Its time to leave Europe

oscarBravo

It's time this thread started conforming to the charter, which I recommend everybody read before replying again.

craichoe

We need these guys:
http://langerland.com/content/view/78/59/


To be honest though, i really hope Ireland doesnt leave the EU, i think we take the ability to travel and work easily around the EU completely for granted. I'm an Irish Expat living in the Netherlands, non EU citizens have to go through an AWFUL lot to work here easily.

molloyjh

Kevster wrote: »

I assume that you are referring to your own reply just a few back up the list? If so, then yes: You were unbelievably ignorant.

Take care,
Kevin.

Harsh but fair I would have said......Lets face it the US multi-nationals are here for 2 main reasons. The corporation tax rate and the access to the European market. Take either away and we would be in a spot of bother. The idea of leaving the EU and relying on farming and fishing is ludicrous, and smacks of a "take the money and run" attitude.

ChocolateSauce

stevedublin wrote: »

We are an island surrounded by water

There's another type?

brianthebard

obl wrote: »

[british accent]You, sir, are an idiot.[/british accent] The only reason this country is on it's knees right now, and wasn't for the last 20 years is the EU. There is no logical reason for leaving the EU.

out of interest what was the ecc doing for ireland in the 80's?I see people saying we'd be nowhere without them,but from roughly 1980 to 1995 there wasn't much happening here.Whys that?

Scofflaw

brianthebard wrote: »

out of interest what was the ecc doing for ireland in the 80's?I see people saying we'd be nowhere without them,but from roughly 1980 to 1995 there wasn't much happening here.Whys that?

It was giving us money, but our economic policies were so bad, our governments so corrupt, profligate, and unstable, that it was exactly like giving aid to a third-world banana republic - hence the Boomtown Rats song of the same name.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

brianthebard wrote: »

out of interest what was the ecc doing for ireland in the 80's?I see people saying we'd be nowhere without them,but from roughly 1980 to 1995 there wasn't much happening here.Whys that?

Probably from 73 to 87 there was nothing happening.

Then our own politicians tackled our economy. We can't blame the EU for our failures just as we can't credit the EU for all of our success.

kevteljeur

With all due respect to the OP, we're running in circles here, since we've had this discussion already on a previous thread. Running might even be too generous a word. I somehow doubt that this duplication will give us any clearer answers, although I do wish the Isolationists would give a bit more credit to our elected politicians for any percieved shortcomings of our country. I hope you've all been voting according to your convictions.

Ri na hEireann

The only qualm I have with free speech is that anybody can make a point,which is clearly an outlandish cry for attention, not back it up, but consider it a purposeful and often a factual contribution to a conversation.

Leave the EU....please surely this is a joke?

kevteljeur

Ri na hEireann wrote: »

The only qualm I have with free speech is that anybody can make a point,which is clearly an outlandish cry for attention, not back it up, but consider it a purposeful and often a factual contribution to a conversation.

Leave the EU....please surely this is a joke?

Sadly, this and this and this suggest otherwise. Interestingly there still have been no sound economic arguments in favour of leaving, and suggestions as to how to maintain the economy became increasingly outlandish in those threads. It's worth a quick read, some of the more entertaining but serious suggestions, such as 'militarily retaking Northern Ireland', or suggestions to maintain the economy by trading fish, agricultural produce, gas, oil and jobs with the rest of the world using our native charm to remove trade tariffs, are worth the price of admission.

SimpleSam06

kevteljeur wrote: »

Interestingly there still have been no sound economic arguments in favour of leaving

No one is saying there are economic reasons for leaving. The EU as a trade block has always been a ripping success. Its the political reasons that are starting to overshadow that.

kevteljeur

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

No one is saying there are economic reasons for leaving. The EU as a trade block has always been a ripping success. Its the political reasons that are starting to overshadow that.

Sure, I should have phrased that differently; I didn't mean reasons for leaving, rather how the economy here would be sustained and weighting that against having no further influence on our nearest trading partners.

Having slightly less influence but maintaining our economy versus no influence at all and potentially losing much of what we've built? Seems a clear choice to me... Please keep in mind Norway's 'democracy by fax' situation; that could be us.

SimpleSam06

kevteljeur wrote: »

Having slightly less influence but maintaining our economy versus no influence at all and potentially losing much of what we've built? Seems a clear choice to me... Please keep in mind Norway's 'democracy by fax' situation; that could be us.

I think the idea that seems to be arising in some quarters is that this (little) influence comes with a price, and people are starting to ask if if that price might be too high.

molloyjh

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I think the idea that seems to be arising in some quarters is that this (little) influence comes with a price, and people are starting to ask if if that price might be too high.

And what exactly is the price?

brianthebard

Seanies32 wrote: »

Probably from 73 to 87 there was nothing happening.

Then our own politicians tackled our economy. We can't blame the EU for our failures just as we can't credit the EU for all of our success.

A lot of people both here and in other debates have sought to praise the EU for the "celtic tiger" yet the EU had nothing to imput when the country was nearly bankrupt in the 80s. Just wondering like.

molloyjh

brianthebard wrote: »

A lot of people both here and in other debates have sought to praise the EU for the "celtic tiger" yet the EU had nothing to imput when the country was nearly bankrupt in the 80s. Just wondering like.

I refer you to Scofflaws post on that matter (in case you missed it!)

Scofflaw wrote: »

It was giving us money, but our economic policies were so bad, our governments so corrupt, profligate, and unstable, that it was exactly like giving aid to a third-world banana republic - hence the Boomtown Rats song of the same name.

cordially,
Scofflaw

O'Morris

Scofflaw wrote: »

our economic policies were so bad

Examples?

sink

O'Morris wrote: »

Examples?

Restrictive tax rates of up to 60% stifled businesses & growth and took more away from the exchequer than it earned. Irresponsibly borrowing a large proportion of GDP which the country could not afford. And a severely overvalued currency destroyed exports, not to mention the political corruption. At the time Ireland was the joke of Europe.

kevteljeur

sink wrote: »

Restrictive tax rates of up to 60% stifled businesses & growth and took more away from the exchequer than it earned. Irresponsibly borrowing a large proportion of GDP which the country could not afford. And a severely overvalued currency destroyed exports, not to mention the political corruption. At the time Ireland was the joke of Europe.

In fact the phrase was, if memory serves me, 'the sick man of Europe'.

K-9

brianthebard wrote: »

A lot of people both here and in other debates have sought to praise the EU for the "celtic tiger" yet the EU had nothing to imput when the country was nearly bankrupt in the 80s. Just wondering like.

That was my exact point! I don't agree they had a massive influence, but important all the same.They had some input to our success at the start. The Structural funds Reynold negotiated in the early 90's was of massive importance to a country that was paying a huge chunk of its income on debt servicing. It just could not have got that kind of money otherwise. After that I think the EU has had a small influence in our economy.


The EU did not have borrowing criteria for member states in the 80's so the EU could not force us to adhere to strict economic criteria as it can now. Basically we got the funds but we completely ran our own economy and we f***ed it up. We also wasted some of our funds.

The IMF were ready to take over our debts as the Govt. was borrowing to pay debt.

There is little chance of that happening now with the criteria on borrowing etc.

So overall, the EU had little influence over our economy in the 70's and 80's other than say, here's the money spend away!

SimpleSam06

molloyjh wrote: »

And what exactly is the price?

Well tell me, do you see the need for a political beaurocratic layer in the EU beyond what is absoloutely neccessary for the smooth running of a trading block?

kevteljeur wrote: »

In fact the phrase was, if memory serves me, 'the sick man of Europe'.

Heh. Most of Europe has been the sick man of Europe at one stage or another.

Russia and most of Eastern Europe received such nickname due to the severe economic hardships of the time, as well as the soaring rates in alcoholism, drug abuse, and AIDS that led to a negative population growth and falling life expectancies (although, in recent years, it has shown signs of slowing down).

The term was applied to the Russian Federation more recently in the book "Kremlin Rising: Vladimir Putin's Russia and the End of Revolution" by Peter Baker and Susan Glasser (Scribner). In this book, chapter nine is titled "Sick Man of Europe."

In the late 1990s, the press labeled Germany with this term because of its economic problems, especially due to the costs of German reunification after 1990, which are estimated to amount to over €1.5 trillion (statement of Freie Universität Berlin).

In May 2005, The Economist attributed this title to Italy, covering "The real sick man of Europe". This refers to Italy's structural and political difficulties thought to inhibit economic reforms to relaunch economic growth.

In 2006, Mark Steyn calls Russia the "sick man of Europe" in the book America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It. This diagnosis is based on Russia's demographic profile, which is a main theme of the book.

In 2007, a report by Morgan Stanley referred to France as the "new sick man of Europe".

In April 2007, The Economist described Portugal as "a new sick man of Europe".

molloyjh

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Well tell me, do you see the need for a political beaurocratic layer in the EU beyond what is absoloutely neccessary for the smooth running of a trading block?

Yes absolutely. Without it we would never have gotten the aid we got from the EU and probably wouldn't be the country we are now. A trading block would never be able to provide that.

SimpleSam06

molloyjh wrote: »

Yes absolutely. Without it we would never have gotten the aid we got from the EU and probably wouldn't be the country we are now. A trading block would never be able to provide that.

On the contrary, if we were part of a trading block with a poor economy, it serves the interests of the entire block to ensure that our economy picks up and we become stronger members, ultimately strengthening the entire union.

Its the same principle as investment in a business - you don't expect to see a profit in the initial stages of formation and growth, but you do need to put that investment in or the non performing division slows down the whole operation.

What I'm saying is that economic assistance would fall within the mandate of a trading block.

Scofflaw

molloyjh wrote: »

Yes absolutely. Without it we would never have gotten the aid we got from the EU and probably wouldn't be the country we are now. A trading block would never be able to provide that.

Indeed. Without the political aspects of the EC/EU, what would the point of farm subsidies or structural funds have been? The US doesn't subsidise Mexico through NAFTA.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SimpleSam06

Scofflaw wrote: »

The US doesn't subsidise Mexico through NAFTA.

But the US has no particular interest in an economically strong Mexico.

Scofflaw

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

But the US has no particular interest in an economically strong Mexico.

Yes...that's right. So why did France and Germany have an interest in an economically strong Ireland, or Greece?

cordially,
Scofflaw

SimpleSam06

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes...that's right. So why did France and Germany have an interest in an economically strong Ireland, or Greece?

You can't sell things to people with no money.

K-9

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Heh. Most of Europe has been the sick man of Europe at one stage or another.

I'd say Portugal is the only country that would be relevant to Ireland out of that article.

sink

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

But the US has no particular interest in an economically strong Mexico.

What? The US has a very real interest in a strong Mexico. A strong Mexican economy will help stem the tide of illegal emigration into the US. A strong Mexican economy will allow US companies to produce and manufacture in Mexico availing of cheaper wages. A stronger Mexico will provide a large market of 106 million people for US goods and services. A strong Mexican government will add to the security of the entire North American continent. In fact the US has more of an interest in Mexico than France and Germany have in Ireland.

SimpleSam06

sink wrote: »

What? The US has a very real interest in a strong Mexico. A strong Mexican economy will help stem the tide of illegal emigration into the US. A strong Mexican economy will allow US companies to produce and manufacture in Mexico availing of cheaper wages. A stronger Mexico will provide a large market of 106 million people for US goods and services. A strong Mexican government will add to the security of the entire North American continent.

That would certainly be the stated policy of the US towards Mexico. The reality on the ground, however, is a little different, with fragmented unfocused policies and generally counterproductive initiatives.

Current U.S. policy toward Mexico is fundamentally flawed for three reasons. It undermines peace and prosperity in Mexico by pursuing failed counternarcotics and economic integration strategies. It has largely ignored Mexico’s serious human rights situation and blinked at armed conflicts that have a direct impact on peace and stability. It has never seriously encouraged the struggle for democracy under way in Mexico and, at times, has even weakened it.

Although the proponents of economic integration have declared NAFTA an unqualified success due to increasing bilateral trade, an analysis of salaries and poverty statistics suggests another view. By the end of 1997, average salaries for all Mexican workers had fallen to 60% of their 1994 value. In addition, according to a study by Mexico’s National Institute of Statistics, Geography, and Information (INEGI), extreme poverty rose by 53% from 1994 while income became increasingly concentrated.

sink wrote: »

In fact the US has more of an interest in Mexico than France and Germany have in Ireland.

In fact France and Germany have more of an interest in Mexico than the US recently, or at least have invested more into Baja.

So you tell me, whats the real story with the US and Mexico. Actually don't tell me, take it to another thread.