why so afraid to go it alone

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

Sorry, not on the same planet with you on your thinking here.

Where, with a food shortage and our own beef being a premium product, do we get cheap beef?

Is it imported beef, you know the one you want to put tariffs on?

thehighground wrote:

Just about how history will generally repeat itself. Westminister (England) made sure the industrialised cities of England got fed (they were after all making money for the English upper classes) to the detriment of Irish people - despite there being plenty of food in Ireland, millions died or had to emigrate. In short, those closest (in distance) to the seat of power will always get preferential treatment. One of the main reasons why Irish people guard their independence.

Will that change with us out of the EU?

marco_polo

thehighground wrote: »

By the way, you seem to think it would be a very difficult and antagonistic 'divorce' if Ireland left the EU (we won't be thrown out, because if they did, it would undermine the whole point of the EU in the first place).

So, do you not think the EU would try and be neighbourly, or are you all really scared of the EU?

You seem to trust in their neighbourly goodness a bit too much for somebody who doesn't trust them at all at all. What possible reason would they have to be neighbourly if we have just left the EU?

Firstly 10% is still a pretty high tariff in any language and there is no way any developed country would get anything remotely near that figure. I repeat that the tariffs on Beef are high and on dairy products they are even higher again way above those 18-28% averages, and these are our two main exports. I gave you figures to this effect in the past few days, but you seem to have a convieniently short memory. The EU do not want to import dairy products from anywhere, and only accept them from developing countries under duress because they are under pressure from third world development concerns.

They say always learn the lessons of history this is what happen when protectinist policies, trade tariffs and Ireland combine.

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/history/19321945.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Trade_War

http://www.economist.co.uk/countries/Ireland/profile.cfm?folder=History%20in%20brief

After seeing its GDP per head decline from a relatively high level at the beginning of the century to one of the lowest levels by the end of the 1950s, Ireland's economic underperformance required a radical change of direction. Isolationist and protectionist policies were replaced with a development programme embracing openness to foreign trade and investment. The effect of reforms was evident almost immediately, with GDP growth rising to average 4.2% in the 1960s, close to west European levels.

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

Something wrong with your link.
I remember reading that we would become a net contributor to the EU a few months back. I didn't take too much notice at the time. Here is a reference that mentions that we were meant to become net contributors in 2007.



http://www.finfacts.ie/comment/irelandeunetreceiptsbenefits.htm

That link is 2004.


HIS IS 2008.

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

But you said they have BSE and angeldust. That's why you don't buy it!

What logic is that?

But I know that there is no such thing as cheap food.

You either pay for it in the shop, or you pay it through Gov. subsidies. Its going to cost you anyway,

Interesting stat which I can find a source just now and it is only a guestimate now.

30/40 years ago, about 50-60% of income went on food. Nowaways, its only about 25% of people's income.

kevteljeur

thehighground, Ireland is a small country in global terms - and I know I'm stating the obvious, bear with me. It is weak on many levels. It's not a bad place to be, and the economy has done well here for a brief period panning just over a decade, but that period is over, and we will see just how well Ireland will do with EU support. It will not be easy, but Ireland will economically survive.

However, without the EU, things would be very, very hard. A small country with less than 4 million population and no outstanding or unique export assets just doesn't have a good negotiating hand. Some items, such as horses, bring wealth to a few on national terms. The knowledge economy is a good thing, but there is still no national culture of the Greater Good, and you won't see the legions of unemployed builders re-skilling overnight and redeploying for low wages in other industries without question. Export of food produce is a good idea in theory, but again, a small country with a large number of small farms cannot compete with other global players; to compete, the farmers would be selling at prices that would barely feed them, let alone their workers trying to pay for mortgages taken out when the economy was based on foreign investment. It just can't work. Not any more. Before the EU, if people understood that this sort of hardship was par for the course, maybe, and it would be part and parcel of living in a poor country.

But you can't sell this to people with 100% mortgages and living the good life from credit, and that is who you need to convince here, not us, not politicians, but the many thousands of people who would lose what they have to support your notional independence. That isn't scare-mongering, by the way, it is just a hard fact of our economy and society (and I would say that those people are badly exposed even with Ireland staying in the EU).

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

The link given on post 466 did not work when I checked. I then did a search and that is what I came up with, and as I said it was something that I had heard that we would be contributors as of 2007 and hadn't taken too much notice at the time because I personally don't have a problem with Ireland paying its way. This is the link from post 466.

http://www.finfacts.ie/missing.html

I reposted the link about page after. No problems getting into it for me!

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

Negotiation IRLConor, negotiation! Irish people have a reputation for being rather good at it. (the EU thinks we bled them dry for goodness sake!)

Ah at last, some recognition of our brilliant negotiators!

They were involved in Lisbon too!

Very good job indeed!

K-9

I'm still confused over Mandelson.

Why give him so much power as a Commissioner but not McCreevy?

IRLConor

thehighground wrote: »

Negotiation IRLConor, negotiation! Irish people have a reputation for being rather good at it. (the EU thinks we bled them dry for goodness sake!)

Let me spell it out for you:

For Irish farmers to outsell their Brazilian/Argentinian rivals, the following must hold true:

((A - C) + < ((X - Z) + Y)

A = Cost of production in Ireland
B = Tariffs charged on Irish goods in the target country
C = Subsidies paid to Irish farmers

X = Cost of production in Brazil/Argentina
Y = Tariffs charged on Brazilian/Argentina
Z = Subsidies paid to Brazilian/Argentinian farmers

Now since A is much, much bigger than X you need one of two things to happen for Ireland to win this battle:

B must be much, much less than Y
- In other words we have to negotiate a very low tariff on Irish beef while hoping that the tariff on Brazilian/Argentinian beef is big. Good luck with negotiating that out of the EU after leaving in a huff over Lisbon.

and/or

C must be much, much greater than Z
- In other words, we would have to pay massive subsidies to our farmers to bring their cost of production down to near Brazilian levels. Where the hell are we going to get the money for that?




You either want protectionism (in which case we're better off inside the big EU tent) or you want free trade (I really doubt this - free trade would kill the entire Irish farming sector). Which is it?

One smack of the free market stick and the farmers would be begging to get Ireland back into the EU.


The EU currently spends about €1 billion net on Irish farmers through the CAP. Where in this mythical outside-the-EU Ireland would we find €1 billion to prop up the farming sector?

There is no way that agriculture could be used to keep Ireland afloat if we left the EU. It's unprofitable and artificially supported. You can't build an economy on an industry which you have to pay to keep alive.

IRLConor

Seanies32 wrote: »

I'm still confused over Mandelson.

Why give him so much power as a Commissioner but not McCreevy?

It's because he has the "Trade" portfolio and McCreevy has the "Internal Market & Services" one. The Commissioner with the Trade portfolio naturally handles the bulk of the WTO work.

Both have more influential portfolios than say, Leonard Orban who has "Multilingualism".

Not all commissioner portfolios are equal.

K-9

IRLConor wrote: »

It's because he has the "Trade" portfolio and McCreevy has the "Internal Market & Services" one. The Commissioner with the Trade portfolio naturally handles the bulk of the WTO work.

Both have more influential portfolios than say, Leonard Orban who has "Multilingualism".

Not all commissioner portfolios are equal.

Indeed. Does Mandelson decide our WTO policy?

marco_polo

Seanies32 wrote: »

Indeed. Does Mandelson decide our WTO policy?

He is given a mandate by the EU going into the negotiations which he is not supposed to deviate from. On the agricultural aspects he gets this from the Agricultural Comissioner. As we have a veto on WTO talks I would presume that the agricultural mandate is agreed in the council of ministers by the respective national ministers, though I am not 100% certain on this last point.

sink

thehighground wrote: »

Sink, you do realise that article has a"

"The neutrality of this article is disputed."

That article is pretty much textbook free trade economics. It is well sourced and provides you with the links.

The guy who is disputing it sounds a lot like you. He's not an economist and sounds like one of those anti-globalisation assholes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Free_trade#propaganda_and_lies

Judge for yourself.

IRLConor

Seanies32 wrote: »

Indeed. Does Mandelson decide our WTO policy?

As I understand it, he would but within limits.

Similar to the way our Minister for Finance gets to decide on our budget. Provided he sticks to doing stuff that the government wants done and that the opposition won't kick up too much of a stink about it then he has some freedom.

If Mandelson did something at the WTO that was outside the agreed EU Trade policies there'd be uproar.

The policy specifics would be developed through the Directorate-General for Trade similar to the way a government department here would work.

O'Morris

djpbarry wrote: »

Why?

Cheaper compared with the foreign imports. You claimed that placing tariffs on foreign imports will lead to higher food costs because the costs of the tariffs would be passed on to the consumer. Those higher costs will only apply to the foreign imports and not to the domestically produced food.

What makes you think that the Irish population would be happy to eat exclusively Irish-produced food?

Do you know any Irish person who would rather eat French beef than Irish beef?

What about foods that cannot be produced here (fruit in particular)?

Very simple. We lift the tariffs on those foods. The tariffs would only apply to those foods that can just as easily be produced in Ireland. Import tariffs are only ever intended to be used to support a domestic source of supply from foreign competition.

Why on Earth would the food from Ireland be cheaper?

Supply and demand old boy! Supply and demand!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Baptiste_Say

It will only be so if you subsidise to a greater level than the EU subsidies.

Did you read that post by badlyparkedmerc a few pages back? Ireland will be a net contributer to the EU by 2013. We'll be contributing 500 million more to the EU than we get out of it. All talk of EU subsidies will be irrelevant at that point as we won't be getting any money of Europe that we don't already put in ourselves.

Where is all this money from import tariffs coming from?

The tariffs won't be able to cover the entire costs of farming subsidies. We'll have to pay for the rest ourselves. We'll have to pay for it anyway from 2013 onwards even if we do stay in the EU.

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.

Yes, I realise that.

Import tariffs are not an ideal solution. I would rather we had a fully open market for food from the EU so that we can export tariff free while they in turn have tariff free access to our markets.

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.

Including to the EU? If the EU lifts it's tariffs on our exports then we should lift our tariffs on their imports.

My attitude to tariffs is the same as my attitude to killing people. I'm only in favour of it as a reactive defensive measure.

sink wrote:

Please read this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_tr..._of_free_trade

I thought you were pro-EU? Why would an EU supporter be talking about free-trade when the EU is the biggest protectionist racket in the world.

I myself am a pro-capitalist Libertarian and I'm all in favour of free trade and free markets. As I said above, I'm only in favour of import tariffs as a reactive measure.

The Corinthian wrote:

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?

Supply and demand old boy!

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

Exactly, that's the kind of subsidy I was talking about.

Seriously, why are people even bothering to debate this? We went down this road and it simply did not work.

I agree, I'm as opposed to protectionism as you are. I don't think it would be in our national interests to be outside the common market with the EU and I would only ever support independence from the EU as long as it meant that we retained access to their markets.

I only brought up the issue of import tariffs to point out that tariffs work both ways. If other countries impose tariffs on our exports, we can retaliate by imposing tariffs on their exports as well. If we did impose those tariffs the results for our farmers might not be all that negative.

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/Economi...lic_of_Ireland

It's interesting that the Irish economy seemed to perform better during the 1960s than it did during the 1970s and 80s.

Wasn't the end of protectionism itself a far more important factor in our economic success than EU membership?

The Corinthian

O'Morris wrote: »

Supply and demand old boy!

Supply and demand makes little difference if you have no money to pay for what you want. The model you suggested at best sees the agricultural sector benefiting and assumes that urban areas will somehow retain the present status quo. Without the non-agricultural jobs in those areas, how exactly do you think the urban population will pay for those 'cheaper' agricultural goods?

Indeed, I'd question that they would even be cheaper. If one looks at an example of a protectionism in the agricultural market, you need to look no further than Switzerland, where the cost of agricultural goods (especially meat) is actually significantly higher than in the EU.

Exactly, that's the kind of subsidy I was talking about.

No, you were suggesting that we would have a surplus from tariffs taken in to pay for other things. The reality is those tariffs would be eaten up by those we would be paying out. In fact, unless you believe that the tariffs we will be paying out will be lower than those we take in, the only way we will be able to cover the former will be with a balance of trade deficit.

I agree, I'm as opposed to protectionism as you are. I don't think it would be in our national interests to be outside the common market with the EU and I would only ever support independence from the EU as long as it meant that we retained access to their markets.

I only brought up the issue of import tariffs to point out that tariffs work both ways. If other countries impose tariffs on our exports, we can retaliate by imposing tariffs on their exports as well. If we did impose those tariffs the results for our farmers might not be all that negative.

It all comes down to what deal you can get. The reality is that we really don't have anything to offer that the EU does not already have. Norway has oil, Switzerland has certain luxury goods and pharmaceuticals (not to mention financial services) - and neither really exports agricultural goods to the EU.

Ireland does not have anything really beyond an agricultural sector and a well educated, cheap labour force. We never bothered developing industry here, mainly because it was thought that getting people 'back on the land' was the way forward, for ideological reasons - Fianna Fail even had this as an official aim of the party up until a few years ago.

As for the educated, cheap labour force, it simply won't stay here if the economy isn't buoyant enough.

It's interesting that the Irish economy seemed to perform better during the 1960s than it did during the 1970s and 80s.

Wasn't the end of protectionism itself a far more important factor in our economic success than EU membership?

Removing the quasi-Albanian level of self-reliance protectionism, certainly helped matters, but ultimately it was unsustainable. Ireland managed a short-lived boom in the 1960's and was otherwise a mess for the rest of the time.

Additionally, the World has changed. It makes no sense to run an economy based upon the economic realities of the nineteenth century, for example. Neither does it make sense to ignore the globalization nature of modern trade.

If you purely looked at the conditions necessary to be economically viable outside of the EU, you'd realistically need to find a niche that would allow us to trade competitively. Agriculture is a dead-end as there is in reality oversupply in the EU market. We would need to create a sustainable alternative industry instead, not to mention deal with the demographic problem here (we are far too concentrated in Dublin). All before the educated pull up sticks and emigrate to pastures new. Culturally and politically this is not likely - I think this is evident by our economic history.

As I said, this discussion is an ideological rather than economic one. Look at it as much as you like, but economically we are worse off outside the EU. Typically those who would like us to leave the EU do so for ideological reasons, and as such consider returning to a pre-Celtic Tiger economy is an acceptable price for their nationalist aims. Actually, I suspect that some on the more religious side of the nationalist debate would actually consider such latter day economic monasticism to be a good thing.

Speaking of which, I note that thehighground is quietly ignoring the fact that when he challenged someone on the living in pre-Celtic Tiger Ireland, a few responded that they had done so and it was a shìthole. Funny how he's selective with the arguments he's willing to listen to?

djpbarry

thehighground wrote: »

Do you think all trade will just stop if Ireland is kicked out of the EU?

No, but do you not think that trade with our EU partners will be adversely affected if we leave the EU?

thehighground wrote: »

Compared to anyone in the world. We're up there with the best.

That appears to be your own subjective opinion and nothing else.

thehighground wrote: »

I would not dismiss the horsebreeding industry in Ireland. It provides thousands of jobs in rural Ireland.

But we're talking about trade, not jobs. Horses are a premium commodity - you cannot build an economy on such an industry.

thehighground wrote: »

Yes, they have had some very draconian laws about trying to reduce the population - one child per family - ever heard of that?

It was implemented largely for social reasons rather than any fear of starvation. China still has plenty of grasslands that could be used for farmland if needed (I'm not saying they should be).

thehighground wrote: »

So you think that countries like South Africa, Australia, US (Florida for fruit) would sell to us? In fact, do you think Cyprus are going to stop selling us potatoes?

I don't know what your point is here; sellers will sell to whoever wants to buy.

thehighground wrote: »

And, eh why substantially more (cost)? Because we are not a member of the EU?

Because the self-sufficiency crowd want to slap tariffs on imports to (try to) subsidise Irish farmers, remember?

kevteljeur

A point that the Independent Ireland advocates haven't addressed yet (which was mentioned a number of posts back) is the fact that in doing close trade with the EU, Ireland would almost certainly need to be a member of the EEA. And as was mentioned earlier, it was referred to by Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg as a “fax democracy” - you can read about it here:

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

In other words, you would have to apply all the rules of the EU (precisely what the Independent Ireland advocates don't want) but don't get any kind of a say in what they are or whether or not you want to apply them (which is the situation I believe that the Independent Ireland advocates fear most). It strikes me then that the ultimate cost would be greater theoretical independence but in practice far less independence; Ireland would have to deal with the EU on the EU's terms, without having the power of the EU behind it in negotiating with other states such as the US and in the Middle East.

And I'd be very interested in how one of Europe's most imported fuel dependent states will cope in this proposed environment. No, we'll not be able to trade fillet beef and good race horses for oil; that isn't a like for like arrangement. I want to see some reasonable, workable solutions!

O'Morris

The Corinthian wrote:

It all comes down to what deal you can get. The reality is that we really don't have anything to offer that the EU does not already have. Norway has oil, Switzerland has certain luxury goods and pharmaceuticals (not to mention financial services) - and neither really exports agricultural goods to the EU.

Ireland does not have anything really beyond an agricultural sector and a well educated, cheap labour force. We never bothered developing industry here, mainly because it was thought that getting people 'back on the land' was the way forward, for ideological reasons - Fianna Fail even had this as an official aim of the party up until a few years ago.

As for the educated, cheap labour force, it simply won't stay here if the economy isn't buoyant enough.

Additionally, the World has changed. It makes no sense to run an economy based upon the economic realities of the nineteenth century, for example. Neither does it make sense to ignore the globalization nature of modern trade.

If you purely looked at the conditions necessary to be economically viable outside of the EU, you'd realistically need to find a niche that would allow us to trade competitively. Agriculture is a dead-end as there is in reality oversupply in the EU market. We would need to create a sustainable alternative industry instead, not to mention deal with the demographic problem here (we are far too concentrated in Dublin). All before the educated pull up sticks and emigrate to pastures new. Culturally and politically this is not likely - I think this is evident by our economic history.

I agree completely with all of those comments. Having continued tariff-free access to the EU's market is of vital importance to our economy. We should not even contemplate leaving the EU without a deal guaranteeing that access. You might argue that such a deal is not possible, but you'd never know. There's no harm pitching the idea to them anyway.

Look at it as much as you like, but economically we are worse off outside the EU.

Outside the common market with the EU, not outside the EU itself.

Typically those who would like us to leave the EU do so for ideological reasons

You're right but I don't think anyone has ever really tried to argue that the case for independence is primarily an economic argument. I want Ireland to leave the EU not because I think we'll be richer outside of it. I want us to leave the EU because I would prefer to live in an independent Ireland which is governed by Irish people.

And if the eurosceptic side is motivated by ideology rather than economics then I think the same thing could equally be said of the other side as well.

as such consider returning to a pre-Celtic Tiger economy is an acceptable price for their nationalist aims.

I've never heard anyone claiming that they would be prepared to return to a pre-celtic tiger economy. If you were to offer Irish people the choice of having the celtic tiger under Nazi rule and having a pre-celtic economy under Fianna Fail rule, I'm fairly sure a sizeable percentage of them would rather the former.

There are things I personally would be prepared to sacrifice in return for national independence but to claim that I would want Ireland to return pre-celtic tiger days is certainly not accurate.

kevteljeur wrote:

In other words, you would have to apply all the rules of the EU

I don't think that's correct. I think the Norwegians only have the apply the legislation relating to the single market. I don't think they have to implement the legislation covering all the other areas.

Ireland would have to deal with the EU on the EU's terms

How is that different from our current dealings with them?

without having the power of the EU behind it in negotiating with other states such as the US and in the Middle East.

There's no reason why we can't ally with the EU in negotiations with other states when it's to our mutual advantage.

And I'd be very interested in how one of Europe's most imported fuel dependent states will cope in this proposed environment.

Irish charm old boy! Irish charm!

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

Cheaper compared with the foreign imports.

So domestically produced food will still be as expensive as it is now, if not more so, and imported food will be even more expensive again?

O'Morris wrote: »

You claimed that placing tariffs on foreign imports will lead to higher food costs because the costs of the tariffs would be passed on to the consumer. Those higher costs will only apply to the foreign imports and not to the domestically produced food.

Yes, I'm quite aware of that, but that will still result on the average consumer paying more for their food, unless everyone buys exclusively Irish, or Irish production is heavily subsidised.

O'Morris wrote: »

Do you know any Irish person who would rather eat French beef than Irish beef?

What's wrong with French beef (I'm not much of a meat-eater myself). Generally speaking, I think people will opt for the cheaper option - I don't think they're all that bothered where the stuff comes from. Some people are, most are not.

O'Morris wrote: »

The tariffs would only apply to those foods that can just as easily be produced in Ireland. Import tariffs are only ever intended to be used to support a domestic source of supply from foreign competition.

I am well aware of the purpose of import tariffs, thank you. My point in all this is that, as others have pointed out, the sums just don't add up (see below).

O'Morris wrote: »

Ireland will be a net contributer to the EU by 2013. We'll be contributing 500 million more to the EU than we get out of it.

That's assuming we remain in the EU. If we were to break away, that would certainly require a revision of those figures.

O'Morris wrote: »

The tariffs won't be able to cover the entire costs of farming subsidies. We'll have to pay for the rest ourselves. We'll have to pay for it anyway from 2013 onwards even if we do stay in the EU.

But if we leave the EU, that is likely to hit us hard in other areas, e.g. FDI, trade with current EU partners. Assuming the economic status quo will be maintained if we leave is fanciful.

O'Morris wrote: »

I would rather we had a fully open market for food from the EU so that we can export tariff free while they in turn have tariff free access to our markets.

Is that not the current situation?

O'Morris wrote: »

Why would an EU supporter be talking about free-trade when the EU is the biggest protectionist racket in the world.

Nobody has claimed the EU is perfect.

O'Morris wrote: »

As I said above, I'm only in favour of import tariffs as a reactive measure.

A reaction to us leaving the EU? A reaction to our own actions?

O'Morris wrote: »

Supply and demand old boy!

That doesn't answer the question. If our new economy is to be based on agriculture, how will everyone else pay for their food? Also, if the import tariffs are not going to cover the subsidies, then that means the people paying for the "cheap" food also have to pay the subsidies, right?

O'Morris wrote: »

Exactly, that's the kind of subsidy I was talking about.

A completely ineffective one? If all the import tariffs are being used to cover our export tariffs, where does the money for agricultural subsidies come from?

O'Morris wrote: »

I agree, I'm as opposed to protectionism as you are. I don't think it would be in our national interests to be outside the common market with the EU and I would only ever support independence from the EU as long as it meant that we retained access to their markets.

So what's the benefit in leaving? You’re advocating leaving the EU, but you want to keep all the benefits?

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

Having continued tariff-free access to the EU's market is of vital importance to our economy.
...
You might argue that such a deal is not possible, but you'd never know.

What makes you think we could succeed where the Swiss and Norwegians have failed?

O'Morris wrote: »

There's no harm pitching the idea to them anyway.

Actually, there is. If we were to indicate that we were considering leaving the EU, it would be hugely damaging to our reputation. We can't just show up at the Council and ask; "suppose, hypothetically speaking, that Ireland were to leave the EU ... any chance we could hang on to the free trade stuff?". It would be political suicide. It would be like saying to your girlfriend; "hypothetically speaking, if we broke up ... I could still use your car, right?". How much longer do you think that relationship would last?

O'Morris wrote: »

I want us to leave the EU because I would prefer to live in an independent Ireland which is governed by Irish people.

It is.

O'Morris wrote: »

There are things I personally would be prepared to sacrifice in return for national independence...

Such as?

O'Morris wrote: »

How is that different from our current dealings with them?

Are you serious? You are aware that Ireland was hugely influential in drafting the Lisbon Treaty?

O'Morris wrote: »

There's no reason why we can't ally with the EU in negotiations with other states when it's to our mutual advantage.

There you are again; let's leave the EU but let's try and keep anything that might be of benefit to us. Sure the EU will only be too happy to negotiate on little old Ireland’s behalf!

marco_polo

O'Morris wrote: »

I don't think that's correct. I think the Norwegians only have the apply the legislation relating to the single market. I don't think they have to implement the legislation covering all the other areas.

The four basic principles of the Internal Market also apply for the EEA, notably free movement of goods, services, capital and persons. That is alot of legislation to implement.

Since you were so keen to impose working restriction on EU immigrants in another thread, I have no doubt that the last area in particular will disappoint you greatly.

kevteljeur

I'll say it again. The people who run the most powerful EU states are only human, and they bear grudges. They're not going to pitch on the behalf of the little guy who gave them the finger just because it might suit them. On the contrary, expect punitive measures for their own sake to be applied. And we're no oil-rich Norway, to twist arms in negotiations for a better deal.

I still haven't heard a single come-back on how to deal with the vast numbers of people who are tied to long-term mortgages they can barely afford. On leaving the EU, incomes will go down, and repossessions will go up sharply. I'd like to hear how this Irish Independence will benefit people who will lose their homes; I'm not hearing anything besides heart-warming Nationalist rhetoric, which doesn't pay the bills.

sink

There is an interesting article in today's IT. I share the authors outlook. It's in the premium content section so I will post it here.

Irish Times wrote:

Another No to Lisbon and Ireland could be shown door

A second rejection of the treaty would be a gamble with no material pay-off, putting EU membership and the economy at risk, writes WOLFGANG MÜNCHAU

AFTER A week of what European leaders call reflection, another Irish referendum beckons, to be held early next year. Without it, there might well be an attempt to oust the Irish from the European Union.

A Yes vote in a second referendum is not certain, even if the Irish Government were to succeed in securing another treaty-amending protocol. At a time when the Irish economy is about to fall off a cliff, enthusiasm for the EU and its treaties will not increase.

So within a couple of weeks, the chances of Ireland ending up outside the EU have turned from zero to a distinct possibility. The same goes for the Czech Republic, another potential non-ratifier. I do not want to get into the legal details of how a country's departure from the EU could be accomplished. Suffice it to say that it can be done within European law as long as there is political will.

What strikes me the most about this extraordinary turn of events is the perception in Ireland that a break with the EU would be no big deal. I received a large number of letters from Ireland last week from readers who steadfastly maintain that the country's economic success had nothing to do with the EU and everything to do with domestic policy - in particular low corporate taxes and skilled labour.

The view expressed by those correspondents is as wrong as it is revealing. If so many people are delusional about their country's economy, then we should perhaps not be surprised about the outcome of the referendum. It is, therefore, perhaps worth looking in some detail at the nature of Ireland's economic success over the last 30 years to gauge what life might be like outside the EU.

There are several interactive factors. The importance of EU subsidies is almost certainly overrated. They played some part, especially in the early phase of the country's economic renaissance. In any case, Ireland is on the verge of becoming a net contributor to the EU budget. But one would be even more mistaken to conclude the opposite: that the EU matters nothing or little.

Ireland was one of the early and enthusiastic members of the European Monetary System in 1979, which brought much needed macroeconomic stability. Membership of the euro zone in 1999 led to lower interest rates, which have contributed to the economic growth ever since. Low corporate tax rates certainly helped Ireland attract foreign investors. But never forget that Ireland is also the only English-speaking member of the euro zone, the one place where euro zone and Anglosphere meet.

The country naturally benefited from membership of the EU's internal market. Without it, Ryanair, the Irish low-cost airline, would not be able to offer its popular flights across Europe. The Irish have also proved influential in the management of the internal market, not least through Charlie McCreevy, the Irish commissioner in charge of the EU's internal market and financial services. As a member of the EU, Ireland has been in a position to veto motions that would have impaired the country's economic success. Without steadfast opposition from Ireland, the EU would have made more headway in imposing corporate tax harmonisation.

I do not want to play down the importance of domestic policies either. Ireland owes its success to a complex set of policies and circumstances. Perhaps among the most important were the various tripartite social partnership agreements since 1987, through which the government, employers and the trade unions achieved a combination of wage moderation, high employment and low taxes. This form of round-table corporatism works best in tiny open economies. It is ironic that this country, whose officials take pleasure in hectoring others on free-market economics, is in fact one of Europe's most corporatist states. Even France and Germany cannot produce so much social partnership, and I can assure you that this is not for lack of trying.

So what would happen if Ireland were to leave the EU? As an associate member of the single European market, Ireland would probably attract less foreign investment. Dublin's financial centre would be demonised as an offshore tax haven and treated on a par with Liechtenstein. We would see lots of Ryanair flights between Dublin and Cork and the EU would put even more pressure on Ireland to raise corporate taxes.

Oh, and by the way, Ireland would no longer be a member of the euro zone. The Irish could use the euro if they wanted to but this would be like Panama using the dollar - a little sad, really. There would be no Irish voice in the European Central Bank's governing council warning that this is not a good time to raise interest rates. Leaving the EU involves a huge loss of power and influence.

To put it mildly, the No vote is highly risky. Considering that the country is now on the verge of a severe economic slowdown, it could not have come at a worse time. Not only does the No vote carry risks, it is a highly asymmetric gamble that brings no material benefit under the best of circumstances. The No vote put Europe's most impressive economic miracle at stake, and the cards are not looking good. - ( Financial Times service )

Wolfgang Münchau is an associate editor of the Financial Times. He is also a co-founder and director of Eurointelligence Advisers Limited, an independent internet-based service for economic commentary and analysis of the euro area

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0626/1214402962868.html

sink

O'Morris wrote: »

I thought you were pro-EU? Why would an EU supporter be talking about free-trade when the EU is the biggest protectionist racket in the world.

I myself am a pro-capitalist Libertarian and I'm all in favour of free trade and free markets. As I said above, I'm only in favour of import tariffs as a reactive measure.

You sound very funny for a libertarian, are you sure you're one? You are the first libertarian I've heard proposing subsidiesing farmers. You are also the first libertarian I've heard argue for the benefits of tariffs.

I can understand why a libertarian would be against the EU in it's current form. They usually argue the EU is over regulated and far too socialist. Libertarians usually want to get rid of all subsidies and state aid. They also want to privatise absolutely everything including healthcare, transport, education and some even want the emergency services to be private.

I find it funny that they call for Ireland's withdrawal from the EU on these grounds. But even amongst the secessionists they are a minority. The majority of people who want to leave the EU seem to be hard-line socialists/Marxists. The polar opposite to libertarianism and if these guy's are the majority don't you think that if Ireland does leave the EU it will be for socialist reasons and not libertarian.

I feel the social market economy is the best model for both production/efficiency and to promote social values. A 'Laissez-faire' capitalist economy creates a social underclass that can not contribute to the welfare of the market and is instead dead weight. This social underclass spreads like a cancer throughout the entire economy making it less efficient. A social market economy helps support the underclass just enough so that they can pull themselves out of poverty and become full contributing members of the economy.

I also believe free-trade is the ultimate model for the world to aspire to. However I am not naive enough to think that it is just going to happen. The common market model allows the world to gradually move towards free-trade in stages and is simply a means to an end.

thehighground

IRLConor wrote: »

Substantially more cost because presumably we'd have big fat tariffs on foreign food.

Ah, presuming are you?

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

And again, what does it matter?

Go on, tell us again as you said before about what the French think of him!

How do you think Mandelson will get his plans through?

Guess who Mandelson is appointed by? Guess what way the British electorate would like the talks to go?

Now, guess what nationality Sarkozy is? Guess who wants farm prices to be protected in the EU? Who elects Sarkozy? Would he want to upset his own electorate?

Now, that Sarkozy is involved, it will be interesting to see how the talks go. Personally I like the big countries (like Frence/Germany/UK) not being too friendly with other and stops them ganging up on everyone else.

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

You know that, I know that.

But it's cheap. Where will the cheap beef come from for Ireland as our own beef will be a premium product?

At the moment we are exporting about 90% of our beef. There is room for increasing production - Ireland is a very small market really.

Whether we are EU members or not, with a food shortage, food prices both within the EU and Outside the EU are going to increase.

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

So why the worry about Mandelson?

I'm not worried about Mandelson (though given the chance, I would never vote for him).

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

You want 500 million people to be able to elect and sack a Commissioner?

Elect and Sack a Commissioner? eh! I'd like the 500 million to have a vote on the Lisbon Treaty for the moment thats all. As a democrat, I'll go along with whatever the result of the referendum is.[/QUOTE]

The whole point is they are independent of individual countries. They have to be free of political concerns.

You do realise Lisbon made them more accountable and open?

So how are they free of political concerns - they are political appointments anyway

So who are they answerable to? Who are they 'open' to? (Have you forgotten the Auditor have not signed off accounts for 13 years now, MEPs are all claiming expenses, etc.) How will the Lisbon Treaty sort this problem out?