

O'Morris

kippy wrote: »

I dont think so. Not without a couple of Million Europeans knocking on our doors asking for their money back.

I wasn't aware that the handouts were conditional on the recipient remaining an EU member. Is it written down anywhere?

oscarBravo

O'Morris wrote: »

We're a sovereign country. We're perfectly free to withdraw our membership if we want to.

O'Morris wrote: »

Is it written down anywhere?

Right back atcha.

kippy

This post should really be in After Hours or possibly even the thunderdrome.
I cant believe people are seriously advocating something as daft as this.
Kippy