why so afraid to go it alone

thehighground

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's up to you to back up your arguments, not me. If you've not figured that out then perhaps you should review your own use of the Internet.

I happily made an effort earlier in this thread until you decided you didn't like to respond to some of my arguments and decided you were going to ignore me. So, do us all a favour and spare us your revisionist BS.

Sorry, I'm not going to waste one second of my life debating with someone who has made their mind up on someone anyway and seems to think I'm some sort of sinner to be mocked because I may have a nationalist/capatilist/republican/socialist/working class/middle class/ etc. etc. views on whatever.

The ball, not the man, eh!

thehighground

O'Morris wrote: »

One thing to remember about tariffs is that they work both ways. If we have to pay tariffs on agricultural exports we'll also be able to generate some revenue from the tariffs that we can impose on foreign imports. Maybe the money generated from the import tariffs can be used to cover some of the costs of exporting.

How high are the tariffs currently on agricultural imports to the EU and by how much are they set to fall over the next few years?

This point is repeatedly ignored by some of the 'Yes' voters here. As is the point that Ireland is now a net contributor to the EU.

marco_polo

thehighground wrote: »

This point is repeatedly ignored by some of the 'Yes' voters here. As is the point that Ireland is now a net contributor to the EU.

I challenge you to pull out some of those posts from any of the regular contributers.

thehighground wrote: »

No, we are not going to solve food shortages - but, we are going to find it easy enough to sell food - so we can up production and provide more jobs in processing factories etc.

As for EU dairy farmers being heavily subsidised - ah, Ireland is now a net contributor (which means we are subsidising EU countries now less well off than ourselves) which we won't have to do, so we will be able to put that money into building roads, developing other industries, whatever.

Please don't tell me you are trying to claim that EU dairy farming is not heavily subsidised, that is a complete bare faced lie.

That we are a net contributor overall is entirely irrelevant to the agriculture debate.

thehighground

marco_polo wrote: »

I am well aware the EU does our negotiating I was still in hypothetical not in the EU mode.

Are you entirely happy that Mandelson is negotiating on behalf of the EU?

thehighground

marco_polo wrote: »

Brazil export so much Beef because it is still competitively priced even after the tariffs are included. How do you think we would fare against them on a level playing pitch?

Well, there are environmental issues in Brazil - forest clearing to facilitate these massive farms, not to mention the distance they have to travel to get to market.

Food safety is a big, big issue! I wouldn't eat south american beef.

marco_polo

thehighground wrote: »

Are you entirely happy that Mandelson is negotiating on behalf of the EU?

Why do you keep trying to change the subject?

He is the relevant commissioner so that he is fronting the negotiations is no surprise. And no I would not be exceptionally worried as he is not entitled to make decisions by himself.

badlyparkedmerc

Originally Posted by thehighground
As is the point that Ireland is now a net contributor to the EU.

Possibly they ignore facts like this because like most other No arguments they're wrong, though this is not the most wrong to be fair. Almost right really by No standards.

http://www.finfacts.com/irishfinancenews/article_1012675.shtml

Revenue predicted in February this year becoming a net contributer wouldn't happen until 2013, perhaps further out now since we've mismanaged our economy (all by ourselves no nasty Brussels to do it for us).

Apologies if this point has been made before - too many pages to read.

thehighground

marco_polo wrote: »

I challenge you to pull out some of those posts from any of the regular contributers.

I've mentioned it a few times in posts over the last few days (and I have seen other people mention them). It has never been acknowledged though. I don't have the energy to go look for them as I think its pointless. Sorry.

Please don't tell me you are trying to claim that EU dairy farming is not heavily subsidised, that is a complete bare faced lie.

That we are a net contributor overall is entirely irrelevant to the agriculture debate.

I'm not trying to claim that EU dairy farming is not (heavily ???) subsidised, though now that you mention it, it isn't strictly correct about being subsidised (farmers are paid not to over-produce so that the EU doesn't end up with butter/beef mountains etc). Farmers are given quotas, in the past they were paid for set-a-side (i.e., paid not to grow anything and had satelites monitoring activity - absolutely mad)

Of course the fact that we are a net contributor is relevant - Ireland is a country with people - we're all in this together whether you like it or not.

marco_polo

thehighground wrote: »

I've mentioned it a few times in posts over the last few days (and I have seen other people mention them). It has never been acknowledged though. I don't have the energy to go look for them as I think its pointless. Sorry.



I'm not trying to claim that EU dairy farming is not (heavily ???) subsidised, though now that you mention it, it isn't strictly correct about being subsidised (farmers are paid not to over-produce so that the EU doesn't end up with butter/beef mountains etc). Farmers are given quotas, in the past they were paid for set-a-side (i.e., paid not to grow anything and had satelites monitoring activity - absolutely mad)

Of course the fact that we are a net contributor is relevant - Ireland is a country with people - we're all in this together whether you like it or not.

Each year the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development publishes an estimate of farm subsidies, by product and by country. The most recent statistics in the OECD's subsidy database are for 2003, and find global "producer support" totaling $257 billion. (This includes domestic spending, export subsidies, and price-setting plus transfers of money through tariffs and quotas.) The largest single chunk of money, $48 billion, went to the dairy industry. The EU accounted for $22.5 billion through domestic supports, export subsidies, other pricing policies, import quotas, and tariffs of 200 percent or more on butter and 50 percent on cheese.

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=108&subsecID=900003&contentID=253488

That is my idea of heavy, 22.5 billion just on dairy subsidies alone. Those butter and cheese tariffs look pretty big too for anyone outside looking to export to the EU.

thehighground

badlyparkedmerc wrote: »

Possibly they ignore facts like this because like most other No arguments they're wrong, though this is not the most wrong to be fair. Almost right really by No standards.

http://www.finfacts.com/irishfinancenews/article_1012675.shtml

Revenue predicted in February this year becoming a net contributer wouldn't happen until 2013, perhaps further out now since we've mismanaged our economy (all by ourselves no nasty Brussels to do it for us).

Apologies if this point has been made before - too many pages to read.

Those figures date from 2004 - as far as I know we have just become net contributor this year. You do realise that EU subsidy only represents 1.3% of our GDP !!! That is not a low now, is it.

PPS - Most people (especially farmers) would be very happy if Larry Goodman didn't get a penny from Brussels.

thehighground

marco_polo wrote: »

Why do you keep trying to change the subject?

He is the relevant commissioner so that he is fronting the negotiations is no surprise. And no I would not be exceptionally worried as he is not entitled to make decisions by himself.

Sorry, I'm too subtle for you. Peter Mandelson will be very happy if food tarifs go in the EU because (even though he works for the EU) he is British and it would certainly be in British interests if they can get their hands on cheap food.

French & Irish farmers would prefer to keep them if they are in the EU. Thats why Sarkozy was having a go at Mandelson. It was reported he was trying to make up with the Irish, but he is really trying to get the French farmers on side.

marco_polo

thehighground wrote: »

Those figures date from 2004 - as far as I know we have just become net contributor this year. You do realise that EU subsidy only represents 1.3% of our GDP !!! That is not a low now, is it.

PPS - Most people (especially farmers) would be very happy if Larry Goodman didn't get a penny from Brussels.

It makes it pretty difficult to export those goods into the EU with those kinds of tariffs on dairy products and against that much financial support. Especially whe you consider that we would no longer be recieving any of those subsidies on top of having to pay the tariffs ourselves.

But would the farmers be so happy if they didn't get a penny from brussels?

marco_polo

thehighground wrote: »

Sorry, I'm too subtle for you. Peter Mandelson will be very happy if food tarifs go in the EU because (even though he works for the EU) he is British and it would certainly be in British interests if they can get their hands on cheap food.

French & Irish farmers would prefer to keep them if they are in the EU. Thats why Sarkozy was having a go at Mandelson. It was reported he was trying to make up with the Irish, but he is really trying to get the French farmers on side.

I would never accuse you of being subtle. Perhaps he would be happy but it is not up to him, he is meerly fronting the negotiating team at the talks on behalf of the EU as Comissioner. What he wants personally is of no consequence and what the UK would like carries no more weight than any other nation just because the commissioner happenes to be British.

VoidStarNull

Might be helpful to review some stats (from the Irish exporters association)

Irish exports by sector in 2007 (millions of euros)

Agri/food 7178
Beverages 1321
Pharma/chemicals 43519
Computer hardware 17298
Medical devices 3042
Other manufactured goods 7341
Services 17577

It seems that we can indeed rely on farmers to bail us out, provided they can find a way to grow viagra and computer hardware.

thehighground

marco_polo wrote: »

I would never accuse you of being subtle. Perhaps he would be happy but it is not up to him, he is meerly fronting the negotiating team at the talks on behalf of the EU as Comissioner. What he wants personally is of no consequence and what the UK would like carries no more weight than any other nation just because the commissioner happenes to be British.

Why are they all hopping mad with Charlie McCreevy - why is he regarded as the most 'powerful' minister? Surely he is just 'fronting the team.'

Your a bit soft in the head if you think that a Minister doesn't have more than a bit of influence

marco_polo

thehighground wrote: »

Why are they all hopping mad with Charlie McCreevy - why is he regarded as the most 'powerful' minister? Surely he is just 'fronting the team.'

Your a bit soft in the head if you think that a Minister doesn't have more than a bit of influence

The day to day role of the commisioner is completely different to duties at the WTO talks.

ixtlan

Yikes, this is all getting fanciful!

People can argue about the economy in general and whether we could manage without the EU, but as for farming surely there's no doubt.

1/ To the comment that tarriffs on imports will compensate for the effect of tarriffs on our exports allowing us to subsudise them... well that's not really going to work for a state that exports far more than we import, and even if it was possible the effect would be make everything we import massively more expensive, which would not be too popular.

2/ To the comment that the EU can't put tarriffs on food because there isn't enough of it. Yes, there is a food crisis, but as you point out we are quite rich in Europe. That means that no one will starve here and you can bet that the farmers in the remaining EU would resist removing tarriffs on Irish imports. Sure they might get reduced, but a combination of no subsidies and tarrifs of any size would spell disaster for Irish farmers. Anyhow, times change. In 10 years time there could be a beef glut in the EU, or a dairy glut if the agriculture industries in Eastern Europe get up to speed. Then there could be high tarriffs again to protect the real EU from the former EU. What would we do then?

3/ To the comments about more jobs in agriculture and processing factories. Maybe, but those were the jobs that Irish people didn't want and which were filled by immigrants. Are you saying that these are the jobs we need to be producing more of?! Personally I don't want to work in a food processing factory!

4/ Even if the other parts of the economy did well, do you think it would be popular for the government to be subsidising the farmers to the same extent as the EU does? Very unlikely. We will end up importing our food from the EU using their subsidies!

Ix.

kevteljeur

VoidStarNull wrote: »

Might be helpful to review some stats (from the Irish exporters association)

Irish exports by sector in 2007 (millions of euros)

Agri/food 7178
Beverages 1321
Pharma/chemicals 43519
Computer hardware 17298
Medical devices 3042
Other manufactured goods 7341
Services 17577

It seems that we can indeed rely on farmers to bail us out, provided they can find a way to grow viagra and computer hardware.

LOL!

Excellent. I think a debate of this nature without numbers is bordering on pointless, and these numbers say a lot. In any event, we're not going to be leaving the EU, because the people who make the decisions for us have all the numbers, and they know all too well which side of our bread is buttered.

It's worth noting that many of the computer/hardware manufacturers have built their facilities for redundancy. They can quickly and easily relocate, in case it should be needed. The important raw materials and components are mostly imports anyway, and can be sourced no matter where the plant is located within the EU.

A small point too, is that much of the foodstuffs imported into Europe from the Southern Hemisphere is vastly cheaper than that from Europe; South America, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, these are all able to ship in bulk at vastly cheaper prices even taking tariffs into account. Land is plentiful and fertile, and labour is vastly cheaper. It's barely worth producing apples in Australia because of competition from New Zealand, for example; and they're still cheaper than Europe, generally.

I don't want to read any rubbish here about Australia being mostly desert. They have farms the size of Irish provinces there, and all of it being productive and competitive, for meat and for fruit.

thehighground

marco_polo wrote: »

The day to day role of the commisioner is completely different to duties at the WTO talks.

I wouldn't we you there. He is negotiating with a lot of other countries who want to trade with the EU at the WTO.

His day to day job is about explaining to his fellow EU members what he has agreed! They give him a flea in the ear etc. etc.

But do you know what, we can't fire him if we don't like what he has done because he is appointed.

marco_polo

thehighground wrote: »

I wouldn't we you there. He is negotiating with a lot of other countries who want to trade with the EU at the WTO.

His day to day job is about explaining to his fellow EU members what he has agreed! They give him a flea in the ear etc. etc.

But do you know what, we can't fire him if we don't like what he has done because he is appointed.

Au contrair he has an agreed mandate for WTO talks.

Also you are heading way off topic now at this stage.

thehighground

ixtlan wrote: »

Yikes, this is all getting fanciful!

People can argue about the economy in general and whether we could manage without the EU, but as for farming surely there's no doubt.

It was never meant to be centred on farming - just some people were making comments that needed to be refuted.

1/ To the comment that tarriffs on imports will compensate for the effect of tarriffs on our exports allowing us to subsudise them... well that's not really going to work for a state that exports far more than we import, and even if it was possible the effect would be make everything we import massively more expensive, which would not be too popular.

Not everything is exported to the EU. US is a big market for Ireland. We also sell stuff to places like China & Japan. As regards imports - some we have to because the EU made us shut them down (i.e., beet for sugar production).
Check the Central Statistics at cso.ie (Some very readable pdfs there and accurate info).

2/ To the comment that the EU can't put tarriffs on food because there isn't enough of it. Yes, there is a food crisis, but as you point out we are quite rich in Europe. That means that no one will starve here and you can bet that the farmers in the remaining EU would resist removing tarriffs on Irish imports. Sure they might get reduced, but a combination of no subsidies and tarrifs of any size would spell disaster for Irish farmers. Anyhow, times change. In 10 years time there could be a beef glut in the EU, or a dairy glut if the agriculture industries in Eastern Europe get up to speed. Then there could be high tarriffs again to protect the real EU from the former EU. What would we do then?

I'll repeat again - the only reason this debate has gone down the food route is because some people were making statements as if they were facts.

As regards the food shortage in the world - do you want to belong to an EU that would buy food from poorer countries at the expense of their own populations? (then again, history repeats itself - thats what happened to Ireland during the famine!)

Food production is not going to increase much in Europe because it is running out of land! (increasing population that need housing, jobs etc).

3/ To the comments about more jobs in agriculture and processing factories. Maybe, but those were the jobs that Irish people didn't want and which were filled by immigrants. Are you saying that these are the jobs we need to be producing more of?! Personally I don't want to work in a food processing factory!

Do, I didn't say that they were jobs that we would want. But there are jobs in IT, banking, sales, marketing, sales staff with languages etc., so you won't be asked to butcher a bullock or anything if you don't want to do that

4/ Even if the other parts of the economy did well, do you think it would be popular for the government to be subsidising the farmers to the same extent as the EU does? Very unlikely. We will end up importing our food from the EU using their subsidies!

Hopefully our Government realise that our main/only natural resource is good farming land. We produce very good food. We produce very good horses as well. You can't move this natural resource to India.

We had fish, but we exchanged that for EU money.

Mise le meas,
thehighground

thehighground

kevteljeur wrote: »

LOL!

Excellent. I think a debate of this nature without numbers is bordering on pointless, and these numbers say a lot. In any event, we're not going to be leaving the EU, because the people who make the decisions for us have all the numbers, and they know all too well which side of our bread is buttered.

Agree with you there - most comprehensive figures come from the Central Statistics Office. cso.ie

It's worth noting that many of the computer/hardware manufacturers have built their facilities for redundancy. They can quickly and easily relocate, in case it should be needed. The important raw materials and components are mostly imports anyway, and can be sourced no matter where the plant is located within the EU.

We all know that.

A small point too, is that much of the foodstuffs imported into Europe from the Southern Hemisphere is vastly cheaper than that from Europe; South America, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, these are all able to ship in bulk at vastly cheaper prices even taking tariffs into account. Land is plentiful and fertile, and labour is vastly cheaper. It's barely worth producing apples in Australia because of competition from New Zealand, for example; and they're still cheaper than Europe, generally.

You seem to forget that China (a bit closer to Aus & NZ than us) is becoming a very wealthy progressive country which is very short of land to feed its population of 1.2 bn. India is another country that is moving up the food chain - huge population to be fed.

I don't want to read any rubbish here about Australia being mostly desert. They have farms the size of Irish provinces there, and all of it being productive and competitive, for meat and for fruit.

There is that little problem with climate change and desertification - Australia is always having droughts and as someone who crossed Australia in a train, I didn't see a hell of a lot of fruit growing for most of that time. In fact, mostly I saw was mining in very harsh conditions. I did see a bit of fruit growing in South & W Australia. The centre of Australia is mostly desert. Its only around the coast you have productive farmland.

Australia also has a population of about 20 million to feed.

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

No, we are not going to solve food shortages - but, we are going to find it easy enough to sell food - so we can up production and provide more jobs in processing factories etc.

As for EU dairy farmers being heavily subsidised - ah, Ireland is now a net contributor (which means we are subsidising EU countries now less well off than ourselves) which we won't have to do, so we will be able to put that money into building roads, developing other industries, whatever.

This was posted earlier but seems to have been missed.

http://www.finfacts.com/irishfinancenews/article_1012675.shtml

Interestingly Ireland benefits by far the most from CAP than any other country.

David Doyle gave the data to a Dáil finance committee and said that Ireland received some €2 billion in support from the EU budget last year, but contributed some €1.5 billion.

Shadowless

thehighground wrote: »

Gaarggggggggh

If I see this smug little bastard in a post of pure idiocy in this thread again I'm gonna have to gouge my eyes out with a rusty spoon.

Surely this person is a troll, I cannot comprehend how anyone could believe such undiluted drivel.

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

There is that little problem with climate change and desertification - Australia is always having droughts and as someone who crossed Australia in a train, I didn't see a hell of a lot of fruit growing for most of that time. In fact, mostly I saw was mining in very harsh conditions. I did see a bit of fruit growing in South & W Australia. The centre of Australia is mostly desert. Its only around the coast you have productive farmland.

Australia also has a population of about 20 million to feed.

Australia exports most of it's Agricultural produce.

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

How come Hibernian can move 500 jobs to India - they are not in the EU - will they be able to trade with EU countries. Do they have to pay tariffs to the EU/Ireland to do that? Should I change my insurance to an Irish/EU company to protect Irish jobs?

For some strange reason India isn't in the EU, and I'd say, very unlikely to join in the future! India has a different market. The parent company of Hibernian is a world wide player, not just the EU.

thehighground wrote:

Bear in mind the population of China is 1.2 billion! They have a very good education system - not all might have third level education, but if even 1% of them do, the world has serious competition! I was in China last year. One Chinese person I spoke to was that one of the downsides is that third level education used to be free (which he availed of), but you now have to pay for it. China (and the people) blew me away. We have no idea what we are up against!

China is indeed a big threat, however it has its own concerns. Inflation 8.7% in February, rising interest rates etc. I'd say personally, it's not as big a threat as 2/3 years ago.

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

Yep. Does Norway have to pay a levy on selling oil into the EU. Armies (workers) march on their stomachs!

You were responding to a quote about tariffs for agricultural produce for Norway, Switzerland. What has Oil got to do with that? Armies don't march on oil!

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

You seem to forget the heavy transportation costs from the southern hemisphere and the fact it will probably be all frozen. South American food is problematic because of disease, something the EU is very particular about.

Australia is nearly all desert. Wouldn't be relying on them for much food (I worked on a farm in Australia for a while). Only produce from Aus you see here is wine.

But we'll be outside the EU. We will not have any influence over EU imports unlike last year when the IFA got a temporary ban on Brazilian beef. Brazilian beef will be cheap and with rising prices, price will be king!

Irish beef will be premium priced, expensive and targeting a smaller elite market with oil price rises etc.

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

No, we are not going to solve food shortages - but, we are going to find it easy enough to sell food - so we can up production and provide more jobs in processing factories etc.

As for EU dairy farmers being heavily subsidised - ah, Ireland is now a net contributor (which means we are subsidising EU countries now less well off than ourselves) which we won't have to do, so we will be able to put that money into building roads, developing other industries, whatever.

We aren't a net contributor.

We will only find it easy to sell food if we are competitively priced. Our own currencies strength will affect that. We were not that competitive in the 90's without the Euro and our interest rates.

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

This point is repeatedly ignored by some of the 'Yes' voters here. As is the point that Ireland is now a net contributor to the EU.

You didn't answer his question.

How high are the agricultural tariffs into the EU?