Why don't we leave the EU? Join the Swiss in EFTA

BetterLisbon

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Xenophobia is a distrust or hatred of strangers or those who are different, and can apply to those who have the view to those of a different culture/nationality.
If you wish to split hairs over terminology grand, his comments attacking another country for being a non-country are jingoistic then.

I fail to see how his outburst could even meet your defenition of xenophobic. Jingoistic sounds more realistic but childish would be my description.

anotherfinemess

We could go back to having our own currency without leaving the EU. McWilliams explains it all well in his latest book. One thing is for sure, the way we are headed with NAMA etc is mass suicide!

Flamed Diving

anotherfinemess wrote: »

We could go back to having our own currency without leaving the EU. McWilliams explains it all well in his latest book. One thing is for sure, the way we are headed with NAMA etc is mass suicide!

Out of interest, does he give it a catchy-buzzword? More seriously, is it a floating and fixed currency?

sirromo

The journalist David McWilliams has a good article (here) in today's Irish Independent in which he discusses the negative impact of euro membership. He makes an interesting point about how the lifting of exchange rate risk between the countries of Europe helped encourage the reckless lending by the banks.

David McWilliams wrote:

The Gold Standard, like the euro, meant there was no exchange rate risk between all the big economies. This facilitated a huge increase in loans from bankers in one country to lenders in another. Britain owed vast amounts to the USA and Germany owed vast amounts to everyone. France became the banker of Europe and it lent billions to Germany, while at the same time demanding that Germany paid full reparations for the First World War. So, increasingly throughout the 1920s, the Gold Standard became the guarantor of these huge loans among countries' banking systems.

The banks gambled that the Gold Standard was so important to the prestige of the big powers and so central to the way the big powers thought about the world, that loans would always be repaid. Doing otherwise would "undermine the credibility of the system". Keynes saw through this canard from an early stage.

If we examine the euro in the boom, we see that it operated in exactly the same way as the Gold Standard. The single currency encouraged banks to take risky bets. The banks lent money to anyone, safe in the assumption that even if there was a crisis, the euro would be so sacrosanct in the minds of politicians, that all their loans -- no matter how dodgy -- would be paid back. Because to do otherwise would "undermine the credibility of the system". Sound familiar?

Flamed Diving

Please. Can we have a link to anyone, anything, but him?

How about we have a rule. Anyone who links to McWilliams, automatically loses the debate?

marco_polo

"The single currency encouraged banks to take risky bets. The banks lent money to anyone, safe in the assumption that even if there was a crisis, the euro would be so sacrosanct in the minds of politicians, that all their loans -- no matter how dodgy -- would be paid back."

Post hoc ergo propter hoc TBH. I note the distinct lack of evidence in the article supporting the statement. What about non eurozone banks worldwide, where pretty much the exact same thing happened?

Should someone rightly point out that american financial institutions got bailed out too, well that still undermines the whole premise of blaming the euro currency.

Scofflaw

marco_polo wrote: »

"The single currency encouraged banks to take risky bets. The banks lent money to anyone, safe in the assumption that even if there was a crisis, the euro would be so sacrosanct in the minds of politicians, that all their loans -- no matter how dodgy -- would be paid back."

Post hoc ergo propter hoc TBH. I note the distinct lack of evidence in the article supporting the statement. What about non eurozone banks worldwide, where pretty much the exact same thing happened?

Should someone rightly point out that american financial institutions got bailed out too, well that still undermines the whole premise of blaming the euro currency.

As I said before, the comparative analysis is simply ignored. Whichever non-euro or non-EU country currently appears to be doing best is pointed to as "where we would be if we didn't have the euro", never mind whether the comparison is even vaguely appropriate. The next time the subject comes up, a different country will be used if the previous example is not still doing so well, and any comparison with that country forcefully rejected.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BetterLisbon

Scofflaw wrote: »

As I said before, the comparative analysis is simply ignored. Whichever non-euro or non-EU country currently appears to be doing best is pointed to as "where we would be if we didn't have the euro", never mind whether the comparison is even vaguely appropriate. The next time the subject comes up, a different country will be used if the previous example is not still doing so well, and any comparison with that country forcefully rejected.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I dont think that was McWilliams point. The point is that there is concrete proof of successful life without the euro and as such we need to give serious thought to it. Leaving the euro wont make our problems go away in fact it could backfire and make them worse.
His other key point is the dogmatic position of euro-philes. His comparison with the ridicule directed at euro-sceptics with the ridicule directed at goldstandard-sceptics is pertinent. The euro is another totem pole of europhiles who are unwilling to accept that more europe not be the best for us.

The Corinthian

BetterLisbon wrote: »

A phobia is an irrational fear of hatred of something. I cant see how Farages childish comments could be seen to in that way unless the observer is conditioned into the eurosceptic=xenophobic kneejerk.

As an observation, not directed at any individual in particular, is that those who suffer from phobias - more correctly, hold to an irrational bias - will tend to validate using pseudo-scientific argument. Scientific racism and intelligent design are good examples of this.

This is not to say that there are no other, not least of all valid, reasons to be eurosceptic. There are valid social and economic arguments against the EU and some non-nationalistic ideologies (those on the far-left, that hold anti-globalization views) also are also generally eurosceptic.

However, it is difficult to deny that the vast bulk of eurosceptics also tend to be ardent supporters of the nation state - for example, the most Eurosceptic parties in the UK (who typically seek to leave the EU) are the most nationalist ones, such as the UKIP and BNP. In Ireland, we see much the same, with Sinn Fein being the most eurosceptic.

So while one cannot equate euroscepticism with xenophobia, it is difficult to ignore the strong correlation. We even saw it earlier in this thread.

marco_polo wrote: »

Should someone rightly point out that american financial institutions got bailed out too, well that still undermines the whole premise of blaming the euro currency.

Or that a lender may lend in the currency of their choice. Or that banks typically use derivatives so as to fix future currency exchange values.

Look, McWilliams is selling books and theater tickets, just as Myers sells newspapers or Ryan sold advertising airtime.

Never forget to consider motivation when listening to advice.

BetterLisbon

The Corinthian wrote: »

However, it is difficult to deny that the vast bulk of eurosceptics also tend to be ardent supporters of the nation state - for example, the most Eurosceptic parties in the UK (who typically seek to leave the EU) are the most nationalist ones, such as the UKIP and BNP. In Ireland, we see much the same, with Sinn Fein being the most eurosceptic.

So while one cannot equate euroscepticism with xenophobia, it is difficult to ignore the strong correlation. We even saw it earlier in this thread.
.

Corinthian this is a guilt by association argument which is one of the last resorts of those who cant deal with a point. Its also a bad and potentially dangerous argument, it was used extensively to discredit opponents of fascism in the 1930s by lumping all criticism in with the lunatic left.

Further you might note which parties opposed the invasion of Iraq, so does opposing the Iraq war make you a xenophobe? How can you ignore the strong correlation???

Scofflaw

BetterLisbon wrote: »

I dont think that was McWilliams point. The point is that there is concrete proof of successful life without the euro and as such we need to give serious thought to it. Leaving the euro wont make our problems go away in fact it could backfire and make them worse.
His other key point is the dogmatic position of euro-philes. His comparison with the ridicule directed at euro-sceptics with the ridicule directed at goldstandard-sceptics is pertinent. The euro is another totem pole of europhiles who are unwilling to accept that more europe not be the best for us.

To present comparisons with successful non-euro countries as a way of saying that there's life outside the euro proves nothing, particularly if he ignores the fact that our problems are replicated in other non-euro countries.

Do you see the simple logic? If other countries that don't have the euro have the same problems as us (and they do), then the euro is not the cause of those problems.

The euro is a currency, which, like all currencies, is alright but imperfect. McWilliams' point is selling McWilliams.

regards,
Scofflaw

The Corinthian

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Corinthian this is a guilt by association argument which is one of the last resorts of those who cant deal with a point. Its also a bad and potentially dangerous argument, it was used extensively to discredit opponents of fascism in the 1930s by lumping all criticism in with the lunatic left.

Not at all, I am simply pointing out that, more often than not, such assumptions are regrettably well founded and thus one could be forgiven for the temptation to make that assumption. That does not justify such an assumption as correct though.

Personally, I try not to make such an assumption, although it is rare that I do not see it confirmed.

Further you might note which parties opposed the invasion of Iraq, so does opposing the Iraq war make you a xenophobe? How can you ignore the strong correlation???

Actually, it was not as strong a corrolation. Opposition to the Iraq war was actually far more varied than eurosceptism.

sirromo

marco_polo wrote:

Post hoc ergo propter hoc TBH. I note the distinct lack of evidence in the article supporting the statement. What about non eurozone banks worldwide, where pretty much the exact same thing happened?

Should someone rightly point out that american financial institutions got bailed out too, well that still undermines the whole premise of blaming the euro currency.

This is similar to the kind of argument that you would expect to hear from a Fianna Fail supporter when his party is blamed for the problems in the Irish economy.

Other countries are in the same position as us and they didn't have Fianna-Fail-led governments over the last decade and so clearly there were other factors involved. Yes, there were other factors involved and we might even be in the same position today if we had a Fine-Gael government over the last decade instead of a Fianna Fail one. That doesn't change the fact that we did have a Fianna Fail-led government and that there is good reason to believe that that government contributed to our problems. In the same way, we did have the euro over the last decade and there is good reason to believe that our euro membership also contributed to our problems.

marco_polo

sirromo wrote: »

This is similar to the kind of argument that you would expect to hear from a Fianna Fail supporter when his party is blamed for the problems in the Irish economy.

Other countries are in the same position as us and they didn't have Fianna-Fail-led governments over the last decade and so clearly there were other factors involved. Yes, there were other factors involved and we might even be in the same position today if we had a Fine-Gael government over the last decade instead of a Fianna Fail one. That doesn't change the fact that we did have a Fianna Fail-led government and that there is good reason to believe that that government contributed to our problems. In the same way, we did have the euro over the last decade and there is good reason to believe that our euro membership also contributed to our problems.

Ironically by seeking to apportion the bulk of the blame for our economic woes on our eurozone membership, you guys are doing trojan work to get them off the hook.

Also on a side note I am starting to come to the view that Godwin's law needs updating to include Fianna Fail analogies.

BetterLisbon

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not at all, I am simply pointing out that, more often than not, such assumptions are regrettably well founded and thus one could be forgiven for the temptation to make that assumption. That does not justify such an assumption as correct though.

Personally, I try not to make such an assumption, although it is rare that I do not see it confirmed.

Actually, it was not as strong a corrolation. Opposition to the Iraq war was actually far more varied than eurosceptism.

Have you ever considered that there might be an agenda to ensure the lunatic fringe get all the publicity to discredit the whole camp? You dont see coir on TV lately nor do you see Gerry Adams on the 6.01 news, do you. Yet its wall to wall come referendum time. Perhaps you are seeing what you expect to see. That is a moderate eurosceptic doesnt get your attention but once a lunatic does you perk up.
Well in tems of the political parties that opposed the war and those that supported it the extreme left and right opposed it and the center supported it. So does that make an argument for the war?

molloyjh

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Have you ever considered that there might be an agenda to ensure the lunatic fringe get all the publicity to discredit the whole camp? You dont see coir on TV lately nor do you see Gerry Adams on the 6.01 news, do you. Yet its wall to wall come referendum time. Perhaps you are seeing what you expect to see. That is a moderate eurosceptic doesnt get your attention but once a lunatic does you perk up.

What moderate Euroskeptics were putting themselves forward in the debate regarding Europe???? If only the "lunatics" are willing to talk you can't blame the media for that...

BetterLisbon

molloyjh wrote: »

What moderate Euroskeptics were putting themselves forward in the debate regarding Europe???? If only the "lunatics" are willing to talk you can't blame the media for that...

People like Susan Phillips of EUReform were excluded by he mainstream broadcast media as was Roger Cole of PANA as was Jens Peter Bonde (2nd time around due the great job he did 1st time around) as was David Thompson of Farmers for No... to name a few.

sirromo

Anthony Coughlan was another moderate eurosceptic who didn't get much exposure during the Lisbon debates.

Scofflaw

I think I can see the problem here.

amused,
Scofflaw

The Corinthian

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Have you ever considered that there might be an agenda to ensure the lunatic fringe get all the publicity to discredit the whole camp?

It's unlikely as the lunatic fringe is too important to the campaign to discredit the existence of extraterrestrials living among us... upps, I've said too much. Fnord.

You dont see coir on TV lately nor do you see Gerry Adams on the 6.01 news, do you.

Coir are no longer all that active - indeed, they were only set up to fight the last Lisbon referendum, so it's hardly surprising that they are not much in the news today.

Gerry Adams, on the other hand, is in the news a fair bit at present, but largely due to the UK elections, not Europe.

Life goes on.

Yet its wall to wall come referendum time. Perhaps you are seeing what you expect to see.

Of course it's going to be wall-to-wall come referendum time - that's when it's topical. It's a bit like poor old Jim Duffy who gets trotted out to commentate every presidential election and then goes back into relative obscurity again until the next one.

That is a moderate eurosceptic doesnt get your attention but once a lunatic does you perk up.

Well, who were they going to pick instead? Reading through the list of 'No' groups, you'll have to admit that it is populated largely by rather vocal fringe elements. Sometimes you have to accept that moderate, intelligent people won't get the airtime only because others are just better publicists.

Most famous of all was Libertas who ran an absolutely fantastic campaign for the first referendum. They got exposure at first because of this, not because of some conspiracy. By the second referendum the media had turned on them and, in particular, Declan Ganley - but then again, if you were a journalist looking for material, Ganley is Godsend.

Well in tems of the political parties that opposed the war and those that supported it the extreme left and right opposed it and the center supported it. So does that make an argument for the war?

Well, AFAIR, in both the US and (even) the UK a majority of the population supported war, so unfortunately it does make an argument for it - it's called democracy.

Elsewhere support was not so clear-cut; often it was conditional, mooted or conflicted. Ireland was one example of this where the political parties all seemed to both oppose and support war simultaneously. In most European nations war was flatly opposed by the center.

BetterLisbon

The Corinthian wrote: »

Coir are no longer all that active - indeed, they were only set up to fight the last Lisbon referendum, so it's hardly surprising that they are not much in the news today.
Gerry Adams, on the other hand, is in the news a fair bit at present, but largely due to the UK elections, not Europe.
Life goes on.
Of course it's going to be wall-to-wall come referendum time - that's when it's topical. It's a bit like poor old Jim Duffy who gets trotted out to commentate every presidential election and then goes back into relative obscurity again until the next one.
Well, who were they going to pick instead? Reading through the list of 'No' groups, you'll have to admit that it is populated largely by rather vocal fringe elements. Sometimes you have to accept that moderate, intelligent people won't get the airtime only because others are just better publicists.
Most famous of all was Libertas who ran an absolutely fantastic campaign for the first referendum. They got exposure at first because of this, not because of some conspiracy. By the second referendum the media had turned on them and, in particular, Declan Ganley - but then again, if you were a journalist looking for material, Ganley is Godsend.
Well, AFAIR, in both the US and (even) the UK a majority of the population supported war, so unfortunately it does make an argument for it - it's called democracy.
Elsewhere support was not so clear-cut; often it was conditional, mooted or conflicted. Ireland was one example of this where the political parties all seemed to both oppose and support war simultaneously. In most European nations war was flatly opposed by the center.

Coir are still active but the media aint interested as there is less desire to discredit the pro-life cause.
The media used Gerry Adams as often as they could during lisbon as there is a generation of people (45-60) who are disgusted by the mere sight of him, these people will buy the argument "if he's agin it". Referendum over no sign of Gerry on 6.01
PANA led by Roger Cole have always been articulate critics of EU treaties and led the No to Amsterdam campaign. They were excluded. Again Farmers for a No were welcome on the media until David Thompson was made spokesman. The previous spokesman was crap, Thompson was superb. Susan Phillips and EU reform have worked tirelessly down the years but as she is really good in debates (She was excellent in the UCD lawsoc debate in September) she doesnt get on TV or Radio.
Ganley was superb first time and thats why the media set out to destroy him so wouldnt have an impact second time.
Corinthian i will give you a great quote, it comes from the leader of the Yes campaign in the UK referendum in 1975:
" The whole thrust of our campaign was to depict the anti-Marketeers as unreliable people - dangerous people who would lead you down the wrong path ... It wasn't so much that it was sensible to stay in, but that anybody who proposed that we came out was off their rocker or virtually Marxist"
http://wapedia.mobi/en/United_Kingdom_referendum,_1975

You are still avoiding the point that the "extreme" parties opposed the war and the "moderate" parties supported it. Applying your reasoning that endorses the war.

K-9

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Coir are still active but the media aint interested as there is less desire to discredit the pro-life cause.
The media used Gerry Adams as often as they could during lisbon as there is a generation of people (45-60) who are disgusted by the mere sight of him, these people will buy the argument "if he's agin it". Referendum over no sign of Gerry on 6.01
PANA led by Roger Cole have always been articulate critics of EU treaties and led the No to Amsterdam campaign. They were excluded. Again Farmers for a No were welcome on the media until David Thompson was made spokesman. The previous spokesman was crap, Thompson was superb. Susan Phillips and EU reform have worked tirelessly down the years but as she is really good in debates (She was excellent in the UCD lawsoc debate in September) she doesnt get on TV or Radio.
Ganley was superb first time and thats why the media set out to destroy him so wouldnt have an impact second time.
Corinthian i will give you a great quote, it comes from the leader of the Yes campaign in the UK referendum in 1975:
" The whole thrust of our campaign was to depict the anti-Marketeers as unreliable people - dangerous people who would lead you down the wrong path ... It wasn't so much that it was sensible to stay in, but that anybody who proposed that we came out was off their rocker or virtually Marxist"
http://wapedia.mobi/en/United_Kingdom_referendum,_1975

You are still avoiding the point that the "extreme" parties opposed the war and the "moderate" parties supported it. Applying your reasoning that endorses the war.

Think we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Thompson does it for me.

Unfortunately the wrong path was what Lisbon became so I don't think any side can feign offence at that.

Scofflaw

I'd say the main correlation there is actually PR spending. There were a lot of little groups on both sides which got no airtime, but the big spenders - COIR, Libertas, Sinn Fein - were the ones who got media time on the No side. Sadly reflective of the state of Irish journalism, I'd say, rather than any agenda - if there was some kind of pro-establishment agenda, Libertas would never have made the media in the first place.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Corinthian

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Coir are still active but the media aint interested as there is less desire to discredit the pro-life cause.

Beyond adding articles to their Web site, how active are they? What conferences, press meetings or other activities have they carried out? What press releases have they issued?

The media used Gerry Adams as often as they could during lisbon as there is a generation of people (45-60) who are disgusted by the mere sight of him, these people will buy the argument "if he's agin it". Referendum over no sign of Gerry on 6.01

Do you have any evidence to collaborate your opinion?

PANA led by Roger Cole have always been articulate critics of EU treaties and led the No to Amsterdam campaign. They were excluded. Again Farmers for a No were welcome on the media until David Thompson was made spokesman. The previous spokesman was crap, Thompson was superb. Susan Phillips and EU reform have worked tirelessly down the years but as she is really good in debates (She was excellent in the UCD lawsoc debate in September) she doesnt get on TV or Radio.

TBH, I would have to agree with Scofflaw and suggest that it really comes down to PR spending (and talent) rather than any conspiracy - for which there really is no evidence beyond a some of the flimsiest and most circumstantial imaginable.

Ganley was superb first time and thats why the media set out to destroy him so wouldnt have an impact second time.

The media's motivation is pure opinion on your part. Ganley appeared out of nowhere before anyone had a chance to ask who he was, in the media. By the time the second referendum came round, he had been in the public eye for a while and thus the skeletons had already begun to come out of the closet - and let's be honest, the guy has such a colorful background that he is, as I already pointed out, a Godsend to journalists. Can you deny that?

Corinthian i will give you a great quote, it comes from the leader of the Yes campaign in the UK referendum in 1975:
" The whole thrust of our campaign was to depict the anti-Marketeers as unreliable people - dangerous people who would lead you down the wrong path ... It wasn't so much that it was sensible to stay in, but that anybody who proposed that we came out was off their rocker or virtually Marxist"
http://wapedia.mobi/en/United_Kingdom_referendum,_1975

That's called a political strategy and one that is not unique to EU referenda. Welcome to democracy.

You are still avoiding the point that the "extreme" parties opposed the war and the "moderate" parties supported it. Applying your reasoning that endorses the war.

Actually, I rejected that.

I pointed out that there was no common stance in the West - in the US and UK, where public opinion favoured the war, the center supported it. Other countries, like Ireland, sat on a fence - somehow both supporting and opposing the war, at the same time. Other countries, such as Germany, France, Belgium and Holland, the center parties all opposed it. Other countries again, such as Italy and Spain, the center parties were split, with some opposing and some supporting.

So your contention that the "moderate" parties supported the war is a fantasy. They supported it in some countries, but not in others.

BetterLisbon

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'd say the main correlation there is actually PR spending. There were a lot of little groups on both sides which got no airtime, but the big spenders - COIR, Libertas, Sinn Fein - were the ones who got media time on the No side. Sadly reflective of the state of Irish journalism, I'd say, rather than any agenda - if there was some kind of pro-establishment agenda, Libertas would never have made the media in the first place.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I disagree scoff. Libertas were given publicity to divide the anti-treaty left. Trouble is first time Ganley turned out to be superb and didnt split the anti-treaty left as hoped.

dogbert27

Another thread gone off on a tangent by eurosceptics after the original post was responded to with reasoned debate. :rolleyes:

The Corinthian

BetterLisbon, with respects, you do understand that everything you are presently putting forward is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion, backed by little more than thin circumstantial evidence and more in keeping with conspiracy theory than reasoned political analysis?

BetterLisbon

The Corinthian wrote: »

BetterLisbon, with respects, you do understand that everything you are presently putting forward is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion, backed by little more than thin circumstantial evidence and more in keeping with conspiracy theory than reasoned political analysis?

I am not pretending to be offering fact just opinion and analysis. Most of it is borne out by experience of being part of the No campaign and the argumentum ad hominem directed at us when we raised legitimate concerns.

The Corinthian

BetterLisbon wrote: »

I am not pretending to be offering fact just opinion and analysis.

Opinion yes. Analysis, on the other hand, would require some level of objectivity, and this I find lacking. Objective analysis would likely look at the possibilities and apply Ockham's razor at some stage, but you consistently are favouring the more complex and fantastical explanation for how eurosceptics are seen.

Indeed, I debunked most if not all of your arguments earlier and you seem to have ignored my response.

Most of it is borne out by experience of being part of the No campaign and the argumentum ad hominem directed at us when we raised legitimate concerns.

Then I will correct myself from earlier; your opinions are backed by little more than thin circumstantial or anecdotal evidence. Doesn't exactly make them any more weighty, does it?

Bare in mind that when you say legitimate concerns raised such reactions, we only have your word for this - one man's legitimate concern is another man's loony tunes, after all.

BetterLisbon

The Corinthian wrote: »

Bare in mind that when you say legitimate concerns raised such reactions, we only have your word for this - one man's legitimate concern is another man's loony tunes, after all.

Well you can look at my website www.betterthanlisbon.org before it expires next month. You will see all the issues i rasied were directly linked to the treaty text. Some no groups offered specualtive arguments as did some yes groups yet only the no claims were "lies".