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

Flamed Diving

BetterLisbon wrote: »

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".

Why Say No?

The treaty will end Irish neutrality in any meaningful sense, Our position in the European Community institutions (to become European Union institutions under Lisbon) is weakened, The EU will adopt a much more aggressive posture on the world stage, Irish laws will be struck down for being in conflict with the Rights Charter, Workers rights will be undermined, Public services will be undermined, Civil liberties will be weakened by the new justice and policing provisions, Key concerns of protecting the environment and energy security fail to be properly addressed and on top of it all; Will you ever get to vote again?

Same old...

View

BetterLisbon wrote: »

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.

In the case of the UK, the Liberal Democrats opposed the war in Iraq. Offhand, I'd say they qualify as being a "centre" party rather than either extreme left or right.

On the other hand, it is hard to think of a party in the EU that would either describe itself as being a "centre" party or be described by other as such that isn't strongly supportive of the EU.

The Corinthian

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Well you can look at my website www.betterthanlisbon.org before it expires next month.

With all due respects, you have raised a number of arguments, I have rebutted them and you have ignored my responses.

BetterLisbon, you cannot expect to enter a debate, and treat it as a soapbox where you are free to put forward arguments, but need never defend them. At least you cannot expect to do that and be taken seriously.

Adding irony to the mix, you have admitted that your site is due to expire next month, lending weight to my earlier rebuttal that suggested that Euroscpetic groups are not being ignored or silenced by the media, but simply no longer that active following the referendum. The pro-EU media hasn't exactly clubbed together to silence you, has it?

View wrote: »

In the case of the UK, the Liberal Democrats opposed the war in Iraq.

I'd actually forgotten that in my earlier reply to BetterLisbon. It further undermines his claim, TBH, to the point of almost meaninglessness.

molloyjh

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Same old...

And this from the poster who insisted that their concerns were genuine and related to the Treaty. I took one look at the site and laughed because it is exactly that...the same old rubbish trotted out since the first referendum. There's no point in going through it all again as it's a dead horse that's been ressurected and flogged to death all over again, only to be dragged back from the light to be flogged to death again. The thought that anyone can believe some of the things that site says and expect others to believe they've read the Treaty is quite comical at this stage.

But to answer the question it all finishes on: Yes, any amendments that required referenda prior to Lisbon require referenda post Lisbon.

BetterLisbon

View wrote: »

In the case of the UK, the Liberal Democrats opposed the war in Iraq. Offhand, I'd say they qualify as being a "centre" party rather than either extreme left or right.

Fine LibDems is one. Name five.

Flamed Diving

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Fine LibDems is one. Name five.

Why not fifty?

BetterLisbon

molloyjh wrote: »

And this from the poster who insisted that their concerns were genuine and related to the Treaty. I took one look at the site and laughed because it is exactly that...the same old rubbish trotted out since the first referendum. There's no point in going through it all again as it's a dead horse that's been ressurected and flogged to death all over again, only to be dragged back from the light to be flogged to death again. The thought that anyone can believe some of the things that site says and expect others to believe they've read the Treaty is quite comical at this stage.

But to answer the question it all finishes on: Yes, any amendments that required referenda prior to Lisbon require referenda post Lisbon.

No the 28th amendment includes an enabling clause in respect of Article 48.7 so the concession of vetoes (except on defence) cant trigger a referendum under crotty. Under Nice it might have under crotty.
The 28th amendment also includes an enabling clause in respect of conceding the Justice and home affairs opt-out.
The emergency powers clause (TFEU-352) is extended to all aspects of EU law except defence under Nice it was only in respect of the common market

BetterLisbon

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Why not fifty?

With 27 member states thats not unreasonable. Less than two parties per state.

BetterLisbon

The Corinthian wrote: »

With all due respects, you have raised a number of arguments, I have rebutted them and you have ignored my responses.

BetterLisbon, you cannot expect to enter a debate, and treat it as a soapbox where you are free to put forward arguments, but need never defend them. At least you cannot expect to do that and be taken seriously.

Adding irony to the mix, you have admitted that your site is due to expire next month, lending weight to my earlier rebuttal that suggested that Euroscpetic groups are not being ignored or silenced by the media, but simply no longer that active following the referendum. The pro-EU media hasn't exactly clubbed together to silence you, has it?

I'd actually forgotten that in my earlier reply to BetterLisbon. It further undermines his claim, TBH, to the point of almost meaninglessness.

LibDems are one name five in the EU.

The Corinthian

BetterLisbon wrote: »

LibDems are one name five in the EU.

I already pointed it out out to you how support varied in different countries, are you looking to be spoon-fed?

Well then some major mainstream parties that opposed the Iraq war:

• Italy: Partito Democratico, UDC.
• Germany: CDU, SPD.
• Spain: PSOE
• France: Parti Socialiste, Union pour un Mouvement Populaire.

The above is not a conclusive list of mainstream EU parties that opposed the Iraq war.

The Corinthian

BetterLisbon wrote: »

LibDems are one name five in the EU.

I mean seriously, don't you remember Rumsfeld criticizing 'Old Europe' for opposing the war? Who do you think he meant? The mainstream parties in government or the extremist fringe parties?

I actually can't believe that you didn't know this.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

I mean seriously, don't you remember Rumsfeld criticizing 'Old Europe' for opposing the war? Who do you think he meant? The mainstream parties in government or the extremist fringe parties?

I actually can't believe that you didn't know this.

I remember pointing this out on Lisbon threads but when people believe things to be true, facts are often just inconveniences.

BetterLisbon

The Corinthian wrote: »

I already pointed it out out to you how support varied in different countries, are you looking to be spoon-fed?


Well then some major mainstream parties that opposed the Iraq war:

• Italy: Partito Democratico, UDC.
• Germany: CDU, SPD.
• Spain: PSOE
• France: Parti Socialiste, Union pour un Mouvement Populaire.

The above is not a conclusive list of mainstream EU parties that opposed the Iraq war.

Fair play corinthian you have found mainstream parties that opposed it but most NATO governments did go along with the war.

Flamed Diving

http://www.uncountedthemovie.com/images/goalposts.jpg

turly

"Brrrrrm! Brrrrrm!"

(Sorry, just adding the sound effects to Flamed's picture of the goalposts being moved.)

View

BetterLisbon wrote: »

No the 28th amendment includes an enabling clause in respect of Article 48.7 so the concession of vetoes (except on defence) cant trigger a referendum under crotty. Under Nice it might have under crotty.
The 28th amendment also includes an enabling clause in respect of conceding the Justice and home affairs opt-out.
The emergency powers clause (TFEU-352) is extended to all aspects of EU law except defence under Nice it was only in respect of the common market

And the evidence that any of these would have required an amendment (prior to the 28th amendment) is what exactly? Is there a Supreme Court ruling about these? If so, point it out...

You might want to read the Crotty ruling incidentally. It is a lot narrower in scope than most people believe.

anotherfinemess

So back on topic then.............if being an EU member but having your own currency is good enough for the likes of Denmark, UK, Sweden, Latvia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Rep & Estonia, why isn't it good enough for us? We'd at least have a chance of surviving the present tsunami, whereas with the established, (non-lunatic?) arrangement we can only get swept away.

The Corinthian

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Fair play corinthian you have found mainstream parties that opposed it but most NATO governments did go along with the war.

Irrelevant. You made a claim, with only passing relevance to the thread, and it has been debunked. Altering this claim in an attempt to not have it dis-proven is a bit ridiculous at this stage, and ironically adds to the view that is often held of eurosceptic supporters.

And on that note, your claim argued a concerted effort - a conspiracy - to specifically target 'loony' or 'dodgy' eurosceptics during the referendum and then starve them of coverage afterwords.

It has been repeatedly pointed out that there is absolutely no real evidence of this and that in reality the 'loony' or 'dodgy' eurosceptics made up the most vocal, and indeed vast majority, of organizations opposing the Lisbon treaty.

Additionally it has been pointed out that no one has been silenced, but that the news focus and PR resources have simply moved on. Ironically you have given us evidence when you admitted that your own media platform was soon to be silenced - because your domain was about to run out, not because of a media conspiracy.

Whether you realize it or not you've actually demonstrated the very traits that have resulted in eurosceptics being automatically labeled as fringe lunatics:

• Soapboxing.
• Failure to debate (e.g. ignoring rebuttals and points, changing goalposts mid-discussion).
• Unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

And you've not even demonstrated some of the other traits that you will often find (as we did with an earlier poster), such as blatant xenophobia and/or racialism.

This is why people will roll their eyes to the heavens when a eurosceptic speaks, because while it is unfair to jump to such conclusions, time and time again eurosceptics will prove them to be true.

SkepticOne

anotherfinemess wrote: »

So back on topic then.............if being an EU member but having your own currency is good enough for the likes of Denmark, UK, Sweden, Latvia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Rep & Estonia, why isn't it good enough for us? We'd at least have a chance of surviving the present tsunami, whereas with the established, (non-lunatic?) arrangement we can only get swept away.

You can expect the ad hominem accusations against dissenters to increase to fever pitch as Euro crisis intensifies.

K-9

anotherfinemess wrote: »

So back on topic then.............if being an EU member but having your own currency is good enough for the likes of Denmark, UK, Sweden, Latvia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Rep & Estonia, why isn't it good enough for us? We'd at least have a chance of surviving the present tsunami, whereas with the established, (non-lunatic?) arrangement we can only get swept away.

Latvia wouldn't be a great example with the IMF and all. UK not great either. Poland and the Czech Republic are doing ok I believe, not sure. Again, like being in the Euro, it depends on Government policy how well you do.

K-9

SkepticOne wrote: »

You can expect the ad hominem accusations against dissenters to increase to fever pitch as Euro crisis intensifies.

Of course we never would have had a Punt crisis or speculators attacking our currency in the last decade.

Decent piece on it here:
The Euro is a success; Free lunch yet to be invented

The Corinthian

anotherfinemess wrote: »

So back on topic then.............if being an EU member but having your own currency is good enough for the likes of Denmark, UK, Sweden, Latvia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Rep & Estonia, why isn't it good enough for us? We'd at least have a chance of surviving the present tsunami, whereas with the established, (non-lunatic?) arrangement we can only get swept away.

There are two points to be made with regards to this. First of all, control of monetary policy is not a magic wand for all of a nations economic needs. Neither does it afford immunity from the present Eurozone crisis, as the UK is discovering. Latvia and Hungary are additionally two examples of economies that hardly recommend an independent currency.

Secondly, it has been repeatedly been pointed out that there is an economic price to abandoning the Euro and introducing a new currency. Even if this could be achieved without runs on the banks (as people move their money to Euro denominated accounts) or hyperinflation, any subsequent devaluation would not affect Irish debts, that would remain valued in Euro, and would infact increase them in any devalued currency, for example.

SkepticOne wrote: »

You can expect the ad hominem accusations against dissenters to increase to fever pitch as Euro crisis intensifies.

"The Euro is bad."

"Why?"

"Because it is."

"That's a stupid argument."

"Stop with the ad hominem attacks! There's a conspiracy to silence the truth!"

View

anotherfinemess wrote: »

So back on topic then.............if being an EU member but having your own currency is good enough for the likes of Denmark, UK, Sweden, Latvia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Rep & Estonia, why isn't it good enough for us?

All the member states you mention have already agreed that they will participate in the Euro when they meet the necessary conditions to do so. Denmark and the UK have exemptions on when they shall do so but that is not the case for the others.

sirromo

This is from (here) today's Sunday Independent

There comes a time in every crisis when it becomes impossible to ignore the unpleasant facts.

Yes, our membership of the euro has sheltered us from the immediate consequences of the collapse of our banking system since September 2008. However, was it not our membership of the single currency that was largely responsible for landing us in our current mess in the first place?

At the end of 1997, total bank lending to Irish residents stood at €56bn.

Most of this lending, €48.8bn, or 87 per cent, was financed by Irish retail deposits. Fast-forward to the end of December 2009, and bank lending had risen six-and-a-half fold to €365bn while deposits had less than quadrupled to €171bn. As a result, the proportion of Irish bank lending funded by Irish deposits has fallen from 87 per cent to 47 per cent over the past 12 years.

In other words, by removing the effective cap on Irish bank lending represented by domestic deposits, our membership of the euro was the main cause of the credit bubble which drove property prices to insane heights over the past decade. We are now living with the consequences of the bursting of that bubble.

The people who were telling us that we could be kicked out of the EU if we didn't vote for the Lisbon treaty are now predicting armageddon if we pull out of the euro, and maybe they're right, but the position we're in has become so desperate that leaving the euro might just be the lesser of two evils.

From the same article:

So what can we do? It must now be as clear as daylight that there is no way that a €126bn economy can support a debt load of almost quarter of a trillion euro. By attempting to do so we will merely prolong the agony. We urgently require some sort of debt restructuring, default, call it what you will. Otherwise the Irish economy will remain mired in depression for a decade or longer.

However, even if our debts were restructured we would still need a strong economic recovery to service even our reduced indebtedness. Unfortunately our membership of the euro, which ties us into an over-valued exchange rate, makes this difficult perhaps impossible.

All of which leaves us needing to think the unthinkable, something which the intensifying eurozone crisis will force us to do in any event. Given that it was our membership of the euro which largely created the economic crisis in the first place, will withdrawal from the euro form part of any solution?

Scofflaw

Once again, the argument that our membership of the euro magically caused us all to frantically invest in property, and our banks to hysterically thrust money at us to do so, does not stand up in the face of comparisons with other countries - non-euro countries with credit and property bubbles, euro countries without them. Indeed, it doesn't stand up in the face of any individual who didn't get involved in the property frenzy. Mass hysteria and irrational exuberance are not properties of the euro, and to blame the euro is to miss the opportunity to learn any lessons from the Celtic madness.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sirromo

Scofflaw wrote:

Once again, the argument that our membership of the euro magically caused us all to frantically invest in property, and our banks to hysterically thrust money at us to do so, does not stand up in the face of comparisons with other countries - non-euro countries with credit and property bubbles, euro countries without them. Indeed, it doesn't stand up in the face of any individual who didn't get involved in the property frenzy. Mass hysteria and irrational exuberance are not properties of the euro, and to blame the euro is to miss the opportunity to learn any lessons from the Celtic madness.

This argument could be used by a Fianna Fail supporter. The Fianna Fail government's tax policies didn't magically cause us all to frantically invest in property either. Their tax policies might have made investment in property more attractive but so too did the conditions caused by our membership of the euro, and as the euro is not to blame for the housing bubble, neither can we blame the Fianna Fail government for the bubble. The euro and the Fianna Fail government both played a minor role in inflating the property bubble.

thebman

sirromo wrote: »

This argument could be used by a Fianna Fail supporter. The Fianna Fail government's tax policies didn't magically cause us all to frantically invest in property either. Their tax policies might have made investment in property more attractive but so too did the conditions caused by our membership of the euro, and as the euro is not to blame for the housing bubble, neither can we blame the Fianna Fail government for the bubble. The euro and the Fianna Fail government both played a minor role in inflating the property bubble.

The Euro doesn't govern the state though, FF do.

The low interest rates didn't help but there was a lot more the government could have done but they didn't, they fueled the bubble.

Its flat out stupid to say that the government would have behave responsibly if we were not in the Euro without giving a valid reason why their behavior would have been different when everything they did says they would have done the opposite.

sink

sirromo wrote: »

This argument could be used by a Fianna Fail supporter. The Fianna Fail government's tax policies didn't magically cause us all to frantically invest in property either. Their tax policies might have made investment in property more attractive but so too did the conditions caused by our membership of the euro, and as the euro is not to blame for the housing bubble, neither can we blame the Fianna Fail government for the bubble. The euro and the Fianna Fail government both played a minor role in inflating the property bubble.

Sorry but I have to take you up on this. Interest rates don't just effect the property market they effect all investment including investment in businesses, infrastructure and high value personal items such as cars and holidays. Higher interest rates might help tackle an over heating property market but they will also depress other areas of the economy that rely upon credit.

Manipulating interest rates are a poor way of trying to control just one sector of the economy, it like using a chainsaw when a scalpel is required.

Fianna Fail could have cooled the property market in a targeted fashion by eliminating the tax incentives and increasing stamp duty for second homes and even introducing an new second home property tax, but they did none of that.

Scofflaw

sirromo wrote: »

This argument could be used by a Fianna Fail supporter. The Fianna Fail government's tax policies didn't magically cause us all to frantically invest in property either. Their tax policies might have made investment in property more attractive but so too did the conditions caused by our membership of the euro, and as the euro is not to blame for the housing bubble, neither can we blame the Fianna Fail government for the bubble. The euro and the Fianna Fail government both played a minor role in inflating the property bubble.

Up to a point that's entirely the case, and doesn't fail simply by virtue of associating the argument with Fianna Fáil. However, while the conditions of euro membership made any borrowing for investment attractive, Fianna Fáil's tax policies tilted the playing field towards property, and the mass stupidity of banks and public did the rest.

So yes, I'd say that the euro played a very minor role, Fianna Fáil a small role, and the banks and the public played a starring role. Given the role that Fianna Fáil did play, however, which was to encourage and exacerbate the bubble by all means at their disposal, then we can say that in the absence of the euro, Fianna Fáil would have played a much larger role, because they would have had additional instruments at their disposal with which to blow the bubble up.

The euro's role remains, though, to have set the framework in which stupid decisions were made, against which we have to set the fact that those decisions need not have been stupid.

cordially,
Scofflaw

jacaranda

Whether or not we remain in the Euro has never been an option since we decided to join the euro. We are in it and there is no mechanism apparent to leave it, even if that is what we wanted to do.

It may be that the pressures ahead for the Euro might be such that the currency remains unable to continue, and all members of the currency, or many or some members, will be forced to exit the currency. As the song goes, there may be trouble ahead for both the single currency and, perhaps as a consequence, for the EU.

From this perspective, no one can guess what will happen, which will depend on events.