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
-
The Corinthian wrote: »Is there a reason you felt the need to completely ignore my rebuttal and just continue repeating yourself? Please address what I wrote.
Your rebuttal quite frankly is the same old tune that "We're in a terrible position, but we'll live with it... there's nothing else".
Justifying excuses for why we have to accept poor standards of living conditions and treatment of our own people though no fault of their own, is by my definition deranged.
You seem to be either unintentionally being incredibly difficult to deal with at best or wittingly try to test people at worst.
The Mentality of its the EU or Bust.... Is nothing but Petty.Imbecilic.Gombeen Ignorance.
BTW
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/7620515/Future-of-Belgium-under-threat-over-language-row.html - Belguim's Future is looking Bleak
"The wrangle has already brought down the government four times in the past three years but the latest spat is the gravest yet and threatens to split the country into Flemish areas and French-speaking areas.
King Albert II warned politicians that the political crisis "seriously threatens" the country's role in Europe, after the Prime Minister, Yves Leterme tendered his resignation."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/7624152/Greece-triggers-EU-IMF-rescue-loans.html - The Greeks are now using the Rescue Loans
"The announcement followed a spike in the country's cost of borrowing to close to 9pc on Thursday after Eurostat, the EU’s data agency, said Greece’s budget deficit last year was at least 13.6pc of GDP.
George Papandreou, the Greek prime minister, said on Greek television that the markets had not responded positively to Greece's austerity measures.
He said that meant it was now a "national and pressing necessity" to get aid.
Greece has sent a letter to the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the Eurogroup representing other Eurozone countries "formally requesting the activation of the support mechanism".
Greek 10-year bonds yields fell 60 basis points to 8.2pc on the news and the euro strengthened slightly against the dollar and the pound."0 -
No, I pointed out that you look at price levels when it suits you, salary levels when it suits you, but never combine them to give a real picture.Your rebuttal quite frankly is the same old tune that "We're in a terrible position, but we'll live with it... there's nothing else".
But you are not making any attempt to judge standards of living conditions in Ireland or elsewhere. All you are doing is cherry picking data that can easily be discredited.Justifying excuses for why we have to accept poor standards of living conditions and treatment of our own people though no fault of their own, is by my definition deranged.
Now, why don't you actually address this rather than sidestep the issue with further misdirection?0 -
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,
Scofflaw
Again all irrelevant to the point. I will try to make it easy for you and break it down into bite sized chunks.
1- Ireland rejects EEC membership.
2- Tactical decision taken by government to build an irish fishing industry.
3- Assuming it goes well 10,000 jobs are created. Thats 10,000 off social welfare and paying taxes i.e a few billion a year.
4- Success of fishing industry leads to another 5,000 follow on jobs bringing in another billion a year.
5- Selling our fish into the EEC/EU market at a generous price wins us a range of concessions from the EEC/EU on trade which brings in anotherhalf a billion a year in benefits.
So ther you could and i emphasis could give you the 200 billion figure. Not 200 billion in wet slippery fish but in terms of the overall shot in the arm to the economy.
Now as for CAP remember CAP subsidies are compensation for lost earnings due to market regulation. Thus CAP subsidies are not free cash. In fact CAP should only cover what farmers would have been earning if we were outside the EEC/EU. Bear also in mind CAP has cost tens of thousands of jobs in farming (as the late Ray Crotty warned) which has put tens of thousands on social welfare and out of the tax net. So i would argue that CAP has actually hurt Ireland badly apart from the richest farmers who have got much richer.
Bear also in mind that when CAP was dangled in front of farmers for the 1972 referendum no-one on the yes side told them that the concessions to Ireland would be withdrawn at the subsequent CAP reviews.
Once again scoff you present the facts but present them in a context that is irrelevant to the point and seems designed to divert attention away from the point.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.html
The alternative to a devaluation would be a "universal reduction in wages and prices".
Its worth pointing out that Stiglitz mentioned two major factors for Iceland, and you only highlighted one.
The other major reason he pointed out was something where EU policy did not interfere...and where our government did what Joe thinks is the wrong thing.
So, if we are to put weight in the reputation of someone like Stiglitz, we must accept that in issues where our government had control over the decisions, they chose to do the wrong thing. The EU didn't make them do it - they cocked it up all on their lonesome.
This should then call into question the logic which says that if these same politicians had control over other factors, they would somehow do the right thing there. What possible reason do we have to believe that they wouldn't just cock things up even more?
Yes, but the reality is that we're not in the situation Iceland is in.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.
Iceland could choose to devalue. We can't.
We could choose to do a number of other things, which would then let us devalue....but all of those intermediate actions would have their own knock-on effects, and take time to boot.
We can, of course, use the gift of hindsight to argue that if we hadn't joined the Eurozone (or the EU entirely) that we might be in a far better place. Even ignoring that this type of argument still ignores the effects of the choices we did make, we could equally play the same wishing game and say that had we joined the EU and Eurozone, but made other choices to manage our economy responsibly, we equally would be in a far better place.
Where we are dictates what choices are available to us. A "simple" devaluation is not one of those choices. Looking wishfully at said option is just that - an easy form of armchair-quarterback whatiffery that can ignore the myriad of inter-related factors and allow us to assign blame where we want it.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Why do you presume this?
Call it what you will, but the reality is that Switzerland, as with the rest of the EFTA, is surrounded.
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.
I presume the guillotine clause is there to stop the EU getting too close to Swiss banking laws.
All those countries have an independent foreign policy for starts. They have independent justice policies as far as i know too.
Economically they are dependent on the european market but given how little influence they would have over EU policies there is nothing in the EU for them.
You forget that the UK voluntarily opt-ed out of the Euro. Opt-outs cannot be imposed legally, politically they could be .0 -
Advertisement
-
The status quo you seem to be referring to is fictional. It never existed.
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.
Bonk i stand open to correction but my understanding is as follows. The EU can unilaterally change the application but not the scope of the EEA, hence the EEA is dynamic in application in that EU membership guarantees EEA membership. The EU cannot unilaterally change the scope or application of the Swiss bilateral treaties, hence they are periodically renegotiated.
As such the EU cannot unilaterally add Bulgaria and Romania to the terms of the bilateral treaty on freedom of labour. Thus Switzerland cannot be forced to allow Bulgarians and Romanians to work (with the reciprocal effect of swiss being unable to work in Bulgaria and Romania).
Thus the status quo was an option but the swiss government went for broke and said 27 or nothing. This can be for one of two reasons:
1- The EU did threaten to use the guillotine clause and this all or nothing referendum was forced on the swiss government.
2- The swiss government realised a referendum on extending the free movement of labour treaty to Bulgaria and Romania had snowballs chance of passing, so they played hardball with the people.
Thus either the EU or the swiss government is guilty of strongarming.0 -
"The bilateral approach, as it is called in Switzerland, was consistently supported by the people in various referenda. It allows the Swiss to keep a sense of sovereignty, due to arrangements when changes in EU law will only apply after a joint bilateral commission decides so in consensus.BetterLisbon wrote: »I presume the guillotine clause is there to stop the EU getting too close to Swiss banking laws.
The commission can never discuss or change contents, i.e. unlike full EU members, Switzerland has no influence over the contents of EU law that will apply. And while the bilateral approach officially safeguards the right to refuse application of new EU law to Switzerland, in practice this right is severely restricted by the so-called Guillotine Clause, giving both parties a right to cancellation of the entire body of treaties when one new treaty or stipulation cannot be made applicable in Switzerland."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_and_the_European_Union#Second_treaties
What makes you think I forgot that?You forget that the UK voluntarily opt-ed out of the Euro. Opt-outs cannot be imposed legally, politically they could be .0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »"The bilateral approach, as it is called in Switzerland, was consistently supported by the people in various referenda. It allows the Swiss to keep a sense of sovereignty, due to arrangements when changes in EU law will only apply after a joint bilateral commission decides so in consensus.
The commission can never discuss or change contents, i.e. unlike full EU members, Switzerland has no influence over the contents of EU law that will apply. And while the bilateral approach officially safeguards the right to refuse application of new EU law to Switzerland, in practice this right is severely restricted by the so-called Guillotine Clause, giving both parties a right to cancellation of the entire body of treaties when one new treaty or stipulation cannot be made applicable in Switzerland."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_and_the_European_Union#Second_treaties
What makes you think I forgot that?
Thats the wikipedia answear. My guess is that if the Eu ever tried to bring in a law on banking secrecy switzerland could grab her parachute and jump off the plane. Perhaps bonk could give us more insight.
As for the mythical multi tier europe, i was pointing out that it could only have been created with our consent it could not have been imposed as various yes campaigners suggested it could.
I have no problem with a multi tier europe and dont see what the problem could be as long as our market access is unaffected.0 -
It has nothing to do with the EEA. It is a bilateral treaty between Switzerland and the EU.BetterLisbon wrote: »Bonk i stand open to correction but my understanding is as follows. The EU can unilaterally change the application but not the scope of the EEA, hence the EEA is dynamic in application in that EU membership guarantees EEA membership.
It is not a treaty between Switzerland and the individual nations who comprised the EU at the time the treaty was signed.
See the difference?
If Ireland left the EU (as you suggest) we wouldn't have any treaty with Switzerland.
When the treaty was being negotiated and signed, it was clear that expansion was on the EU horizon...and the treaty was clear in that it covered Switzerland and the EU. Expansion wasn't an issue...the treaty always covered it. The Swiss always knew it covered it.
The treaty wasn't renegotiated. The Treaty always covered the possibility of expansion. The referendum in Switzerland was to choose between continuing to honour the treaty, or to withdraw from it. The reason that came to a referendum is mostly because of how the Swiss use their system. Strictly speaking, there was no need for one. Realistically speaking, it would have been political suicide for the government not to have done so.The EU cannot unilaterally change the scope or application of the Swiss bilateral treaties, hence they are periodically renegotiated.
Yes, it can. The treaty covered expansion possibilities from day one. The treaty continues to cover future expansion possibilities.As such the EU cannot unilaterally add Bulgaria and Romania to the terms of the bilateral treaty on freedom of labour.
Again...no. The Swiss government went to the people to say "continue to honour the treaty now that we know what the details of expansion are, or choose to withdraw from it".Thus the status quo was an option but the swiss government went for broke and said 27 or nothing.
The treaty itself was not renegotiated. There was a "sunset clause" which would have allowed termination at that point in time...but that was all.My guess is that if the Eu ever tried to bring in a law on banking secrecy switzerland could grab her parachute and jump off the plane. Perhaps bonk could give us more insight.The EU have brought in several agreements with the Swiss regarding banking security....mostly tied to other negotiations. The Swiss, in turn, have changed some laws regarding banking security, mostly tied to other negotiations.
To be honest, depending on who you ask, you'll get a different answer on what, exactly, the guillotine clause is there for.
It protects the EU, in part, from the Swiss democratic system. Every treaty with Switzerland is always dependant on the Swiss people not turning around and using a referendum to change their minds. The guillotine clause, in that sense, gives the EU some degree of "lock in" that a populist movement in Switzerland isn't going to start game-changing and cherry-picking a subset of treaties that they think is a better deal.
Conversely, it is psychologically important to the Swiss and their unique vision of independence. Irregardless of how closely tied they are to the EU, they have the ability to - literally - sever all ties at a stroke.
It has advantages to both sides...even if they're mostly hypothetical and unlikely to ever be used. Ultimately, it is a good compromise which keeps many people happy even if its mostly symbolic - which is the type of thing that the Swiss excel at.0 -
BetterLisbon wrote: »Again all irrelevant to the point. I will try to make it easy for you and break it down into bite sized chunks.
1- Ireland rejects EEC membership.
2- Tactical decision taken by government to build an irish fishing industry.
3- Assuming it goes well 10,000 jobs are created. Thats 10,000 off social welfare and paying taxes i.e a few billion a year.
4- Success of fishing industry leads to another 5,000 follow on jobs bringing in another billion a year.
5- Selling our fish into the EEC/EU market at a generous price wins us a range of concessions from the EEC/EU on trade which brings in anotherhalf a billion a year in benefits.
So ther you could and i emphasis could give you the 200 billion figure. Not 200 billion in wet slippery fish but in terms of the overall shot in the arm to the economy.
Now as for CAP remember CAP subsidies are compensation for lost earnings due to market regulation. Thus CAP subsidies are not free cash. In fact CAP should only cover what farmers would have been earning if we were outside the EEC/EU. Bear also in mind CAP has cost tens of thousands of jobs in farming (as the late Ray Crotty warned) which has put tens of thousands on social welfare and out of the tax net. So i would argue that CAP has actually hurt Ireland badly apart from the richest farmers who have got much richer.
Bear also in mind that when CAP was dangled in front of farmers for the 1972 referendum no-one on the yes side told them that the concessions to Ireland would be withdrawn at the subsequent CAP reviews.
Once again scoff you present the facts but present them in a context that is irrelevant to the point and seems designed to divert attention away from the point.
I see the billions creeping in there again - the Irish fishing industry could not have generated "a few billion a year" in taxes or anywhere near it. The total catch from Irish waters is worth a few hundred million a year.
So, let me reiterate - the kind of game you're engaged in here is a gross distortion of the facts. It's not acceptable in discussion because it is utterly false, no matter how much hemming and hawing and "factoring" you do.
Don't continue it, or you will be banned for persistent misrepresentation of the truth. This is your final warning.
moderately,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 9866
BetterLisbon wrote: »Again all irrelevant to the point. I will try to make it easy for you and break it down into bite sized chunks.
1- Ireland rejects EEC membership.
2- Tactical decision taken by government to build an irish fishing industry.
3- Assuming it goes well 10,000 jobs are created. Thats 10,000 off social welfare and paying taxes i.e a few billion a year.
4- Success of fishing industry leads to another 5,000 follow on jobs bringing in another billion a year.
5- Selling our fish into the EEC/EU market at a generous price wins us a range of concessions from the EEC/EU on trade which brings in anotherhalf a billion a year in benefits.
So ther you could and i emphasis could give you the 200 billion figure. Not 200 billion in wet slippery fish but in terms of the overall shot in the arm to the economy.
Now as for CAP remember CAP subsidies are compensation for lost earnings due to market regulation. Thus CAP subsidies are not free cash. In fact CAP should only cover what farmers would have been earning if we were outside the EEC/EU. Bear also in mind CAP has cost tens of thousands of jobs in farming (as the late Ray Crotty warned) which has put tens of thousands on social welfare and out of the tax net. So i would argue that CAP has actually hurt Ireland badly apart from the richest farmers who have got much richer.
Bear also in mind that when CAP was dangled in front of farmers for the 1972 referendum no-one on the yes side told them that the concessions to Ireland would be withdrawn at the subsequent CAP reviews.
Once again scoff you present the facts but present them in a context that is irrelevant to the point and seems designed to divert attention away from the point.
10 billion worth of fish caught in Irish waters over 37 years has already resulted in severley depleted fishing stocks, now I'm not religious at all but making 200 billion out of that would be a miracle surpassing anything in the Bible. :rolleyes:0 -
bonkey wrote:The other major reason he pointed out was something where EU policy did not interfere.
The EU didn't interfere publically but there is reason to believe that they might have played an encouraging role behind the scenes. Kevin Myers wrote an article about this (here) back in March that's worth quoting from:Kevin Myers wrote:The banking system of Europe shall not be allowed to fail. In as much as I understand banking -- and I do with the same mastery that I comprehend Chinese textbooks on photosynthesis -- I think they are wrong. I think banks should occasionally fail and the world is probably a worse place for not having a few bankers being nibbled by rats in a wet dungeon in Hamelin at any given moment.
But that's beside the point.
European Commissioner for Competition Neelie Kroes spelt out EU policy towards banks last June. Discussing Royal Bank of Scotland's historic loss of £60bn (€66bn) in a year, she said that RBS's balance sheet of £2.4 trillion made it larger than the economies of all save China, Germany, Japan and the US.
"The numbers don't lie ... They make a clear case for the commission to follow our tried-and-tested state-aid rules."
This was why EUROPEAN governments were already committed to spending 16.5pc of GDP on bank bailouts, she said, adding: "This gives the European Commission every reason to be involved."
So this is not an Irish solution to an Irish problem at all. It is Europe-wide. British banking was propped up by £1.26tn of government support, which is probably about a notional £200 for every Briton who has ever lived or will ever live.
For the EU empire policy is to keep even worthless banks afloat: in just 18 months, there were no less than 70 bank/state-interventions across Europe, done under commission guidelines. Dear old Neelie Kroes was frank: "But the partner dynamic does not imply these are voluntary processes: we have no realistic alternative."
Maybe. But there is this other motive. Like all empires, the EU project depends on power and if it weathers this storm, the commission will be able to reform the entire retail and merchant banking sectors, from Galway to Gdansk, on lines congenial to its imperial interests.0 -
The EU didn't interfere publically but there is reason to believe that they might have played an encouraging role behind the scenes.
Sure...and were we not EU members, but rather really-closely-tied partners like the EFTA member nations are....I'm sure the EU would never presume to offer advice and encouragement as to what actions they would look favourably on...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?
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.
Ah yes. Farage. I'd sooner trust Pol Pot or Hitler over him.
The PIGS inside the Eurozone are pretty thankful they are there. Look at how desperate Iceland is to join the EU. Also I am sure that if the PIGS were outside the EU they would be royally screwed. The EU is a force for good. Leaving it would be disastrous.0 -
Pride Fighter wrote: »Ah yes. Farage. I'd sooner trust Pol Pot or Hitler over him.
The PIGS inside the Eurozone are pretty thankful they are there. Look at how desperate Iceland is to join the EU. Also I am sure that if the PIGS were outside the EU they would be royally screwed. The EU is a force for good. Leaving it would be disastrous.
No, I'm not Farage.
I'm DaBrow, there is a difference there... Especially Farage is not responsible for Mass-Murder in the form of Famine/Anti-Intellectuallism or some crazy belief like Ayranism.
I respect him and aynone else whom is brave enough to challenge the system that is supposed to represent us; yet they do not allow anyone any chance for criticism.
I'd check your notes because the Icelanders DON'T want to be in the EU, the latest polls have shown that they wouldn't ever agree to giving up their fisheries... Just because their Government have made a desperate application doesn't mean they represent the people who also refuse to payback the ICESAVE £3.2Billion the UK & Netherlands lost.
So the PIIGS have to be thankful for:- Price Discripencies of products that are not similar to current exchange rate values, which resembles Price Fixing?
- Not being able to devalue or lower their costs because they cannot react to difficult economic scenarios?
- Having to live on the mercy of the European Central Bank and not allowed rights to challenge their management?
- Not having any measures available to them that allow them to recover quicklier?
- Why, If one country mishandled its finances. Do we have to bail them out illegally to prevent a Domino effect... that would collapse the whole system?
Here is what has happened recently in the Eurozone which you claim is so stable:
Greece has asked for the Bailout which is certainly illegal and being challenged in the german courts.
Germans in the Reichstag has openly talked about leaving the Euro, to save their own asses... Straight from Morgan Stanley.
The Belgian Government has collapsed not just due to external factors, but the main reason that internal division has broken the country again and there is belief that it cannot be resolved.
PS.
How will charging more for a pair shoes in our country benefit us, when you can buy the same pair somewhere else?0 -
Oh, DaBrow, any chance you will explain, as requested, why you repeatedly cite price levels when it suits you, salary levels when it suits you, but never combine them to give a truthful picture?
P.S. It's not been called the Reichstag for a good while.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Oh, DaBrow, any chance you will explain, as requested, why you repeatedly cite price levels when it suits you, salary levels when it suits you, but never combine them to give a truthful picture?
P.S. It's not been called the Reichstag for a good while.
I've cited price levels as fact... You pay more in the eurozone for everything than outside of it.
The Bundestag still houses people of an imperialist nature, just like the previous building.0 -
I know you've cited price levels, and sometimes salary levels, but never both and one without the other creates an incomplete and misleading presentation of the facts.I've cited price levels as fact... You pay more in the eurozone for everything than outside of it.
So again, for the third time, why you repeatedly cite price levels when it suits you, salary levels when it suits you, but never combine them to give a truthful picture?
Other than being both jingoistic and xenophobic, that statement actually betrays little understanding for what the word Reich actually means in German.The Bundestag still houses people of an imperialist nature, just like the previous building.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Other than being both jingoistic and xenophobic, that statement actually betrays little understanding for what the word Reich actually means in German.
Empire, Nation or Realm... translates as "Reich" - The Bundestag means Federal Parliament, Reichstag meant Parliament of the Empire or Nation.0 -
All of which are widly differing terms - don't you think this might point to a more complex meaning behind the word than the offensive one you presented?Empire, Nation or Realm... translates as "Reich"
All of which detracts from my question, that you still are avoiding - for the fourth time - why do you repeatedly cite price levels when it suits you, salary levels when it suits you, but never combine them to give a truthful picture?0 -
Advertisement
-
We need more power to the EU and less to Irish politicians imo. The Irish political system is rotten to the core. We need the EU and we need politicians who are fully run by the EU. Our politicians should be no more than local representitives in a greater EU system. Then we'll have a nice country to live in.
We've in a messy one leg in, one leg out political system at the moment that simply doesn't work.0 -
£40 shoe NI. €60 shoe ROI.
£40 = €46.
Difference €14.
VAT Rate NI = 17.5%. Shoe before tax = €37.95 (€8.05 VAT)
VAT Rate ROI = 21%. Shoe before tax = €47.4 (€12.60 VAT)
Difference now €9.45
Say the purchase price of the shoe is the same £20/€23.19.
Profit made on NI shoe = €14.76
Profit made on ROI shoe = €24.21
You can't just stop there though as this is only GROSS Profit. This profit needs to be broken down. Both shop owners have staff and they pay them the minimum wage.
Minimum wage NI = £5.80 = €6.70
Minimum wage ROI = €8.65
Overheads need to covered:
Light and Heat - more expensive in ROI than NI
Rental Rates - more expensive in ROI than NI
Insurance - more expensive in ROI than NI
Telephone & Broadband - more expensive in ROI than NI
Council Rates - more expensive in ROI than NI
Other costs such as accountancy fees,etc.
The shop owners will also need to cover their own salary from this and obviously the shop owner in the ROI will need to pay themelves slightly more than their counterpart in NI just like their staff get paid slightly more minimum wage than their counterparts in NI.
They also will want to leave a NET profit in the shop accounts. Comparing a value of shoe at £40/€46 in NI and €60 in ROI and blaming the euro is a childish argument. The Euro currency has nothing to do with the price differences.
It's the overheads which can be changed by the policies and decisions by each individual government in the EU that determines the cost.0 -
They also will want to leave a NET profit in the shop accounts. Comparing a value of shoe at £40/€46 in NI and €60 in ROI and blaming the euro is a childish argument. The Euro currency has nothing to do with the price differences.
It's the overheads which can be changed by the policies and decisions by each individual government in the EU that determines the cost.
Indeed, we can come up with a more satisfying but equally one-dimensional argument using the minimum wage:
Item|NI|ROI|Ratio
Shoe Price|€46|€60|0.77
Minimum Wage|€6.70|€8.65|0.77
Something of a coincidence there...
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
We need more power to the EU and less to Irish politicians imo. The Irish political system is rotten to the core. We need the EU and we need politicians who are fully run by the EU. Our politicians should be no more than local representitives in a greater EU system. Then we'll have a nice country to live in.
We've in a messy one leg in, one leg out political system at the moment that simply doesn't work.
Irish Politics has corruption, this might have something to do with the legacy of partition but the fact is that the EU Corruption makes us look like amateurs.
Ireland has its problems because we are just lazy to tackle it... Why Bertie Ahern isn't in Jail is beyond me especially with that rubbish he spouted about not having a bank account for years as a minister of finance, that he cashed his pay cheques in pubs etc in the Mahon Tribunal.
The EU hasn't had its accounts auditied for over a dozen years; how on earth can you think that being run a by group of foreign diplomats who know nothing about Ireland be better than having our own country?
We'd have a nice country: If we had compotent people in power, Freedom to conduct our own soverign affairs without external bullying and Punishing corruption no matter who it is or where it happened.0 -
The EU hasn't had its accounts auditied for over a dozen years; how on earth can you think that being run a by group of foreign diplomats who know nothing about Ireland be better than having our own country?
That's incorrect as well. They have been audited and do satisfy the normal audit procedures. Eurosceptics can't seem to get this one right.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
The EU hasn't had its accounts auditied for over a dozen years
its been audited...its failed them. But thats down to two issues
1. The standard at which the EU audits its accounts is excessively strict. To such a standard that the USA has failed them too, as most individual member states and private companies have failed them yet all of them continue on.
2. The source of these failures lie with the individual member states, the vast majority of the financial issues arise with member states themselves when given funding from the EU fail to notify the EU where all of that money went. So its not the EU organisation at fault but the individual member states, their own governments and other national bodies. But because the EU is an inter governmental entity its all lumped under the one banner.0 -
BlitzKrieg wrote: »its been audited...its failed them. But thats down to two issues
1. The standard at which the EU audits its accounts is excessively strict. To such a standard that the USA has failed them too, as most individual member states and private companies have failed them yet all of them continue on.
2. The source of these failures lie with the individual member states, the vast majority of the financial issues arise with member states themselves when given funding from the EU fail to notify the EU where all of that money went. So its not the EU organisation at fault but the individual member states, their own governments and other national bodies. But because the EU is an inter governmental entity its all lumped under the one banner.
K-9's view is a little more accurate - the EU accounts pass standard audit checks for reliability every year, but with qualifications related to errors, mostly in the parts of the budget spent by the member states.Over the recent years the Court's overall evaluation of the EU's accounting books was that they were reliable. The 2007 accounting books (referred to in the excerpt quoted) received for the first time a completely clean bill of health.
The 2007 and 2008 accounts have received completely clean bills of health:Clean bill of health for EU accounts – strong resolve on remaining challenges
For the second year running the EU annual accounts have received a clean bill of health from the external auditors. As for payments, since 2004 the amounts with a 'red card' from the auditors have been halved thanks to significant improvements in EU financial management.
'I thank the Court of Auditors for their report which corroborates that our efforts bring results', said Siim Kallas, vice-president of the European Commission responsible for administration, audit and anti-fraud measures. 'Our accounts are fully reliable, after a successful reform of our accounting system. I am also delighted that we have an overall positive opinion on payments under the agricultural policy, mainly thanks to recent reforms of the CAP which have greatly simplified things for farmers and administrations. As for errors in payments made to EU regions by member states, we will not tolerate any leniency there: the European Commission will claw back the money each time national administrations do not manage to spend it correctly.'
Green light for farm subsidies
The overall picture is reassuring. The accounts were found to be 'true and fair', meaning a clean bill of health.
...
As much as 70% of the EU budget has now a low risk of error (their financial impact estimated at 5% or less); the remainder are payments under cohesion policy made by member states, where increased clawback effectively reduces financial risk to the EU budget. Overall, agriculture has been given a positive opinion from the auditors.
More here.
Still, you can't beat a good euromyth.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
That is touching soapbox rhetoric, however your selective presentation of economic data has become widely noticed at this stage, so I do think you owe us all an answer to my question - fifth time - why do you repeatedly cite price levels when it suits you, salary levels when it suits you, but never combine them to give a truthful picture?We'd have a nice country: If we had compotent people in power, Freedom to conduct our own soverign affairs without external bullying and Punishing corruption no matter who it is or where it happened.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »That is touching soapbox rhetoric, however your selective presentation of economic data has become widely noticed at this stage, so I do think you owe us all an answer to my question - fifth time - why do you repeatedly cite price levels when it suits you, salary levels when it suits you, but never combine them to give a truthful picture?
http://www.efta.int/statistics/statistical-data.aspx
http://www.efta.int/statistics/statistical-data/efta-in-figures.aspx0 -
Advertisement
-
I didn't ask for you to link to some pages of statistics, I asked (sixth time) why do you repeatedly cite price levels when it suits you, salary levels when it suits you, but never combine them to give a truthful picture?
Posting a few links now to a few pages of statistics does not change that you have been consistently selective with those same statistics up until now, nor does it explain why you have been consistently selective with those same statistics up until now.0
Advertisement