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
-
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.
It can reverse itself in 15 months, if I remember rightly.
Cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
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.
Well the fact that the government and yes lobby would be playing catchup from day one makes a yes result highly unlikely as does their 2003 argument that Sweden "couldnt afford to say no". A new euro referendum in Denmark is more likely.0 -
There are several very good books on the economic history of our country. Since the foundation of the state the country followed a closed economy protectionist policy that continually failed to advance the country. The open market policy of the last 20-25 years has improved living standards in this country. I grew up in the 80s in this country and remember how little money there was back then. When we devalued mortgage interest rates shot up. Taking money out of the pockets of the people. In an open market in the Euro the only way to cheapen exports is to reduce labour costs aka pay cuts. So either with pay-cuts or mortgage increase you the general working people pay. The difference between a closed market and an open market in the EU is that we can't have heavy export taxes placed on our goods and services, which would off set any benefit from devaluing.
This recessions like all recessions is part of a cycle 10-15 years from now we will be in another boom and 20-30 years from now another recession. The most important rule of economics is save during the boom and spend in the recession - that is something Irish people and their policticans forgot over the last 10 years. So next time we are living the "high" life remember to put something aside for a rainy day.0 -
Constantin Gurdiev touched on this point on Frontline on Monday night. He said Ireland needs to look to Switzerland with its lower taxes, better public services and economic engagement with the rest of Europe. He was quickly shouted down unsurprisingly.0
-
Advertisement
-
BetterLisbon wrote: »Constantin Gurdiev touched on this point on Frontline on Monday night. He said Ireland needs to look to Switzerland with its lower taxes, better public services and economic engagement with the rest of Europe. He was quickly shouted down unsurprisingly.
Why is that "unsurprising"? And who "shouted him down"? And what odds would anyone realistically give of Ireland coming to resemble Switzerland?
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
We once had an abundant fishing resource that is now almost depleted thanks to Brussels. :mad:Morkarleth wrote: »Do we have abundant natural resources or an international banking system? Do we have anything that would allow us to survive in the EFTA?
Ask yourself that.0 -
Run_to_da_hills wrote: »We once had an abundant fishing resource that is now almost depleted thanks to Brussels. :mad:
In the sense that the depletion can largely be laid at the door of the notorious deficiencies of the CFP*, that's true. However: (1) there's no guarantee that we would have run a more sensible national fishing policy; (2) fishing income would not have replaced the EU subsidies; and (3) without the EU buying us Fisheries Protection Vessels we wouldn't even have had the capacity to protect our waters.
cordially,
Scofflaw
* which is currently under reform, but I regard the likelihood of reform resulting in genuinely sustainable fishing as slim.
(Please do not repeat the false claims that Irish fisheries were worth tens and hundreds of billions.)0 -
-
BetterLisbon wrote: »I believe it was Brendan Howlin and Brain Lucey.
And why was it not surprising that Brian Lucey "shouted him down"?BetterLisbon wrote: »What little faith you have in your own countrymen.
I have faith in them being Irish - I have very little faith in them becoming Swiss...
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
BetterLisbon wrote: »Well the fact that the government and yes lobby would be playing catchup from day one makes a yes result highly unlikely as does their 2003 argument that Sweden "couldnt afford to say no". A new euro referendum in Denmark is more likely.
You are presuming that the No side would be in the lead in the opinion polls. Given that wikipedia (yes,a horrible data source), shows that 4 out of the last 6 opinion polls showed Yes majorities, that is a big presumption. It isn't very surprising that the last opinion poll showed a strong No given the recent turmoil with the Euro.
You are probably right about Denmark being first. Jens-Peter Bonde will be so upset if they adopt the Euro.
0 -
In case anyone missed it, Ireland is not Switzerland.
Switzerland sits on probably the biggest trade-route in Europe, namely the one between Germany and Italy. That means that - barring a Swiss civil war - they will always benefit hugely from trade (and associated business) along this route.
Ireland, on the other hand, does not sit on any major trade route...0 -
-
You are presuming that the No side would be in the lead in the opinion polls. Given that wikipedia (yes,a horrible data source), shows that 4 out of the last 6 opinion polls showed Yes majorities, that is a big presumption. It isn't very surprising that the last opinion poll showed a strong No given the recent turmoil with the Euro.
You are probably right about Denmark being first. Jens-Peter Bonde will be so upset if they adopt the Euro.
Well the 2003 argument was that sweden 'couldnt afford' to stay out. Now that the krone has been motoring along nicely for the last 7 years, what is the argument going to be?
As for denmark the trade unions have got cold feet with the budgetary oversight proposals. Plus like sweden whats the yes argument going to be, in 2000 denmark 'couldnt afford' to stay out.0 -
Does one have to be Swiss to be capable of self government? Sounds like yet another straw man here.BetterLisbon wrote: »Are we not capable of self government?
The point that has been repeatedly made (only one of them) is that Swiss culture and society is quite different to Irish. Their society and economy is based upon societal values that we do not share - indeed, some would be utterly alien to us.
They have a public transport system that is light years ahead of Ireland. You can plan a trip from one place to another using a completely integrated public transport system and rely upon getting to your destination at exactly when it they say you will - to the minute. Ireland does not have any of this - it never has, and any kind of improvements to it are regularly opposed by the workers in CIE. How many years was it before we even got driver only buses over union objections, FFS?
Also unemployment is kept to a minimum, as much by the societal attitude that scorns being unemployed (while in Ireland it is treated as a lifestyle choice), than any economic considerations. If you are long-term unemployed they send you to work, cleaning the streets, in Switzerland. In Ireland, AFAIR, they increase your Dole!
That is the entire problem with the premise behind this thread, that by adopting a tiny part their model (rabid independence) we would suddenly become like them. We won't because there is a lot more to being Swiss, Norwegian, Icelandic or Liechtensteiner than remaining out of the EU and joining EFTA.
Seriously, when I see people argue things like that I can't help but think of this.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Does one have to be Swiss to be capable of self government? Sounds like yet another straw man here.
The point that has been repeatedly made (only one of them) is that Swiss culture and society is quite different to Irish. Their society and economy is based upon societal values that we do not share - indeed, some would be utterly alien to us.
They have a public transport system that is light years ahead of Ireland. You can plan a trip from one place to another using a completely integrated public transport system and rely upon getting to your destination at exactly when it they say you will - to the minute. Ireland does not have any of this - it never has, and any kind of improvements to it are regularly opposed by the workers in CIE. How many years was it before we even got driver only buses over union objections, FFS?
Also unemployment is kept to a minimum, as much by the societal attitude that scorns being unemployed (while in Ireland it is treated as a lifestyle choice), than any economic considerations. If you are long-term unemployed they send you to work, cleaning the streets, in Switzerland. In Ireland, AFAIR, they increase your Dole!
That is the entire problem with the premise behind this thread, that by adopting a tiny part their model (rabid independence) we would suddenly become like them. We won't because there is a lot more to being Swiss, Norwegian, Icelandic or Liechtensteiner than remaining out of the EU and joining EFTA.
Seriously, when I see people argue things like that I can't help but think of this.
Welcome back Corinthian i thought you had abandoned us. Anyway my question to scoff was the very question i always put to europhiles. Does he/she believe we are capable of managing ourselves or do we need the EU to hold our hand.
I for one believe we are capable of managing ourselves and our period of greatest success was when we adopted independent minded policies such as the low corporation tax rate and the 1993 devaluation (both fiercely opposed by the EU btw.) aswell as other radical stuff like abolishing 3rd level tuition fees and negotiating the Good Friday Agreement.
What happened either side of that was in the past deferrring to the UK to avoid having to take responsibility if something went wrong, and today deferrring to the EU to avoid having to take responsibility if something goes wrong.
Its time to stand on our own two feet and run the country properly. I also recognise the need for economic engagement with the rest of europe. So EFTA looks like a good balance whether EEA or bilateral treaty.0 -
BetterLisbon wrote: »Welcome back Corinthian i thought you had abandoned us. Anyway my question to scoff was the very question i always put to europhiles. Does he/she believe we are capable of managing ourselves or do we need the EU to hold our hand.
I for one believe we are capable of managing ourselves and our period of greatest success was when we adopted independent minded policies such as the low corporation tax rate and the 1993 devaluation (both fiercely opposed by the EU btw.) aswell as other radical stuff like abolishing 3rd level tuition fees and negotiating the Good Friday Agreement.
What happened either side of that was in the past deferrring to the UK to avoid having to take responsibility if something went wrong, and today deferrring to the EU to avoid having to take responsibility if something goes wrong.
Its time to stand on our own two feet and run the country properly. I also recognise the need for economic engagement with the rest of europe. So EFTA looks like a good balance whether EEA or bilateral treaty.
Did we not manage ourselves into this economic mess as well?0 -
-
BetterLisbon wrote: »That is true but i will argue that adherence and deferral to the EU is a crucial part of the creation of the mess. Most importantly the decision to join the euro.
So the mismanagement in the banking sector, the over reliance we ourselves had on the property market, the inflated wages across the board (but most importantly from a public finances point of view in the public sector), the pandering of our own Government (who we saw fit to re-elect again and again) to the construction industry and the gross mismanagement of infrastructural projects where who know how many millions were wasted was irrelevant? If joining the Euro was the most crucial factor then why aren't all Eurozone countries in the same mess we're in? Why are we suffering more than so many other countries?0 -
So the mismanagement in the banking sector, the over reliance we ourselves had on the property market, the inflated wages across the board (but most importantly from a public finances point of view in the public sector), the pandering of our own Government (who we saw fit to re-elect again and again) to the construction industry and the gross mismanagement of infrastructural projects where who know how many millions were wasted was irrelevant? If joining the Euro was the most crucial factor then why aren't all Eurozone countries in the same mess we're in? Why are we suffering more than so many other countries?
The euro made sense for an inner core of France, Germany + Benelux. It didnt make sense for the peripheral countries. Quelle surprise its the PIIGS in trouble.0 -
Advertisement
-
BetterLisbon wrote: »The euro made sense for an inner core of France, Germany + Benelux. It didnt make sense for the peripheral countries. Quelle surprise its the PIIGS in trouble.
How in Gods name does that answer my question? Statements like that are hollow and meaningless. If you can't substantiate what you say then maybe you shouldn't say it?
0 -
No, I got bored - as this discussion is not getting anywhere. There seems to be a cycle of a eurosceptic argument is made, it is rebutted, typically with evidence, and then the rebuttal is ignored and we move onto a new eurosceptic argument - then after a few pages the arguments are recycled.BetterLisbon wrote: »Welcome back Corinthian i thought you had abandoned us.
I'm not saying that all the europhile arguments here or elsewhere have been without error, but I have yet to hear a cogent and compelling eurosceptic argument. Even most of your arguments at this stage are based more on wistful aspiration that realistic expectation.
Then you probably should have pointed out that your question was unrelated to Scofflaw's point.Anyway my question to scoff was the very question i always put to europhiles. Does he/she believe we are capable of managing ourselves or do we need the EU to hold our hand.
Much of this success though was also down to our membership of the EU. Multinationals came to Ireland and created jobs because we are in the EU. Infrastructure was largely sponsored by the commission because we are in the EU. This is not to say that we did not do our own thing too, but ultimately the Celtic Tiger would not have happened had we not been in the EU either.I for one believe we are capable of managing ourselves and our period of greatest success was when we adopted independent minded policies such as the low corporation tax rate and the 1993 devaluation (both fiercely opposed by the EU btw.) aswell as other radical stuff like abolishing 3rd level tuition fees and negotiating the Good Friday Agreement.
Also, you should not imagine that all of those 'independent minded policies' were successes either. The abolition of 3rd level tuition fees was in the opinion of many a costly move that only benefited the Labour party's voters (the middle classes) - while officially sold as a means to get people from underprivileged backgrounds into higher education, in reality it made little difference to them as they already were exempt from paying fees and ultimately their numbers did not increase after the fees were abolished.
Another serious error I believe was our overreaction on foreign investment for service based job creation. It created a labour market built on sand; servicing a non-indigenous industry.
This is a little rich, considering that the EU and Euro has consistently been used as an excuse to avoid having to take responsibility for our own mismanagement here.What happened either side of that was in the past deferrring to the UK to avoid having to take responsibility if something went wrong, and today deferrring to the EU to avoid having to take responsibility if something goes wrong.
You claim that we have used the EU to cover up our own faults and then argue that we should leave to take responsibility for ourselves? That makes no sense.Its time to stand on our own two feet and run the country properly. I also recognise the need for economic engagement with the rest of europe. So EFTA looks like a good balance whether EEA or bilateral treaty.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »No, I got bored - as this discussion is not getting anywhere. There seems to be a cycle of a eurosceptic argument is made, it is rebutted, typically with evidence, and then the rebuttal is ignored and we move onto a new eurosceptic argument - then after a few pages the arguments are recycled.
I'm not saying that all the europhile arguments here or elsewhere have been without error, but I have yet to hear a cogent and compelling eurosceptic argument. Even most of your arguments at this stage are based more on wistful aspiration that realistic expectation.
Then you probably should have pointed out that your question was unrelated to Scofflaw's point.
Much of this success though was also down to our membership of the EU. Multinationals came to Ireland and created jobs because we are in the EU. Infrastructure was largely sponsored by the commission because we are in the EU. This is not to say that we did not do our own thing too, but ultimately the Celtic Tiger would not have happened had we not been in the EU either.
Also, you should not imagine that all of those 'independent minded policies' were successes either. The abolition of 3rd level tuition fees was in the opinion of many a costly move that only benefited the Labour party's voters (the middle classes) - while officially sold as a means to get people from underprivileged backgrounds into higher education, in reality it made little difference to them as they already were exempt from paying fees and ultimately their numbers did not increase after the fees were abolished.
Another serious error I believe was our overreaction on foreign investment for service based job creation. It created a labour market built on sand; servicing a non-indigenous industry.
This is a little rich, considering that the EU and Euro has consistently been used as an excuse to avoid having to take responsibility for our own mismanagement here.
You claim that we have used the EU to cover up our own faults and then argue that we should leave to take responsibility for ourselves? That makes no sense.
Glad to have you back. I think you will find our arguments are not rebutted but misrepresented. The rebuttal takes the form of rebutting a different argument to the raised (a.k.a strawmanning). Even the wacky stuff from coir was misrepresented.
For example when they had their ludicrous 1.84 poster the "rebuttal" was that we set our own minimum wage laws, which wasnt the point they were making. They were arguing that the Ruffert judgement allowed the minimum wage to be bypassed via subcontacting creating a de facto minimum wage that was lower than that specified by law (This was a prepostrous argument that discredited legitimate concerns about downward pressure on wages). The yes side didnt rebutt this point (as legally it cant be 100% ruled out even though its pure fantasy) they made a strawman out of it and rebutted the strawman (the right under law to set the minimum wage).
But i have to put it to you that you are only reacting to the lies, misrepresentations and hogwash of eurosceptics when both sides are guilty of it.
Multinationals are here because of market access, low taxation and an educated workforce. None of which requires EU membership. Infrastructure could have been put in place by private companies as it is in the USA, so EU funds were not required even if the greatly helped.
I disagree on tutition fees. I think they did make a big difference in making 3rd level education standard.
I agree with you on overdependence on FDI and lack of indigeneous small and medium enteprise. The problem is market regulation choking small businesses. So if you want indigenous industry then leave the single market.
Politicians love to transfer the blame for tough decisions. The EU is a convenient fall guy when water charges for example are to be brought in.0 -
BetterLisbon wrote: »Infrastructure could have been put in place by private companies as it is in the USA, so EU funds were not required even if the greatly helped.
So you would rather have foreign private companies fund the State than the EU? Wow, that's really something! And of course I'm sure they would have been happy to do this themselves....0 -
Actually I have found you and other eurosceptics to be guilty of that far more often.BetterLisbon wrote: »Glad to have you back. I think you will find our arguments are not rebutted but misrepresented. The rebuttal takes the form of rebutting a different argument to the raised (a.k.a strawmanning).
Downward pressure on wages not the same thing minimum wage though, they are completely different concepts, and that is what they put on the poster. As such it was a very blatant attempt to mislead people into believing something that it wasn't.For example when they had their ludicrous 1.84 poster the "rebuttal" was that we set our own minimum wage laws, which wasnt the point they were making. They were arguing that the Ruffert judgement allowed the minimum wage to be bypassed via subcontacting creating a de facto minimum wage that was lower than that specified by law (This was a prepostrous argument that discredited legitimate concerns about downward pressure on wages). The yes side didnt rebutt this point (as legally it cant be 100% ruled out even though its pure fantasy) they made a strawman out of it and rebutted the strawman (the right under law to set the minimum wage).
Even an attempt to mislead aside, and accepting that it was about 'downward pressure' of wages, it presumes that any eurosceptic alternative would not result in economic hardships that would apply comparable downward pressure on wages. Indeed, most arguments and evidence presented even here would indicate that leaving the EU/Euro would result in an even greater shock to the system.
There were certainly lies and half-truths on both sides, and if I come out with one please challenge me on it as I am challenging you. However when examined in discussions such as these both sides come up as containing flaws, however the eurosceptic position seems almost completely indefensible. As I said in my previous post, I have yet to hear a cogent and compelling eurosceptic argument.But i have to put it to you that you are only reacting to the lies, misrepresentations and hogwash of eurosceptics when both sides are guilty of it.
Many multinationals have also stated repeatedly (during both referenda) that they are in Ireland due to it's EU and Eurozone membership. Why have you ignored this?Multinationals are here because of market access, low taxation and an educated workforce. None of which requires EU membership.
This is a good example of one of your arguments based on wistful aspiration rather than realistic expectation, that I was discussing earlier.Infrastructure could have been put in place by private companies as it is in the USA, so EU funds were not required even if the greatly helped.
It's a side issue, tbh, but what big difference did free fees make?I disagree on tutition fees. I think they did make a big difference in making 3rd level education standard.
To begin with, in-between the penultimate and last sentience in the above argument you make a gigantic leap of logic, without explanation. Indeed, Ireland actually has far less regulation than most of the rest of the EU, but it hasn't stopped them from creating indigenous manufacturing industries.I agree with you on overdependence on FDI and lack of indigeneous small and medium enteprise. The problem is market regulation choking small businesses. So if you want indigenous industry then leave the single market.
Secondly, even assuming that you were able able to make a cogent argument for the above, it would still be a gross oversimplification. Much of the reason for the lack of indigenous industry in Ireland is ideological. Irish nationalist ideology at the formation of the state sought to create an idealized Irish society based on agriculture that rejected industrialism - Fianna Fail even kept the aim of getting as many people back working on the land as an official aim of the party well into the nineties.
Additionally, when the Celtic Tiger began, the principle concern of the government of the time was to create jobs, not industry. As such, DFI was encouraged as a means to get a maximum number of people employed, as quickly as possible, infrastructure - let alone indigenous industry - was a secondary consideration.
There are other reasons for our lack of indigenous industry too; including population density and distribution, limited natural resources, high taxation and a history of protectionism. Nevertheless, none of these have anything to do with either the EU or the Euro and so your attempt to link the issues is actually pretty ridiculous.
Is there a point to that or is it a random rant?Politicians love to transfer the blame for tough decisions. The EU is a convenient fall guy when water charges for example are to be brought in.
I'm sorry but I find none of your arguments very convincing. They are all based more on very selective reasoning and cherry-picking of facts, as evidenced by even this response to your last post - It's almost as if you are desperately looking for arguments to justify a position that you hold on faith alone.
What will happen now is that you will quietly drop mention of most of the points I've rejected (at least for a few pages) and respond with more of these aspirational arguments in the hope that they stick, and then I or someone else will systematically shoot them down.
This is why I grew bored with this thread. It's not going anywhere and never will - the burning bush has spoken to you and there is nothing anyone can do to convince you otherwise.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Actually I have found you and other eurosceptics to be guilty of that far more often.
Downward pressure on wages not the same thing minimum wage though, they are completely different concepts, and that is what they put on the poster. As such it was a very blatant attempt to mislead people into believing something that it wasn't.
Even an attempt to mislead aside, and accepting that it was about 'downward pressure' of wages, it presumes that any eurosceptic alternative would not result in economic hardships that would apply comparable downward pressure on wages. Indeed, most arguments and evidence presented even here would indicate that leaving the EU/Euro would result in an even greater shock to the system.
There were certainly lies and half-truths on both sides, and if I come out with one please challenge me on it as I am challenging you. However when examined in discussions such as these both sides come up as containing flaws, however the eurosceptic position seems almost completely indefensible. As I said in my previous post, I have yet to hear a cogent and compelling eurosceptic argument.
Many multinationals have also stated repeatedly (during both referenda) that they are in Ireland due to it's EU and Eurozone membership. Why have you ignored this?
This is a good example of one of your arguments based on wistful aspiration rather than realistic expectation, that I was discussing earlier.
It's a side issue, tbh, but what big difference did free fees make?
To begin with, in-between the penultimate and last sentience in the above argument you make a gigantic leap of logic, without explanation. Indeed, Ireland actually has far less regulation than most of the rest of the EU, but it hasn't stopped them from creating indigenous manufacturing industries.
Secondly, even assuming that you were able able to make a cogent argument for the above, it would still be a gross oversimplification. Much of the reason for the lack of indigenous industry in Ireland is ideological. Irish nationalist ideology at the formation of the state sought to create an idealized Irish society based on agriculture that rejected industrialism - Fianna Fail even kept the aim of getting as many people back working on the land as an official aim of the party well into the nineties.
Additionally, when the Celtic Tiger began, the principle concern of the government of the time was to create jobs, not industry. As such, DFI was encouraged as a means to get a maximum number of people employed, as quickly as possible, infrastructure - let alone indigenous industry - was a secondary consideration.
There are other reasons for our lack of indigenous industry too; including population density and distribution, limited natural resources, high taxation and a history of protectionism. Nevertheless, none of these have anything to do with either the EU or the Euro and so your attempt to link the issues is actually pretty ridiculous.
Is there a point to that or is it a random rant?
I'm sorry but I find none of your arguments very convincing. They are all based more on very selective reasoning and cherry-picking of facts, as evidenced by even this response to your last post - It's almost as if you are desperately looking for arguments to justify a position that you hold on faith alone.
What will happen now is that you will quietly drop mention of most of the points I've rejected (at least for a few pages) and respond with more of these aspirational arguments in the hope that they stick, and then I or someone else will systematically shoot them down.
This is why I grew bored with this thread. It's not going anywhere and never will - the burning bush has spoken to you and there is nothing anyone can do to convince you otherwise.
I agree the coir poster was hogwash and a tragedy as legitimate concerns went south with it. But the point was it was still misrepresented.
Have you ever considered that when multinationals refer to irelands EU membership they may actually be talking about market access provided by our EU membership (which is possible without it). The Euro argument is absurd as they could easily conduct their affairs in euros regardless of whether we are in or not. Have you also considered the fact that they are social partners and do favours for the government as part of it.
I accept my arguments are speculative and aspirational but whats the problem with that?
As for indigenous industry the anti-EEC argument was that only large companies and businesses could cope with market regulations and as suh small firms would get smoked out. This was articulated very well by Tony Benn. You might also look at unemployment statistics since we entered the EEC/EU to see this point.
I regret i am not convincing to you but i try.0 -
I accept my arguments are speculative and aspirational but whats the problem with that?
reality?0 -
As I already pointed out it was not misrepresented by anyone other than coir. "Downward pressure on wages" is not "minimum wage" - saying the latter and then claiming you meant the former was a blatant attempt to intentionally mislead.BetterLisbon wrote: »I agree the coir poster was hogwash and a tragedy as legitimate concerns went south with it. But the point was it was still misrepresented.
Multinationals directly involved in DFI have specifically cited the Euro as a reason for being in Ireland - indeed, if you know anything about the accounting practices involved, it makes it easier and cheaper to move your profits from your other European operations to Ireland where they will end up paying less in tax.Have you ever considered that when multinationals refer to irelands EU membership they may actually be talking about market access provided by our EU membership (which is possible without it). The Euro argument is absurd as they could easily conduct their affairs in euros regardless of whether we are in or not. Have you also considered the fact that they are social partners and do favours for the government as part of it.
As succinctly put by BlitzKrieg; 'reality'. Otherwise you are simply just making things up as you go along, with no basis in fact, and frankly should be shunted off to the Conspiracy Theories board with the rest of the tin-foil hat brigade.I accept my arguments are speculative and aspirational but whats the problem with that?
In short, no one here is interested in wasting their time on fantasy - that that is ultimately what "speculative and aspirational" arguments are.
You do know that there was more red tape in Irish business before we joined the EEC? Ironically, as with taxation of the self-employed, it probably feels like there is more red tape now because there was little or no enforcement of it before the mid-nineties.As for indigenous industry the anti-EEC argument was that only large companies and businesses could cope with market regulations and as suh small firms would get smoked out. This was articulated very well by Tony Benn.
In reality we tightened things up largely because we were viewed internationally as a bit of a cowboy country in terms of business practices - you didn't even need ID to open up a savings account in a bank - and we needed to build up confidence so as to attract FDI.
Ironically it is easier to set up a bank account in Lichtenstein than Ireland now - nonetheless all this actually has little or nothing to do with being in the EU.
You'll find that unemployment was affected by economic policies that generally had little or nothing to do with the EEC/EU, such as the Lynch government's famous giveaway budget - which saw a drop in unemployment in the short term, followed by a sharp increase once we realized that we had overspent ourselves into a deep deficit hole - remember the eighties? Ultimately if you want to look at external influences, OPEC was more influential than the EEC on Irish employment figures.You might also look at unemployment statistics since we entered the EEC/EU to see this point.
Of course, employment increased as a result of the Celtic Tiger, and the EU did play a part in that - something that you tend to gloss over, even though it has been repeatedly been pointed out to you.
You're just throwing shìt at the discussion and hoping that if you throw enough some will stick.I regret i am not convincing to you but i try.
And that is what "speculative and aspirational" arguments essentially are - shìt. They have no merit other than to discredit someone or something for through hearsay, not fact.
You could continue doing this in the hope of convincing me or others, but in doing so with "speculative and aspirational" arguments you simply reinforce the belief that eurosceptics are a bunch of nutjobs who have only a passing acquaintance with reality.
If you want to convince me or others, do so with facts, not fantasy.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »As I already pointed out it was not misrepresented by anyone other than coir. "Downward pressure on wages" is not "minimum wage" - saying the latter and then claiming you meant the former was a blatant attempt to intentionally mislead.
Multinationals directly involved in DFI have specifically cited the Euro as a reason for being in Ireland - indeed, if you know anything about the accounting practices involved, it makes it easier and cheaper to move your profits from your other European operations to Ireland where they will end up paying less in tax.
As succinctly put by BlitzKrieg; 'reality'. Otherwise you are simply just making things up as you go along, with no basis in fact, and frankly should be shunted off to the Conspiracy Theories board with the rest of the tin-foil hat brigade.
In short, no one here is interested in wasting their time on fantasy - that that is ultimately what "speculative and aspirational" arguments are.
You do know that there was more red tape in Irish business before we joined the EEC? Ironically, as with taxation of the self-employed, it probably feels like there is more red tape now because there was little or no enforcement of it before the mid-nineties.
In reality we tightened things up largely because we were viewed internationally as a bit of a cowboy country in terms of business practices - you didn't even need ID to open up a savings account in a bank - and we needed to build up confidence so as to attract FDI.
Ironically it is easier to set up a bank account in Lichtenstein than Ireland now - nonetheless all this actually has little or nothing to do with being in the EU.
You'll find that unemployment was affected by economic policies that generally had little or nothing to do with the EEC/EU, such as the Lynch government's famous giveaway budget - which saw a drop in unemployment in the short term, followed by a sharp increase once we realized that we had overspent ourselves into a deep deficit hole - remember the eighties? Ultimately if you want to look at external influences, OPEC was more influential than the EEC on Irish employment figures.
Of course, employment increased as a result of the Celtic Tiger, and the EU did play a part in that - something that you tend to gloss over, even though it has been repeatedly been pointed out to you.
You're just throwing shìt at the discussion and hoping that if you throw enough some will stick.
And that is what "speculative and aspirational" arguments essentially are - shìt. They have no merit other than to discredit someone or something for through hearsay, not fact.
You could continue doing this in the hope of convincing me or others, but in doing so with "speculative and aspirational" arguments you simply reinforce the belief that eurosceptics are a bunch of nutjobs who have only a passing acquaintance with reality.
If you want to convince me or others, do so with facts, not fantasy.
Well Corinthian you have confirmed once again the dogmatic and absolutist position that europhiles tend to take when challenged.
for a start this whole thread is speculation about life in EFTA so how do you expect anything other than speculative and idealistic arguments in the abscence of objective experimental data.
Which brings in an interesting contradiction in your postings. I cant remember a single weblink to objectively back up your arguments. It seems your arguments are a given just because.
Again the euro argument is absurd as multinationals could conduct their affairs in euros regardless of whether we were in or out. Its also absurd when you look back through the archives of the Guardian or the London Independent in late 1998/early 1999 and late 2002/early 2003 (when blair had planned a euro referendum). There you will see the article saying investors would leave, the city of London would die etc. if the UK stayed out. Similarly for the Danish and Swedish euro referenda. The "currency risk" argument was endlessly repeated but has been debunked.
"You do know that there was more red tape in Irish business before we joined the EEC? Ironically, as with taxation of the self-employed, it probably feels like there is more red tape now because there was little or no enforcement of it before the mid-nineties." - Do you have any weblinks to back this up or is it just speculation.
"In reality we tightened things up largely because we were viewed internationally as a bit of a cowboy country in terms of business practices - you didn't even need ID to open up a savings account in a bank - and we needed to build up confidence so as to attract FDI." - Do you have any weblinks to back this up or is it just speculation.
"You'll find that unemployment was affected by economic policies that generally had little or nothing to do with the EEC/EU, such as the Lynch government's famous giveaway budget - which saw a drop in unemployment in the short term, followed by a sharp increase once we realized that we had overspent ourselves into a deep deficit hole - remember the eighties? Ultimately if you want to look at external influences, OPEC was more influential than the EEC on Irish employment figures." - Do you have any weblinks to back this up or is it just speculation. The live register speaks volumes btw.
You see corinthian you fall on your own sword so many times. You demand iron clad proof from eurosceptics yet take as a given europhile arguments. This is a classic sign of a dogmatic or absolutist position. What puts the jewel in the crown is your resorting to argumentum ad hominem and this is something i find repeating amongst europhiles when challenged.0 -
Advertisement
-
BlitzKrieg wrote: »reality?
The thread is about life in EFTA thus all arguments are speculation thereof.0
Advertisement