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

K-9

Good piece on Britain and the mess they are in, with no huge property bubble:
Britain hurtling towards worst budget deficit in EU

Considering if we left the Euro, this would be our main exporting country*, worth bearing in mind.

*As opposed to Bloc, as in the Euro.

BluntGuy

jacaranda wrote: »

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.

I am not a massive supporter of the euro, though I do recognise its advantages, nor am I a strong supporter of the present EU or that Lisbon Treaty which I believe will have unpalatable consequences in the future.

But, I refuse to accept an argument put forward by some euro-sceptics that the euro was never a stable currency and that it was always going to fail. I also hate seeing the hypocricy of the EU governments saying they are "defending" the currency at all costs.

The fact of the matter is, the currency had every opportunity to be stable. EU governments also had every opportunity to "defend" their beloved currency.

Properly-enforced, sound fiscal policy would've been a great place to start. Excessive borrowing should've been tightened and a more common approach to taxation and spending adjustments should've been taken (I disagree with this in principle, but if you're going to be in a new common currency such as this, you can't pick and choose fundamental elements of fiscal policy that affect other members you're going to have full control over). No government, including Germany, can claim they didn't try and circumvent the rules that were put down.

Spain, Portgual etc. spent far, far more than they can afford, encouraged by an apparently strong global currency. (Note: I'm not saying they wouldn't be in a mess were they not in the euro btw). They have few significant mechanisms apart from cutting spending with which to tackle their deficits, and now potentially, other countries will have to bail them out. This isn't fair. Especially when there is no provision for this in EU law.

The euro is in a bit of a mess right now.

It'll be interesting to see how things pan out.

BetterLisbon

The Corinthian wrote: »

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.

Calm down there corinthian. Unlike most on discussion boards i am prepared to admit where i am wrong. You have shown me to be wrong on my comment that the mainstream parties supported Iraq. So i will retract that comment and enter that lots of mainstream parties were.

Well cast your mind back to the Nice rerun. Out of the blue Justin Barret was built up as the "the leader" of the No to Nice campaign. He most certainly wasnt, opposition came mostly from the left and the anti-militarisation wing. This was done because certain footage had been obtained and was used mercilessly in the closing stages of that campaign to tar the whole No to Nice campaign with the same brush due to what "their leader" was up to.
But what evidence do you want? Internal RTE memo's? Internal TV3 memo's? Internal IT memo's? You place an impossibly high threshold of proof on me. I can only give you my experience of being involved in the No campaign both times.
I am not renewing my website. The 12th monthly installment has been debited from my account and i am not signing up for another year. I may however setup a new EU related website in its place but with a less expensive provider. I never suggested this was down to foul play, i really dont know what you are on about there.
Again i charge that you are seeing what you want to see. As for your 3 charges:
Soapboxing: OK point taken but are you seriously suggesting that europhiles dont soapbox here and elsewhere?
Failure to debate: I dont accept. I have conceded where i am wrong when i have been shown to be wrong but where an adversary tries to twist what i say i fight my corner.
Unsubstantiated conspiracy theories: The one "conspiracy" i have advanced is media coverage but you place an impossibly high burden of proof on me. Speaking of "conspiracies" what do think of the No side being funded by the CIA or some mysterious london based Hedge fund??? The shoe fits on the other foot too.

As for "xenophobia/racialsm". Why is it that when someone suggests Turkey should not be allowed into the EU its ok but when anyone suggested the eastern bloc should not be allowed in they are a "xenophobe". Why is it when someone complains about welfare being paid to non-europeans its ok but when anyone complains about welfare being paid to eastern europeans they are a "xenophobe". Its ok to charge non-europeans 300 euros in A&E (100 euros for europeans) but if anyone suggested eastern europeans pay 300 euros they are a xenophobe. This is the double standards and fundamental hypocrisy of europhiles that i find so bizarre.

BetterLisbon

K-9 wrote: »

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

Punt crisis was caused by our committment to join the euro on jan 1st 1999. The fact euro-philes always gloss over. We should have broken ERM when sterling did. This would have averted the crisis.

BetterLisbon

View wrote: »

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.

The swedes have said the referendum result of 2003 stands. As such unless a new referendum can be won sweden is keeping the Krona. Funny how the propheses of doom by their yes campaign never materialised btw.

BetterLisbon

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.

Well said sirromo. The absolutist and idealogical kneejerk of the europhile son this site and beyond is almost an artform. Anything good is due to the EU anything bad is due to the member states.

BetterLisbon

K-9 wrote: »

Good piece on Britain and the mess they are in, with no huge property bubble:
Britain hurtling towards worst budget deficit in EU

Considering if we left the Euro, this would be our main exporting country*, worth bearing in mind.

*As opposed to Bloc, as in the Euro.

The UK can print cash to dilute its debt. Plus the UK was smart to insist that investors accept sterling bonds.

The Corinthian

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Calm down there corinthian. Unlike most on discussion boards i am prepared to admit where i am wrong. You have shown me to be wrong on my comment that the mainstream parties supported Iraq. So i will retract that comment and enter that lots of mainstream parties were.

Fair enough, but up until now you were not making any such admission.

Well cast your mind back to the Nice rerun. Out of the blue Justin Barret was built up as the "the leader" of the No to Nice campaign. He most certainly wasnt, opposition came mostly from the left and the anti-militarisation wing.

But what evidence do you want? Internal RTE memo's? Internal TV3 memo's? Internal IT memo's? You place an impossibly high threshold of proof on me. I can only give you my experience of being involved in the No campaign both times.

No one is asking for a smoking gun, but if you are going to rely upon circumstantial evidence, then it would carry greater weight if more innocuous reasons were not so much more simple.

I am not renewing my website. The 12th monthly installment has been debited from my account and i am not signing up for another year. I may however setup a new EU related website in its place but with a less expensive provider. I never suggested this was down to foul play, i really dont know what you are on about there.

What I am pointing out is that there was no foul play, no one has silenced you and there is a much simpler explanation - that the topic is no longer topical and thus no longer merits the resources. Why can you not believe that the reality with other eurosceptic groups, and their coverage, is simply that Lisbon is no longer newsworthy and they're not really saying anything new or relevant?

Soapboxing: OK point taken but are you seriously suggesting that europhiles dont soapbox here and elsewhere?

And if they do I would not defend it.

Failure to debate: I dont accept. I have conceded where i am wrong when i have been shown to be wrong but where an adversary tries to twist what i say i fight my corner.

Yet you have consistently ignored replies or moved the goalposts. Even on the Iraq side-argument, you repeatedly moved the goalposts and have only just admitted you were wrong now.

Unsubstantiated conspiracy theories: The one "conspiracy" i have advanced is media coverage but you place an impossibly high burden of proof on me. Speaking of "conspiracies" what do think of the No side being funded by the CIA or some mysterious london based Hedge fund??? The shoe fits on the other foot too.

As with europhile soapboxing, I would not condone europhile conspiracy theories.

Of course sometimes conspiracies really do happen. However, more often than not they don't, and even many that do happen are not what we imagine them to be.

Of Libertas, IMHO, the CIA were not in the background. No doubt Ganley knows a few spooks, but so what? A lot of us do, and they're just civil servants, who most of the time couldn't organize a piss-up in a brewery - and that is particularly true of the CIA. If there was any conspiracy, I'd imagine it was one more of opportunism on the part of certain stakeholders than any complex Illumianti master plan. No big deal.

As for "xenophobia/racialsm". Why is it that when someone suggests Turkey should not be allowed into the EU its ok but when anyone suggested the eastern bloc should not be allowed in they are a "xenophobe". Why is it when someone complains about welfare being paid to non-europeans its ok but when anyone complains about welfare being paid to eastern europeans they are a "xenophobe".

An interesting point. I do think that there are limits, economically and culturally, to what the EU should be and in that light I would think it would be going too far to let, say, Libya in. Turkey I am in two minds on.

Given this, xenophobia is more extreme than that as it targets everyone outside of your 'local tribe'. Any difference is bad, while in Europe it is accepted that there is a broad spectrum of difference, connected with a common historical and cultural identity.

Additionally, racialism is quite different as it judges people by race, thus ruling out as citizens someone who may fourth generation, while bizarrely accepting someone who's family may have been on the other side of the planet for the same period and have a dubious, at best, connection to the fatherland.

DaBrow

Interesting News that I have found, it looks like that we can leave the EU without the fear by many europhiles of becoming a deprived 3rd world country.

"UPDATE 2-Providence says oil potential offshore Ireland

Thu Apr 8, 2010 9:20am EDT

Stocks

* Around 870 million barrels of oil could be in place
* Prospect in shallow water, near the shore, but still risky
* Partners to focus on de-risking the prospect
(Updates with share price reaction)
DUBLIN, April 8 (Reuters) - Irish oil and gas company Providence Resources Plc (PRR.I) said its Dalkey Island prospect off the east coast of Ireland could contain a significant amount of oil."
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUKLDE63718B20100408?type=companyNews

We could easily demand that this be nationalised and create an oil ministry like that of Norway; it would prevent the EU forcing us to share it amongst fellow members. As a new EFTA member, we would have a stronger voice and any oil that is sold externally could pay off any debts that we have existing.


Also, here is a video of Dr Anthony Coughlan last year stating that we should not be in the eurozone or be in the EU any longer.... He confirms that 66% of our trade is outside the Eurozone and a hefty chunk outside the EU which is being crippled because of an overvalued currency.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tmthp8rZp0

One that is delaying, but not preventing default that no bailout with fix....

Slán:D

Scofflaw

DaBrow wrote: »

Interesting News that I have found, it looks like that we can leave the EU without the fear by many europhiles of becoming a deprived 3rd world country.

"UPDATE 2-Providence says oil potential offshore Ireland

Thu Apr 8, 2010 9:20am EDT

Stocks

* Around 870 million barrels of oil could be in place
* Prospect in shallow water, near the shore, but still risky
* Partners to focus on de-risking the prospect
(Updates with share price reaction)
DUBLIN, April 8 (Reuters) - Irish oil and gas company Providence Resources Plc (PRR.I) said its Dalkey Island prospect off the east coast of Ireland could contain a significant amount of oil."
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUKLDE63718B20100408?type=companyNews

We could easily demand that this be nationalised and create an oil ministry like that of Norway; it would prevent the EU forcing us to share it amongst fellow members. As a new EFTA member, we would have a stronger voice and any oil that is sold externally could pay off any debts that we have existing.


Also, here is a video of Dr Anthony Coughlan last year stating that we should not be in the eurozone or be in the EU any longer.... He confirms that 66% of our trade is outside the Eurozone and a hefty chunk outside the EU which is being crippled because of an overvalued currency.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tmthp8rZp0

One that is delaying, but not preventing default that no bailout with fix....

Slán:D

Not to rain on your planned parade there, but 870m barrels isn't a lot of oil. For one thing, that's the full figure, not the extractable figure, which is likely to be about a third of that |(c. 290m). At current prices of c. $80/barrel, that's about €18.5bn. Assuming a twenty year lifespan, that's €925m annually as the value of the oil - 4 weeks of our current deficit, assuming we nationalised the field. Assuming, on the other hand, we tax the value of the oil at 25%, it's €231m annually - handy, but not actually a good trade for EU membership, particularly since EU membership doesn't deprive us of that money.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dogbert27

Ah now Scofflaw, why did you have to go and ruin DaBrow's parade with reasoned analysis.
This thread is only for throw away inflammatory comments!

Flamed Diving

DaBrow wrote: »

Interesting News that I have found, it looks like that we can leave the EU without the fear by many europhiles of becoming a deprived 3rd world country.

"UPDATE 2-Providence says oil potential offshore Ireland

Thu Apr 8, 2010 9:20am EDT

Stocks

* Around 870 million barrels of oil could be in place
* Prospect in shallow water, near the shore, but still risky
* Partners to focus on de-risking the prospect
(Updates with share price reaction)
DUBLIN, April 8 (Reuters) - Irish oil and gas company Providence Resources Plc (PRR.I) said its Dalkey Island prospect off the east coast of Ireland could contain a significant amount of oil."
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUKLDE63718B20100408?type=companyNews

We could easily demand that this be nationalised and create an oil ministry like that of Norway; it would prevent the EU forcing us to share it amongst fellow members. As a new EFTA member, we would have a stronger voice and any oil that is sold externally could pay off any debts that we have existing.


Also, here is a video of Dr Anthony Coughlan last year stating that we should not be in the eurozone or be in the EU any longer.... He confirms that 66% of our trade is outside the Eurozone and a hefty chunk outside the EU which is being crippled because of an overvalued currency.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tmthp8rZp0

One that is delaying, but not preventing default that no bailout with fix....

Slán:D

Ah, Providence Resources with their bi-annual "big find"...


I remember the 2003 "bonanza".



Sorry to burst your bubble, but Providence have a reputation locally for, how do you say?

Talking ****.

BetterLisbon

This could make interesting reading in the context of an EU common energy policy.

Flamed Diving

BetterLisbon wrote: »

This could make interesting reading in the context of an EU common energy policy.

It would, if they weren't talking nonsense.

bonkey

Looking here we see that Norway had around 6.7 billion barrels of proven reserves at the start of 2009, and was producing almost 2.5 million barrels/day.

870 million barrels, in this regard, isn't entirely to be sneezed at. If we were generous, and assumed that this was the extractable amount, then by matching Norway's production, we'd have enough for almost an entire year.

Lets also not forget that Norway has been producing for some time now. This means that it has already paid the cost of developing an indigenous expertise, and building an indigenous industry and infrastructure. So when Norway discovers a new field, they "just" have to put one or more extraction rigs in place, and link the lot up to the existing infrastructure....and they have all the assets and knowledge in place for doing this.

Ireland, on the other hand, doesn't have the expertise, nor the infrastructure....and such things are neither cheap nor quick to come by.

So we'd have an awful lot of start-up costs that the Norwegians have already paid. We'd have far less oil then the Norwegians have, meaning we would either earn far less per year, or earn for a very short period.

So even if Providence are (for once) right on the money...it would be more prudent to see this as a nice windfall rather than what Nassim Taleb refers to (I believe) as "**** you" money.

marco_polo

Not to metion that they pay back a substantial portion of drilling costs if a site yields nothing. Which is fine when your ratio of successful drills is 1 in 5 and you are already loaded, but when it is 1 in 30 like here?

Since we cannot possibly compete with that our only means of encouraging exploration of unproven potential reserves is through incentives like lower tax rates.

http://www.geoexpro.com/sfiles/5/50/6/file/Ireland.pdf

“Compare our situation with that in Norway, where an exploration well has
about a 1 in 5 chance of success - and if it is dry, the government will reimburse 78% of the cost.

Here in Ireland, the average success rate since the 1970’s has been 1 in 30 and all drilling costs - upwardsof $70 million for a single deep water well- are borne by the oil company.

View

BetterLisbon wrote: »

The swedes have said the referendum result of 2003 stands. As such unless a new referendum can be won sweden is keeping the Krona.

That doesn't alter that Sweden has already committed to adopting the Euro. It may effect the timescale of when they do so, altough this hasn't been an issue to date as they haven't met the criteria to do so.

Incidentally, the decision on whether to adopt the Euro or not is ultimately a decision for the Riksdag - there is no requirement for them to hold a referendum since referenda in Sweden are purely advisory.

View

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not to rain on your planned parade there, but 870m barrels isn't a lot of oil. For one thing, that's the full figure, not the extractable figure, which is likely to be about a third of that |(c. 290m). At current prices of c. $80/barrel, that's about €18.5bn. Assuming a twenty year lifespan, that's €925m annually as the value of the oil - 4 weeks of our current deficit, assuming we nationalised the field. Assuming, on the other hand, we tax the value of the oil at 25%, it's €231m annually - handy, but not actually a good trade for EU membership, particularly since EU membership doesn't deprive us of that money.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You forgot to factor in the fish Scofflaw. There are several Trillion Euro's worth of them according to standard Euro-sceptic analysis...

Where would we be without them?

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

You forgot to factor in the fish Scofflaw. There are several Trillion Euro's worth of them according to standard Euro-sceptic analysis...

Where would we be without them?

BetterLisbon isn't allowed to make that claim, because it would be dishonest, so it's a little unfair to rib him about it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BetterLisbon

View wrote: »

That doesn't alter that Sweden has already committed to adopting the Euro. It may effect the timescale of when they do so, altough this hasn't been an issue to date as they haven't met the criteria to do so.

Incidentally, the decision on whether to adopt the Euro or not is ultimately a decision for the Riksdag - there is no requirement for them to hold a referendum since referenda in Sweden are purely advisory.

Legally binding referenda are not provided for in Swedish law that is true (there were demands to ignore the result at the time) but politically the result is binding and there is no plan to raise the issue again especially with public opinion likely to say no again.

BetterLisbon

View wrote: »

That doesn't alter that Sweden has already committed to adopting the Euro. It may effect the timescale of when they do so, altough this hasn't been an issue to date as they haven't met the criteria to do so.

Incidentally, the decision on whether to adopt the Euro or not is ultimately a decision for the Riksdag - there is no requirement for them to hold a referendum since referenda in Sweden are purely advisory.

Before anyone says the swedes committed themselves to the euro by joining the EU please note Swedish accession included a euro opt-out. This opt-out was deleted as part of the Nice treaty (could have been Amsterdam) on the qt.

maggy_thatcher

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Before anyone says the swedes committed themselves to the euro by joining the EU please note Swedish accession included a euro opt-out. This opt-out was deleted as part of the Nice treaty (could have been Amsterdam) on the qt.

So the Swedes committed themselves to the euro by signing the Nice treaty (or Amsterdam, whichever)...when they committed themselves is irrelevant, the fact is that they did.

BetterLisbon

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

So the Swedes committed themselves to the euro by signing the Nice treaty (or Amsterdam, whichever)...when they committed themselves is irrelevant, the fact is that they did.

I meant the swedish people not their politicians.

molloyjh

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Before anyone says the swedes committed themselves to the euro by joining the EU please note Swedish accession included a euro opt-out. This opt-out was deleted as part of the Nice treaty (could have been Amsterdam) on the qt.

I'd love to see proof of this opt-out. It is my understanding that no opt-out was ever sought or provided and that the Swedish Government have had a referendum on the Euro and it was rejected. I'm unaware of any plans in Sweden to re-run that referendum at any stage (although I think they were talking of making it an election issue this year).

As you can see from the below article as of 2003 there was no opt-out and never had been.
http://euobserver.com/9/12954

Sorry, I know I shouldn't interupt with relevant and accurate information...:rolleyes:

View

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Legally binding referenda are not provided for in Swedish law that is true

Which is what counts legally.

BetterLisbon wrote: »

but politically the result is binding and there is no plan to raise the issue again especially with public opinion likely to say no again.

Someone should tell the Swedish political parties since some of them advocated holding another referenda on the topic in the last European elections. Others disagreed with this idea, but this was timing related on their part.

Either which way, even if you believe that this means Sweden will never join the Euro (and the opinion polls flip-flop Yes-No on the issue), we are still probably looking at a situation where in 10 years time, we'll have 25 of the 27 member states using the Euro. At that point, it becomes a a case of "Why are we the only ones not using the Euro?" in the remaining states...

BetterLisbon

View wrote: »

Which is what counts legally.



Someone should tell the Swedish political parties since some of them advocated holding another referenda on the topic in the last European elections. Others disagreed with this idea, but this was timing related on their part.

Either which way, even if you believe that this means Sweden will never join the Euro (and the opinion polls flip-flop Yes-No on the issue), we are still probably looking at a situation where in 10 years time, we'll have 25 of the 27 member states using the Euro. At that point, it becomes a a case of "Why are we the only ones not using the Euro?" in the remaining states...

Well since the euro crisis kicked in the latest Demoskop poll was 37% yes 55% no 8% unsure. Also the hysterical propheses of doom by the pro-euro lobby in 2003 have been shown to be utter hogwash. I doubt the isolation argument will get very far in Sweden.

molloyjh

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Well since the euro crisis kicked in the latest Demoskop poll was 37% yes 55% no 8% unsure. Also the hysterical propheses of doom by the pro-euro lobby in 2003 have been shown to be utter hogwash. I doubt the isolation argument will get very far in Sweden.

Sweden may join the Euro, they may not. I fail to see the relevance at this stage???? BTW nice of you to ignore my point re the fact that there was never a Swedish opt-out from the Euro, nevermind a covert attempt to undermine the Swedish people by secretly removing this non-existant opt-out.

BetterLisbon

molloyjh wrote: »

Sweden may join the Euro, they may not. I fail to see the relevance at this stage???? BTW nice of you to ignore my point re the fact that there was never a Swedish opt-out from the Euro, nevermind a covert attempt to undermine the Swedish people by secretly removing this non-existant opt-out.

Apologies the opt-out was from ERM2. By not triggering ERM2 sweden can opt-out of the euro. As part of the nice negotiations sweden gave a committment to trigger ERM2.

View

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Apologies the opt-out was from ERM2. By not triggering ERM2 sweden can opt-out of the euro. As part of the nice negotiations sweden gave a committment to trigger ERM2.

There is no opt-out of either the Euro or the ERM (I or II) for Sweden in their Accession Treaty. Feel free to point it if you can find it.

View

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Well since the euro crisis kicked in the latest Demoskop poll was 37% yes 55% no 8% unsure.

They aren't holding a referendum on the topic now, so the latest opinion poll is a bit irrelevant. Even if all 100% of the population wanted to join right now, they still have to wait 2 or 3 years before they can do so. That's plenty of time for public opinion to change again.