why so afraid to go it alone

thehighground

marco_polo wrote: »

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?

No, I'm a firm believer in a good fence, respected by both parties makes for very good neighbours.

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.

Sorry, the links you gave me do not work. I've pointed this out to you and you have not rectified it yet, so I cannot respond to them.

As regards the EU do not want to import dairy products from anywhere - Ireland & France are the major objectors to that one (and that is because they are presently big suppliers). If Ireland leaves the EU, they are very likely going to have to change their mind, because guess what, the EU needs dairy products from somewhere. Where do you think the UK would get its food from if it didn't get it from Ireland? Powdered milk from New Zealand?

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

And, by the late 50s, early 60s, Sean Lemass & Ken Whittaker very highly regarded, realised all that and brought Ireland into the EEC which stands for European Economic Community.

I'm confused now as to what point you are trying to make, do you approve of protectionist policies/trade tariffs or not?

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

That link is 2004.


HIS IS 2008.

Have yet not been able to get 2008 link - could you resupply it please?

thehighground

kevteljeur wrote: »

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.

Bearing in mind that we are a very young country and had a lot of catching up to do. Look at NI, it would be bankrupt except for the UK's annual 15bn subvention. Hopefully, it will become less dependant. Ireland (ROI) never had anything like that kind of money to help it get off its feet (in fact we had to pay annuities to the UK). We are now quite a wealthy country (except for our health service) and we don't have a huge national debt to service.

With all due respect, I don't think you have much of an idea about farming these days - Irish farms are highly mechanised and mostly family run, with very few employed outside the family (to give you an idea, on our family farm back in the 50s there were 12 farm labourers, now two family members run it, with assistance from contractors for silage cutting, and Farm Relief service which provides help on a part-time basis). Mortgages would be small (free site), etc.

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).

Our politicians got us into this mess. We're are now expected to believe them about Lisbon.

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

Ah at last, some recognition of our brilliant negotiators!

They were involved in Lisbon too!

Very good job indeed!

eh? I was thinking more of the lobbying of the IFA in Brussels. The IFA set up and office in Brussels, hired Alan Dukes as a economist back in 1968 and sent him over there.

The IFA paid him more than the civil service would have paid him, that is why he worked for them.

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

I'm still confused over Mandelson.

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

I don't know what you are asking - McCreevy is regarded as holding a very powerful portfolio which he relishes.

That is all. Some portfolios are bigger than others ...

thehighground

IRLConor wrote: »

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.

You talk about 'propping up the farming industry'. Why do you think the farm industry is 'propped up'. Why is it not allowed die like Ford in Cork, or Arlow Fertiliser, or Waterford Crystal? Why doesn't the EU just get rid of farmers. Just let their farms go wild, good for the environment, birds and wildlife would thrive - you could have loads of tourism etc. The figures just don't add up.

Can you explain to me why they just don't get rid of farmers?

thehighground

sink wrote: »

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.

Well, its the first time I've noticed anything like that. I didn't read past the first comment as I don't have a huge amount of free time on my hands . Presumably you are an economist, but if you don't mind, I'll pass on your rather limited evaluation of the article.

thehighground

marco_polo wrote: »

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.

I wonder is it like the plenipotentiary powers Dev gave to Michael Collins back in the days?

thehighground

djpbarry wrote: »

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

I think the whole point of the EU 'project' would be undermined. The EU will want to maintain on the surface at least, a reasonable good relationship with Ireland, because if they don't they will be laughed out of it for ignoring democracy. Other similar sized countries to Ireland still in the EU will get very nervous as well and will be watching.

That appears to be your own subjective opinion and nothing else.
But we're talking about trade, not jobs. Horses are a premium commodity - you cannot build an economy on such an industry.

The horse industry in Ireland is now big business. About 40,000 people are employed between the thoroughbred and sport horse sectors, which are estimated to be worth more than €1bn to the economy each year and which play a central part in the lives of the people.
Nov. 2001
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2001/11/19/story17470.asp

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).

The average farm size is about 3 acres in China* - little more than subsistance farming. Factories/houses being built means farm land is being reduced.

*Average farm size in Ireland is about 70 acres.

I don't know what your point is here; sellers will sell to whoever wants to buy.
Because the self-sufficiency crowd want to slap tariffs on imports to (try to) subsidise Irish farmers, remember?

Another way of putting it is that urban dwellers food is subsidised, not farmers.

thehighground

The Corinthian wrote: »

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?

Not quietly ignoring it at all - you missed my post obviously comparing the good bits/bad bits of both eras. Obviously, since there were no enraged responses, I must have got it right

Responding with a simple 'it was a '****hole' wasn't going to stimulate much debate, now was it?

IRLConor

thehighground wrote: »

You talk about 'propping up the farming industry'. Why do you think the farm industry is 'propped up'. Why is it not allowed die like Ford in Cork, or Arlow Fertiliser, or Waterford Crystal? Why doesn't the EU just get rid of farmers. Just let their farms go wild, good for the environment, birds and wildlife would thrive - you could have loads of tourism etc. The figures just don't add up.

Can you explain to me why they just don't get rid of farmers?

Good question.

They're 5% of the EU population but 40%+ of the EU budget.

Maybe because it's considered a critical industry.

But wait, a massive proportion of Ireland's GDP comes from software. Doesn't that mean I should be getting subsidies too?

IRLConor

thehighground wrote: »

Another way of putting it is that urban dwellers food is subsidised, not farmers.

You've got to be kidding me.

In 2006, Ireland contributed €730 million to CAP. That's €178 extra per person for food on top of what we paid in the shop. We're paying for farm produce and we're paying extra to help our farmers do it.

Farming in Ireland is massively subsidised. There are plenty of potential reasons for that, some of them good, some of them bad. What really pisses me off though, is the attitude from farmers that they somehow are entitled to all of this as a matter of course.

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

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 wrote:

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

So why was Mandelson and the British an issue for you?

The French were always going to oppose this. For some strange reason there was a perception they wouldn't before the Referendum.

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

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.

But 88 Million in Germany can't have Referenda. AFAIK, the UK and the Czechs were the only ones to legally challenge the right to have a Referendum. It seems this groundswell of support for Referenda isn't very strong!

thehighground wrote:

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

Back to the "what has McCreevy done for Ireland question?":D

I suggest you read up on how Commissioners operate.

Tbh, you have done that much wavering on the power and influence of Ministers sorry Commissioners, particularly Mandelson and McCreevy, I can't take anything you say on them seriously anymore.

thehighground wrote:

So who are they answerable to? Who are they 'open' to?

The Parliament.

thehighground wrote:

(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?

Scofflaw has explained this one repeatedly on this Board before. They operate under a higher standard than the normal true and fair view for Accounts. I'd like Ireland to have this a higher standard of reporting as well.

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

Have yet not been able to get 2008 link - could you resupply it please?

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

K-9

kevteljeur wrote:

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).

thehighground wrote: »

Our politicians got us into this mess. We're are now expected to believe them about Lisbon.

You won me over there. Is this the same bunch you trust to run the country after we leave the EU?

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!)

thehighground wrote: »

eh? I was thinking more of the lobbying of the IFA in Brussels. The IFA set up and office in Brussels, hired Alan Dukes as a economist back in 1968 and sent him over there.

The IFA paid him more than the civil service would have paid him, that is why he worked for them.

1968? We weren't in the EEC/EU then!

When did he go over. Who was negotiating CAP etc. before that? Who negotiated the structural funds?

And yes Irish people do have a great reputation for negotiating. You agree, except if it doesn't suit your case.

kevteljeur

Seanies32 wrote: »

You won me over there. Is this the same bunch you trust to run the country after we leave the EU?

We've yet to see a good answer from thehighground on that matter; if we leave the EU, the resulting economic hardship will see many people out of their homes due to repossessions. It's not really a matter of whether or not it might happen, but holding the current Government responsible isn't in any way a coherent answer to what I've asked.

One more time. How will the effect of leaving the EU on struggling homeowners be justified to them? Do you think that losing their homes will in anyway be justified to them by being nominally independent as a nation?

I'm just seeing a lot of ideas about how we might get by in the post-industrial world using agriculture, when we've already seen that concept as a failure. We need the EU now, it's too late to try rowing back. They're subsidising our farmers to live comfortable, stable lives, and you'd have us go back to subsistence living just to vote for the same politicians, the same people, the same systems as now but without the aid of our neighbours. I just don't get it, I'm sorry.

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

I don't know what you are asking - McCreevy is regarded as holding a very powerful portfolio which he relishes.

That is all. Some portfolios are bigger than others ...

You seemed to be giving Mandelson more power than McCreevey, but you cleared that up.

As on France and Ireland probably opposing a bad deal at the WTO, many will often disagree with McCreevy on some of his policies. I think you were attaching too much significance to Mandelson, but you've cleared that up.

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

I wonder is it like the plenipotentiary powers Dev gave to Michael Collins back in the days?

What are you on about and what has that got to do with the WTO.

I'm beginning to wonder do you actually read and take in any of the replies on here!

Scofflaw

kevteljeur wrote: »

We've yet to see a good answer from thehighground on that matter; if we leave the EU, the resulting economic hardship will see many people out of their homes due to repossessions. It's not really a matter of whether or not it might happen, but holding the current Government responsible isn't in any way a coherent answer to what I've asked.

One more time. How will the effect of leaving the EU on struggling homeowners be justified to them? Do you think that losing their homes will in anyway be justified to them by being nominally independent as a nation?

I'm just seeing a lot of ideas about how we might get by in the post-industrial world using agriculture, when we've already seen that concept as a failure. We need the EU now, it's too late to try rowing back. They're subsidising our farmers to live comfortable, stable lives, and you'd have us go back to subsistence living just to vote for the same politicians, the same people, the same systems as now but without the aid of our neighbours. I just don't get it, I'm sorry.

Mm. Briefly summarised as "our politicians have made such a hames of running the country that we should not trust them on Lisbon - instead we should leave the EU and let them run the country".

Am I missing some vital point? Is there some bit where our geese become swans?

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Corinthian

thehighground wrote: »

Not quietly ignoring it at all - you missed my post obviously comparing the good bits/bad bits of both eras. Obviously, since there were no enraged responses, I must have got it right

I missed your response because to it because you never made any.

I believe you are being less than honest at this stage.

thehighground

IRLConor wrote: »

Good question.

They're 5% of the EU population but 40%+ of the EU budget.

Maybe because it's considered a critical industry.

But wait, a massive proportion of Ireland's GDP comes from software. Doesn't that mean I should be getting subsidies too?

So, 5% of the EU population has to produce all the food for the rest! You can't eat software. The three absolutely essential things in life are: Clean air, water and food. Any of those 3 missing, you die. Its not essential to have the latest MS word programme, gaming programme is it.

By the way, the software industry is heavily subsidised - 12.5% corporate tax rate - tax lost to the Irish exchequer, but also to our fellow EU country members.

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

So why was Mandelson and the British an issue for you

I posted it before, Mandelson & the British are not an issue for me (other than I find Mandelson irritating which is more to do with style than substance).

mickoneill30

thehighground wrote: »

So, 5% of the EU population has to produce all the food for the rest! You can't eat software. The three absolutely essential things in life are: Clean air, water and food. Any of those 3 missing, you die. Its not essential to have the latest MS word programme, gaming programme is it.

Have you seen the sizes of farms these days. They're huge. A few people can produce a lot of food. Should we get rid of the huge farms and have everybody with a field? Lets go back to the good old days.
Maybe somebody with more knowledge can post up how many people the average farm can feed.

thehighground wrote: »

By the way, the software industry is heavily subsidised - 12.5% corporate tax rate - tax lost to the Irish exchequer, but also to our fellow EU country members.

Subsidised means we give them money. Are we giving them money? 12.5% tax is better than 0% tax we'd get if they weren't here. In return they pay rent, bills, wages and it means many Irish businesses have opportunities to spring up in supporting roles.

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

But 88 Million in Germany can't have Referenda. AFAIK, the UK and the Czechs were the only ones to legally challenge the right to have a Referendum. It seems this groundswell of support for Referenda isn't very strong!

Can't have a referendum and won't have a referendum are two separate things. I presume you think that as one country can't have a referendum, that the same rule should apply for everyone else as they are going to be left out? My contension is that it would be advisable to hold a referendum, then no one will ever be in any doubt about this European Project. Other than that, there is always going to be question marks over it.

As for challenging it - the establishment are supporting this treaty - they are the ones who benefit most - its a bit much to expect ordinary workers to come up with the cash to challenge it. Only very wealthy people can do this.

Back to the "what has McCreevy done for Ireland question?":D

I suggest you read up on how Commissioners operate.

Tbh, you have done that much wavering on the power and influence of Ministers sorry Commissioners, particularly Mandelson and McCreevy, I can't take anything you say on them seriously anymore.

The Parliament.

Scofflaw has explained this one repeatedly on this Board before. They operate under a higher standard than the normal true and fair view for Accounts. I'd like Ireland to have this a higher standard of reporting as well.

You really are joking when you say this. Look at the high standards of ethics that our own politicians have. And low standard isn't confined to Ireland. Tony Blair is probably going to be the first unelected President of the EU. I suppose he didn't lie about Iraq in your mind?

Can you explain why their is still a problem with EU accounts? What about the MEPs fiddling expenses?

How do you expect anyone to think that they "operate under a higher standard than normal and fair view for accounts" with these issues not resolved.

kevteljeur

thehighground wrote: »

So, 5% of the EU population has to produce all the food for the rest! You can't eat software. The three absolutely essential things in life are: Clean air, water and food. Any of those 3 missing, you die. Its not essential to have the latest MS word programme, gaming programme is it.

By the way, the software industry is heavily subsidised - 12.5% corporate tax rate - tax lost to the Irish exchequer, but also to our fellow EU country members.

No offence, but you're not at all consistent. In earlier posts you argued that an independent Ireland would be guaranteed of setting it's own tax rates, and this is one of the main reasons our economy has done so well until the last couple of years - we've been able to attract foreign industry with low corporate tax rates. Now you're telling me that our tax rates are subsidising our main industries. And we've been telling you that this has been made possible through EU money to the Irish state, to allow it to cover the shortfall in tax take and so maintain capital outlay without increasing debt.

You'll find that the most expensive food in this country is Irish-made. And the cheapest is imported. To compete, either the imports would have to be heavily taxed, or the home-grown produce heavily subsidised. Either way, someone has to pay for it, and it's not the EU then it's the Irish citizen, either through increased tax or through costlier food. If you can give us a rational and realistic scheme for avoiding that, all well and good. Although I freely admit I'm no economist, I believe my grasp of income and expenditure allows me to see no way out of this proposed situation.

Keep in mind that with Ireland being out of the EU, Irish citizens will have less money, and any kind of import via the EU will cost more relative to now; or, we're not going to have the same kind of choice in saving money by going to Lidl instead of Dunnes Stores, and we'll have less to spend when we get there.

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

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

Thank you for supplying the link. So, we are going to be a net contributor to the EU until 2013! Averaging over the 40 years, we benefit by 1 bn a year - the same amount that some posters here seem to think of an insignificant industry like the Irish horse business offers (1 bn to Irish economy in 2001, employing 40,000 people).

We paid for that 1 bn annual subsidy with the loss of 20,000 jobs in our fishing industry. You are from Donegal Seanie - do you remember what Killybegs was like?

PS, I see from this website that this article was 'Updated' on May 26, 2008. Very strand that no one else seems to have published these figures.

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

You won me over there. Is this the same bunch you trust to run the country after we leave the EU?

Well, they are 'our' bunch - and I mean from the point of view, we can actually VOTE them out if we have a mind to. They are always answerable to voters at the end of the day.

kevteljeur

mickoneill30 wrote: »

Have you seen the sizes of farms these days. They're huge. A few people can produce a lot of food. Should we get rid of the huge farms and have everybody with a field? Lets go back to the good old days.
Maybe somebody with more knowledge can post up how many people the average farm can feed.

Hard figures are best for these discussions, and I for one am sorry that I can't supply more on this subject. But essentially, small farms are inefficient for anything other than subsistence and local supply. You can't build an economy on them, something that the EU is well aware of.

mickoneill30 wrote: »

Subsidised means we give them money. Are we giving them money? 12.5% tax is better than 0% tax we'd get if they weren't here. In return they pay rent, bills, wages and it means many Irish businesses have opportunities to spring up in supporting roles.

This is the basis of the current Irish economy; we are the guys who get stuff done for you, whatever it might be. The problem with that is that if your customers go elsewhere (such as eastern Europe, and then on to India when they discover the shortfalls of Eastern European labour), then you're stuffed, and this is precisely what's happening right now. Perhaps someone out there can tell me who said this - it's quote from a respected economist, and it came out about a year, two years ago, I'm paraphrasing heavily - "In economics we say that you can't all be washing your neighbour's clothes, someone has to do something other than that to support it". Scofflaw, perhaps you know it and the theory behind it? Speaks for itself. If everybody is providing a service, then who is actually making something to sell and pay for all the services?

If that wasn't clear before, I'm not at all a fan of low corporate tax. The theory is to encourage business, and so employment. But this is really about creating personal wealth quickly in an unstable business environment, rather than a strong, wealthy state and fewer, stronger indigenous businesses. Good cars on bad roads, vs good busses on good roads; democracy at work, but if you can't pay for the car you'll be going nowhere.