why so afraid to go it alone

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

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

Does it really matter?

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

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.

Good for you! Many do and they don't know it. Many will if it's cheap, especially with a world food shortage

K-9

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.

thehighground wrote:

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.

Indeed, protecting the national interest. That's why it's so hard to get 27 countries to agree on anything.

Same argument goes for Tax as for Agriculture.

K-9

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

WHAT MINISTER?

IS McCREEVY A MINISTER? WHEN?

They were hopping mad with McCreevy because he said he didn't read the Treaty. Totally different issue.

Answer me, when as McCreevy put Ireland first and pandered to Irish interests?

K-9

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.

Oh, I though you said Commissioners or Ministers? had power, now they give him a flea in the ear!

thehighground wrote:

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

Who's we?

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

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!)

If its cheaper yes! With a world food shortage, price will be king, unless we heavily subsidise our own food!

Thing is you want Ireland to have a premium product.

What has the famine got to do with it?

JupiterKid

To hear some of the extreme Euroscepticism and views that Ireland should pull out of the EU is very sad. There is obviously a generation of people in this country who have been pampered, spoilt and cosseted and don't remember the times of real hardship back in the 1980s. Ireland has benefited enormously from being part of the EU - this country must come across to our EU neighbours as smug, selfish and spoilt.

Ireland's future outside of the EU would be truly bleak and for all the "neutrality" die hards...we would actually be under even more influence by the USA and its military machine. If Ireland exited the EU, you can wave goodbye to our services sector and high tech manufacturing and hello to the dark 1950s again.

Is that what people like those in Coir want? It's when I see threads like these that I wonder if voting no to Lisbon was such a good idea after all.:(

kevteljeur

thehighground wrote: »

We all know that.

With all due respect, thehighground, not everyone does; it comes as a shock to most people that manufacturing can relocate so quickly. I believe that Intel can resume manufacturing 18 months after powering down, in a new location. I may stand to be corrected on that one but you certainly won't hear too much about that from the IDA.

thehighground wrote: »

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.

That may be so, and China has managed to push up dairy prices massively through some widely misunderstood remarks from their premier; however, the issue here is the price at which those products can be sold, and if a country can supply that demand at a given price, this forces down the price from a country such as Ireland, where farmers aren't accustomed to operating with the same sort of costs as in the Southern hemisphere. Let's face it, our farms are small, and not economically viable in a global context. It's not even debatable.

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.

However, the usable land is still vast, and the water shortages while acute are something that affects the population there directly, since they (mis)use far more water than farming. Australia exports it's own produce, and imports produce from elsewhere. It makes more economic sense for them.

Seanies32 wrote: »

Good for you! Many do and they don't know it. Many will if it's cheap, especially with a world food shortage

In reference to your remark about South American beef, thehighground, the odds are that you are eating more of it than you may realise. Since it is cheap and plentiful, it is used in many processed meat products, and even in products that claim to be produced within the EU (they don't need to state the source of the raw materials, unfortunately). We should check before making claims about the quality of that meat, however, since minimum standards are applied to suppliers outside the EU.

JupiterKid wrote: »

To hear some of the extreme Euroscepticism and views that Ireland should pull out of the EU is very sad. There is obviously a generation of people in this country who have been pampered, spoilt and cosseted and don't remember the times of real hardship back in the 1980s. Ireland has benefited enormously from being part of the EU - this country must come across to our EU neighbours as smug, selfish and spoilt.

Ireland's future outside of the EU would be truly bleak and for all the "neutrality" die hards...we would actually be under even more influence by the USA and its military machine. If Ireland exited the EU, you can wave goodbye to our services sector and high tech manufacturing and hello to the dark 1950s again.

Is that what people like those in Coir want? It's when I see threads like these that I wonder if voting no to Lisbon was such a good idea after all.:(

I hear you! And the answer is, yes we do come across like that as a nation. My Dutch relatives used to joke with me about how well we've done with our money. And so to find it thrown back in their faces with a 'tell it to the hand' attitude is very offensive, since the larger, wealthier countries are acutely aware of how much of their GDP was siphoned off to cover our shortfall. Times aren't any easier for them, and to listen to the Irish crowing to them about the failings of their economy, telling them to back off with this 'EU project', because they like it the way it is, that has to hurt. They are only human.

As a nation, this attitude is shortly about to become a significant issue for us because the economy is spiraling downwards and we'll need help from our friends in the EU. I'd like to hear from the Eurosceptics in the audience about how we would handle a serious economic downturn outside of the EU, and who (if anyone) would bankroll our recovery...

The Corinthian

JupiterKid wrote: »

Is that what people like those in Coir want? It's when I see threads like these that I wonder if voting no to Lisbon was such a good idea after all.:(

I've repeatedly pointed out that economic arguments with Eurosceptics are a waste of time. You can put forward all the facts and figures you want, to be met with fanciful suppositions on how we would become the next Norway or Switzerland - because it's got nothing to do with economics.

Let me spell it out; Euroscepticism in Ireland and the UK is based upon petty nationalism, rather than any democratic or economic concerns.

This means that Eurosceptics will happily accept a return to a pre-nineties economy because this is an acceptable price for independence. It also means that suggest that you make the EU more democratic and they'll baulk at the idea, because they're not interested that the EU has a democratic deficit, but that it has no influence - democratic or otherwise - upon the nation state.

This is why discussions on the economy are pointless. It's been repeatedly been demonstrated that Ireland would suffer economically in this and other discussions. It's just another example of the FUD approach taken by Euroscepticism - wild and unsubstantiated allegations, fanciful and unsubstantiated theories on how things would 'be all right' outside of the EU and avoidance of any issues that may reveal that there are is no substance to the Eurosceptic arguments. thehighground and other Eurosceptics have repeatedly followed this methodology in this and other discussions.

The core of the debate in reality has nothing to do with democracy or economics. It is an ideological debate between those who seek or simply welcome European integration, up to and possibly including a federal or confederated European model and those who wish to retain a traditional national model - in Ireland largely based upon ethnic lines.

Of course Eurosceptics don't want to argue on that basis, because it's not terribly popular. Of course neither is the idea of a European superstate, but thanks to events such as the Iraq war, and the success of the Euro, it's become increasingly popular. Any other discussion is ultimately diversion and all that will happen is that you'll end up going round in hypothetical and unsubstantiated circles.

SkepticOne

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've repeatedly pointed out that economic arguments with Eurosceptics are a waste of time. You can put forward all the facts and figures you want, to be met with fanciful suppositions on how we would become the next Norway or Switzerland - because it's got nothing to do with economics.

Let me spell it out; Euroscepticism in Ireland and the UK is based upon petty nationalism, rather than any democratic or economic concerns.

Although petty nationalism is not the reason I voted no, I think there's an element of truth to this. We have had no Mussolini or Hitler figures in Ireland. Our history as presented to us is of struggle for independence.

ixtlan

As a counterpoint to the economic discussions I'd like to quote a line from Fargo...

"There's more to life than a little bit of money..."

I think we would be much worse off economically, but I think that perhaps just as serious would be the loss in governmental ethics. Maybe that's not a good term, but most people realise that many of the "right" things that were done over the past 20 years were in effect forced on us by the EU.

The environmental laws we have are mostly due to the EU.
The social equality laws are mostly due to the EU.

Outside the EU we would be free to allow companies to pollute more, which might be good for the economy but would it be the right thing?

I find it very ironic that some of the people and groups that seem so worried about the EU and the European court of justice, are the very same people that have taken cases to the ECJ when they considered the Irish government was not "doing the right thing".

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2005/01/feature/ie0501203f.htm
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87189
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/1524&format=HTML&aged=0%3Cuage=EN&guiLanguage=en

Ix.

irish_bob

someone accused THE HIGH GROUND of being a troll , i dont think he is , i think hes just the quientesential little irelander

a few points now about brazilian beef , the high ground claims its riddled with disease and its inferior to irish and european beef and how he wouldnt eat south american beef
theese claims are vastly exaggerated by the ifa although i dont blame them for doing so , the ifa claim that irish beef is superior due to the tracability factor , we have to remember that tracability is just another word for bueracracy , in brazil they dont have the same degree of medling from civil servants at the dept of agriculture like we do here
the red tape , the random spot checks on farms and the trails of paperwork involved in running a farm nowadays , this exists primarily so as to keep thousands of civil servants at the dept of agriculture in jobs , not because it makes a juicy steak or a leg of lamb or a pint of milk taste better

just because brazil hasnt got a culture of civil servants earning a living of the backs of farmers , doesnt mean there beef is rotten , europe has a culture of pandering to the public service that does not exist in other parts of the world , that said i dont believe for a second that if we left the eu in the morning that the red tape and beauracracy involved in running a farm would end , afterall , the public servants have to be kept in jobs so as to keep the unions of the streets , the employment figures looking relativly healthy ( especially now ) and thus the politcians assured of votes from the public service at the next election

VoidStarNull

irish_bob wrote: »

... we have to remember that tracability is just another word for bueracracy , in brazil they dont have the same degree of medling from civil servants at the dept of agriculture like we do here
the red tap , the spot checks and farms and the trails of paperwork involved in running a farm nowadays , this exists so as to keep thousands of civil servants at the dept of agriculture in jobs , not because it makes a juicy steak or a leg of lamb or a pint of milk taste better

just because brazil hasnt got a culture of civil servants earning a living of the backs of farmers , doesnt mean there beef is rotten

Didn't traceability have something to do with mad cow disease... i.e. consumers worried about farmers turning their cattle into cannibals... refusing to buy beef... governments stepping in to try to save the industry...

Speaking as a consumer, that's how I remember it.

oscarBravo

irish_bob wrote: »

someone accused THE HIGH GROUND of being a troll , i dont think he is , i think hes just the quientesential little irelander

No need to get personal.

badlyparkedmerc

http://www.finfacts.com/irishfinance..._1012675.shtml

Those figures date from 2004 - as far as I know we have just become net contributor this year.

Ok so you clearly just looked at the pictures.. maybe that's the problem with the treaty no pictures in it.

The article was written on Feb 22, 2008 which states clearly

Ireland is expected to contribute an estimated net €500 million annually to the EU budget from 2013.

(Department of Finance Secretary General) 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.

This means that Ireland was in receipt of some €500 million from the EU budget in 2007, compared with some €1.5 billion just five years ago.

Doyle said that by 2011, the amount which the State receives and contributes to the EU budget is expected to be roughly equal. However, by 2013 Ireland should be a net contributor of some €500 million per year.

(In my opinion with collapsing VAT receipts (part of which is our EU contribution), our net contributor status would be pushed out even further.)

thehighground

oscarBravo wrote: »

No need to get personal.

Thanks Oscar - I presume the rule is ball, not man though I rather enjoyed the irony of a poster called irish_bob accusing someone else of being a 'little irelander'.

As for accusations of trolling etc., if you did any research, you would have noticed I've been a member of this MB for 2 years, and I haven't got involved in political debates up to this recent referendum, and my (low number) posts are to do with sports that I have an interest in (mountaineering & rugby).

Now, I have work to do! Will be back later.

Oscar, that last bit is not aimed at you.

The Corinthian

oscarBravo wrote: »

No need to get personal.

I don't think he's really being personal, although he could perhaps apply a term that has fewer derogatory connotations.

I've a good friend who is very much opposed to further EU integration. He's often used the democratic deficit argument in pub conversations, to which I've suggested that we take power out of the hands of the unelected commission and place it in the hands of the European parliament. His reaction is invariably one of horror at this prospect, and when pressed as to why, it comes down to national independence.

This is why I think most discussions on the EU that are focused on economics and democracy are really a bit of a waste of time, because in the end, that's not what the discussion is about.

Ireland is very simelar to the UK in it's attitudes with regard to the EU, although we are on balance more positive - we recognise that we've benefited from membership, which is not as apparent to a net contribute like the UK, and we don't have this Imperial / fight them on the beaches hangup they have. However, due to geographic reasons we have a tendency to adopt a little islander stance. That we have an identity crisis between being European and Anglophones, adds to this confusion.

There are other reasons for Euroscepticism in Ireland, IMHO. Opportunism plays a large part (far left groups, such as the SWP, will jump on any bandwagon that will oppose the 'establishment') and of course there are also the nutters; be they environmental or religious or whatever (I've been told that the EU is the "black beast of the book of revelations").

But ultimately, if we want to debate the question of "why so afraid to go it alone", we're really going to go nowhere by debating those topics that are really designed to convince people to vote yes or no, because they're really just smoke screens. This is what has irritated me with thehighground, because he's avoiding the core issue like the plague, because he knows it's not sellable.

The debate is really about the nation state versus the European project, and any claim to the contrary is cacca - to use a more European expletive

oscarBravo

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't think he's really being personal...

...due to geographic reasons we have a tendency to adopt a little islander stance.

That's how you make exactly the same point without getting personal.

I fully agree with the rest of your post.

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

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.

You're forgetting that the tariffs would be passed on to the consumer, resulting in higher food prices.

thehighground wrote: »

But their cattle are meant to be riddled with disease (foot & mouth in particular).

They're "meant" to be, are they?

thehighground wrote: »

As for all the other problems like mad cow disease etc. There is no control over use of harmones etc. either. Its a third world country!

Sorry, WHAT? Argentina is a third world country? Seriously?

GDP per capita in Argentina is higher than Bulgaria and Romania and not too far behind Poland and Croatia; are they third world countries too?

thehighground wrote: »

Yes, how does that happen, I wonder? (relationship with Portugal perhaps) ?

So now you admit that Brazilian beef is eaten in the EU?

thehighground wrote: »

If there is a shortage of beef (it will get expensive) they might reduce the 'tax' (tarif) on it.

They might, but they'll do everything in their power to increase domestic production before it comes to that.

thehighground wrote: »

In comparison to say Indians, Europeans are well off and want (and can afford) good food (i.e., they don't want food that good be riddled with disease, drugs, modified etc that might be produced in third world countries with no conrols).

Most people aren't all that fussed about where the products they consume come form. If they were, would coffee, tobacco, bananas, etc. be so popular in the EU?

thehighground wrote: »

South American food is problematic because of disease, something the EU is very particular about.

A problem that has been greatly blown out of proportion by the IDA, for good reason (from their perspective) I suppose.

thehighground wrote: »

Australia is nearly all desert. Wouldn't be relying on them for much food (I worked on a farm in Australia for a while).

If there's so little arable land in Australia, how do they manage to produce so much food for export?

thehighground wrote: »

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

But many people have and will continue to do so.

thehighground wrote: »

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

Sorry, what's McCreevy minister for?

thehighground wrote: »

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

"Some people" being you.

thehighground wrote: »

Not everything is exported to the EU. US is a big market for Ireland. We also sell stuff to places like China & Japan.

US yes. China and Japan not so much. Ireland's top five export partners in 2005 were the US, the UK, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands.

thehighground wrote: »

We produce very good food.

Compared to what?

thehighground wrote: »

We produce very good horses as well.

I wouldn't be relying on the horses to pull us out of a recession (no pun intended).

thehighground wrote: »

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.

China's running out of land? Really?

thehighground wrote: »

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

Which is pretty small in global terms.

O'Morris

djpbarry wrote: »

You're forgetting that the tariffs would be passed on to the consumer, resulting in higher food prices.

Yes, the cost of the imported food will be higher but not the cost of the Irish produced food. The food produced in Ireland will be much cheaper and that will benefit our farmers. As the urban population in Ireland is growing and as the number of people employed in farming is falling, farmers will benefit from having protected access to that domestic market.

We can then use the money generated from our import tariffs to further subsidise food production.

Flamed Diving

http://bp3.blogger.com/_6Yg32ScTIks/SGIvPuNhrkI/AAAAAAAAAH8/o0Zl2aqsOwk/s1600/motivator7248465.jpg

a little satire of mine.

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

The food produced in Ireland will be much cheaper...

Why?

O'Morris wrote: »

As the urban population in Ireland is growing and as the number of people employed in farming is falling, farmers will benefit from having protected access to that domestic market.

What makes you think that the Irish population would be happy to eat exclusively Irish-produced food? What about foods that cannot be produced here (fruit in particular)? Do you think the Irish population will be happy to do without (or pay substantially more)?

ixtlan

O'Morris wrote: »

Yes, the cost of the imported food will be higher but not the cost of the Irish produced food. The food produced in Ireland will be much cheaper and that will benefit our farmers.
.....
We can then use the money generated from our import tariffs to further subsidise food production.

Why on Earth would the food from Ireland be cheaper? It will only be so if you subsidise to a greater level than the EU subsidies.

Where is all this money from import tariffs coming from? In agriculture terms we produce and export far more than we import, so there's a lot more money needed to pay the farmers than you would ever get back in tax.

Plus we will be negotiating in the WTO on our own where we will be under pressure to drop our tariffs if we want to sell to the rest of the world without them putting tariffs on our products.

Ix.

marco_polo

O'Morris wrote: »

Yes, the cost of the imported food will be higher but not the cost of the Irish produced food. The food produced in Ireland will be much cheaper and that will benefit our farmers. As the urban population in Ireland is growing and as the number of people employed in farming is falling, farmers will benefit from having protected access to that domestic market.

We can then use the money generated from our import tariffs to further subsidise food production.

Might want to have a read of This Book

sink

O'Morris wrote: »

Yes, the cost of the imported food will be higher but not the cost of the Irish produced food. The food produced in Ireland will be much cheaper and that will benefit our farmers. As the urban population in Ireland is growing and as the number of people employed in farming is falling, farmers will benefit from having protected access to that domestic market.

We can then use the money generated from our import tariffs to further subsidise food production.

Please read this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade#Economics_of_free_trade

The Corinthian

O'Morris wrote: »

Yes, the cost of the imported food will be higher but not the cost of the Irish produced food. The food produced in Ireland will be much cheaper and that will benefit our farmers. As the urban population in Ireland is growing and as the number of people employed in farming is falling, farmers will benefit from having protected access to that domestic market.

Given that in the New Ireland the only people making money will be farmers, how exactly will the rest of the population pay for this cheaper food? This is assuming we've not all emigrated to find work elsewhere as we used to do?

We can then use the money generated from our import tariffs to further subsidise food production.

Actually, we'll be using the money generated from our import tariffs to subsidise the cost of the tariffs placed upon our exports.

Seriously, why are people even bothering to debate this? We went down this road and it simply did not work. Here's a nice simple article on how we mismanaged our economy through those ideologically fuelled, protectionist policies that even some of the more economically clueless in this discussion may be able to grasp:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

You didn't answer his question.

How high are the agricultural tariffs into the EU?

Vary but average at about 10%. Some items like coffee & tea have very low tariffs - about 3%. Fish that is in short supply doesn't attract any tariffs.

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

Does it really matter?

No - other than that he comes from an industrialised country that needs cheap food he (Mandelson*) is likely to empathise with the 'get rid of tarif' side (and help help Labour back home from more attack from the Eurosceptics).

(context - *Mandelson is negotiating at WTO on behalf of the EU.)

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

Good for you! Many do and they don't know it. Many will if it's cheap, especially with a world food shortage

Yes, I don't no what the problem is about foot & mouth disease - it won't kill you. But BSE (mad cow disease) does not to mention them being stuffed with Angel dust etc.

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

WHAT MINISTER?

IS McCREEVY A MINISTER? WHEN?

They were hopping mad with McCreevy because he said he didn't read the Treaty. Totally different issue.

Answer me, when as McCreevy put Ireland first and pandered to Irish interests?

Apologies - he was referred to as a Minister here for so long. I should have referred to him as a 'Commissioner'. Sorry, I'll try not to make such a big mistake again.

He has never looked out for Ireland (and I don't particularly want him too,either). But he is a bit mad!

EDIT: he actually did a great job as Min. for Finanace fighting the EU off about corporate tax rate. Not sure our new Finance Minister would remain as steadfast as Charlie.