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
Why don't we leave the EU? Join the Swiss in EFTA
Options
Comments
-
SkepticOne wrote: »I did. Some of the objections raised on this thread to the idea of Ireland joining the EFTA was that member states would be forced to implement a visa scheme against Irish workers in EU states. What the Swiss example shows us is that this need not be a worry as, like the Swiss, we can do a deal with the EU to have free movement of people between Ireland and the EU (we would already have it with the Swiss as part of the EFTA). Of course such a deal is not guaranteed however neither is it precluded by any EU legislation otherwise the Swiss agreement would not have been possible. I think this should ease Views concerns somewhat.
If I recall, it wasn't that EU states would be forced to implement a visa scheme against Irish workers, but that until such time as an agreement is formed similar to the one that the Swiss have, visas could be required, and I don't see the remaining EU countries rushing to jump in and create the new arrangement. As soon as we pulled out, the old work-scheme would be invalidated; so we'd have to rely on something to try and get the visa arrangements back as quickly as possible.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Actually, it was the EU that made it clear that the Swiss can't pick and choose EU policies, so it was hardly a bully-boy tactic by the Swiss government.
And you are making quite a few assumptions when you claim that it was an empty threat. You may want to back those up.
That article strengthens my case that it was bullyboy. They had a referendum on continuing the free movement of labour with the whole EU. They did not pose the question of whether to extend free movement of labour to Bulgarian and Romania. Saying no to the former affects Swiss citizens greatly saying no to the latter doesnt affect Swiss citizens greatly.0 -
You're quite welcome to claim that had we not joined the EU we would have developed our fishing industry to a size equivalent to all the other fleets fishing in our waters. However, you're not welcome to misrepresent how much that would actually have brought in - and you'd need to bear in mind that fishing in Irish waters is currently unsustainable.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Except i made no such claim. It is impossible to say exactly what staying out of the then EEC would have meant for the fishing industry in Ireland. All i have claimed is that a great opportunity was wasted when we agreed to the common fisheries policy. Perhaps we would have made 200 billion out of it, perhaps 200 million, perhaps we would have squandered it altogether. The truth is we will never know as so many factors would have been different and played out differently.
As such you nor anyone is in no position to state definitively what the net loss was and most certainly in no position to accuse others of lies.0 -
maggy_thatcher wrote: »If I recall, it wasn't that EU states would be forced to implement a visa scheme against Irish workers, but that until such time as an agreement is formed similar to the one that the Swiss have, visas could be required, and I don't see the remaining EU countries rushing to jump in and create the new arrangement. As soon as we pulled out, the old work-scheme would be invalidated; so we'd have to rely on something to try and get the visa arrangements back as quickly as possible.
Such as our EEA membership which exists independently of our EU membership.0 -
It hasn't been confirmed for definite that our EEA membership would survive leaving the EU. I'm inclined to believe that it wouldn't (as there's no incentive for anybody within the EU to deal with us), especially if we don't get accepted into EFTA.BetterLisbon wrote: »Such as our EEA membership which exists independently of our EU membership.0 -
Advertisement
-
BetterLisbon wrote: »That article strengthens my case that it was bullyboy. They had a referendum on continuing the free movement of labour with the whole EU. They did not pose the question of whether to extend free movement of labour to Bulgarian and Romania. Saying no to the former affects Swiss citizens greatly saying no to the latter doesnt affect Swiss citizens greatly.
You seem to be misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) what happened.
For a start, there had to be a referendum. That's how the Swiss system works....the people make all major decisions. The Swiss government had no option to do anything other than ask the people. They couldn't unilaterally accept or reject any freedom-of-movement treaty.
Secondly, there were two options : Freedom of movement with an enlarged EU, or no freedom of movement with the EU. There was no third "freedom of movement with some of the EU" option on the table. The EU made it clear...it was an "all or nothing" choice.
There was no question of a choice along the lines of "do we extend freedom of movement, or leave it as is". The choice was "extend or abandon".
They were the terms the EU offered. They were the terms the Swiss government had to put to the people. The Swiss government, therefore, strongarmed no-one. Of the three parties involved, they were actually the only ones with no decision power at all....so its quite difficult for them to have been strongarming anyone.0 -
You seem to be misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) what happened.
For a start, there had to be a referendum. That's how the Swiss system works....the people make all major decisions. The Swiss government had no option to do anything other than ask the people. They couldn't unilaterally accept or reject any freedom-of-movement treaty.
Secondly, there were two options : Freedom of movement with an enlarged EU, or no freedom of movement with the EU. There was no third "freedom of movement with some of the EU" option on the table. The EU made it clear...it was an "all or nothing" choice.
There was no question of a choice along the lines of "do we extend freedom of movement, or leave it as is". The choice was "extend or abandon".
They were the terms the EU offered. They were the terms the Swiss government had to put to the people. The Swiss government, therefore, strongarmed no-one. Of the three parties involved, they were actually the only ones with no decision power at all....so its quite difficult for them to have been strongarming anyone.
I believe that 'BetterLisbon' thinks that it is the EU that was doing the strongarming, not the Swiss.0 -
BetterLisbon wrote: »Except i made no such claim. It is impossible to say exactly what staying out of the then EEC would have meant for the fishing industry in Ireland. All i have claimed is that a great opportunity was wasted when we agreed to the common fisheries policy. Perhaps we would have made 200 billion out of it, perhaps 200 million, perhaps we would have squandered it altogether. The truth is we will never know as so many factors would have been different and played out differently.
As such you nor anyone is in no position to state definitively what the net loss was and most certainly in no position to accuse others of lies.
It can of course be definitively stated - that's the point about current fishing levels being unsustainable. If current fishing is unsustainable, then more fish cannot be taken out - therefore the amounts that could have been made from retaining Ireland's fisheries purely for Ireland cannot be greater than has been historically the case. They can be smaller, certainly, but I don't think that's much use to you.
Therefore, stating that we could have made €200bn or some figure like that out of our fisheries is demonstrably false. You're welcome to state that the €7.57bn that other EU countries got from Irish waters since 1973 could have been a bit bigger (as opposed to the €3.49bn we took out, plus what we took from UK waters under the EU arrangement), but blowing it up to hundreds of billions is a lie.
Fish are fish - there aren't a lot of "factors" that could have played out differently, because there's only so many of them in the sea.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
The easiest thing to do is simply come to a quick arrangement with Ireland to continue whatever practical arrangements are in place to the greatest extent possible. I'm sure, say, Germany don't need the hassle of issuing thousands of visas to Irish workers there or deporting them if they decide not to issue visas.maggy_thatcher wrote: »If I recall, it wasn't that EU states would be forced to implement a visa scheme against Irish workers, but that until such time as an agreement is formed similar to the one that the Swiss have, visas could be required, and I don't see the remaining EU countries rushing to jump in and create the new arrangement. As soon as we pulled out, the old work-scheme would be invalidated; so we'd have to rely on something to try and get the visa arrangements back as quickly as possible.
Britain, of course, has hundreds of thousands of Irish citizens working there and have always had large numbers since the countries split. I have already argued that it is very unlikely that this arrangement would change if Ireland left the EU, however even if I was wrong in this instance, the Swiss example shows that an arrangement can be made that prevents the massive hassle that the UK would incur if, as some have suggested, visas needed to be issued.
Other countries may have very few Irish workers so won't care one way or the other.
As to the time it takes to negotiate, I don't see a problem with informal negotiations taking place prior to exit so that whatever formal negotiations there might be can be conducted quickly.0 -
maggy_thatcher wrote: »I believe that 'BetterLisbon' thinks that it is the EU that was doing the strongarming, not the Swiss.
I'm not sure how you get that out of a claim that "It was a bullyboy tactic by the Swiss government", but lets assume that you're right for the moment and that it was a slip of the (virtual) pen.
This line of reasoning would require acceptance that the EU is willing to put EFTA members over a barrel in order to get the agreement they (the EU) want.
Hardly an encouraging reason to believe that we'll be given fair and reasonable treatment if we leave the EU and join EFTA, is it? It would, in fact, seem to be the opposite.
The Swiss voted on whether or not to continue the existing agreement....which was needed because of new nations in the EU covered by the agreement.
Its worth noting that the article linked to by TC has a Bulgarian news source claiming the guillotine clause was expected if the result was a no. The Swiss government didn't play that card at all over here, really. They (correctly) pointed out that the loss of freedom of movement in both directions would be really damaging for Switzerland, even in the short term while a new agreement was sought. That was pretty-much the entire core of their argument. The possible loss of other bilateral agreements was, at best, a sideshow that some scaremongerers would have waved around, which would then have been pointed-and-laughed at by everyone else who then went back to discussing the more likely reprecussions.0 -
Advertisement
-
You seem to be misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) what happened.
For a start, there had to be a referendum. That's how the Swiss system works....the people make all major decisions. The Swiss government had no option to do anything other than ask the people. They couldn't unilaterally accept or reject any freedom-of-movement treaty.
Secondly, there were two options : Freedom of movement with an enlarged EU, or no freedom of movement with the EU. There was no third "freedom of movement with some of the EU" option on the table. The EU made it clear...it was an "all or nothing" choice.
There was no question of a choice along the lines of "do we extend freedom of movement, or leave it as is". The choice was "extend or abandon".
They were the terms the EU offered. They were the terms the Swiss government had to put to the people. The Swiss government, therefore, strongarmed no-one. Of the three parties involved, they were actually the only ones with no decision power at all....so its quite difficult for them to have been strongarming anyone.
Bonk my understanding is that there was a free movement of labour treaty with the old EU 25 and switzerland. Once bulgaria and romania joined they were outside this treaty and thus romanians and bulgarians couldnt work in switzerland and vice-versa.
Now to put a proposition to the swiss people that the old treaty is being dissolved and they either accept the new freedom of labour treaty with the EU 27 or everything is off the table is most definitely strongarming as the status quo was not an option (which it should have been).
So either the EU did threaten to invoke the guillotine clause (which i strongly doubt) and is the bully, or the Swiss government led the swiss people to believe the guillotine clause would be invoked in which case the swiss government is guilty of bullying.
Now if my analysis is wrong point out the errors and i will yield to the better man.0 -
It can of course be definitively stated - that's the point about current fishing levels being unsustainable. If current fishing is unsustainable, then more fish cannot be taken out - therefore the amounts that could have been made from retaining Ireland's fisheries purely for Ireland cannot be greater than has been historically the case. They can be smaller, certainly, but I don't think that's much use to you.
Therefore, stating that we could have made €200bn or some figure like that out of our fisheries is demonstrably false. You're welcome to state that the €7.57bn that other EU countries got from Irish waters since 1973 could have been a bit bigger (as opposed to the €3.49bn we took out, plus what we took from UK waters under the EU arrangement), but blowing it up to hundreds of billions is a lie.
Fish are fish - there aren't a lot of "factors" that could have played out differently, because there's only so many of them in the sea.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Again you analysis is irrelevant as it is built on multiple assumptions that can never be tested. An independent irish fishing policy could and i emphasise could have led to a hugely successful industry. Bear also in mind your analysis doesnt include undeclared catches which not surprisingly happen very frequently. Again i wont dare offer a figure as its impossible to say.0 -
BetterLisbon wrote: »Again you analysis is irrelevant as it is built on multiple assumptions that can never be tested. An independent irish fishing policy could and i emphasise could have led to a hugely successful industry. Bear also in mind your analysis doesnt include undeclared catches which not surprisingly happen very frequently. Again i wont dare offer a figure as its impossible to say.
There aren't any such assumptions, and illegal catch figures won't make catches ten times bigger than the recorded - estimates of illegal catches in Irish waters are regularly made, and they're of the order of a third or half again the legal catches. Further, the figures used in that analysis do include estimated illegal catches - they're from an academic study aiming to assess real take from the waters.
So while you're welcome to claim that an independent Irish fishing industry could have led to a hugely successful industry, that industry has to remain firmly within the bounds of what is possible, even by implication. The implication, for example, that the fishing industry could have replaced the support from CAP or other EU programs would be false, because the amounts involved aren't commensurate.
The reason I'm being so very definite here is because all the objections you're raising have been considered, covered, and accounted for. There is a small degree of wriggle room, but the path of honesty is pretty well constrained. All you are required to do is stick to it, even if that doesn't support your case.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
I'm not sure how you get that out of a claim that "It was a bullyboy tactic by the Swiss government", but lets assume that you're right for the moment and that it was a slip of the (virtual) pen.
This line of reasoning would require acceptance that the EU is willing to put EFTA members over a barrel in order to get the agreement they (the EU) want.
Hardly an encouraging reason to believe that we'll be given fair and reasonable treatment if we leave the EU and join EFTA, is it? It would, in fact, seem to be the opposite.
This boils down to the wisdom of the guillotine clause which i presume was put there for switzerlands protection. But again posing a question in which the status quo is not an option is strongarming. We saw during recent EU referenda here how the government and various yes lobby groups were spinning the idea that the treaty reforms would be made without us if we voted no.0 -
Why do you presume this?BetterLisbon wrote: »This boils down to the wisdom of the guillotine clause which i presume was put there for switzerlands protection.
Call it what you will, but the reality is that Switzerland, as with the rest of the EFTA, is surrounded.But again posing a question in which the status quo is not an option is strongarming.
I've repeatedly pointed out that as much as some Eurosceptics would dearly love Ireland to be self-sufficient and independent of foreign influence, it ain't going to happen. Independence is only worth our ability to actually enforce it - politically, economically and militarily - just ask 'independent' San Marino, Monaco or EFTA-member Lichtenstein, for that matter.
They probably would have in one way or another. The UK's opt-out from the Euro has already resulted in their being put on the 'outside track' on some issues. Legally is is quite likely that an alternative way to push through reforms would have been found, creating a multi-tier EU.We saw during recent EU referenda here how the government and various yes lobby groups were spinning the idea that the treaty reforms would be made without us if we voted no.0 -
The status quo you seem to be referring to is fictional. It never existed.BetterLisbon wrote: »But again posing a question in which the status quo is not an option is strongarming.
The Swiss had a treaty with the EU whereby freedom of movement of workers between the EU member states and Switzerland would be handled in exactly the same way as between EU member states.
In effect, the treaty said that for the purposed of freedom of movement of workers, Switzerland would be considered the equivalent of an "old" EU member.
When the EU enlarged, "old" EU member states had to meet a set of conditions. They could delay opening their borders for 2 years. They then delay by a further three years. In the case where there was a demonstrable risk to job markets, htey could delay for a further two years. So after 2, 5, or 7 years, an "old" EU member state was obliged to open their borders to new members.
That was the status quo.
There was never a status quo in the form that you are suggesting...one that would allow the Swiss to choose not to deal with new member states at all.
So who strongarmed who? You seem to be suggesting that the Swiss government strongarmed their public by not offering them a deal that never existed, and which teh EU were not ever going to put on the table....in effect, that the Swiss government strongarmed their public by not engaging in a game of makebelieve.0 -
"Greece had a far larger budget deficit than expected last year and the figures may yet get worse, according to the European Union's statistics office.New data from Greece shows a gap of 13.6% of gross domestic product (GDP), not the 12.7% first reported"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8637270.stm
For those that think EFTA is not a wise idea, I ask to how we can control our affairs and remain stable when we have no soverign controls even over our own economic climate.
The Euro is prolonging recession in Ireland and no with this development, we are going to collapse due to the interpedency on each member state.0 -
"Greece had a far larger budget deficit than expected last year and the figures may yet get worse, according to the European Union's statistics office.New data from Greece shows a gap of 13.6% of gross domestic product (GDP), not the 12.7% first reported"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8637270.stm
For those that think EFTA is not a wise idea, I ask to how we can control our affairs and remain stable when we have no soverign controls even over our own economic climate.
The Euro is prolonging recession in Ireland and no with this development, we are going to collapse due to the interpedency on each member state.
Ours is definitely bigger than theirs:April 22 (Bloomberg) -- The euro area’s budget deficit widened to more than double the European Union’s 3 percent limit in 2009, led by Greece and Ireland. The total budget shortfall for the 16-nation euro region widened to 6.3 percent of gross domestic product last year, the biggest since the introduction of the euro in 1999, from 2 percent in 2008, the EU’s Luxembourg-based statistics office said today. At 14.3 percent of GDP, Ireland had the largest shortfall, while Greece’s deficit was 13.6 percent.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »What jobs and recovery was promised?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sED3iApAvE
Even though I posted up that video I have to say the idea of leaving the EU is ridiculous. The EU at the moment is dominated by the right wing European Peoples party which is a reactionary, conservative group in the parliament (Fine Gaels allies). If the Party of European Socialists (or socialists and democrats as its now called) win the next European elections in 4 years time I am sure we will see a better Europe that will be more generous in distributing European money for worthwhile ventures across the Eurozone.
Inside Europe we are respected as good diplomats. Michael Martin is doing an excellent job (although I despise FF) and we have a great track record of diplomats like Frank Aiken. Leaving the EU would put our diplomats in a weaker position in Europe, although it would not be much.
Overall the EU is a great free trade and diplomatic alliance. To leave it would be an extremely foolish move.0 -
Pride Fighter wrote: »Even though I posted up that video I have to say the idea of leaving the EU is ridiculous. The EU at the moment is dominated by the right wing European Peoples party which is a reactionary, conservative group in the parliament (Fine Gaels allies). If the Party of European Socialists (or socialists and democrats as its now called) win the next European elections in 4 years time I am sure we will see a better Europe that will be more generous in distributing European money for worthwhile ventures across the Eurozone.
How do you know it's ridiculous?
Since when has Irish Politics in the mainstream or even Irish Society debated our position in europe or alternatives?
The EU Parliament doesn't even allow proper debate or criticism to be spoken in its walls, look at Nigel Farage when he was punished for accurately and honestly challenging the crazy position of having a figure head lead the EU... Who isn't known outside his own country and has enormous power in his grasp.
If you haven't noticed... The Eurozone membership is prolonging our recession, Greece is in a worse financial state than us along with Spain, Portuugal, Italy and Ourselves.
The Euro is doomed because the debts outweigh the surplus in the ECB... If you Bailout Greece (Which is illegal and being challenged in a german court, likely to suceed too since it is a direct violation), why not bailout the other troubled neighbours?Pride Fighter wrote: »Inside Europe we are respected as good diplomats. Michael Martin is doing an excellent job (although I despise FF) and we have a great track record of diplomats like Frank Aiken. Leaving the EU would put our diplomats in a weaker position in Europe, although it would not be much.
Really? If we were respected by our fellow members.. then surely they would have accepted our decision and not ram the lisbon treaty down our necks.
Wasn't it Eamon Gilmore who said the treaty vote should be respected, then he turned back on his word?
We are already weak in europe because our neighbours didn't listen to our voice crying no, if they did the treaty would have been scrapped.Pride Fighter wrote: »Overall the EU is a great free trade and diplomatic alliance. To leave it would be an extremely foolish move.
The British and Danes don't seem to think so.... The Czechs either for that matter after the bullying of Vaclav Klaus.
If they held a referendum on continued membership, I doubt they would support the idea.0 -
Advertisement
-
We are already weak in europe because our neighbours didn't listen to our voice crying no
we were weak because it was 4 million voices crying many different things, a good chunk of which was untrue and most of it was *whut?*
I asked after the first lisbon referendum what were we crying out with our no vote and between the two referendums, only sinn fein released anything closely resembling a list of changes that should be addressed (though most consider that list to be no more then the same chest beating Cameron did with promising a referendum if the tories were elected but thats beside the point) between the two referendums despite a *no* vote we saw nothing of an coherent message or demand materilize from the no vote, and this was very much brought home when between the two referendums the european elections saw all but 1 of the parties on the no side fail to get a seat (the most dramatic of which was libertas)0 -
How do you know it's ridiculous?
Since when has Irish Politics in the mainstream or even Irish Society debated our position in europe or alternatives?
I seem to recall some discussion in 2008 and 2009....but I suspect that doesn't count for you because it mysteriously didn't feature a lot of people saying we should leave the EU and join EFTA.The EU Parliament doesn't even allow proper debate or criticism to be spoken in its walls, look at Nigel Farage when he was punished for accurately and honestly challenging the crazy position of having a figure head lead the EU... Who isn't known outside his own country and has enormous power in his grasp.
It's pretty sad that you think what Farage was doing was anything other than grandstanding for the benefit of his home audience, sadder yet that you don't seem to have noticed that he was simply rude and xenophobic. Also, you clearly still don't understand that the President of the European Council is a glorified chairman, exactly as per the Treaty, and von Rompuy fits the bill perfectly.
It's really quite laughable that the eurosceptics invented a fake super-powerful "President of the EU" who was going to be a sort of European George W, purely in order to scare people about Lisbon, and then complain afterwards that what we got was exactly what the pro-Lisbon side said they were getting all along.If you haven't noticed... The Eurozone membership is prolonging our recession, Greece is in a worse financial state than us along with Spain, Portuugal, Italy and Ourselves.
The Euro is doomed because the debts outweigh the surplus in the ECB... If you Bailout Greece (Which is illegal and being challenged in a german court, likely to suceed too since it is a direct violation), why not bailout the other troubled neighbours?
No, I haven't noticed - I've certainly seen a number of people use the argument "bad things are happening, we are in the euro, it must be the euro's fault", but I don't recall the bit where the ECB made our government ramp public spending up past sustainable limits while pursuing pro-cyclic policies that shovelled all the money into the industry that provides their main donors. Presumably you do.Really? If we were respected by our fellow members.. then surely they would have accepted our decision and not ram the lisbon treaty down our necks.
Wasn't it Eamon Gilmore who said the treaty vote should be respected, then he turned back on his word?
We are already weak in europe because our neighbours didn't listen to our voice crying no, if they did the treaty would have been scrapped.
Hard to reconcile with the facts, since that would have missed out on our voices crying yes even more strongly 15 months later. I can see why you want to stick with the first referendum result, of course, but it does rather involve ignoring the democratically expressed wishes of the Irish electorate.The British and Danes don't seem to think so.... The Czechs either for that matter after the bullying of Vaclav Klaus.
If they held a referendum on continued membership, I doubt they would support the idea.
That's one of those "if the UK cut its nose off to spite its face, does that make it a good idea for us to follow?" questions, really, although I don't think the British would disagree with the statement that the EU is a good free trade and diplomatic alliance - that much of the EU I think you'll find they do support, with the exception of fringe elements like Farage. As for Vaclav Klaus, the only people he was "standing up to" was the Parliament that elected him - not exactly a paragon of democracy.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
That is a false statement. Monetary policy is not the only tool that a government may employ to affect a nation's economy.For those that think EFTA is not a wise idea, I ask to how we can control our affairs and remain stable when we have no soverign controls even over our own economic climate.
How is the Euro prolonging recession in Ireland? That we cannot devalue our currency because of it is not a reasonable response as it presumes that devaluation would be an economic magic want. It is not.The Euro is prolonging recession in Ireland and no with this development, we are going to collapse due to the interpedency on each member state.
Secondly, where do your predictions of economic Armageddon from EU interdependency come from? What evidence do you have of this? Macroeconomic models to draw from? Do you even know what the mechanics of such a collapse would be based on?0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »That is a false statement. Monetary policy is not the only tool that a government may employ to affect a nation's economy.The Corinthian wrote: »How is the Euro prolonging recession in Ireland? That we cannot devalue our currency because of it is not a reasonable response as it presumes that devaluation would be an economic magic want. It is not.
Secondly, where do your predictions of economic Armageddon from EU interdependency come from? What evidence do you have of this? Macroeconomic models to draw from? Do you even know what the mechanics of such a collapse would be based on?
The Fact that a £40 Pair of Shoes in The North of Ireland cost €60 for the same pair in the Republic.
Check any major product site to see the lack of price transference.
Why pay more for something in euros if it is cheaper in the traditionally stronger currency?
How about read the below... Eastern Europe is not as heavily affected by the recession in the world like we are in Ireland or the Eurozone.
Poland as a nation was one of the few countries that had economic growth last year over 1-2%, they have the Zloty and the fact that they have shown more intution than other "Advanced" Nations puts us to shame.
The Accession States are doing better than ourselves because they can compete economically, fact is like alot of deniers who still can't accept is that the single currency was doomed from the beggining. You cannot merge different economies that range so wildly under one financial body.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/anatole_kaletsky/article7103194.ece
"Why is this so? The main advantage for any nation of having its own currency, at least since the gradual abolition of the gold standard in the middle years of the last century, lies in the ability to conduct independent monetary and fiscal policies — to set interest rates and to borrow money, without regard to external political constraints. This monetary and fiscal independence is a far more important national prerogative than just the ability to devalue the currency to make exports competitive or revalue to make foreign holidays feel cheaper. And it is the permanent loss of monetary and fiscal independence that clinches the argument against joining the euro, regardless of whether economic conditions are deemed to be favourable or whether a referendum has been held.
To give up the national currency also implies, in the end, giving up a nation’s independent ability to set taxes and public spending — an irrevocable loss of sovereignty on a par with ceding control of a large piece of national territory or disbanding the Armed Forces."0 -
Those price discrepancies predate the Euro. If anything they have decreased in recent years as the transparency of the Euro allowed us to see that we were being charged more in Ireland than in Germany for the same things.The Fact that a £40 Pair of Shoes in The North of Ireland cost €60 for the same pair in the Republic.
Additionally, you are again being simplistic when citing prices. On one side you bleat on about how countries like Switzerland have much better salaries than Ireland, then talk about consumer prices in Northern Ireland where the salary level is significantly lower than in the Republic.
Oh, meanwhile that same pair of shoes would probably cost you 140 SFr (~ €90) in Switzerland.
So why are you continually cherry picking salary or price levels, without - it seems - any understanding of what they represent or are interrelated?
Actually, they can compete because their salary levels are still much lower than Western Europe's. I does not take an economist to figure that one out.The Accession States are doing better than ourselves because they can compete economically, fact is like alot of deniers who still can't accept is that the single currency was doomed from the beggining. You cannot merge different economies that range so wildly under one financial body.
But then again, you have not really addressed much here from any serious economic point of view. Indeed, you have not addressed my point on monetary policy not being the only tool that a government may employ to affect a nation's economy. Do you know what the other tools are?
Macroeconomically speaking, this is what we call bollix.To give up the national currency also implies, in the end, giving up a nation’s independent ability to set taxes and public spending — an irrevocable loss of sovereignty on a par with ceding control of a large piece of national territory or disbanding the Armed Forces."0 -
I found this interview with Joseph Stiglitz in the Irish Times in October of last year.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2009/1009/1224256255558.htmlA POLICY aimed at restoring Ireland’s competitiveness through wage cuts requires an emphasis on fairness, according to the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.
In an interview with The Irish Times , he said one of the most successful countries in dealing with the current global crisis was Iceland, because it hadn’t invested taxpayers’ money in its banks in the way Ireland is doing, and could devalue its currency.
Devaluation and the banking collapse had given room to other sectors of the Icelandic economy, crowded out during the boom, to revive. Ireland cannot devalue as it is in the euro zone and the Government has, as an alternative, proposed that wage cuts could contribute to a restoration of international competitiveness.
The alternative to a devaluation would be a "universal reduction in wages and prices".Stiglitz said there needs to be a fair and universal reduction in wages and prices. “There is an argument and there is some validity to it, that if you can do this, and it is a question of whether you can do it, then it can be a substitute for devaluation. A uniform cut in wages and prices, everywhere.”
The crucial phrase "if you can do this". Maybe the people who are claiming that we shouldn't devalue might be able to offer suggestions as to how we might be able to "uniformly cut wages and prices everywhere"? A devaluation would lead to an instant and uniform fall in real wages across all sectors of the economy and would create jobs as a result of our increased competitiveness. The alternative of waiting for wages and prices to fall by themselves would be a long, drawn-out process and would most likely happen as a result of increased unemployment. I think this is what people like David McWilliams mean when they say that our membership of the euro is helping to prolong our recession.0 -
You know, I have read a lot of Stiglitz's work, from his work in the late-60's and 70's which earned him the Nobel, his work on monetary systems in the 80's, to his focus on the effects of globalisation in the 90's. I have a huge amount of respect for this body of work.
But ever since he won that prize, he hasn't published anything interesting, and simply does the rounds, giving speeches and interviews at universities and TV, respectively. To me, he never says anything interesting any more, and his ideas always seem crude, and ill-thought out. I remember when Krugman won his prize he stated that he would continue working, rather than do the dinner circuit.
I think I know who he was referring to.0 -
-
The Corinthian wrote: »Those price discrepancies predate the Euro. If anything they have decreased in recent years as the transparency of the Euro allowed us to see that we were being charged more in Ireland than in Germany for the same things.
Additionally, you are again being simplistic when citing prices. On one side you bleat on about how countries like Switzerland have much better salaries than Ireland, then talk about consumer prices in Northern Ireland where the salary level is significantly lower than in the Republic.
Oh, meanwhile that same pair of shoes would probably cost you 140 SFr (~ €90) in Switzerland.
Those Price discrepancies show that people who are the worst affected by the harshest recession in over 80 years, are being robbed by retailers are are guilty of price fixing with EU Protection.
Nintendo for Years was guilty of charging more for their games and products in parts of europe where they believe they could get away with it, before the euro they were fined €149m for this.
But now with the euro being more established... Price fixing is tolerated
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/729844.stm
http://www.kswiss.co.uk/lifestyle/products/02485-171-M/altadena
£40 - UK
http://www.kswiss.de/lifestyle/products/02485-171-M/altadena
€59.95 - Eurozone
Do you enjoy us being uncompetitive and ripping our own people off?
How do we expect to recover when we charge higher prices for the same products and services, in times like these we cannot afford to be more expensive than everyone else.0 -
Advertisement
-
Is there a reason you felt the need to completely ignore my rebuttal and just continue repeating yourself? Please address what I wrote.Those Price discrepancies show that people who are the worst affected by the harshest recession in over 80 years, are being robbed by retailers are are guilty of price fixing with EU Protection.0
Advertisement