Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Its time to leave Europe
Options
Comments
-
SimpleSam06 wrote: »You can't sell things to people with no money.
An argument which applies equally to NAFTA. Yet the EU does provide aid to poor members, and NAFTA doesn't. Nor does the EU provide aid to EEA/EFTA members.
Without the political layer , Ireland would not have received any subsidies.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Yet the US provides a $28.9 million annual program of development cooperation for Mexico.An argument which applies equally to NAFTA. Yet the EU does provide aid to poor members, and NAFTA doesn't.
Looking at the members list of those organisations, it doesn't appear that they need any particular assistance.Nor does the EU provide aid to EEA/EFTA members.
We're working in two worlds here; the real one, where Ireland is a full partner in the EU, and the hypothetical one where it was part of a trading block rather than anything else. Definitive statements about a hypothetical world are therefore impossible, you can't say we would not have received subsidies because you have no idea whether that's true or not.Without the political layer , Ireland would not have received any subsidies.
The real problem as I see it is, what is emerging now is the foundation for a European superstate, with its own diplomatic corps, its own president, and ultimately its own army. I don't see any particular advantages to being involved in such a state, and I'd say that many Europeans feel the same, so long as we can maintain involvement in the free trade area, thus not jeopardising our economy.
I'm not too sure how exactly to achieve this goal, but I do feel it is achievable.
Its not the view out the window, its whats coming up in the windscreen that is alarming.0 -
SimpleSam06 wrote: »Yet the US provides a $28.9 million annual program of development cooperation for Mexico.
Not through NAFTA - and $28.9 million is, frankly, nothing.SimpleSam06 wrote: »Looking at the members list of those organisations, it doesn't appear that they need any particular assistance.
Neither does the UK or France, yet they receive CAP payments.SimpleSam06 wrote: »We're working in two worlds here; the real one, where Ireland is a full partner in the EU, and the hypothetical one where it was part of a trading block rather than anything else. Definitive statements about a hypothetical world are therefore impossible, you can't say we would not have received subsidies because you have no idea whether that's true or not.
Ah, well - if we're not going to bother with things like comparing such a putative organisation to similar existing organisations, then we might as well assume anything we like at all. Assume that such an organisation would immediately lead to such a huge increase in wealth and happiness as to usher in a global Golden Age - why not, if we're not bothering with reality checks?
If the EU were simply a common market, where would the money, and the will, come from to pay such subsidies?SimpleSam06 wrote: »The real problem as I see it is, what is emerging now is the foundation for a European superstate, with its own diplomatic corps, its own president, and ultimately its own army. I don't see any particular advantages to being involved in such a state, and I'd say that many Europeans feel the same, so long as we can maintain involvement in the free trade area, thus not jeopardising our economy.
I'm not too sure how exactly to achieve this goal, but I do feel it is achievable.
Its not the view out the window, its whats coming up in the windscreen that is alarming.
Unfortunately, I tend to regard "superstate" as meaningless noise - since there is no real definition, one can always make the EU fit one's chosen definition. If you mean that the EU has supranational as well as intergovernmental characteristics, that is certainly true, just as a club is slightly more than the sum of its members - but there is no chance of the EU becoming a single nation-like entity unless the majority of European citizens were comfortable doing so, and there is a good deal of evidence that they are not. If, on the other hand, the majority ever do feel that way, I'm not sure what the objection would be.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Indeed, which aptly demonstrates my previous point about the US attitude to Mexico while reinforcing that the need is acknowledged, without a single governing body.Not through NAFTA - and $28.9 million is, frankly, nothing.
Are either the UK or France net EU contributors?Neither does the UK or France, yet they receive CAP payments.
Heh. Sure while we're at it we'll compare organisations with completely different strictures and regulatory layouts.Ah, well - if we're not going to bother with things like comparing such a putative organisation to similar existing organisations, then we might as well assume anything we like at all.
In terms of reality checks, who was talking about golden ages?Assume that such an organisation would immediately lead to such a huge increase in wealth and happiness as to usher in a global Golden Age - why not, if we're not bothering with reality checks?
Do you selectively read posts and ignore others?If the EU were simply a common market, where would the money, and the will, come from to pay such subsidies?
Waffling sophistry that does not address the point raised. Europe does not need a European government other than to satisfy the relentless urge of beaurocracy to expand itself and the narcissistic need for politicians to call themselves by ever grander titles, with ever grander contributions from the public coffers.Unfortunately, I tend to regard "superstate" as meaningless noise - since there is no real definition, one can always make the EU fit one's chosen definition. If you mean that the EU has supranational as well as intergovernmental characteristics, that is certainly true, just as a club is slightly more than the sum of its members -
Heh. Angry politicians across Europe in the wake of the "no" vote beg to disagree with you.but there is no chance of the EU becoming a single nation-like entity unless the majority of European citizens were comfortable doing so0 -
SimpleSam06 wrote: »Indeed, which aptly demonstrates my previous point about the US attitude to Mexico while reinforcing that the need is acknowledged, without a single governing body.
Mm...so?SimpleSam06 wrote: »Are either the UK or France net EU contributors?
From the get-go.SimpleSam06 wrote: »Heh. Sure while we're at it we'll compare organisations with completely different strictures and regulatory layouts.
Well, you're suggesting an EU with completely different strictures and regulatory layouts - essentially, a trade group like NAFTA without any political layer. It seems reasonable to compare your suggested EU to them.SimpleSam06 wrote: »In terms of reality checks, who was talking about golden ages?
I'm making the point that if you're unwilling to allow comparison of your proposed trade-only EU to other trade-only organisations, then we are both free to say anything we like about it - whereas you appear to feel that only I am unable to comment?SimpleSam06 wrote: »Do you selectively read posts and ignore others?
I'm presuming you're asking why I ignored this point...What I'm saying is that economic assistance would fall within the mandate of a trading block.
...and the answer is that I didn't see it. However, to answer the point you make in it, name me another trading block that engages in the level and kind of subsidies that the EU does.SimpleSam06 wrote: »Waffling sophistry that does not address the point raised. Europe does not need a European government other than to satisfy the relentless urge of beaurocracy to expand itself and the narcissistic need for politicians to call themselves by ever grander titles, with ever grander contributions from the public coffers.
Europe doesn't have a "European government". It has a framework for joint action by the member states. The EU has no powers other than those granted by member states, and no legal basis for existence except as an agreement between the member states.
A "European government" would imply, at the minimum, some form of government whose powers did not depend on the national governments, and that had some legal basis for existence that does not likewise depend entirely on the national governments. The member states of the EU can dissolve it tomorrow, and there is absolutely nothing whatsoever "the EU" can do about it.SimpleSam06 wrote: »Heh. Angry politicians across Europe in the wake of the "no" vote beg to disagree with you.
Um, no. National politicians across Europe are annoyed because we have disrupted the agreed improvements to the EU framework for common action.
The EU is not a state. It has no monopoly on physical force within its constituent territories, no sovereignty of its own, no prisons, a tiny civil service (a third the size of the HSE), no powers over the individual citizen, and no legal basis except as an agreed framework for common action, which can be dissolved immediately at the pleasure of its members. If that is a 'superstate', I'm not sure what the fuss is about.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
Good, so they aren't in need either.From the get-go.
Why? The relationship between European countries historically or culturally bears no resemblance to the relationship between, for example, the US or Mexico.It seems reasonable to compare your suggested EU to them.
Comment as you wish, but qualify your opinions as such, rather than stating them as certifiable fact.I'm making the point that if you're unwilling to allow comparison of your proposed trade-only EU to other trade-only organisations, then we are both free to say anything we like about it - whereas you appear to feel that only I am unable to comment?
Name me another association like the EU in a socioeconomic area like Europe, so.However, to answer the point you make in it, name me another trading block that engages in the level and kind of subsidies that the EU does.
Not yet. And this "yet" is the point of major concern for myself and others, even more so with the declared intent on the part of European politicians to run roughshod over a democratically decided issue in order to get what they want.Europe doesn't have a "European government".
Its the view out the windscreen... And in any case, its starting to look like an agreement between politicians rather than an agreement between sovereign peoples.The EU has no powers other than those granted by member states, and no legal basis for existence except as an agreement between the member states.
Well not yet, anyway.there is absolutely nothing whatsoever "the EU" can do about it.
And yet here it is trying to take on all the glorious trappings of statehood, an anthem, a leader and president, a military. You and I both know its not going to stop there.The EU is not a state.
Truth be told, however, I don't care about that. All I care about is how it affects Ireland. And being subsumed into the greater political environment, having to pay to sustain that environment, to no particular new benefit and possible considerable loss, its a bit of a no-brainer, isn't it?0 -
SimpleSam06 wrote: »Good, so they aren't in need either.
Why? The relationship between European countries historically or culturally bears no resemblance to the relationship between, for example, the US or Mexico.
Comment as you wish, but qualify your opinions as such, rather than stating them as certifiable fact.
Name me another association like the EU in a socioeconomic area like Europe, so.
Not yet. And this "yet" is the point of major concern for myself and others, even more so with the declared intent on the part of European politicians to run roughshod over a democratically decided issue in order to get what they want.
Its the view out the windscreen... And in any case, its starting to look like an agreement between politicians rather than an agreement between sovereign peoples.
Well not yet, anyway.
And yet here it is trying to take on all the glorious trappings of statehood, an anthem, a leader and president, a military. You and I both know its not going to stop there.
Truth be told, however, I don't care about that. All I care about is how it affects Ireland. And being subsumed into the greater political environment, having to pay to sustain that environment, to no particular new benefit and possible considerable loss, its a bit of a no-brainer, isn't it?
Everything is politics, most of it local. Any decision that brings any benefit is of necessity made by politics and or at least helped by it. Trade has never been apolitical.
A lot of what the EU or any political organisation is or is not is based on how one chooses to frame one's perspective and your own is very clearly highlighted in the last paragraph. But politics is implicitly involved whether way you look at it.
The EU is a political organisation, it it also a trade organisation. You can't separate the two any more than you can separate the local council from a sewage treatment works.0 -
Heh. What you mean is, everything is trade, and politics have never been about anything else. You do this for me and I'll elect you. You ratify this treaty and you can rest assured of a permanent pensionable position. Horse traders.is_that_so wrote: »Everything is politics, most of it local. Any decision that brings any benefit is of necessity made by politics and or at least helped by it. Trade has never been apolitical.
Are you saying there would be no politics in an envisioned trading block? Because thats not what I was saying at all.is_that_so wrote: »But politics is implicitly involved whether way you look at it.
Make sure you don't forget which one of them has a daily throughput of tons of rank human effluent, however.is_that_so wrote: »The EU is a political organisation, it it also a trade organisation. You can't separate the two any more than you can separate the local council from a sewage treatment works.0 -
SimpleSam06 wrote: »Heh. What you mean is, everything is trade, and politics have never been about anything else. .
I don't understand your point here. How does everything constitute trade. So the provision of health and education services is a matter of trade? Martin Luther King didn't advance the civil rights movement in the name of trade and surely we can recognise that as politics.
Conflict in Northern Ireland? A matter of trade?
Maybe I'm interpretating you wrong but if you view the EU in an economic light only, Ireland would never have done as well out of the EU. A comparison between the EU and NAFTA is an apt comparison by the way as they are the two only comparable "trading blocs" of such a size. To say that you'd prefer the set-upc of NAFTA is fair enough,but in a NAFTA type situation Ireland would more than likey have taken the role of Mexico in Europe.0 -
Well yes. You have various politicians trying to sell the public the packages they think they want. The politician that hits closest to the mark gets the vote, the job, the power. If that mark is the provision of health and education, then thats what they should be trying to sell.Ri na hEireann wrote: »I don't understand your point here. How does everything constitute trade. So the provision of health and education services is a matter of trade?
He gained support for his position by promising to improve the lot of many voters. That was what he was selling and thats what he sold. In cases like that I'm not saying it was a selfish act, there were social wrongs that needed to be righted, he may very well have viewed the status and power gained with that as incidental. I can't say, I never met the man.Ri na hEireann wrote: »Martin Luther King didn't advance the civil rights movement in the name of trade and surely we can recognise that as politics.
One thing I can say for sure however was that he was unique among men and politicians, and I dont think anyone can argue that point.
This is purely speculation on your part.Ri na hEireann wrote: »Maybe I'm interpretating you wrong but if you view the EU in an economic light only, Ireland would never have done as well out of the EU.
If your sole basis for comparison is size, you're missing a lot of valuable points. For example the EU has customs harmonisation, a single currency (and yes, it would be very desireable to have a stable economy before you open that door to a country), and a single market, none of which are enforced by NAFTA.Ri na hEireann wrote: »A comparison between the EU and NAFTA is an apt comparison by the way as they are the two only comparable "trading blocs" of such a size.
To be honest, prior to the Lisbon treaty I was more or less pro-EU. In the immediate aftermath I was appalled at the responses from Europe and the yes-camp in Ireland, and this made me focus more intently on the direction we are taking with regard to Europe. I have to say I don't especially like what I see now. I mean you had politicos trying to paint the entire nation as idiots.
You want to know what my definition of an idiot is? Someone who signs their name on a contract with no clear idea what that contract says. One step below them would be the idiots cheering them on.
I'm still more or less on the fence with regard to Europe, although definetely with my legs hanging over the "no superstate" side by now. I am open to being convinced otherwise, but so far as I can see at this time we really need to take stock of where we are and where we want to be.
And most importantly, who exactly is speaking for us.0 -
Advertisement
-
Ri na hEireann wrote: »I don't understand your point here. How does everything constitute trade. So the provision of health and education services is a matter of trade? Martin Luther King didn't advance the civil rights movement in the name of trade and surely we can recognise that as politics.
Conflict in Northern Ireland? A matter of trade?
Maybe I'm interpretating you wrong but if you view the EU in an economic light only, Ireland would never have done as well out of the EU. A comparison between the EU and NAFTA is an apt comparison by the way as they are the two only comparable "trading blocs" of such a size. To say that you'd prefer the set-upc of NAFTA is fair enough,but in a NAFTA type situation Ireland would more than likey have taken the role of Mexico in Europe.
Hmm. Unfortunately, while Sam has put forward the idea that Ireland would be better off (or at least not worse off) in a trade-only EU than in a political EU, he is not willing to allow any comparison to any existing trade-only bloc.Good, so they aren't in need either.
Indeed, exactly like Switzerland and the other countries, in respect of which you suggested the EU doesn't give them funds because they don't need them. France and the UK don't need them either, yet France receives 22% of all CAP subsidies.
So, clearly, the reason the EU doesn't give funds to EEA/EFTA countries is not because they "don't need them", since they do give subsidies to EU countries that don't need them.
Since the difference between the EU and the EEA/EFTA is the political layer, the suggestion that the funding goes along with the political layer seems unavoidable.Truth be told, however, I don't care about that. All I care about is how it affects Ireland. And being subsumed into the greater political environment, having to pay to sustain that environment, to no particular new benefit and possible considerable loss, its a bit of a no-brainer, isn't it?
Well, I can understand someone having the viewpoint that the political stuff was the 'price we paid' for our EU money. However, the vast majority of EU legislation is still related to the 'common market', so it's actually the 'price we pay' for access to the Common Market - which, in turn, is why the EEA/EFTA countries have to apply it.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
I'm still more or less on the fence with regard to Europe, although definetely with my legs hanging over the "no superstate" side by now. I am open to being convinced otherwise, but so far as I can see at this time we really need to take stock of where we are and where we want to be.
Hmm. There, naturally enough, I agree with you, although there has been quite a long period for people to make their concerns known over the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty. There's a lot of people only turning round now and saying "wait, we have doubts" who only seem to have bothered looking at what was going on some time in the last few months. I'm a little short on sympathy for such 'sudden' concerns.
However, I would like to see a definition of 'superstate', some idea of why such a superstate is a bad thing, and in what way the EU is actually becoming such a superstate.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Given that each trading bloc (and there are many) exists in a very different environment and with very different goals and legislation, to compare an existing one with some hypothetical could-be world and call it fact is fallacious, surely you can see that.Hmm. Unfortunately, while Sam has put forward the idea that Ireland would be better off (or at least not worse off) in a trade-only EU than in a political EU, he is not willing to allow any comparison to any existing trade-only bloc.
In any case, the point of the thread is not highly suspect what ifs, its where to go from here, and if you're looking for specific answers from me, look elsewhere, because I don't have them. I do have a good general idea however.
Its not simply the case that they don't need them, they didn't ask for them. In this hypothetical world Ireland would both need and ask for them, in order to become an effective and productive member of the Economic Community.Indeed, exactly like Switzerland and the other countries, in respect of which you suggested the EU doesn't give them funds because they don't need them. France and the UK don't need them either, yet France receives 22% of all CAP subsidies.
So, clearly, the reason the EU doesn't give funds to EEA/EFTA countries is not because they "don't need them", since they do give subsidies to EU countries that don't need them.
And again, you are missing the point. Its not the past, its the future that is a concern.Well, I can understand someone having the viewpoint that the political stuff was the 'price we paid' for our EU money.
Yes, fortunately your sympathy or lack thereof is not an issue, particularily with regard to the recent events which were the cause of these doubts. You can't change the rules of the game and then expect everyone to keep playing with a smile on their face. Well maybe you can, but they won't, however inconvenient that might be to some politicians' career goals.Hmm. There, naturally enough, I agree with you, although there has been quite a long period for people to make their concerns known over the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty. There's a lot of people only turning round now and saying "wait, we have doubts" who only seem to have bothered looking at what was going on some time in the last few months. I'm a little short on sympathy for such 'sudden' concerns.
Well lets see. What we are talking about here really is the subversion of the control that citizens of unique nations have over their own country. You can peddle the line that all objectionable legislation must be ratified by each country, but when you look at both who is doing the ratification and the recent behaviour of European politicians, that line wears a bit thin.However, I would like to see a definition of 'superstate', some idea of why such a superstate is a bad thing, and in what way the EU is actually becoming such a superstate.
This would be a bad thing because you might have legislative control removed from the population of a country, and legislation applied that might have value on the continent but be counterproductive here. This is of particular concern to a tiny country like Ireland, which as many have pointed out is around 1% of the entire EU population. That may be true, but its our home and that 1% is us. You could make a very strong case for the wishes of the vast majority as represented by self interested politicians to overrule us, except we don't want that to happen.
I mean look at the primary advocate of the Lisbon treaty at the moment, Sarkozy. He doubled his own pay last year, a true man of the people.
As for what ways the EU is becoming a superstate, take a look at the constitution before it was scrambled up and refried as the lisbon treaty. Glorious trappings of statehood indeed.0 -
SimpleSam06 wrote: »Heh. What you mean is, everything is trade, and politics have never been about anything else. You do this for me and I'll elect you. You ratify this treaty and you can rest assured of a permanent pensionable position. Horse traders.
Probably correct on both counts if trade is The East India company or a sugar plantation in the 19th century. Politics provides solutions to complex trade. As for the body politic I have my own distrust of them but I take a slightly more reasoned line than that they are responsible for all of our ills. Much of it in my view is of our own making. Unfortunately most of the populace will adopt a what's in it for me attitude and always have.0 -
SimpleSam06 wrote: »Given that each trading bloc (and there are many) exists in a very different environment and with very different goals and legislation, to compare an existing one with some hypothetical could-be world and call it fact is fallacious, surely you can see that.
In any case, the point of the thread is not highly suspect what ifs, its where to go from here, and if you're looking for specific answers from me, look elsewhere, because I don't have them. I do have a good general idea however.
Its not simply the case that they don't need them, they didn't ask for them. In this hypothetical world Ireland would both need and ask for them, in order to become an effective and productive member of the Economic Community.
Hmm. I'm trying to settle a single point here at the moment, which is that a trade-only EU without the 'political layer' would not have offered subsidies of the kind and scale the EC/EU has done over the decades - that the EU subsidies are political in origin and intent.
In support of that point I offer the observable facts that no trade-only bloc anywhere offers such subsidies, that the stated aims of EU assistance are political ('food security', 'reasonable price', and the like), and that the EU does not offer any similar subsidies to countries within the EEA or EFTA, which are part of the trade bloc but not of the political bloc.
In rebuttal, you offer the observation that these other trade blocs are not the EU, and not composed of the European nations. You put forward the suggestion that in a hypothetical trade-only EU Ireland would be able to ask for, and get, subsidies equivalent to those offered by the 'political' EC/EU. In support of this you apparently offer only the fact that the EU does give subsidies.
I fear we shall have to agree to differ both on conclusions and methods.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
I'm afraid your view of trade is not simplistic enough. Politics, all politics, at the end of the day comes down to negotiating favours. They may buy and sell influence or votes rather than coffee beans, but the principle remains exactly the same.is_that_so wrote: »Probably correct on both counts if trade is The East India company or a sugar plantation in the 19th century.
As opposed to adopting a "whats best for the French and Germans" attitude?is_that_so wrote: »Unfortunately most of the populace will adopt a what's in it for me attitude and always have.0 -
Indeed, when one refuses to acknowledge that Europe is a unique area with unique methods and motivations, in a unique environment, and then asserts as fact what could only ever be hypothetical at this point, there really isn't much point in continuing that part of the discussion.I fear we shall have to agree to differ both on conclusions and methods.0 -
SimpleSam wrote:
Well lets see. What we are talking about here really is the subversion of the control that citizens of unique nations have over their own country. You can peddle the line that all objectionable legislation must be ratified by each country, but when you look at both who is doing the ratification and the recent behaviour of European politicians, that line wears a bit thin.Scofflaw wrote:However, I would like to see a definition of 'superstate', some idea of why such a superstate is a bad thing, and in what way the EU is actually becoming such a superstate.
This would be a bad thing because you might have legislative control removed from the population of a country, and legislation applied that might have value on the continent but be counterproductive here. This is of particular concern to a tiny country like Ireland, which as many have pointed out is around 1% of the entire EU population. That may be true, but its our home and that 1% is us. You could make a very strong case for the wishes of the vast majority as represented by self interested politicians to overrule us, except we don't want that to happen.
We appear to share no particular point of contact on this one, as well. To say that "legislation applied that might have value on the continent but be counterproductive here" suggests that Ireland has some sort of political homogeneity, where we would all agree that "x" is a bad thing. That's extremely unlikely. A piece of legislation might be "bad" for the farmers, or a particular type of farmer, but, apart from some kind of 'racial' legislation, there is no legislation that could really be described as "bad for Ireland".
Possibly we come at this from entirely different emotional bases. I don't have any deep feelings of nationalism, although I do have an emotional attachment to Dublin. As far as I'm concerned glorification of the 'national level' of sovereignty has been a crock - across Europe, it took decision-making away from local governments, and gave it into the hands of people who have squandered it on megadeath wars. I am deeply opposed to political de-integration of Europe, and would cheerfully see the nation-states abolished - not to give power to a federal centre, but to give it back to the regions and the cities it properly belongs to. I see the EU as an extremely lightweight framework for achieving those goals, and the only realistic hope of ever doing so.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
You might tell that to the schools suffering under new water charges, I'm sure they'll be delighted to hear thats not bad news, in the pouring rain.there is no legislation that could really be described as "bad for Ireland".
I'm not especially nationalistic myself, but I do recognise that Ireland represents a unique and fascinating culture, with ancient roots, that is only now trying to find its feet and identify itself, and I would oppose any attempts to homogenise that culture. You may not place much value on culture, but I certainly do. Note this is only in reference to levels of nationalism, not anything to do with the EU.Possibly we come at this from entirely different emotional bases. I don't have any deep feelings of nationalism, although I do have an emotional attachment to Dublin.
Aha, and here we come to the rub. You don't wish to see power placed in the hands of a federal centre, but what guarantees do you have that this will not happen? We'll vote down changes? Look what happened when we voted down Lisbon.I am deeply opposed to political de-integration of Europe, and would cheerfully see the nation-states abolished - not to give power to a federal centre, but to give it back to the regions and the cities it properly belongs to. I see the EU as an extremely lightweight framework for achieving those goals, and the only realistic hope of ever doing so.
Beaurocracy tends to draw more beaurocracy to itself, and the motivations for recent moves by our fellow member states are questionable at best. If I could be guaranteed that the goals you have stated above were the actual goals of the EU, I would without a doubt agree fully with your perspective. I have no such trust, however.0 -
SimpleSam06 wrote: »I'm afraid your view of trade is not simplistic enough. Politics, all politics, at the end of the day comes down to negotiating favours. They may buy and sell influence or votes rather than coffee beans, but the principle remains exactly the same.
Eh no, not what I said at all, nor what I was talking about.SimpleSam06 wrote: »As opposed to adopting a "whats best for the French and Germans" attitude?
Who mentioned the Germans? Please read my post properly.
Don't mind being taken to task but if it's just an excuse to carp on about the big bad EU again it's just a little tedious at this stage.0 -
Advertisement
-
SimpleSam06 wrote: »Indeed, when one refuses to acknowledge that Europe is a unique area with unique methods and motivations, in a unique environment, and then asserts as fact what could only ever be hypothetical at this point, there really isn't much point in continuing that part of the discussion.
On the other hand, when one puts forward the idea of a hypothetical trade-only EU, it seems bizarre to insist that it would not share any of the common characteristics of other trade-only blocs, purely by virtue of the uniqueness it currently has as a non-trade-only bloc.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Pretty much the same as every other country in the world so.SimpleSam06 wrote: »...but I do recognise that Ireland represents a unique and fascinating culture, with ancient roots...
I'm looking, but I ain't seeing...SimpleSam06 wrote: »Look what happened when we voted down Lisbon.
Has the big, bad EU come to blow our house down?
It's not about trust, it's about participation. The only way we can steer the EU in the direction we want it to go is to remain actively involved in it's activities, not shy away into a corner; "trust" doesn't come into it at all.SimpleSam06 wrote: »I have no such trust, however.0 -
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scofflaw
there is no legislation that could really be described as "bad for Ireland".SimpleSam06 wrote: »You might tell that to the schools suffering under new water charges, I'm sure they'll be delighted to hear thats not bad news, in the pouring rain.
Well, 2 points have to be made here.
1/ This requirement that users of water should pay is "good for Ireland". Despite our current rainfall we are likely to see droughts in the summer months in the future. The only way to make sure that everyone is treated fairly is to charge based on usage. Otherwise people treat water like it has no value at all. In actual fact there is an enormous cost to providing it, both in infrastructure and in energy costs to clean and distribute it.
2/ While taking into account point 1, the actual implementation of water charges on schools was entirely a decision for the government, and it was a dreadful example of blaming the EU for unpopular decisions, where the government was responsible. There were many ways to work around this. What I would have done was... apply the water charges... give a special water grant to cover the cost of the charges for the previous year... give an extra grant for water reduction schemes, and apply it so that those schools who did reduce usage got some financial incentive.
To simply remove the charges ensures that the water usage will continue to grow. There are a lot of details to argue, like perhaps a basic quota of water per person before a charge applies, and the actual size of the charge, but in principle a charge is the right thing to do. Why should I as a taxpayer be subsidising my neighbour down the road with a few acres of lawn being watered in the Summer?
You may laugh and say look at the rain, but people don't even use the rain to flush their toilets, and no one will bother using the rain unless there is a financial benefit to it.
This is again, a reasonable requirement from the EU, which is the "right thing to do" but which governments on their own would always avoid taking a hard decision on.
Ix.0 -
ixtlan wrote:2/ While taking into account point 1, the actual implementation of water charges on schools was entirely a decision for the government, and it was a dreadful example of blaming the EU for unpopular decisions, where the government was responsible. There were many ways to work around this. What I would have done was... apply the water charges... give a special water grant to cover the cost of the charges for the previous year... give an extra grant for water reduction schemes, and apply it so that those schools who did reduce usage got some financial incentive.
Actually, a straightforward exemption was available. The government was apparently asked three times whether they were certain they didn't want to avail of the exemption for schools - and thrice denied it.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
SimpleSam06 wrote: »Europe does not need a European government other than to satisfy the relentless urge of beaurocracy to expand itself...
So why then was the Lisbon Treaty drawn up in an attempt to minimise the beaurocracy? Surely that defeats the whole purpose (as you see it) of this "unnessecary" political body?SimpleSam06 wrote: »...and the narcissistic need for politicians to call themselves by ever grander titles, with ever grander contributions from the public coffers.
And why then was the Lisbon Treaty an attempt to merge positions and remove Commissioners, therefore reducing the number of "grand titles" and reducing the cost on the "public coffers"?SimpleSam06 wrote: »Heh. Angry politicians across Europe in the wake of the "no" vote beg to disagree with you.
Really? How so?0 -
SimpleSam06 wrote: »Indeed, when one refuses to acknowledge that Europe is a unique area with unique methods and motivations, in a unique environment, and then asserts as fact what could only ever be hypothetical at this point, there really isn't much point in continuing that part of the discussion.
But its unique because of the political element, not in spite of it. After all exactly what have the bigger nations like France or Germany gained from our improved economic position? Are we a significant market for these countries? I can't imagine we are with as small a population as we have. How much have they pumped into our economy and how much have they actually gained from it? And how much have they lost? You just have to look at their issues with our Corporation Tax to see that they feel they are losing something to us. Ireland is not the centre of the EU, we are a tiny and relatively insignificant market in the scheme of things, and are not economically worth the money they have pumped into this country. You're trying to say that a trade-only EU block would be unique because the current (political and trade) set-up is uinique, but surely this point is entirely disingenuous?
You have also said that this thread is about the future and not the past, but to make any kind of decision on the future we must look to the past, so as to put our current position and our options going foward into some form of context.
Additionally you have tried to point out that politics is trade. However, while your logic makes sense it is fundamentally flawed. You make the assumption that all politicians have entered politics with the sole reason of gaining power. This is fundamentally not true. While it is certainly the case with many high profile politicians it is not always the case. Beyond that political parties are a reflection of the beliefs of the people and are set up as such. This is why we have such differing idealogys from Labour to the PDs to FF. These political parties were not set up by people attempting to gain personal power, they were set up as a moral response to something. Labour for example were set up to represent workers and have never been a majority power in their history, despite being our oldest continuous party. If they were really in it for the power they would have abandoned their ideals and become more like FF or FG. The fact that they haven't proves that there is more to politics than you are making out. There are ethical elements to it that go beyond the mere give and take parts of politics.0 -
Hmm. I took it to mean that there was a substantive difference between the principles of politics and the principles of trade. I disagree that this is the case.is_that_so wrote: »Eh no, not what I said at all, nor what I was talking about.
We have threats to expel Ireland from the EU unless we vote in favour of a treaty we have rejected by democratic referendum, not to mention all the name-calling from diginified statesmen throughout the EU post vote. These disgraceful displays have struck many as being closer to the true face of Europe than any we have seen before.I'm looking, but I ain't seeing...
Has the big, bad EU come to blow our house down?
Just how much influence do we have, exactly? How much can 1% of the population steer the course in its favour with regard to the other 99%?It's not about trust, it's about participation. The only way we can steer the EU in the direction we want it to go is to remain actively involved in it's activities, not shy away into a corner; "trust" doesn't come into it at all.
I worked out the amount of rainfall in Ireland some time ago, as I recall it came in at around several thousand metric tons per man, woman and child in the country.1/ This requirement that users of water should pay is "good for Ireland". Despite our current rainfall we are likely to see droughts in the summer months in the future.
If we didn't have a third world infrastructure in terms of water supply (and everything else), we wouldn't have near the actual supply costs. But of course it was more useful to the government to pump up the public sector than invest the record tax takes of recent years in infrastructure.Otherwise people treat water like it has no value at all. In actual fact there is an enormous cost to providing it, both in infrastructure and in energy costs to clean and distribute it.
As Scofflaw pointed out, the government was given the opportunity to ignore these charges, and chose not to. A good question to ask in this situation is why they chose to ignore the exemption.This is again, a reasonable requirement from the EU, which is the "right thing to do" but which governments on their own would always avoid taking a hard decision on.
Something like 80% of German legislation is now direct EU mandates, according to a post in another thread. In 2002, 10 legislative changes were introduced per day. Ask me again when you have an answer to how much of that legislation was "neccessary".So why then was the Lisbon Treaty drawn up in an attempt to minimise the beaurocracy? Surely that defeats the whole purpose (as you see it) of this "unnessecary" political body?
Fixed that. Have you got any figures on the exact reduction in EU contributions we would have to make courtesy of the Lisbon treaty? How many euros would be saved per annum?And why then was the Lisbon Treaty an attempt to merge positions and remove Commissioners concentrate power, therefore reducing the number of "grand titles" and reducing the cost on the "public coffers"?
Hmm. How many Mercedes are rolling around on the streets of Ireland today? How many Peugeots? Do you use a mobile phone made in the EU? As far as I recall, Ireland's involvement in Europe as regards trade has grown in recent years as well.After all exactly what have the bigger nations like France or Germany gained from our improved economic position?
Heh. And inevitably it swings back to the question of the fishing grounds, as it always does. I've heard reports of as much as €200 billion and €400 billion in subsidiary industries, some 12 times as much as the EU has given to us, and I've heard figures as low as €15 billion all told. I believe Scofflaw put together a fairly comprehensive rebuttal to the €600 billion figure, but there were some significant holes in the reasoning there, so I'm prepared to argue from at least a parity position in that case. Financially, we owe Europe nothing.How much have they pumped into our economy and how much have they actually gained from it?
Either we are too insignificant to be worth investing in, or we're rocking the whole of Europe with our corporation tax. Which is it?And how much have they lost? You just have to look at their issues with our Corporation Tax to see that they feel they are losing something to us.
Heh. I respect your faith in the political process, and I do not deny that there is an altruistic element to many politicians. However the political process itself is entirely horse trading, and in this particular case we are talking about career politicians, who may or may not have made statements about their ideals and goals in order to better their own personal circumstances.Additionally you have tried to point out that politics is trade. However, while your logic makes sense it is fundamentally flawed. You make the assumption that all politicians have entered politics with the sole reason of gaining power. This is fundamentally not true.
I draw your attention in particular to our own ingloriously cast out recent leader, who granted himself a thirty thousand euro per annum pay rise, or even the example of Sarkozy, who better than doubled his own pay last year.
This lends itself to disquiet in terms of how closely these representatives align themselves with the wishes of those they purport to represent, as opposed to their own careers and wishes, especially with regard to an overarching European political framework.0 -
This much (holds arms out). How do you measure it?SimpleSam06 wrote: »Just how much influence do we have, exactly?
Subjectively, it has always been acknowledged that we have been a very effective player in the EU, capable of negotiating good deals through consensus.
Depends on whether we continue to use consensus effectively as we have in the past, or use the blunt instrument of rejecting treaties, as seems to be the new trend. I guess only time will tell which is the more effective approach.How much can 1% of the population steer the course in its favour with regard to the other 99%?0 -
Advertisement
-
So someone said this to you, but do you have sources or references to bakc it up. Do you know what these things are? Are they good for us? Bad for us? There is no real content to this point at all, its utterly meaningless. Please give it a bit of context. Either way the point remains, Lisbon was an attempt to reduce the levels of unnessecary beaurocracy that you are trying to say the EU wants to increase. In other words the EU are trying to do exactly the opposite to what you think they are trying to do.SimpleSam06 wrote: »Something like 80% of German legislation is now direct EU mandates, according to a post in another thread. In 2002, 10 legislative changes were introduced per day. Ask me again when you have an answer to how much of that legislation was "neccessary".SimpleSam06 wrote: »Fixed that. Have you got any figures on the exact reduction in EU contributions we would have to make courtesy of the Lisbon treaty? How many euros would be saved per annum?
Of course not. They don't exist. Are you trying to tell me that less Commissioners (and therefore less staff attached to them) and a reduced number of positions in areas like foreign affairs means that we are going to be paying more? I fail to see your point here. Less staff = less cost. Its a pretty simple model that is used the world over.
And it seems to me that the EU is on a lose lose situation with you. On one hand you complain about excessive beaurocracy and then when they try to resolve that you complain that they are consolidating power (which is exactly what they are doing as all consolidation is is the merging of things, how this is a bad thing is beyond me).SimpleSam06 wrote: »Hmm. How many Mercedes are rolling around on the streets of Ireland today? How many Peugeots? Do you use a mobile phone made in the EU? As far as I recall, Ireland's involvement in Europe as regards trade has grown in recent years as well.
Oh well done, you noticed we're a bit richer these days. However you have totally failed to realise my point. Please re-read and pay attention to the word "significant". Yes we have, by our own standards, a lot of high priced European cars in this country. I don't know how many Mercs there are on the roads, but the question is how many are there in Ireland by comparison to the rest of the world? We are a small market and we do not contribute as much to these industries as a nation as you seem to think we do. If the Irish market for these cars were to plummet to all time low levels it would hardly dent the profits for Mercedes for an entire year given that they sell globally. Perspective anyone?
Taking your example of Mercedes you have to remember that our population is less than 5% of the German population, let alone the global Mercedes market. We're nothing to them.SimpleSam06 wrote: »Heh. And inevitably it swings back to the question of the fishing grounds, as it always does. I've heard reports of as much as €200 billion and €400 billion in subsidiary industries, some 12 times as much as the EU has given to us, and I've heard figures as low as €15 billion all told. I believe Scofflaw put together a fairly comprehensive rebuttal to the €600 billion figure, but there were some significant holes in the reasoning there, so I'm prepared to argue from at least a parity position in that case. Financially, we owe Europe nothing.
Let me just clarify, are you saying that our fishing industry would have provided us with all the money that we got from the EU on top of what it already contributes? Scofflaw dd indeed do a good job of debunking the higher figures that you have seen, and in the process did an excellent job of disproving that theory rather comprehensively. He provided sources and guided us through his assumptions and calculations. From the sounds of it you just took something akin to an average of all the figures you heard regardless of what Scofflaw produced.SimpleSam06 wrote: »Either we are too insignificant to be worth investing in, or we're rocking the whole of Europe with our corporation tax. Which is it?
Maybe I'm missing something here but what exactly has our Corporation Tax got to do with us as a market? I was saying that as a small popuation we aren't a significant market, i.e. size, for the larger countries to worry about (see the Mercedes point above).
This has nothing to do with our Corporation Tax aside from the amount of money each is worth. We have been attracting a large number of foreign investors over the years that the French and Germans etc could just as easily have gotten had we not had a beneficial Corporation Tax. This has nothing to do with population sizes and so can't be compared in those terms. From a monetary point of view, which is the only way we can look at this, if you look at the amount of money that the EU has pumped into this country + the amount that we have made a result of our low Corporation Tax and compare that to the money that we contribute as a market (and how relevant that amout is compared to the grand total of all markets) you'll probably find (and I don't have supporting figures right now) that we have done very, very well out of the EU.SimpleSam06 wrote: »Heh. I respect your faith in the political process, and I do not deny that there is an altruistic element to many politicians. However the political process itself is entirely horse trading, and in this particular case we are talking about career politicians, who may or may not have made statements about their ideals and goals in order to better their own personal circumstances.
I draw your attention in particular to our own ingloriously cast out recent leader, who granted himself a thirty thousand euro per annum pay rise, or even the example of Sarkozy, who better than doubled his own pay last year.
This lends itself to disquiet in terms of how closely these representatives align themselves with the wishes of those they purport to represent, as opposed to their own careers and wishes, especially with regard to an overarching European political framework.
My faith in our political system is as low as it can get I'm afraid. However what you are talking about is not horse-trading by any means. Its a slightly different debate, however I firmly believe that it is us, the electorate, who are at fault for that. You get the Government you deserve. What you are talking about here is abuse of power and position, and its something that we have the ability to put a stop to, yet consistantly refuse to do so. Just like a lot of politicians don't run for election solely for personal gain, a lot of voters vote based on a misguided sense of loyalty or other onneous reasons, and not for what they are being promised.
Oh and we haven't faced any (genuine) threats of expulsion from the EU. Maybe a few hot-headed politicians have reacted that badly (and these are the ones that are most "press-worthy") however most high ranking EU politicians have quite openly said that this is an issue that the EU has to tackle together with Ireland at the centre, and they have made no mention at all of repurcussions. Hardly headline news that sells: EU Say Time to Sit Down And See What We Can Do versus EU Say Ireland Are An Ungrateful Shower And We're Booting Them Out. Just as you should be wary of the politicians, you also need to be wary of the press. They aren't here to tell us the truth, they are here to sell.0
Advertisement