why so afraid to go it alone

thehighground

ejmaztec wrote: »

Would the government be able to afford to continue with such generosity?

The Corinthian wrote: »

More jingoism and petty nationalism.

Might work better than economic arguments though?

Might work better to achieve what?

Bottom line is, the EU bureacrats (Sarkozy & Merkal) are not to be trusted because they are very powerful 'petty nationalists.'

Fortunately, we know now before we hitch ourselves to their wagon.

ivan087

whitser wrote: »

i just feel that ireland is quite capable of trading and doing well on its own. i dont like the direction the eu is going and i for one would rather out.

i really fear for ireland. i want whats best for the country. i want jobs, security, democracy and a high standard of living. i don't want a return to the pre-90's.

its become the new in thing to bash the eu. i fear it is coming from the uk - the british press and tv.

nobody here can tell me why the eu is so bad. what is so bad?!?!?!

if you dont like how the eu is run - then vote out the people that represent us at the council (ie the irish government) or the european parliament (ie our MEP's). i think that's democracy.

less of the scare-mongering, silly anti-eu bashing - ie we're better off alone

HOW?

we're doing fine. there are problems, but lets do it from the inside rather then moaning like the brits or from the outside. europe is one of the most nationalistic areas in the world - just look at all the wars every country has suffered. do you really see a united states of europe coming!?!?!

the eu could be a great institution if we work on it. think about it. look how far europe has come in the past 50 years, even 20 years. look at western europe-eastern europe, germany-france, ireland-uk.

also, we need europe to survive in a world of america, russia, china...

well, thats my two cents

ionix5891

democrates wrote: »

I note also you didn't go elsewhere in the EU...

ive 4 servers in Germany (The Germans are unbelievably efficient and very polite) as well (AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+/8GB/2x750GB/10mbit unmetered @ €60/month each ) and another in Paris (i have to say i am not impressed with the French crowd for complete lack of support) still considerably cheaper than Dublin and had a recent trip to data centers in Amsterdam/Schiphol exploring future expansion opportunities (and of course to soak in the Dutch liberalism )




As I wrote in another thread before in the comms forum few months back

Why should I be spending so much money abroad when all the roads here were dug up with pour tax money to put in fiber and its not used :[ and the prices are being kept artificially high

whitser

ivan087 wrote: »

i really fear for ireland. i want whats best for the country. i want jobs, security, democracy and a high standard of living. i don't want a return to the pre-90's.

its become the new in thing to bash the eu. i fear it is coming from the uk - the british press and tv.

nobody here can tell me why the eu is so bad. what is so bad?!?!?!

if you dont like how the eu is run - then vote out the people that represent us at the council (ie the irish government) or the european parliament (ie our MEP's). i think that's democracy.

less of the scare-mongering, silly anti-eu bashing - ie we're better off alone

HOW?

we're doing fine. there are problems, but lets do it from the inside rather then moaning like the brits or from the outside. europe is one of the most nationalistic areas in the world - just look at all the wars every country has suffered. do you really see a united states of europe coming!?!?!

the eu could be a great institution if we work on it. think about it. look how far europe has come in the past 50 years, even 20 years. look at western europe-eastern europe, germany-france, ireland-uk.

also, we need europe to survive in a world of america, russia, china...

well, thats my two cents

the eu has been good. why though does it keep advancing towards this federal europe. i never thought about opting out til now. i feel that we are going down a road that the common person doesnt want(french dutch votes) why keep progressing with a treaty that the people dont want? do we keep following the elite or do we have another option.

ionix5891

whitser wrote: »

the eu has been good. why though does it keep advancing towards this federal europe. i never thought about opting out til now. i feel that we are going down a road that the common person doesnt want(french dutch votes) why keep progressing with a treaty that the people dont want? do we keep following the elite or do we have another option.

you are conveniently forgetting about the Spanish and the Luxembourg'ians who voted YES on their referendums...


And i don't remember reading anything about federal Europe in the treaty

democrates

IRLConor wrote: »

:eek: Tell me you don't work anywhere near the software industry? (And if you do, please let me know what you're smoking.)

Brace yourself Conor, been coding accross various jobs for the bones of a quarter century (more than one program), nowadays I'm self-employed developing online systems based on the LAMP stack. Carrolls.

IRLConor wrote: »

Well, I'd argue that economic value that would remain in Ireland if we leave the EU/EEA is the most important metric for this discussion.

Well that's how the metric would change, and we can bang our heads off the wall all day speculating as to how much access to markets would be retained in negotiations for a political seperation from the EU, 8 ball job.

marco_polo

democrates wrote: »

They're here for 12.5% corp. tax and access to EU markets, not because we're politically hitched. It remains open to speculation how well market access could be secured in a step-back from the EU deal.

So what is so good about 'democracy by fax' as a Norwegian PM once called it. Essentially you wait by the fax machine for the latest EU directive to come along and pass it through parliament. No need for debate because it is futile.

Here are some quotes from a paper discussing the implications of Norway's EEA membership. It suggests that EEA membership is by no means a free lunch.


http://www.arena.uio.no/publications/wp00_4.htm

"The decision to accept a proposal is taken by national parliaments. In Norway the parliamentary EEA committee prepares such decisions.

So far the right to veto has not been used. An important reason for this is that it could result in countermeasures from the EU, and indeed threaten the whole EEA-arrangement."

"Enlargement will have important consequences in two ways. The first is that it changes Norway's relationship to these countries. Bringing these countries into the internal market will also threaten the established bilateral trade agreements with these countries. In several areas, like export of fish, for example, there will be disadvantages."

"The second implication is that in an enlarged EU the asymmetry between EU and EFTA will be even more pronounced. It can easily become 25 countries with 400 mill against 3 countries with 4.5 mill. Even if the EU will accept the EEA, Schengen and other special arrangements in the future, it is not likely that they will put a lot of effort into such a bilateral arrangement. Special arrangements will only exist as long as the EFTA countries accept EU rules without too much fuss."

SkepticOne

hmmm wrote: »

You don't want to live in an ever closer European Union, I don't want to be poor. If you want to get your message supported you're going to have to be able to explain to people like me why under your plan I won't be waving goodbye to my kids as they get on the boat to emigrate.

The main achievement of of the referendum just gone is that the real debates are emerging. These should have happened before the referendum took place, but it took a no vote to make it happen. Before the referendum, whitser's points would have been dismissed as irrelevant.

sink

whitser wrote: »

the eu has been good. why though does it keep advancing towards this federal europe. i never thought about opting out til now. i feel that we are going down a road that the common person doesnt want(french dutch votes) why keep progressing with a treaty that the people dont want? do we keep following the elite or do we have another option.

You keep coming back to this point about 'Federal Europe' but I don't think you know what it really means. The EU is far from a federation, most of the power resides with the council, the council consists of members states, each state acts independently in their own interests but compromises and collaborates to get better results. There is no top down structure in the EU, the individual members states have all the power. In a federation the central government is sovereign and holds all the power, the EU is nothing like that and probably never will be. The fear of a 'Federal Europe' in my view is completely unfounded and not based on reality. It seems to have been dreamt up by people who are not familiar with how the EU actually works, which is quiet complex and therefore it's easier to believe that is some sort of federal state.

thehighground

ionix5891 wrote: »

these are the same farmers who get paid not to farm? come one i wish i got paid by the EU not to do my job, should be interesting where they could sell their produce if Ireland is outside the EU. I am not happy at all that 75% of the EU budget goes to the farmers, not at all

To be fair, it is extremely frustrating for a farmer to be not allowed to farm. But then, they don't want farmers to build houses on their land. Someone has to trim the ditches (which they don't get paid for) so that you can drive your 4x4 to work every day in Dublin. As well as that, when Brazil has a massive outbreak of foot & mouth and can't supply any beef to Europe, it might be wise to have enough food to stop Europe starving. Or indeed - in another while, China are going to need to start importing food - there's a new market for you - 1.2 bn people to be fed. Think Kerry Foods have a couple of big plants out there already.

Oh and the Arabs I believe are rather partial to our beef. How about beef for oil?

and ironically the Lisbon treaty would have cut down on the bureaucracy

Didn't see the the part in the Lisbon Treaty which said that there is no need (anymore) to keep a written record every time an animal on your farm has its toenails cut, not to mention any time it looked crooked at you .

marco_polo

SkepticOne wrote: »

The main achievement of of the referendum just gone is that the real debates are emerging. These should have happened before the referendum took place, but it took a no vote to make it happen.

Well said.

Before the referendum, whitser's points would have been dismissed as irrelevant.

And afterwards too.

democrates

ionix5891 wrote: »

ive 4 servers in Germany (The Germans are unbelievably efficient and very polite) as well (AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+/8GB/2x750GB/10mbit unmetered @ €60/month each ) and another in Paris (i have to say i am not impressed with the French crowd for complete lack of support) still considerably cheaper than Dublin and had a recent trip to data centers in Amsterdam/Schiphol exploring future expansion opportunities (and of course to soak in the Dutch liberalism )

As I wrote in another thread before in the comms forum few months back

Why should I be spending so much money abroad when all the roads here were dug up with pour tax money to put in fiber and its not used :[ and the prices are being kept artificially high

Totally agree on the pricing artifice, privatising eircom a la EU market dogma was a disaster, asset stripped, international expansion haltedd, a trench war with comreg, and no recourse for the government, but hey, the market works best, keep repeating. The EU also blocked municipal wi-fi, market dogma again.

If we had control of these assets we'd have some chance of getting better value from them.

whitser

sink wrote: »

You keep coming back to this point about 'Federal Europe' but I don't think you know what it really means. The EU is far from a federation, most of the power resides with the council, the council consists of members states, each state acts independently in their own interests but compromises and collaborates to get better results. There is no top down structure in the EU, the individual members states have all the power. In a federation the central government is sovereign and holds all the power, the EU is nothing like that and probably never will be. The fear of a 'Federal Europe' in my view is completely unfounded and not based on reality. It seems to have been dreamt up by people who are not familiar with how the EU actually works, which is quiet complex and therefore it's easier to believe that is some sort of federal state.

a federal eu where all the power is held by larger states and where there's a central govt. we'll still have a dail full of posers getting well paid but it'll be powerless. why cant we say no. people are missing the point, we're being dismissed as irrelevent by the eu elite,so why would we want to stay in bed with them.

SkepticOne

marco_polo wrote: »

And afterwards too.

I think one of the mistakes of the Yes side is forgetting that other people have votes too.

ionix5891

thehighground wrote: »

Didn't see the the part in the Lisbon Treaty which said that there is no need (anymore) to keep a written record every time an animal on your farm has its toenails cut, not to mention any time it looked crooked at you .

that made me laugh but you get the point, the Farmers have gained big time from being in EU (at the expense of the Fishermen)

I wish the IT sector enjoyed such high levels of support (actually any support would be better than none)

Scofflaw

democrates wrote: »

Totally agree on the pricing artifice, privatising eircom a la EU market dogma was a disaster, asset stripped, international expansion haltedd, a trench war with comreg, and no recourse for the government, but hey, the market works best, keep repeating. The EU also blocked municipal wi-fi, market dogma again.

If we had control of these assets we'd have some chance of getting better value from them.

When you say "EU market dogma" what exactly do you mean? Is there somewhere the EU put forward a theory of the most efficient form of public utilities being private ownership?

Or do you actually mean "ideas on privatisation which are current in Europe and have been since Thatcher"? In which case, you don't mean EU dogma - you mean European ideas.

pedantically,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

SkepticOne wrote: »

I think one of the mistakes of the Yes side is forgetting that other people have votes too.

Does that mean we should let every unfounded point go unchallenged.

ionix5891

marco_polo wrote: »

Does that mean we should let every unfounded point go unchallenged.

you mean lies there were plenty of them :mad:

sink

whitser wrote: »

a federal eu where all the power is held by larger states and where there's a central govt. we'll still have a dail full of posers getting well paid but it'll be powerless. why cant we say no. people are missing the point, we're being dismissed as irrelevent by the eu elite,so why would we want to stay in bed with them.

But the power is not held by the larger states, there are far more medium to small sized states in the EU. If you insist on breaking it down into blocks of large medium and small, the power held by the medium sized states outweighs everyone else. The point you're completely missing is that the medium sized states don't all vote as one block, the small sized states don't all vote as one block and believe it or not the large states don't vote as one block. It takes a coalition of states of different sizes to pass legislation. More often than not the biggest differences are between the larger states so how can they dictate policy?

The 'EU elite' tag also bothers me. You are talking about democratically elected leaders of sovereign countries. They come from all backgrounds and walks of life. They have quiet different views on many issues. Anyone who has a talent for politics has the potential to become one. Where does the elite status come from?

ionix5891

sink wrote: »

Where does the elite status come from?

The Mirror?


some newspapers get to insult their readers and they get away with it, to say they are Elite is to say we are somehow "lesser" than these people, quite an insult

didn't Stalin used to send anyone "elitist" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligentsia) to Siberia maybe we should turn back the clock to start of last century look how well that turned out

thehighground

ionix5891 wrote: »

that made me laugh but you get the point, the Farmers have gained big time from being in EU (at the expense of the Fishermen)

I wish the IT sector enjoyed such high levels of support (actually any support would be better than none)

Absolutely agree that the fishermen were shafted. But I don't think you can blame Irish farmers for Europe's primary policy on having a cheap and plentiful supply of food. Unfortunately, you can't eat a copy of MS Word.

btw, There is no such thing as cheap food

IRLConor

democrates wrote: »

Brace yourself Conor, been coding accross various jobs for the bones of a quarter century (more than one program), nowadays I'm self-employed developing online systems based on the LAMP stack. Carrolls.

Fair enough then, I'm just highly sceptical of your

Besides, in the long term open source online is continuing to gain ground

comment. Sure, it's growing, but there isn't nearly enough money in it to replace all of the tech jobs in Ireland.

democrates wrote: »

Well that's how the metric would change, and we can bang our heads off the wall all day speculating as to how much access to markets would be retained in negotiations for a political seperation from the EU, 8 ball job.

I doubt there'd be much in the way of negotiation. We have very little to offer that they don't already have or can get cheaper from elsewhere.

IRLConor

thehighground wrote: »

btw, There is no such thing as cheap food

There is. It's what people who can't afford good quality food eat.

democrates

Scofflaw wrote: »

When you say "EU market dogma" what exactly do you mean? Is there somewhere the EU put forward a theory of the most efficient form of public utilities being private ownership?

Or do you actually mean "ideas on privatisation which are current in Europe and have been since Thatcher"? In which case, you don't mean EU dogma - you mean European ideas.

pedantically,
Scofflaw

From http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0109/wifi.html

RTE wrote:

Dublin City Council has decided the plan would be contrary to EU law on state aid, as well as not financially possible.

Without arguing the credibility of the latter excuse, if muni-wifi is financially possible EU law prevents it regardless, not simply a european idea.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eircom (lazy link I know)

wikipedia wrote:

Due to EU laws requiring the opening up of the Irish telecommunications market, Telecom Éireann was privatised, this was very controversial and subject to much debate.

There's a lot more to the story going right back to the Dargan report of 1979, I was there since the P&T days (wipes tear), but again those european ideas result in EU laws, and the rest is history.

Expect more of the same on water, indeed any service that is capable of being privatised in order to concentrate wealth is a target.

whitser

sink wrote: »

But the power is not held by the larger states, there are far more medium to small sized states in the EU. If you insist on breaking it down into blocks of large medium and small, the power held by the medium sized states outweighs everyone else. The point you're completely missing is that the medium sized states don't all vote as one block, the small sized states don't all vote as one block and believe it or not the large states don't vote as one block. It takes a coalition of states of different sizes to pass legislation. More often than not the biggest differences are between the larger states so how can they dictate policy?

The 'EU elite' tag also bothers me. You are talking about democratically elected leaders of sovereign countries. They come from all backgrounds and walks of life. They have quiet different views on many issues. Anyone who has a talent for politics has the potential to become one. Where does the elite status come from?

their attitude is elitest because they dont care for our mandate or opinion. its quite clear that the french and germans are calling the shots in brussells. if they're not elitest why are they making our decisions for us and why are they going to force us to take atreaty we dont want.

ionix5891

whitser wrote: »

their attitude is elitest because they dont care for our mandate or opinion. its quite clear that the french and germans are calling the shots in brussells. if they're not elitest why are they making our decisions for us and why are they going to force us to take atreaty we dont want.

who is forcing Ireland to do anything?

yes there were a few crackpot comments from Europe (i was suprised there werent more) but EU is not the Soviet Union and the "Russians" wont be rolling the tanks in at any sign of dissent in the Republic

seamus

whitser wrote: »

their attitude is elitest because they dont care for our mandate or opinion. its quite clear that the french and germans are calling the shots in brussells. if they're not elitest why are they making our decisions for us and why are they going to force us to take atreaty we dont want.

How are they "making decisions for us", and how do you propose that they're going to force us to implement the treaty?

You're imagining that somehow politicians are an entirely different breed of humans, who were born into political life and didn't have to do anything to get into power. And you're also imagining that somehow they have the power to dictate to us without consequence.

You do understand the whole point of democracy?

marco_polo

whitser wrote: »

their attitude is elitest because they dont care for our mandate or opinion. its quite clear that the french and germans are calling the shots in brussells. if they're not elitest why are they making our decisions for us and why are they going to force us to take atreaty we dont want.

The French and the Germans have less influence now than they have ever had in the 50 years since the EU/EC was first founded.

The influence of any one country will obviously dimish as the number of member states increases.

Are they a bit pissed off that we voted no, yes. Is there a big Franco-German conspiracy to take over europe. I don't think so.

sink

whitser wrote: »

its quite clear that the french and germans are calling the shots in brussells. if they're not elitest why are they making our decisions for us

Because that is what they were elected and given a mandate by the people to do. Please read up on representative democracy, it's been around for a few centuries and you live in one, but you seem completely oblivious to how it operates.

whitser wrote: »

and why are they going to force us to take atreaty we dont want.

So many people don't even know what is in the treaty, how can they know they might not want it? The treaty is pretty complex with some downsides but many benefits. So far no one imo has come up with a legitimate compelling reason not to pass the treaty. They are not forcing us, they have made it pretty clear that they are willing to go ahead without us, we can choose to join them or stay behind. We don't have a right to dictate what they can and can't do, just as we expect them not to dictate to us.

The Corinthian

thehighground wrote: »

Might work better to achieve what?

The promotion a Eurosceptic position. The economic arguments that have been put forward from the Eurosceptic camp in this discussion have been atrocious. Many of them betray little or no understanding of macroeconomics, let alone evidence to support them.

However, press the argument long enough, and I tend to find that most Eurosceptics will tend to retreat to their true motivations that are political rather than economic. Economic well-being is simply a tool in convincing others, but it is secondary to the political aim. In short, if I were to ask to choose between a basket case economy outside of the EU or a healthy economy as part of a USE, I suspect you'd go for the former. If so, I suggest you stick to the political arguments as the economic ones are simply not being bought.

ivan087 wrote: »

if you dont like how the eu is run - then vote out the people that represent us at the council (ie the irish government) or the european parliament (ie our MEP's). i think that's democracy.

You can't suggest that

What you'll get if you do that is the same Eurosceptics who complain about the Brussels elite will turn to bleat about national sovereignty. It's not really about economics or democracy - it's all about petty nationalism.