why so afraid to go it alone

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

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

No, we weren't but the IFA knew it was on the cards - its what you call forward planning. Irish farmers were on the ball and always have been!

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

Not too sure when he went over, but he was hired by the IFA in 1968 as an economist. The IFA didn't rely on Irish civil servants doing their lobbying for them.

Don't know about CAP prior to Ireland's entry into EU (late 50s/60s) - Europe was still rebuilding after the war and there would not have an over abundance of food.

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

I'm not sure why it doesn't suit my case when you say 'good reputation for negotiation' - Bertie is renowned for it - but most these very good negotiators tend to stick to private enterprise.

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

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!

Sorry, off topic throw-a-way comment. Do you know what happened after Michael Collin's Treaty negotiations? You don't have to answer!

The Corinthian

thehighground wrote: »

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.

Back to the subsistence economy then...

K-9

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.

Is is really? You do know by that logic, all Corporations are subsidised?

Can you explain to me how we have lost tax by reducing the Corporation tax rate to 12.5%?

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

Sorry, off topic throw-a-way comment. Do you know what happened after Michael Collin's Treaty negotiations? You don't have to answer!

I know very well! To History we go!

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

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).

So why make it an issue?

I don't particularly like the man either but it doesn't bother me.

You do realise that you said Mandelson and the British want cheap food.
Where does that fit in with us exporting premium beef? Will we not be overpriced for our biggest export market?

thehighground

The Corinthian wrote: »

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

Really - Post 499

Well, I wonder if we are that much better off now than we are in the '00s than we were in the '80s/'90s from my experience.

I worked for a British owned company in the late '80s/early '90s. It went bust because of the Gulf War. Their was a management buyout, which lead to hard times for a couple of years including about 20 people being made redundant. Interesting thing is that in the mid '90s every one of those 20 people set up their own companies and now those 20 people probably employ about 200+ people. All are very successful.

Secondly, I don't know how anyone can afford a mortgage nowaways and childcare? I'm very glad I got mine when I did in the '80s.

One thing which I would never like to see again is the emigration - a lot of my friends emigrated (mainly to Canada & Australia) back then.

Anyone who worked in the '80s/'90s have any thoughts on this?

Scofflaw, I think you are trying to scaremonger about what being outside the EU means - giving the impression that we are going to revert back to an isolationist Bhutan overnight - 'National self-sufficiency' does not mean that and you know that.

Mise le meas
thehighground

I notice you didn't reply to my explaining that commenting that "Ireland was a ****hole" didn't exactly promote debate.

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

You are entitled to your beliefs. So am I

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

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.

Don't particularly disagree there except as our Referendum has shown, there are high profile wealthy businessmen who will challenge it. Oh and the US arms Industry courtesy of Libertas who could contest it if they wanted! :rolleyes:

thehighground wrote:

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?

So who would you propose? The odds on Blair have lengthened. Probably I'd say has gone to unlikely after Sarkozy withdrew his support.

thehighground wrote:

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

Because as I said, the EU Accounts have a higher standard than the true and fair view. If the same test was applied to our own Govt. and corporations it would be interesting to see how many would pass!

I wouldn't be up to date on the expenses issue. I don't know if it has been improved since 4/5 years ago.

thehighground wrote:

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.

It's very important to remember that they do pass the true and fair view, a standard that everybody else adheres to. I'm not saying everything is perfect. I'd love if it was, it wouldn't give the No side a cheap slogan!

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

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).

1 billion was a massive amount to our economy in the late 80's, early 90's. Not so much now due to the success of our economy.

thehighground wrote:

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?

I do indeed. You remember when we had plentiful supplies of fish and over fishing wasn't a concern?

thehighground wrote:

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.

Strange that, I've seen links and pages showing Ireland still being a net contributor to the EU. Maybe you haven't been looking hard enough and just accepted we were paying in because it suited your argument!

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

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.

The problem there is unless SF become the majority party or there is a massive turnaround in European policy by FF, FG etc. voting them out isn't going to change the pro-EU policy.

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

No, we weren't but the IFA knew it was on the cards - its what you call forward planning. Irish farmers were on the ball and always have been!

Not too sure when he went over, but he was hired by the IFA in 1968 as an economist. The IFA didn't rely on Irish civil servants doing their lobbying for them.

Don't know about CAP prior to Ireland's entry into EU (late 50s/60s) - Europe was still rebuilding after the war and there would not have an over abundance of food.

I'm not sure why it doesn't suit my case when you say 'good reputation for negotiation' - Bertie is renowned for it - but most these very good negotiators tend to stick to private enterprise.

Strangely, from the wiki page on Dukes

In 1969 he became an economist with the Irish Farmers Association (IFA) in Dublin. After Ireland joined the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1973, he moved to Brussels where he was part of the IFA's delegation. In this role he was influential in framing Ireland's contribution to the Common Agriculture Policy.
He moved on from this IFA position to become chief of staff to Ireland's EEC commissioner Dick Burke, a former Fine Gael politician.



Dukes moved from the private sector to the public sector in support of Dick Burke.


Obviously your lack of respect for politicians extends to our officials in Brussels.

IRLConor

thehighground wrote: »

So, 5% of the EU population has to produce all the food for the rest!

How much food do we import from outside the EU again?

That 5% aren't producing anything that we can't import for cheaper from elsewhere. Not just that, but I'm willing to bet that we can get the same quality from elsewhere for cheaper too.

Food is essential. Producing it in the EU is not.

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.

1. There are no direct subsidies to the software industry.
2. That 12.5% corporation tax rate applies to all companies (including companies in the agricultural sector) and hence is a level playing field.

If the entire Irish farming sector went away tomorrow, it would be a dent to our economy but we'd survive. Ironically, if the entire tech or pharma sectors disappeared people would go hungry since they couldn't afford to buy the food produced by our agriculture sector.

O'Morris

djpbarry wrote: »

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?

That's correct. Irish food would be less expensive than foreign 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.

So food will be cheaper if we subsidise it? In other words it will be cheaper if we spend more money on it? Interesting.

What's wrong with French beef

There's nothing wrong with it. If Irish people want to eat it then good luck to them. They'll have to pay more for it though.

Generally speaking, I think people will opt for the cheaper option

Exactly, that's why if Irish food is cheaper than foreign food people will be more likely to opt for the Irish food.

I don't think they're all that bothered where the stuff comes from. Some people are, most are not.

No patriotic Irishman would ever eat foreign food when there's a perfectly good Irish alternative. The very thought of it just turns our stomachs.

But if we leave the EU, that is likely to hit us hard in other areas, e.g. FDI, trade with current EU partners.

If we leave the common market with the EU, not the EU itself. I'm not suggesting that we should leave the common market with the EU.

Assuming the economic status quo will be maintained if we leave is fanciful.

I don't think it is fanciful. If we assure them we'll be good Europeans and good neighbours by leaving our doors open to their goods and services I see no reason why they wouldn't be prepared to act generously. If they don't we can threaten to remain in the EU and use our veto to make a nuisance of ourselves.

Turkey has complete access to the EU's markets and it's still an independent country. Why can't we have the same relationship with the EU that they have?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU-Turkey_Customs_Union

Is that not the current situation?

It is the current situation and I hope to see it continue when we leave the EU.

Nobody has claimed the EU is perfect.

It has a long way to go before it achieves Irish standards.

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

No, a reaction to them imposing tariffs on us. If we leave the EU then we would allow them continued access to our markets. It would then be their choice whether they want to continue allowing open access to their markets or if they want to introduce tariffs. If they introduce tariffs then we should retaliate.

That doesn't answer the question. If our new economy is to be based on agriculture, how will everyone else pay for their food?

Who said anything about our economy being based on agriculture? I want to see far fewer people employed in agriculture.

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?

As opposed to the EU paying the subsidies? As I've already pointed out, we'll be net contributors to the EU by 2013 so any subsidies we get from the EU will be nothing more than our own money thrown back at us.

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?

The same place it will come from in 2013 - from the Irish taxpayer.

So what's the benefit in leaving?

A nation once again old boy! A nation once again! The master of our fate and the captain of our coal.

You’re advocating leaving the EU, but you want to keep all the benefits?

Of course, what's wrong with that? I wouldn't expect us to get away with it but isn't it understandable that we should aim for the best possible deal and try to keep as many of the benefits of membership as we can?

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

The difference is that we're an established EU member and so changing our traditional trading relationship with the EU would cause a certain amount of agro, not just for us but also for the other member states. Around 7% of Britain's exports are to Ireland. I don't think they'd be too happy about the prospect of Ireland imposing import tariffs on those exports. Even if the balance in trade still managed to cover their costs, I doubt if they would want to waste any energy on renegotiating a trading arrangement that has worked well for them up to now.

I think as we long as we guarantee open access to our markets and we promise to keep our heads down and be good Europeans and good neighbours I'm sure the EU will be happy to let business continue as usual.

If we were to indicate that we were considering leaving the EU, it would be hugely damaging to our reputation.

No it wouldn't. It would enhance 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?

And what if the opposite happened and the girlfriend said that same kind of thing to her boyfriend? How would that affect the girlfriend's reputation in the eyes of the boyfriend?

Our love affair with the EU has long since ended. I'd rather we were honest about and tried to arrange an amicable separation that can see us continuing our relationship as good friends and trading partners.

It is.

No it isn't an independent country. If we had left the union with Britain in 1922 and the British said that we could have our independence but in return British law would still supersede Irish law, do you think we could honestly claim to have achieved independence from Britain?

Such as?

If someone was to say to me that the price of independence is that I would have 20 euro less disposable income in my pocket at the end of each week then that's a sacrifice I would be more than willing to make.

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

So why did we vote no then?

There you are again; let's leave the EU but let's try and keep anything that might be of benefit to us.

Exactly, what's wrong with that? It may not be achievable but we should for the best possible deal and that involves aiming high.

Sure the EU will only be too happy to negotiate on little old Ireland’s behalf!

I never said anything about the EU negotiating on our behalf. I said we should ally ourselves with the EU when it's in our interests. We should also ally with America or Russia or Japan or any other country if it's in our interest to ally with them as well.

O'Morris

marco polo wrote:

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.

Well then it looks like we'll need to stay away from the EEA. I'd prefer the kind of arrangement that the Turks have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU-Turkey_Customs_Union

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.

It was a heavy blow alright. But then I found out that there are alternatives to the EEA and so it's back to that happy Friday feeling again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU-Turkey_Customs_Union

O'Morris

sink wrote:

You sound very funny for a libertarian, are you sure you're one?

I would say I'm more of a ethno-nationalist minarchist than a libertarian.

You are the first libertarian I've heard proposing subsidiesing farmers.

I only support subsidies as a short-term measure while we transition to a fully self-supporting, efficient and non-labour intensive farming industry. Subsidies should only be used as a form of emergency aid when there's an outbreak of foot and mouth or as a pension-supplement for the declining number of elderly farmers who don't have the energy to operate in a competitive market.

You are also the first libertarian I've heard argue for the benefits of tariffs.

Nobody could deny that tariffs have benefits, not libertarians and certainly not EU supporters.

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.

You're only thinking of economic libertarians. A true libertarian would never define himself in purely economic terms.

I find it funny that they call for Ireland's withdrawal from the EU on these grounds.

I'm not calling for Ireland's withdrawal from the EU on economic grounds. I'm motivated purely by a sentimental, patriotic desire that we become an independent nation again. I think it's possible for us to have both economic security and political indeependence. And if not, sure there's no harm trying.

The majority of people who want to leave the EU seem to be hard-line socialists/Marxists.

I don't think so. I think most secessionists are ethno-nationalists such as myself.

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.

If Ireland leaves the EU we'll be forced to become more competitive to compensate and so I don't see a very bright future for efficiency-sapping socialism in Ireland.

I feel the social market economy is the best model for both production/efficiency and to promote social values.

Maybe it is.

A 'Laissez-faire' capitalist economy creates a social underclass that can not contribute to the welfare of the market and is instead dead weight.

The social-market economy creates a bloated welfare state which is as much of a dead-weight as the people it tries to help.

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.

That sounds good. We could have that kind of set up in Ireland when we leave the EU.

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.

Me neither, that's why I think we should remain in the common market until it does happen.

marco_polo

O'Morris wrote: »

Well then it looks like we'll need to stay away from the EEA. I'd prefer the kind of arrangement that the Turks have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU-Turkey_Customs_Union




It was a heavy blow alright. But then I found out that there are alternatives to the EEA and so it's back to that happy Friday feeling again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU-Turkey_Customs_Union

Goods can travel between the two entities without any customs restrictions. The Customs Union does not cover essential economic areas, such as agriculture, to which bilateral trade concessions apply, services or public procurement.

You are pretty much at square one with regards to EU protection of it agricultural sector. If you can show me just even one example of a trade agreement where the EU has agreed a tariff free arrangement with another developed country it might be at least some help to your argument.

Here are some example I dug out for agricultural exports from Turkey into the EU to see what benifits we could look forward to under such a good deal.

Cheeses subject to tariffs of 144 EUR / 100 kg

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/dds/cgi-bin/tarduty?Taric=0406301090&SimDate=20080627&Action=1&ProdLine=80&Country=TR/0052&Type=0&Action=1&YesNo=1&Indent=-1&Flag=1&Test=tarduty&Periodic=0&Download=0&Lang=EN&Description=yes


Butter 189 EUR / 100 kg

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/dds/cgi-bin/tarduty?ProdLine=80&Type=0&Action=1&Lang=EN&SimDate=20080627&YesNo=1&Indent=-1&Flag=1&Test=tarduty&Periodic=0&Download=0&Taric=0405101190&Country=TR%2F0052&Day=27&Month=06&Year=2008


Boneless Beef Cuts: 12.80 % + 303.40 EUR / 100 kg

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/dds/cgi-bin/tarduty?Taric=0201300010&SimDate=20080627&Action=1&ProdLine=80&Country=TR/0052&Type=0&Action=1&YesNo=1&Indent=-1&Flag=1&Test=tarduty&Periodic=0&Download=0&Lang=EN&Description=yes

You can put it any EEA member states too and it will spit back the exact same numbers

If even if we did by some miracle have some sort of a tariff free arrangement that is just one aspect of the many benefits of EU membership.

The Corinthian

O'Morris wrote: »

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.

Well, without leaving first how do you think we might find out if it's such a good idea?

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.

I agree and have said so previously. However, on the economic side the pro-EU side tends to have an advantage on the anti-EU side.

I've never heard anyone claiming that they would be prepared to return to a pre-celtic tiger economy.

Of course not. Partially because I believe many Eurosceptics have bought into this De Valeran fantasy of a self-sustaining economy and also because it's not a concept that wins many votes from the great unwashed.

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.

I like the fact you suggest that a sizeable percentage would, rather than a majority, as I wouldn't be so sure of that either

Irish charm old boy! Irish charm!

Don't overestimate that quality. There's a limit to what charm can get you.

thehighground wrote: »

Really - Post 499

Fair enough, I didn't see it. However, given your reply:

thehighground wrote: »

I worked for a British owned company in the late '80s/early '90s. It went bust because of the Gulf War. Their was a management buyout, which lead to hard times for a couple of years including about 20 people being made redundant. Interesting thing is that in the mid '90s every one of those 20 people set up their own companies and now those 20 people probably employ about 200+ people. All are very successful.

All this story do is confirm that prior to the Celtic Tiger, Ireland was an economic shìthole.

Secondly, I don't know how anyone can afford a mortgage nowaways and childcare? I'm very glad I got mine when I did in the '80s.

No one suggested we live in Utopia, only that what preceded it was far, far worse.

One thing which I would never like to see again is the emigration - a lot of my friends emigrated (mainly to Canada & Australia) back then.

Of course, but if the jobs aren't there, or more correctly are not good enough, the Irish will vote with their feet as they did before. So far, all you and other Eurosceptics have been able to suggest is a fuzzy return to an agricultural based economy and protectionism, which was essentially what we had back when the Irish economy encouraged emigration.

Anyone who worked in the '80s/'90s have any thoughts on this?

I worked and even ran a business in the late eighties / early nineties. For a start, the Irish market is too small, which means that you'll always be stuck scratching a living if you're limited to it. If you look afield and there are trade barriers or tariffs, then this will get in the way of making that living.

Half of my friends around that time emigrated. All they could get here upon leaving college was a £9k p.a. job at best, and that only if they had at least a 2.1+ in their finals. Needless to say, the opportunities were elsewhere and that's where they went - even those with 2.1+ results how got better offers than here. That the dole (with rent allowance) amounted to just under that level of salary, added insult to injury, BTW.

No one wants to return to that.

O'Morris wrote: »

That's correct. Irish food would be less expensive than foreign food.

So Irish food would become more expensive, but at least it won't be as expensive as foreign food. Please explain where the win is in this.

The Corinthian

O'Morris wrote: »

I would say I'm more of a ethno-nationalist minarchist than a libertarian.

Isn't that a euphemism for a racialist?

djpbarry

thehighground wrote: »

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

He's not appointed by the British electorate, so what they want is irrelevant. Was everything that Charlie McCreevy did popular among the Irish electorate?

thehighground wrote: »

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

There's no point increasing production if nobody is going to buy it. You're assuming that demand for Irish beef will remain constant (in the EU in particular) if we leave the EU, which is very unlikely considering there will be tariffs slapped on it.

thehighground wrote: »

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.

If we leave the EU, we are going to be worse off economically and so, increases in food prices will hit harder.

thehighground wrote: »

Have you forgotten the Auditor have not signed off accounts for 13 years now...

Prove it.

thehighground wrote: »

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.

Doesn't the EU produce far more dairy products than it consumes? Euromilk seem to think so.

thehighground wrote: »

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

I'm not sure what mess you're referring too? People getting themselves into huge debt? I'm not sure how that's the government's fault; people are responsible for their own finances.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "believe"? As has been said numerous times already on this forum, a vote based on ignorance is a vote not worth having.

thehighground wrote: »

Can't have a referendum and won't have a referendum are two separate things.

Referenda are illegal in Germany and it is illegal to ratify international treaties by referendum in Italy; they can't ratify the Lisbon Treaty by popular referendum. Together they comprise 28.5% of the EU's population.

thehighground wrote: »

As for challenging it - the establishment are supporting this treaty - they are the ones who benefit most...

How?

thehighground wrote: »

You really are joking when you say this. Look at the high standards of ethics that our own politicians have.

I've no idea what this means or what it has to do with the auditing of EU accounts.

thehighground wrote: »

Can you explain why their is still a problem with EU accounts?

Can you explain what this "problem" is?

thehighground wrote: »

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.

What issues?

O'Morris wrote: »

So food will be cheaper if we subsidise it? In other words it will be cheaper if we spend more money on it? Interesting.

That seems to be precisely what has been advocated by some posters.

O'Morris wrote: »

If Irish people want to eat it then good luck to them. They'll have to pay more for it though.

Why? Because you say so?

O'Morris wrote: »

Exactly, that's why if Irish food is cheaper than foreign food people will be more likely to opt for the Irish food.

Assuming they can afford to pay for Irish-produced food at its current prices.

O'Morris wrote: »

No patriotic Irishman would ever eat foreign food when there's a perfectly good Irish alternative. The very thought of it just turns our stomachs.

And that's where your whole argument falls apart - patriotism does not feature on many people's shopping lists. Certainly not on any I know.

O'Morris wrote: »

If we leave the common market with the EU, not the EU itself. I'm not suggesting that we should leave the common market with the EU.

But you are suggesting we leave the EU. Expecting to retain the benefits of membership after we leave is ridiculous.

O'Morris wrote: »

If we assure them we'll be good Europeans and good neighbours by leaving our doors open to their goods and services I see no reason why they wouldn't be prepared to act generously.

We'd be offering free access to 4.3 million people in exchange for free access to 497 million - it ain't gonna happen.

O'Morris wrote: »

If they don't we can threaten to remain in the EU and use our veto to make a nuisance of ourselves.

In which case the EU would just move on without us. You really think Ireland is in a position to threaten the EU?

O'Morris wrote: »

Turkey has complete access to the EU's markets...

No they don't; from the link you posted:

"The Customs Union does not cover essential economic areas, such as agriculture, to which bilateral trade concessions apply, services or public procurement."

It should also be noted that Turkey only struck this deal because they want to join the EU.

O'Morris wrote: »

It has a long way to go before it achieves Irish standards.

I presume that's a joke? How many other recently-retired EU leaders are currently having their personal finances investigated at a tribunal?

O'Morris wrote: »

No, a reaction to them imposing tariffs on us.

It would not be a case of the EU "imposing" tariffs on us; we have signed up to a free trade arrangement with the EU. If we leave the EU, that arrangement is null and void - I don't know what the default position is, if there is one. Presumably a new deal would have to be negotiated, but free trade would not be the starting point, because we would have already torn that deal up.

O'Morris wrote: »

Who said anything about our economy being based on agriculture?

Well, yourself and thehighground have been spouting on about Irish-produced food and slapping import tariffs on foreign food. This implies that Irish food production would have to be increased. So if the agricultural sector is expanded and other sectors contract (which they more than likely will if we leave the EU), then our economy will indeed become more dependent on agriculture.

O'Morris wrote: »

As opposed to the EU paying the subsidies? As I've already pointed out, we'll be net contributors to the EU by 2013...

Yeah, if we stay in the EU. If we leave, then that statistic is completely meaningless. If we leave the EU, then we are likely to be far worse off and will have far less money to spend on agricultural subsidies.

O'Morris wrote: »

A nation once again old boy! A nation once again! The master of our fate and the captain of our coal.

Bollocks; that doesn't count as a benefit in my book.

O'Morris wrote: »

Of course, what's wrong with that?

It's delusional.

O'Morris wrote: »

I think as we long as we guarantee open access to our markets and we promise to keep our heads down and be good Europeans and good neighbours I'm sure the EU will be happy to let business continue as usual.

That's pure fantasy. There isn't a country in the world that has successfully negotiated a free trade deal with the EU, yet you think that somehow, despite having virtually nothing to offer in return except being "good neighbours", that Ireland can somehow achieve this?

O'Morris wrote: »

No it wouldn't. It would enhance our reputation.

You've got to be kidding? How could it possibly "enhance" our reputation? How could Ireland hinting at leaving the EU be anything other than political and economic suicide?

O'Morris wrote: »

Our love affair with the EU has long since ended.

In your opinion.

O'Morris wrote: »

No it isn't an independent country.

Yes, it is. We are also subject to international law - should we separate from the international community as well?

O'Morris wrote: »

If someone was to say to me that the price of independence is that I would have 20 euro less disposable income in my pocket at the end of each week then that's a sacrifice I would be more than willing to make.

And that, as has been said by other posters, is the problem with your whole argument; you are quite happy to take a hit to the pocket just to suit your nationalist aims. You cannot expect others to do the same.

O'Morris wrote: »

So why did we vote no then?

You tell me; I voted 'Yes'.

O'Morris wrote: »

I said we should ally ourselves with the EU when it's in our interests.

You mean, as we are at present?

O'Morris wrote: »

I only support subsidies as a short-term measure while we transition to a fully self-supporting, efficient and non-labour intensive farming industry.

What makes you think this will ever happen in an environment where there is no (viable) competition?

O'Morris wrote: »

I'm motivated purely by a sentimental, patriotic desire that we become an independent nation again. I think it's possible for us to have both economic security and political indeependence. And if not, sure there's no harm trying.

As I have already pointed out, there may well be a great deal of harm in trying. Hinting at leaving the EU at the Council would be a pretty bad idea.

thehighground

The Corinthian wrote: »

Back to the subsistence economy then...

I'd be interested in moving to an economy where people can live without clean air, water and food.

You on another planet then?

mickoneill30

thehighground wrote: »

I'd be interested in moving to an economy where people can live without clean air, water and food.

You can get that by living on the dole. Most people aim for more than just the basics.

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

Is is really? You do know by that logic, all Corporations are subsidised?

Can you explain to me how we have lost tax by reducing the Corporation tax rate to 12.5%?

Yes, all corporations are being subsidised if they are getting preferential treatment as regards tax, though to be strictly accurate, the Corporation Tax was increased to 12.5% from 10% in 2002 (causing ructions in Europe - fair play to Charlie McCreevy - he held them all off).

In the early 80s the tax rate of 10% was applicable to SELECTED services & manufacturing - and as one of our major developing industries of that time, I'm pretty certain that the Dells, Apples etc. would have benefited - not to mention the use of all the IDA built factories around the country. Irish Gov. (taxpayer) probably paid for those, though.

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

So why make it an issue?

I don't particularly like the man either but it doesn't bother me.

You do realise that you said Mandelson and the British want cheap food.
Where does that fit in with us exporting premium beef? Will we not be overpriced for our biggest export market?

Supply & demand again.

During the Foot & Mouth Irish sheep farmers did very well (premium price) out of exporting lamb to the UK because the UK had a shortage of lamb (due to slaughter animals) so they needed more lamb from us. The price for sheep went up. That is how Supply & demand works.

Please bear in mind that a warning has been given that there is a world food shortage due to climate change mainly. Here is a link to a random article on world food shortage when I type World Food Shortage in Google for further proof that there is a world food shortage.

http://www.grainnet.com/articles/Dennis_Avery_Opinion__Biotech_Wheat_To_Ease_World_Food_Shortage_-59423.html

As for Mandelson - he comes from the British tribe - its normal that he would like his own tribe to thrive. His tribe are not self-sufficient in food.

seamus

thehighground wrote: »

Yes, all corporations are being subsidised if they are getting preferential treatment as regards tax

Prefential treatment above whom exactly? Above corporations operating in other EU countries?

By that logic, you agree then that we, as citizens of Ireland, are being subsidised by the state, due to our preferential 20% and 40% income tax rates?

To say that a low tax rate is a "subsidy" is just plain bizarre. According to your logic, if we're not imposing a 100% tax on everything, then we're losing out on potential tax income, and therefore subsidising everything.

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

Don't particularly disagree there except as our Referendum has shown, there are high profile wealthy businessmen who will challenge it. Oh and the US arms Industry courtesy of Libertas who could contest it if they wanted! :rolleyes:

So you think it is easy for your average citizen to challenge a government in the courts? I can't agree with you there. I have no idea where Libertas gets its money from and don't really care as just because I may have the same views on one particular issue like supporting the Lisbon Treaty, it doesn't mean I support the US Arms Industry, though to be quite honest, I have quite forgotten why the US arms industry is meant to be against the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, if Lisbon is as harmless as you all make out.

So who would you propose? The odds on Blair have lengthened. Probably I'd say has gone to unlikely after Sarkozy withdrew his support.

Its irrelevant to me who is President - I won't get a chance to have a say who it is.

Because as I said, the EU Accounts have a higher standard than the true and fair view. If the same test was applied to our own Govt. and corporations it would be interesting to see how many would pass!

I'd say they would do quite badly. But you have to agree, a lot of money is wasted - particularly on consultant's report, after consultant's report dust catchers.

I wouldn't be up to date on the expenses issue. I don't know if it has been improved since 4/5 years ago.

Seems they earn on average 15K a month. ! Good, if you can get it. So we want to hand over our hard earned cash to those of questionable morals?
[/QUOTE]

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

1 billion was a massive amount to our economy in the late 80's, early 90's. Not so much now due to the success of our economy.

Its averaged out at 3% of our economy over the years. Anyway, what do you think of a poster here who commented that the Marshall Aid was worth nothing to France (2296 mil. Dollars) & Germany (1448 million) after the war. according to them it was irrelevant as to why Ireland wasn't as well developed.

I do indeed. You remember when we had plentiful supplies of fish and over fishing wasn't a concern?

Bl***dy Spanish fishing fleet !
[/QUOTE]

Strange that, I've seen links and pages showing Ireland still being a net contributor to the EU. Maybe you haven't been looking hard enough and just accepted we were paying in because it suited your argument!

I'm not disputing that Ireland is not yet a net contributor - but I've only seen the one link that you have produced (which didn't work for me initially). Have you other references like the Dail Q&A?

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

The problem there is unless SF become the majority party or there is a massive turnaround in European policy by FF, FG etc. voting them out isn't going to change the pro-EU policy.

Most Irish are pro-European - myself included. I think the political parties need a wake up call about what they are doing. I don't think one has to vote for a particular party. You discuss it with your TD/councillors (all parties). You can always tell them that you are going to vote SF if they don't listen to you.

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

Strangely, from the wiki page on Dukes

In 1969 he became an economist with the Irish Farmers Association (IFA) in Dublin. After Ireland joined the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1973, he moved to Brussels where he was part of the IFA's delegation. In this role he was influential in framing Ireland's contribution to the Common Agriculture Policy.
He moved on from this IFA position to become chief of staff to Ireland's EEC commissioner Dick Burke, a former Fine Gael politician.

Dukes moved from the private sector to the public sector in support of Dick Burke.

OK, I was a year out. The point I'm making is that the IFA went for the best people right from the very beginning. I have heard Alan Dukes say he took the job in the IFA because it paid more than the Civil Service, where he also had a job offer. What other trade union, business, IBEC etc. had employed an Economist back in 1969 prior to our entry to the EEC?

You can be well sure that he was replaced by someone equally good, who didn't end up going into politics.[/QUOTE]

Obviously your lack of respect for politicians extends to our officials in Brussels.

Not all, we've had some very good people who I would rate (though some may have had their faults) - Ray McSharry, Peter Sutherland and Dick Spring come to mind as opposed to P Flynn, Ray Bourke ... I won't start now.

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

Yes, all corporations are being subsidised if they are getting preferential treatment as regards tax, though to be strictly accurate, the Corporation Tax was increased to 12.5% from 10% in 2002 (causing ructions in Europe - fair play to Charlie McCreevy - he held them all off).

In the early 80s the tax rate of 10% was applicable to SELECTED services & manufacturing - and as one of our major developing industries of that time, I'm pretty certain that the Dells, Apples etc. would have benefited - not to mention the use of all the IDA built factories around the country. Irish Gov. (taxpayer) probably paid for those, though.

I'd check my facts on the 10% rate, if I were you.

What happened to the 32% ( IIRC) as well?

I suppose we have got no return on our investment either! I'd regard our very successful tax rate as an incentive to invest, not a subsidy.

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

Supply & demand again.

During the Foot & Mouth Irish sheep farmers did very well (premium price) out of exporting lamb to the UK because the UK had a shortage of lamb (due to slaughter animals) so they needed more lamb from us. The price for sheep went up. That is how Supply & demand works.

Please bear in mind that a warning has been given that there is a world food shortage due to climate change mainly. Here is a link to a random article on world food shortage when I type World Food Shortage in Google for further proof that there is a world food shortage.

http://www.grainnet.com/articles/Dennis_Avery_Opinion__Biotech_Wheat_To_Ease_World_Food_Shortage_-59423.html

As for Mandelson - he comes from the British tribe - its normal that he would like his own tribe to thrive. His tribe are not self-sufficient in food.

And in a world food shortage, Beef especially expensive beef will be a luxury.

You know what happens to luxury items when a recession happens?