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

DaBrow

Scofflaw wrote: »

Again, the answer is because it's necessary for DaBrow's thesis that an Ireland outside the EU would be a paradise. The facts must bend to what he knows to be the truth - hence the faked EFTA/EU statistical comparisons and the rest.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Faked? I think you should take that false accusation up with the European Free Trade Association, that has just proven what a fool you are if you think they have rigged their data.

So you believe this below is fake compared to the exposed inaccuracy of the CSO for the Irish Census of 2006?

http://www.efta.int/statistics/statistical-data.aspx

Please e-mail nikki.hollis@ext.ec.europa.eu to say what you think if you dare

The Corinthian wrote: »

It only takes 12 years if you're off the boat, as it were, and not married to a Swiss. If married, that drops to five years. If you grow up in Switzerland, every year up to 18 counts as two adult years (making it six years).

Conversely, while the period in Ireland is shorter in theory, the reality is there are many who are waiting considerably longer than 12 years.

Don't confuse naturalization with immigration. Fluency is only required in the case of naturalization - those with long term residency are not required to speak any of the local languages.

As for the ability to support yourself, it would not surprise me if this is not a requirement in Ireland. We don't require natural born citizens to support themselves, why should we require anyone else to do so?

Afrikaners have been in South Africa long enough to call it home. You are judging them on no other criteria than genetics - racialism by definition.

Suggesting that someone who is born and bred somewhere, as was their father and their father's father, is not entitled to live there, based upon some spurious race theory is highly offensive.

You're confusing French troops with French-speaking Papal troops - commanded by a Swiss and of whom most were Dutch. Is there a point to this?

So is 50% you racial purity cut-off point?

Purity means "Without foreign elements"... That is possible only with 100% - Sorry to disappoint you but I have said I don't support that.. Wrong Again.

Those French-Speaking Troops were part of the French Military, so French Troops and Swiss french Troops did fight against the Italian Forces when the battle for the papal states happened.

Afrikaners are europeans and arrived there for imperialist reasons, they should go back to the continent they originate from because they have no relation to the likes of Zulu's, Bantu's, Xzhosa,Tswana etc... They are a people who through minority rule terrorised and murdered native africans.

Afrikaans is literally a dialect of Dutch and they would be better off in The Netherlands than Africa, I'm the Dutch would welcome them back in droves... They are pretty much the same.

Lastly.... Alot of Foreign Nationals in Switzerland are French, German and Italian which isn't too much of an issue for the Swiss because those people speak the official languages of the country and share the same culture of those Swiss groups.

maggy_thatcher

DaBrow wrote: »

they should go back to the continent they originate from

You do realize that the human race all started in Africa and spread around the world, right?

DaBrow

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

You do realize that the human race all started in Africa and spread around the world, right?

Many Thousands of years ago Yes before the exodus/mass migrations and physical changes... But I doubt the Africans of today would like a Version of Colonization MK2 which is what they put up with for hundreds of years. They spent many years trying to boot the colonials and colonial power out.

Africa has the potential of a positive future with direct investment and Trade Blocs based purely on Trade... Not what we have in the EU.

The Corinthian

DaBrow wrote: »

Purity means "Without foreign elements"... That is possible only with 100% - Sorry to disappoint you but I have said I don't support that.. Wrong Again.

You better explain that to all the industries and sciences that use purity measures that are under 100% as a measure of acceptability.

So back to the question - would less than 50% genetically Irish not count as Irish? What is the cut off point otherwise?

Those French-Speaking Troops were part of the French Military, so French Troops and Swiss french Troops did fight against the Italian Forces when the battle for the papal states happened.

Actually they were under the command of the Papacy, not the French. I still would like to know the point of this.

Afrikaners are europeans and arrived there for imperialist reasons, they should go back to the continent they originate from because they have no relation to the likes of Zulu's, Bantu's, Xzhosa,Tswana etc... They are a people who through minority rule terrorised and murdered native africans.

So Charlize Theron personally terrorized and murdered 'native' Africans?

Or are you simply condemning an entire group today based upon their genetic heritage? What if they had 16% African blood? Can they stay then? If not what is your racial cut-off point?

Lastly.... Alot of Foreign Nationals in Switzerland are French, German and Italian which isn't too much of an issue for the Swiss because those people speak the official languages of the country and share the same culture of those Swiss groups.

You've never been to Switzerland, have you? Even a two week holiday there would dispel you of that idiotic idea.

DaBrow

The Corinthian wrote: »

You better explain that to all the industries and sciences that use purity measures that are under 100% as a measure of acceptability.

So back to the question - would less than 50% genetically Irish not count as Irish? What is the cut off point otherwise?

Actually they were under the command of the Papacy, not the French. I still would like to know the point of this.

So Charlize Theron personally terrorized and murdered 'native' Africans?

Or are you simply condemning an entire group today based upon their genetic heritage? What if they had 16% African blood? Can they stay then? If not what is your racial cut-off point?

You've never been to Switzerland, have you? Even a two week holiday there would dispel you of that idiotic idea.

Nothing here is of relevance

The Corinthian

DaBrow wrote: »

Nothing here is of relevance

More correctly; any response from you would betray you as a racist.

If not, prove me wrong and respond.

DaBrow

The Corinthian wrote: »

More correctly; any response from you would betray you as a racist.

If not, prove me wrong and respond.

Nothing here you post is of relevance and you can't even keep on topic discussion.

No-one can take you seriously

The Corinthian

DaBrow wrote: »

Nothing here you post is of relevance and you can't even keep on topic discussion.

No-one can take you seriously

Really? From what I can see it is you who is not taken seriously. If you disagree, please show me where others are treating me as such. I've already asked you earlier to back up such claims, btw.

Now, how about you exonerate yourself rather than avoid recrimination, as you are doing, and respond to my questions?

DaBrow

The Corinthian wrote: »

Really? From what I can see it is you who is not taken seriously. If you disagree, please show me where others are treating me as such. I've already asked you earlier to back up such claims, btw.

Now, how about you exonerate yourself rather than avoid recrimination, as you are doing, and respond to my questions?

You are the sort of poster whom can't stay on the thread topic, your questions hold no relevance to the thread and I will not bother replying to them.

Either stay on topic or don't even bother posting... I'm not going to give you the attention you crave.

great_pretender

We owe the ECB too much now. We are owned by the EU... its too late

Irish Debt Clock here

bonkey

DaBrow and TheCorinthian - enough of the Punch-and-Judy, thanks.

DaBrow - if you're going to argue that discussing points is off-topic, its dinengenuous to introduce them to the discussion in the first place. TC is only responding to points that you have made.

TheCorinthian - suggesting that any answer to a question would be racist is equally disingenuous...unless what you're trying to do is make thinly-veiled insulting comments (which, naturally, would be frowned on).

DaBrow

bonkey wrote: »

DaBrow and TheCorinthian - enough of the Punch-and-Judy, thanks.

DaBrow - if you're going to argue that discussing points is off-topic, its dinengenuous to introduce them to the discussion in the first place. TC is only responding to points that you have made.

TheCorinthian - suggesting that any answer to a question would be racist is equally disingenuous...unless what you're trying to do is make thinly-veiled insulting comments (which, naturally, would be frowned on).

My Apologies Bonkey, they were indirectly mentioned only because of the opposing poster was forcing them in discussion and I felt the need to try & explain how they weren't relevant and why their mentioning wasn't important.... The poster above is falsely implying something that isn't there.

I am saying EFTA Membership for example would allow us to have better and a more practical Immigration Policy; while my opponent is claiming that my advocation for EFTA Membership is based entirely for "Racialist" Reasons which is completely untrue.

I wish to remain on topic and have a reasonable debate on why we should reconsider our EU Membership... I doubt the poster above has any intention of the sort and has tried derailing this thread from the beggining.

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote: »

TheCorinthian - suggesting that any answer to a question would be racist is equally disingenuous...unless what you're trying to do is make thinly-veiled insulting comments (which, naturally, would be frowned on).

He's repeatedly cited a definition of citizenship based upon purely genetic grounds, so I am trying to ascertain if this is indeed the case or not an adherent to some branch of racialism.

The importance of this to the discussion is that if he is, then these naturally play into his reasoning for leaving the EU, as that is relevant to the topic. As you've pointed out yourself, I am simply following up points he introduced, but increasingly he has become evasive and dismissive, in what I can only construe as an attempt to avoid investigation in this direction.

bonkey

DaBrow wrote: »

I am saying EFTA Membership for example would allow us to have better and a more practical Immigration Policy;

EFTA membership might allow us to have a different policy then we currently have. Whether a different policy would be "better and more practical" is an issue which would need to be argued on merit.

I would, in passing, point at Switzerland. Under current Swiss policy, EU applicants are effectively guaranteed an "Auslander Ausweis", giving them permission to live in, and work in Switzerland. Switzerland is also a member of the Schengen Agreement. ASylum seeking policy in Switzerland is tightly tied to EU policy.

While it would be technically accurate to say that neither of these conditions are required by EFTA membership, it should also be pointed out that they were major points in the bilateral agreements reached between the Swiss and the EU over the past years....and should therefore not be removed from some of the concessions that the Swiss have correspondingly won from the EU.

This leads to another important point....as far as I am aware, there aren't any set of agreements which the EU is obliged to extend to all EFTA members, regardless of who they are. If the EFTA were to gain new members, I believe that the EU would have to choose to ratify existing agreements for said new members. Here, its also worth noting that the Swiss chose to negotiate their own conditions, rather than those agreed with the other 3 members. Switzerland, for example, is not part of the European Economic Area.

So when we talk about the "benefits" of joining EFTA (assuming we left the EU and the EFTA allowed us in), it seems to me that many of them are assumptive...that we are assuming the conditions which apply to (some) EFTA members would also apply to us, and also (in part, at least) that some of these conditions would not apply to us because we wouldn't want them.

bonkey

As moderator...

guys...I'm not interested in discussing this further in-thread.

You're both sniping at each other, and letting it get in the way of a civilised discussion. You're both seeming to justify what you're doing based on what the other guy is doing.

Acting unreasonably is not a reasonable response to someone else doing likewise. I don't care who started it.

Find a way to make your points more civiliy.

maggy_thatcher

DaBrow wrote: »

I am saying EFTA Membership for example would allow us to have better and a more practical Immigration Policy.

How would you define "better and more practical immigration policy"? Remember that whatever changes you do will result in reciprocal immigration policy from EU states -- if you are restricting who can come and live and work in Ireland, Irish citizens would be similarly restricted from coming to live and work in the EU. I would imagine that anybody who is eligible for dual citizenship with another country would go and grab them to keep their options open - meanwhile anybody else who needs to go to another country will have difficulties. An example of where this is already happening is Moldova - a large number of Moldovan citizens are applying for Romanian citizenship (as until recently it was part of Romania) in order to give them an EU passport.

sirromo

maggy_thatcher wrote:

Remember that whatever changes you do will result in reciprocal immigration policy from EU states -- if you are restricting who can come and live and work in Ireland, Irish citizens would be similarly restricted from coming to live and work in the EU.

A minor inconvenience. In return for regaining control of our borders I think most Irish people would be prepared to pay the small cost of having to fill in a few forms and jump a few hoops when they want to move or work in another European country.

Ireland has suffered far more over the last ten years from having other Europeans avail of the right to move to this country than Irish people have benefited from having the right to move to other European countries.

maggy_thatcher

sirromo wrote: »

A minor inconvenience. In return for regaining control of our borders I think most Irish people would be prepared to pay the small cost of having to fill in a few forms and jump a few hoops when they want to move or work in another European country.

Or potentially go on holidays? If the EU were particularly pissed off with us for pulling out, they could insist on visa requirements for Irish citizens to even visit.

sirromo wrote: »

Ireland has suffered far more over the last ten years from having other Europeans avail of the right to move to this country than Irish people have benefited from having the right to move to other European countries.

Are you sure? Think of all the large multinational organizations that are in Ireland right now. We already have one black mark by not being in Schengen (significantly increasing the red-tape required for business travel), if we weren't in the EU at all, how many would decide that it wasn't worth the effort as our employment pool suddenly shrunk (how would you do inter-company transfers?)

BetterLisbon

bonkey wrote: »

EFTA membership might allow us to have a different policy then we currently have. Whether a different policy would be "better and more practical" is an issue which would need to be argued on merit.
I would, in passing, point at Switzerland. Under current Swiss policy, EU applicants are effectively guaranteed an "Auslander Ausweis", giving them permission to live in, and work in Switzerland. Switzerland is also a member of the Schengen Agreement. ASylum seeking policy in Switzerland is tightly tied to EU policy.
While it would be technically accurate to say that neither of these conditions are required by EFTA membership, it should also be pointed out that they were major points in the bilateral agreements reached between the Swiss and the EU over the past years....and should therefore not be removed from some of the concessions that the Swiss have correspondingly won from the EU.
This leads to another important point....as far as I am aware, there aren't any set of agreements which the EU is obliged to extend to all EFTA members, regardless of who they are. If the EFTA were to gain new members, I believe that the EU would have to choose to ratify existing agreements for said new members. Here, its also worth noting that the Swiss chose to negotiate their own conditions, rather than those agreed with the other 3 members. Switzerland, for example, is not part of the European Economic Area.
So when we talk about the "benefits" of joining EFTA (assuming we left the EU and the EFTA allowed us in), it seems to me that many of them are assumptive...that we are assuming the conditions which apply to (some) EFTA members would also apply to us, and also (in part, at least) that some of these conditions would not apply to us because we wouldn't want them.

The point is that EFTA involves fewer compromises at the price of not having a vote at the table. In the days of the old EEC of 9 members the value of a having a vote at the table outweighed the painful compromises. In the current EU of 27 members i argue the opposite is now the case.
Its true that switzerland does a lot of what the EU does but it does so on an a la carte basis, i think such an a la carte basis is best for us too.
You are right that EFTA members are not automatically entitled to EEA membership (as Morocco may find out in the next few years) but all EFTA members can apply for EEA membership. This wouldnt be a problem for us as we are already EEA members, as for whether EFTA would have us? I think they are crying out for members like us.

DaBrow

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/gavinhewitt/2010/04/greece_nobody_can_play_with_th.html

"That is true but it cannot disguise failure. There was no mechanism to help a country struggling with debt. Already there are those who are saying it will not be a bail-out because Greece would be saved by loans that are repayable.


Many will see this as playing with words. What if the loans cannot be repaid? Will they just be rolled over? And what if other countries like Portugal or even Spain run into difficulty? Will the same facility be made available to them and who will ultimately finance it?



Not surprisingly, the Spanish finance minister said the deal "indicates a strengthening of the eurozone and stresses the principle of solidarity among the countries that comprise it". The vulnerable tend to be fans of solidarity."

RandomName2

The Corinthian wrote: »

You do understand that we are not in any economic position to create a viable currency?

But we are in the economic position to give half a billion euro to Greece. :pac:

anglo_celt

We in the EU for the long haul. Many of of us voted for the Lisbon Treaty,some did not bother to vote at all and the rest could not care less. These will be whinging all the time. I also voted for Fianna Fail and will continue to do so. The EU is good for Ireland. Without it we would be worse off like going back to the 1930s

DaBrow

anglo_celt wrote: »

We in the EU for the long haul. Many of of us voted for the Lisbon Treaty,some did not bother to vote at all and the rest could not care less. These will be whinging all the time. I also voted for Fianna Fail and will continue to do so. The EU is good for Ireland. Without it we would be worse off like going back to the 1930s

We voted for the Lisbon Treaty on the false premise that it would bring recovery and Jobs to Ireland.... That didn't happen and is not going to happen.

Irish people were bullied and threatened with consequences if we voted NO Again; I don't supoose you recall the Video Footage of the Town Hall in Cork where there was no Gardaí on duty to be seen or where a random guy walked off with a ballot box who left the building unchallenged?

The most accurate polls suggested that the Treaty was going to be Rejected again as a Protest for the lack of Democratic respect.

How can you say that Ireland would be like it was in the 30's without the EU? That is ridiculous, We are part of the European Economic Area and we would be eligible to Join EFTA As a Replacement if we either left the EU or were kicked out.

Also, if you haven't realised... We are like the thirties now in Ireland because of several things: We have a currency we have no control over and Our Brightest & Best are Emigrating again because of losing jobs due to Mass-Immigration or Redundancy.

Fíanna Fáil have been usurped by frauds and criminals, Fine Gael are just as bad.... De Valera would be turning in his grave today if he was to see the chancers that have tarnished the party he lead honestly.

We are in this mess because of Bertie Ahern and others like him... We cannot recover as a country if we continue using the euro.

We cannot devalue and the high rate of exchange toward the sterling, dollar and other currencies that make up 68% of our Trade will continue to plummet.

In 1992, we weakened the Punt and recovered quickly after a small painful period when the Punt was Stronger than Sterling... The Euro started going downhill in 2008 when it strengthened against sterling and made our products/services more expensive to export due to retailers not lowering their prices in line with their real value.

BTW

We need to look at alternatives for our own sake

DaBrow

"A leading think-tank today bleakly predicted the number of people in work will not grow next year despite modest economic recovery.

The Economic and Social Research Institute (Esri) said the unemployment rate will dip slightly to 13% in large part due to an estimated 100,000 people leaving the country between 2009 and 2011.

Although experts expect the recession-battered economy to grow by 2.5%, employment will be stagnant with almost 1.9 million people on average with jobs in both 2010 and 2011."

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/no-rise-in-employment-level-next-year-predicts-think-tank-453658.html#ixzz0ky39qAIM

RandomName2

DaBrow wrote: »

We voted for the Lisbon Treaty on the false premise that it would bring recovery and Jobs to Ireland.... That didn't happen and is not going to happen.

Irish people were bullied and threatened with consequences if we voted NO Again; I don't supoose you recall the Video Footage of the Town Hall in Cork where there was no Gardaí on duty to be seen or where a random guy walked off with a ballot box who left the building unchallenged?

The most accurate polls suggested that the Treaty was going to be Rejected again as a Protest for the lack of Democratic respect.

How can you say that Ireland would be like it was in the 30's without the EU? That is ridiculous, We are part of the European Economic Area and we would be eligible to Join EFTA As a Replacement if we either left the EU or were kicked out.

Also, if you haven't realised... We are like the thirties now in Ireland because of several things: We have a currency we have no control over and Our Brightest & Best are Emigrating again because of losing jobs due to Mass-Immigration or Redundancy.

Fíanna Fáil have been usurped by frauds and criminals, Fine Gael are just as bad.... De Valera would be turning in his grave today if he was to see the chancers that have tarnished the party he lead honestly.

We are in this mess because of Bertie Ahern and others like him... We cannot recover as a country if we continue using the euro.

We cannot devalue and the high rate of exchange toward the sterling, dollar and other currencies that make up 68% of our Trade will continue to plummet.

In 1992, we weakened the Punt and recovered quickly after a small painful period when the Punt was Stronger than Sterling... The Euro started going downhill in 2008 when it strengthened against sterling and made our products/services more expensive to export due to retailers not lowering their prices in line with their real value.

BTW

We need to look at alternatives for our own sake

Look you have a valid perspective; but crippled by your flaky points.

Everyone knew that Lisbon = jobs was a lie; the issue was the possibility of unfair treatment of Ireland due to a second or third rejection of Lisbon.

Polls always indicated that Lisbon II would be passed (because the recession had already kicked in long before we voted). Voting irregularity at most can only account for a couple of percentage points. It was not a tight contest.

Ireland's boom and bust had little to do with the EU - although the free market opened up by the EU had been a boon, and the wads of cash thrown at Ireland had, at least, a short-term economic effect. Ireland, as an economic entity really needs close ties with the UK or Europe, and preferably with the US thrown in. The Punt was always tied to the Sterling, so our own 'independent currency' was predominantly a window dressing exercise. We now have even less control of our currency (the euro), but there are definite benefits of being the only English speaking country which uses the Euro as its currency.

DeValera was no brilliant figure. He was an ultra-catholic nationalistic military leader that had the decency not to sweep away Democracy (like many similar figures in Europe did). Mind you, with the exception of a couple of weak, short lived inter-party coalitions, Devalera had an unbroken reign, so actually removing democracy altogether would have been a bit gratuitous. I would rather a fraud who cared noting about the Catholic Church than a patriot who placed it upon a pedestal.

Don't scapegoat Bertie. There are far more fundamental flaws in this state.

DaBrow

RandomName2 wrote: »

Look you have a valid perspective; but crippled by your flaky points.

Everyone knew that Lisbon = jobs was a lie; the issue was the possibility of unfair treatment of Ireland due to a second or third rejection of Lisbon.

Polls always indicated that Lisbon II would be passed (because the recession had already kicked in long before we voted). Voting irregularity at most can only account for a couple of percentage points. It was not a tight contest.

Ireland's boom and bust had little to do with the EU - although the free market opened up by the EU had been a boon, and the wads of cash thrown at Ireland had, at least, a short-term economic effect. Ireland, as an economic entity really needs close ties with the UK or Europe, and preferably with the US thrown in. The Punt was always tied to the Sterling, so our own 'independent currency' was predominantly a window dressing exercise. We now have even less control of our currency (the euro), but there are definite benefits of being the only English speaking country which uses the Euro as its currency.

DeValera was no brilliant figure. He was an ultra-catholic nationalistic military leader that had the decency not to sweep away Democracy (like many similar figures in Europe did). Mind you, with the exception of a couple of weak, short lived inter-party coalitions, Devalera had an unbroken reign, so actually removing democracy altogether would have been a bit gratuitous. I would rather a fraud who cared noting about the Catholic Church than a patriot who placed it upon a pedestal.

Don't scapegoat Bertie. There are far more fundamental flaws in this state.

De Valera had his flaws... He was stubborn and Foolish over the 1921 Treaty but he was correct in that Michael Collins through niavity and pressure from Britain signing the document would tear ireland apart and lead to Irish Men turning guns on each other.

De Valera warned that the EEC would aim eventually to become a united states of europe, he opposed membership so strongly because of that fear he geniunely held.

He did good things... Although he could have done a bit more like intervene in the Mother & Child Scheme which was shot-down for the unrealistic belief abortion would happen. The People would never have allowed that

Bertie Ahern was in charge of this country's management from 1997-2008... The buck stops with him because he allowed inflation to spiral out of control, mass-waves of immigration to hit the country and would have had greater insight into a crash heading our way more than anyone in Government. He instead resigned, because of the Mahon Tribunal findings and abandoned ship so the fallout that happened would be blamed on Cowen.

John Bruton however was an idiot too... So I am not party biased

Anyone that allowed this country to suffer the fate it is currently enduring, should be in Jail and housed with the prisoners who we are really ashamed of in society.

...............

I feel the only way to escape this mess we are in has to be leaving the eurozone and the EU; I no longer want to be part of a bloc that dictates laws to me over Irish Soverignty.

K-9

DaBrow wrote: »

"A leading think-tank today bleakly predicted the number of people in work will not grow next year despite modest economic recovery.

The Economic and Social Research Institute (Esri) said the unemployment rate will dip slightly to 13% in large part due to an estimated 100,000 people leaving the country between 2009 and 2011.

Although experts expect the recession-battered economy to grow by 2.5%, employment will be stagnant with almost 1.9 million people on average with jobs in both 2010 and 2011."

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/no-rise-in-employment-level-next-year-predicts-think-tank-453658.html#ixzz0ky39qAIM

The US and the UK face this same problem, it happens when coming out of recession. Not everything can be blamed at the Euro.

Scofflaw

K-9 wrote: »

The US and the UK face this same problem, it happens when coming out of recession. Not everything can be blamed at the Euro.

In this case, a quick Google for jobless recovery reinforces the point that the phrase is mostly in use in respect of the US and UK - while it is used in respect of the EU, it's not specific to the eurozone. Attributing it to the euro is the sort of correlation we see far too much of here:

1. something is bad
2. we have the euro
3. therefore we have the bad thing because of the euro

Utter tosh, and characteristic of the OP's entire oeuvre.

cordially,
Scofflaw

DaBrow

Scofflaw wrote: »

In this case, a quick Google for jobless recovery reinforces the point that the phrase is mostly in use in respect of the US and UK - while it is used in respect of the EU, it's not specific to the eurozone. Attributing it to the euro is the sort of correlation we see far too much of here:

1. something is bad
2. we have the euro
3. therefore we have the bad thing because of the euro

Utter tosh, and characteristic of the OP's entire oeuvre.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Emigration returns to crisis-hit Greece and Ireland

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8616434.stm

<A short walk away is the campus of Trinity College Dublin, where the president of the students' union, Conan O'Broin, is equally despondent.
"I've said goodbye to five or six very close friends over the last few months, some of whom at least I don't think are going to come back," he said.

"The dreamland is over, we're back to reality with a bang," he adds. It is "the same cycle which hit Ireland in the 1950s and the 1980s, high levels of emigration, used as a safety valve because we can't get our act together to develop a sustainable economy".

He is, he admits, seriously considering leaving himself. There has always been international movement in search of work. And the European single currency was supposed to help create a continent in which people could either enjoy their own country's new prosperity, or move freely around if they felt like a spell abroad.

But now many young Greek and Irish emigrants, despairing at the state of their home economies, feel forced to head for the exit, just as their parents and grandparents might have done.>

...........

Embrace the unpredictable - D.MCWilliams
http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/wholestory.aspx-qqqt=DAVID%20MACWILLAMS-qqqs=commentandanalysis-qqqsectionid=3-qqqc=5.2.0.0-qqqn=1-qqqx=1.asp

"What happens if this occurs? Well, it changes the game. If Greece defaults in the euro, the precedent is set. Ireland is likely to be next because we are now firmly in the danger zone where debt to income is above 60 per cent and exploding. Examine these figures: In 2008 our debt cost €1.5 billion to service. This figure had jumped to €2.5 billion in 2009 - an increase of €1 billion, or 66 per cent.

But if you look at our debt servicing costs as a percentage of our tax revenues, the picture is much more worrying. In 2008 we spent 3.8 per cent of tax income on debt servicing. In 2009 that figure was 7.7 per cent, an increase of over 100 per cent year on year.

This trajectory gets worse. As a government’s income is reduced, it borrows more money to close the gap, which in turn, means a greater amount of tax will have to go on interest payments the following year, which will lead to a greater deficit.

Also, as the government is forced to use more and more of our money to pay off its debt, it becomes unable to invest in productive things that would increase the growth rate of the economy.

Today, our national debt stands at 57 per cent of our GNP. But after the bank bailout (€54 billion for Nama and €18 billion for Anglo) debt rises to 108 per cent of GNP. This is not counting the money for Bank of Ireland and AIB.

So quite apart from the deteriorating situation due to the gap between spending and revenues, 50 per cent of GNP is being spent on the banks.

The problem is that none of this spending increases the productive capacity of the nation. The government, by keeping the banks afloat with our money, is in fact investing in land. But land has no productive value. So all the money is spent and all the debt is amassed, but unlike other countries who have debts, we have no infrastructure to show in return. All we have is fields in Athlone, revamped golf courses and zombie hotels.

So are we headed for default?

I know this sounds like heresy now, just like property collapses, bank failures and problems in the euro sounded heretical in the recent past. But they happened. Again, events - once they move in a certain direction - tend to follow a similar path.

Take the following example, from my own experience in Russia in 1998. In June 1998, the IMF announced a bailout for Russia. At the time, the newspapers said that the crisis was over and the IMF had saved the day."

Scofflaw

DaBrow, are you even on topic any more? You're making no attempt to establish how any of the issues you're posting about would have been different if we were in EFTA.

regards,
Scofflaw

DaBrow

Scofflaw wrote: »

DaBrow, are you even on topic any more? You're making no attempt to establish how any of the issues you're posting about would have been different if we were in EFTA.

regards,
Scofflaw

Yes, I am... I am posting these stories to disprove the belief you hold that we should stay within the Eurozone and the EU.

Ireland and Greece... Both Countries who are heavily affected by the economic crisis and crippled because they have no soverign currency control are experiencing Emigration.

This in turn will make our chances of recovery even slimmer than being on our own in a Trade Based Bloc, where members are free to pass their own laws and able to act independently from external authority.

Switzerland & Norway are completely unaffected compared to most EU States, or Eurozone countries.

maggy_thatcher

DaBrow wrote: »

Yes, I am... I am posting these stories to disprove the belief you hold that we should stay within the Eurozone and the EU.

Ireland and Greece... Both Countries who are heavily affected by the economic crisis and crippled because they have no soverign currency control are experiencing Emigration.

Ireland is primarily affected by the economic crisis because we relied too much on internal building and not enough on trade. Being a part of the EU has nothing to do with that.

DaBrow wrote: »

This in turn will make our chances of recovery even slimmer than being on our own in a Trade Based Bloc, where members are free to pass their own laws and able to act independently from external authority.

You haven't said what laws you think we'd pass...as well as somehow managing to pay off a national debt that'll skyrocket as our currency goes into freefall.

DaBrow wrote: »

Switzerland & Norway are completely unaffected compared to most EU States, or Eurozone countries.

Both Switzerland & Norway are very rich countries, the Norwegians because they have oil, the Swiss because they have (reliable) banks (and chocolate ). If we were to pull out of the EU we wouldn't be like those, we'd be closer to what happened to Iceland. We have no heavy industry and few if any national resources (well, we probably have some Uranium, but the government has put an embargo on even looking for that). What do you propose to fund this new isolationist country with?

Scofflaw

DaBrow wrote: »

Yes, I am... I am posting these stories to disprove the belief you hold that we should stay within the Eurozone and the EU.

Ireland and Greece... Both Countries who are heavily affected by the economic crisis and crippled because they have no soverign currency control are experiencing Emigration.

This in turn will make our chances of recovery even slimmer than being on our own in a Trade Based Bloc, where members are free to pass their own laws and able to act independently from external authority.

Switzerland & Norway are completely unaffected compared to most EU States, or Eurozone countries.

I did assume that's what you thought you were doing, which is why I pointed out that you weren't establishing for any of them how things would have been different for us if we had been in EFTA rather than the EU. As such, you're simply wasting your time, and that of anyone who reads your posts - you obviously believe that being in EFTA would cure these ills, but you're not proving it. Without proof, it remains simply your belief.

regards,
Scofflaw

sirromo

maggy_thatcher wrote:

Ireland is primarily affected by the economic crisis because we relied too much on internal building and not enough on trade.

And why did we rely too much on internal building? Did it not have a lot to do with the fact that interest rates were so low and inflation was so high and that investment in housing offered the best returns? If we had the power to set interest rates over the last decade we would been able to limit the flow of credit in the economy and that would have encouraged people to save rather than to waste money on expensive houses and cars and lawnmowers.

The fact that our population increased so rapidly following EU expansion also helped fuel the demand for housing and led to an expansion in the share of our workforce employed in the construction and retail sectors, two sectors that have suffered heavily over the last two years and that have accounted for much of the increase in unemployment.

maggie_thatcher wrote:

Being a part of the EU has nothing to do with that.

It was not the proximate cause of the problem but it did help provide the conditions and the inventives that helped fuel the overheating in the economy. If we hadn't been in the eurozone we probably wouldn't have had access to so much cheap credit and we would have had the power to more effectively deal with the problem once there were signs that we were in the middle of an unsustainable housing boom. As someone said of the federal reserve in America, we would have had the option to take away the punchbowl when the party got going. We didn't have the option and so we hit the concrete hard.

maggy_thatcher wrote:

We have no heavy industry and few if any national resources (well, we probably have some Uranium, but the government has put an embargo on even looking for that). What do you propose to fund this new isolationist country with?

The alternative to the EU is not isolationism. The alternative to the EU is the EFTA.

maggy_thatcher

sirromo wrote: »

And why did we rely too much on internal building? Did it not have a lot to do with the fact that interest rates were so low and inflation was so high and that investment in housing offered the best returns? If we had the power to set interest rates over the last decade we would been able to limit the flow of credit in the economy and that would have encouraged people to save rather than to waste money on expensive houses and cars and lawnmowers.

We relied too much on internal building because (in general) the Irish people are afraid of renting - I think it goes back to the generations where people lived in fear of landlords evicting them.

sirromo wrote: »

The fact that our population increased so rapidly following EU expansion also helped fuel the demand for housing and led to an expansion in the share of our workforce employed in the construction and retail sectors, two sectors that have suffered heavily over the last two years and that have accounted for much of the increase in unemployment.

We are still one of the least-dense countries in Europe - that's one of the reasons why we're struggling so hard - our tax base is too small.

sirromo wrote: »

It was not the proximate cause of the problem but it did help provide the conditions and the inventives that helped fuel the overheating in the economy. If we hadn't been in the eurozone we probably wouldn't have had access to so much cheap credit and we would have had the power to more effectively deal with the problem once there were signs that we were in the middle of an unsustainable housing boom. As someone said of the federal reserve in America, we would have had the option to take away the punchbowl when the party got going. We didn't have the option and so we hit the concrete hard.

We'll never know that - for one we'd also have to have had a different government in power, as FF are too heavily involved with the building lobby to risk upsetting them. Also, even assuming you are correct, pulling out of the EU now would be like closing the barn door after the horse had bolted - how is it going to help us now (assuming you believe that it would)?

sirromo wrote: »

The alternative to the EU is not isolationism. The alternative to the EU is the EFTA.

From wikipedia:

Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following:

• Non-interventionism – Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
• Protectionism – There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.

It sounds like we'd have an isolationist country to me. Regardless of how you would phrase it - nobody has explained how it would be funded? Remember that at the moment of pulling out of the EU all debt would still be in Euros, every savings account in the country would be empty, every bank would be bankrupt, we'd just alienated our biggest trading partner, and we'd have a currency in freefall. How would you tackle this problem?

Scofflaw

Thread cleaned of petty off-topic squabbling by me.

apologies,
Scofflaw

View

sirromo wrote: »

A minor inconvenience. In return for regaining control of our borders I think most Irish people would be prepared to pay the small cost of having to fill in a few forms and jump a few hoops when they want to move or work in another European country.

Or, in other words, if someone in Donegal wants to move to live/work in Derry, you reckon they'd be happy that they need to get a Work Visa/Residence Permit to do so?

And, that they'd only qualify for these if there is no other suitable EU citizens willing to take up the position...

View

DaBrow wrote: »

We are part of the European Economic Area and we would be eligible to Join EFTA As a Replacement if we either left the EU or were kicked out.

You might want to read the EEA Treaty. Ireland is in the EEA because it is a member of the EU. The EEA Treaty specifies the EU (as a collective) negotiates with the non-EU states on a multiple "bilateral" basis - that is say, the EU negotiates with Norway, with Lichtenstein and with Iceland separately.

Leave the EU and Ireland's membership of the EEA would be essentially null and void - we wouldn't qualify for the EU to negotiate on our behalf (!) and the treaty obviously was never written with the idea that the EU would negotiate with one of its own member states.

Hence, Ireland would in effect need to negotiate a new membership of the EEA. Offhand, I can't think why the other EU member states would be in a rush to re-write the EEA Treaty to facilitate a bunch of Irish Euro-sceptics, but I am sure our exporters wouldn't mind having to pay tariffs on all the goods they sell into the EU in the meantime...

bonkey

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Its true that switzerland does a lot of what the EU does but it does so on an a la carte basis, i think such an a la carte basis is best for us too.

I wouldn't describe it as a la carte.

The Swiss and EU are in more-or-less constant negotiations, with give-and-take. This is not necessarily better or worse then EU membership, rather it is different.

You are right that EFTA members are not automatically entitled to EEA membership (as Morocco may find out in the next few years) but all EFTA members can apply for EEA membership. This wouldnt be a problem for us as we are already EEA members, as for whether EFTA would have us? I think they are crying out for members like us.

"They" already have us as members, so they're certainly not crying out for us to join.

The point is that in order for something like this to come about, a number of things have to occur...

Firstly, the EU have to kick us out or we have to leave. In either of these cases (particularly the former), its not unreasonable to surmise that we may not be the most popular European nation with EU members as a result.

Secondly, the EFTA have to agree to let us in. While there is little reason to suppose this mightn't happen, the major one would be problems with how/why we left the EU.

Thirdly, we have to apply to negotiate with the EU to get back into the EEA. In effect, we have to say either "I know you kicked us out, but we still want all of these benefits you gave us as members" or "I know we turned our back on you, but we still want all of these benefits you gave us as members". What reason would the EU have to say yes to this? The only killer reason would be if we had something of vital interest to them....and were willing to do what the Swiss do...quid pro quo.

So...lets say that the EU decide that we can have EEA membership and the market access that this entails.if we renew the same access to our fisheries that was in place when we were EU members. They also insist that as non-Schengen, non-EU members, we have to have proper border controls with all EU nations (including the UK) and that this must be in place before they're even willing to discuss an sort of freedom-of-movement-and-employment agreement....in the absence of which all trade would have to be subject to costly customs checks.

We have very little to bring to the bargaining table....other than the disadvantageous "we left you" or "you kicked us out"....which means that the EU could readily hold us over a barrel and not have to care about it....if they wanted to talk to us at all.

Sure...its possible that it would all work out to our advantage. That would require that the EU be an honest, trustworthy, fair partner who odoesn't try to bully small countries, and genuinely looks out for everyone's best interests in a fair and reasonable manner. Of course...if we held that to be true, then one would have to ask why we'd want to leave in the first place, wouldn't we.

DaBrow

View wrote: »

You might want to read the EEA Treaty. Ireland is in the EEA because it is a member of the EU. The EEA Treaty specifies the EU (as a collective) negotiates with the non-EU states on a multiple "bilateral" basis - that is say, the EU negotiates with Norway, with Lichtenstein and with Iceland separately.

Leave the EU and Ireland's membership of the EEA would be essentially null and void - we wouldn't qualify for the EU to negotiate on our behalf (!) and the treaty obviously was never written with the idea that the EU would negotiate with one of its own member states.

Hence, Ireland would in effect need to negotiate a new membership of the EEA. Offhand, I can't think why the other EU member states would be in a rush to re-write the EEA Treaty to facilitate a bunch of Irish Euro-sceptics, but I am sure our exporters wouldn't mind having to pay tariffs on all the goods they sell into the EU in the meantime...

Greenland left the EC or EU back in the 80's... They still have trading links with Europe.

EFTA States have little or No Tarriffs to Pay if trade is within the EEA; this is because the European Economic Area is to allow the freedom of Travel, Trade, Capital and working rights to all citizens that live within the geographical boundary.

I think if we made an application to the EFTA First and then when accepted, recind our EU Membership... That will prevent us from having to renegotiate with the EU.

sirromo

maggie_thatcher wrote:

We relied too much on internal building because (in general) the Irish people are afraid of renting - I think it goes back to the generations where people lived in fear of landlords evicting them.

Irish people didn't suddenly get a fear of renting in the last ten years. It was the combination of cultural attitudes to home ownership, demographics, high inflation and the availability of cheap credit that led to the massive over-investment in housing over the last decade.

maggie_thatcher wrote:

We are still one of the least-dense countries in Europe

Our workforce expanded too quickly into sectors that could not continue to provide secure and sustainable employment into the future. If we hadn't lifted the restrictions on the east Europeans back in 2004 our workforce would not have expanded so quickly and unemployment would not be as high as it is today.

maggie_thatcher wrote:

We'll never know that - for one we'd also have to have had a different government in power, as FF are too heavily involved with the building lobby to risk upsetting them.

I don't believe Fianna Fail would have put the interests of the building lobby before their own interests as a party. Both the building sector and the Fianna Fail party have suffered heavily as a result of the downturn.

maggie_thatcher wrote:

Also, even assuming you are correct, pulling out of the EU now would be like closing the barn door after the horse had bolted - how is it going to help us now (assuming you believe that it would)?

Leaving the euro would allow us to devalue our currency and that would make our exports more competitive. Leaving the euro would also give us the means to prevent our economy overheating in the future.

maggie_thatcher wrote:

Regardless of how you would phrase it - nobody has explained how it would be funded?

What do you mean by funding? Do you mean the government's ability to continue raising debt?

maggie_thatcher wrote:

Remember that at the moment of pulling out of the EU all debt would still be in Euros, every savings account in the country would be empty, every bank would be bankrupt, we'd just alienated our biggest trading partner, and we'd have a currency in freefall.

This kind of scare-mongering greatly strengthens the eurosceptic case that our relationship with the EU has become dangerously unhealthy.

View wrote:

Or, in other words, if someone in Donegal wants to move to live/work in Derry, you reckon they'd be happy that they need to get a Work Visa/Residence Permit to do so?

I don't think they'd be happy about it but I think they would learn to live with it. People in the border region would be outnumbered by people in the rest of the country who would would be willing to pay a small price for regaining control of our borders.

View wrote:

Offhand, I can't think why the other EU member states would be in a rush to re-write the EEA Treaty to facilitate a bunch of Irish Euro-sceptics

What about Britain, the most euro-sceptic nation in the EU? We are their fourth biggest market. Don't you think they might want to avoid anything that might make it more difficult for them to trade with their next-door neighbour?

Even if we're more heavily reliant on trade with them than they are on trade with us, I don't think they would want to go to the trouble of doing something that would have only marginal economic benefits for Britain and that could have a hugely damaging effect on the northern economy.

View wrote:

but I am sure our exporters wouldn't mind having to pay tariffs on all the goods they sell into the EU in the meantime...

There wouldn't need to be a meantime. We wouldn't need to leave the EU until we had finalised the EEA treaty and then there would be a smooth transition from one to the other without any major disruptions.

Even if this wasn't possible, we could recoup much of the costs of the EU's tariffs on our exports by imposing retaliatory tariffs on EU goods entering our market. A devaluation of our currency would also make our exports cheaper and so the EU tariffs would probably not have much of an impact. If that didn't fully cover the costs of the tariffs we could consider cutting our corporation tax to drive costs down further.

K-9

sirromo wrote: »

Our workforce expanded too quickly into sectors that could not continue to provide secure and sustainable employment into the future. If we hadn't lifted the restrictions on the east Europeans back in 2004 our workforce would not have expanded so quickly and unemployment would not be as high as it is today.

Yes, but we chose to channel our funds at the wrong sectors.

BetterLisbon

View wrote: »

Or, in other words, if someone in Donegal wants to move to live/work in Derry, you reckon they'd be happy that they need to get a Work Visa/Residence Permit to do so?

And, that they'd only qualify for these if there is no other suitable EU citizens willing to take up the position...

Ever heard of our bilateral arrangements with the UK on employment and estaishmt rights?

maggy_thatcher

sirromo wrote: »

Leaving the euro would allow us to devalue our currency and that would make our exports more competitive. Leaving the euro would also give us the means to prevent our economy overheating in the future.

While at the same time makes our imports much more expensive - and there are a lot of things we need to import (e.g. fuel).

sirromo wrote: »

What do you mean by funding? Do you mean the government's ability to continue raising debt?

I mean how to continue paying back our existing debt - remember that this is still all in Euros, so our rapidly devalued currency becomes worthless as we have to go and purchase more and more hard-currency to make even the interest payments.

sirromo wrote: »

This kind of scare-mongering greatly strengthens the eurosceptic case that our relationship with the EU has become dangerously unhealthy.

You still haven't answered the question. If what I said was untrue, then say so..if it is true, then how do we work around the problem.

sirromo wrote: »

I don't think they'd be happy about it but I think they would learn to live with it. People in the border region would be outnumbered by people in the rest of the country who would would be willing to pay a small price for regaining control of our borders.

Really? If you put a referendum on the topic (which would be necessary), do you really think that the "people in the rest of the country" would opt to pull out?

sirromo wrote: »

What about Britain, the most euro-sceptic nation in the EU? We are their fourth biggest market. Don't you think they might want to avoid anything that might make it more difficult for them to trade with their next-door neighbour?

Even if we're more heavily reliant on trade with them than they are on trade with us, I don't think they would want to go to the trouble of doing something that would have only marginal economic benefits for Britain and that could have a hugely damaging effect on the northern economy.

I don't seriously believe that Ireland would be crazy enough to pull out of the EU as long as Britain is a member (we didn't enter before Britain for the same reason). About the only parties in the UK that are in favour of pulling out of Europe are UKIP and BNP.

sirromo wrote: »

There wouldn't need to be a meantime. We wouldn't need to leave the EU until we had finalised the EEA treaty and then there would be a smooth transition from one to the other without any major disruptions.

Even if this wasn't possible, we could recoup much of the costs of the EU's tariffs on our exports by imposing retaliatory tariffs on EU goods entering our market. A devaluation of our currency would also make our exports cheaper and so the EU tariffs would probably not have much of an impact. If that didn't fully cover the costs of the tariffs we could consider cutting our corporation tax to drive costs down further.

Retaliatory tariffs only work if group A is equivalent in size to group B. Our economy is tiny in comparison to the EU - if we put the tariffs too high, they'd simply stop trading with us...too low and we don't make any money from it - unfortunately for us, "too low" is higher than "too high", so it won't work.

sirromo

K-9 wrote:

Yes, but we chose to channel our funds at the wrong sectors.

What other sectors could we have invested in though? The combination of low-interest rates and high-inflation encouraged people to spend rather than to save.

BetterLisbon

View wrote: »

You might want to read the EEA Treaty. Ireland is in the EEA because it is a member of the EU. The EEA Treaty specifies the EU (as a collective) negotiates with the non-EU states on a multiple "bilateral" basis - that is say, the EU negotiates with Norway, with Lichtenstein and with Iceland separately.

Leave the EU and Ireland's membership of the EEA would be essentially null and void - we wouldn't qualify for the EU to negotiate on our behalf (!) and the treaty obviously was never written with the idea that the EU would negotiate with one of its own member states.

Hence, Ireland would in effect need to negotiate a new membership of the EEA. Offhand, I can't think why the other EU member states would be in a rush to re-write the EEA Treaty to facilitate a bunch of Irish Euro-sceptics, but I am sure our exporters wouldn't mind having to pay tariffs on all the goods they sell into the EU in the meantime...

The members of the EU and EFTA created the EEA in the early 90s. The EU members conduct their affairs collectively (and the EFTA members individually) that is true but EU members are EEA members in their own right as such we can be EEA members without being EU members. By joining EFTA we avoid any headaches about market surveillance etc.
Remember Austria, Finland and Sweden crossed from EFTA to the EU without having to reapply for EEA membership so crossing in the other direction is similarly seamless.
Now if my read of the EEA is wrong please point out my error and i will yield to the better man.

K-9

sirromo wrote: »

What other sectors could we have invested in though? The combination of low-interest rates and high-inflation encouraged people to spend rather than to save.

Yes, but property bubble have happened in countries for centuries, pre the Euro and they had control over interest rates etc., Sweden springs to mind who take a similar NAMA approach to theirs. Indeed, only a couple of countries in the Euro had property bubbles.

Tax breaks played a massive part in the bubble, under our control. Even when the so called "soft landing" was happening in late 06, they doubled Mortgage Interest Relief!

Plenty of sectors to invest, Green areas, R&D etc. which they ignored because the money was rolling in from property. I also have no confidence that our Central Bank would have acted properly.

BetterLisbon

bonkey wrote: »

I wouldn't describe it as a la carte.
The Swiss and EU are in more-or-less constant negotiations, with give-and-take. This is not necessarily better or worse then EU membership, rather it is different.
"They" already have us as members, so they're certainly not crying out for us to join.
The point is that in order for something like this to come about, a number of things have to occur...
Firstly, the EU have to kick us out or we have to leave. In either of these cases (particularly the former), its not unreasonable to surmise that we may not be the most popular European nation with EU members as a result.
Secondly, the EFTA have to agree to let us in. While there is little reason to suppose this mightn't happen, the major one would be problems with how/why we left the EU.
Thirdly, we have to apply to negotiate with the EU to get back into the EEA. In effect, we have to say either "I know you kicked us out, but we still want all of these benefits you gave us as members" or "I know we turned our back on you, but we still want all of these benefits you gave us as members". What reason would the EU have to say yes to this? The only killer reason would be if we had something of vital interest to them....and were willing to do what the Swiss do...quid pro quo.
So...lets say that the EU decide that we can have EEA membership and the market access that this entails.if we renew the same access to our fisheries that was in place when we were EU members. They also insist that as non-Schengen, non-EU members, we have to have proper border controls with all EU nations (including the UK) and that this must be in place before they're even willing to discuss an sort of freedom-of-movement-and-employment agreement....in the absence of which all trade would have to be subject to costly customs checks.
We have very little to bring to the bargaining table....other than the disadvantageous "we left you" or "you kicked us out"....which means that the EU could readily hold us over a barrel and not have to care about it....if they wanted to talk to us at all.
Sure...its possible that it would all work out to our advantage. That would require that the EU be an honest, trustworthy, fair partner who odoesn't try to bully small countries, and genuinely looks out for everyone's best interests in a fair and reasonable manner. Of course...if we held that to be true, then one would have to ask why we'd want to leave in the first place, wouldn't we.

First is strightforward: Invoke article 50 of TEU.
Second is also striaghtforward as EFTA needs members and given its composed of those who want the economic benefits of europe without the political cost they will sympathise with our plight.
Third is not a problem as we are EEA members in our own right we can choose EU or EFTA for our market surveillance requirement.

maggy_thatcher

BetterLisbon wrote: »

First is strightforward: Invoke article 50 of TEU.

That gets us out of the EU. It doesn't mean that there won't be bad blood between us and the EU.

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Second is also striaghtforward as EFTA needs members and given its composed of those who want the economic benefits of europe without the political cost they will sympathise with our plight.

But that would still not stop the EU deciding not to do business with us if they decided that it was in their best interests. Also, EFTA may need members, but will it want a bankrupt little state with little or no natural resources?

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Third is not a problem as we are EEA members in our own right we can choose EU or EFTA for our market surveillance requirement.

But our membership of the EEA was because we are a member of the EU. A country is released from all of its EU-related treaties upon exiting the EU (or within 2 years afterwards unless there is unanimous agreement between all treaty holders), so I would imagine that would include the EEA treaty.

sirromo

maggie_thatcher wrote:

While at the same time makes our imports much more expensive - and there are a lot of things we need to import (e.g. fuel).

I'd say we'll be alright. We devalued our currency back in 1993 and we got through it. The increase in economic activity will make up for the higher costs of imported goods.

maggie_thatcher wrote:

I mean how to continue paying back our existing debt - remember that this is still all in Euros,

Why would it be a problem paying back our debt? Devaluing our currency would just mean that the real value of our debt would rise but that is going to happen anyway. The increased economic activity and wealth creation as a result of a devaluation will mean that we'll have a better chance of paying back the debt than if we continue in our depressed state and just wait for wages and unemployment to fall by themselves.

maggie_thatcher wrote:

so our rapidly devalued currency becomes worthless

Why would it become worthless? It would decrease in value but what would lead to it becoming worthless?

maggie_thatcher wrote:

You still haven't answered the question. If what I said was untrue, then say so..

Scare-mongering can't be easily dismissed as being untrue because it relates to something that hasn't happened yet.

maggie_thatcher wrote:

Really? If you put a referendum on the topic (which would be necessary), do you really think that the "people in the rest of the country" would opt to pull out?

I think if a referendum was held I think the majority of people would say that immigration has been far too high over the last ten years and that we can't continue to operate an open door policy towards the eastern Europeans. If filling out a few forms when we want to work in another European country is the price we have to pay for regaining control of our borders then I think most Irish people would be willing to pay that price.

maggie_thatcher wrote:

About the only parties in the UK that are in favour of pulling out of Europe are UKIP and BNP.

Both parties which have seen their support increase in recent years.

I don't think anyone in this country wants us to pull out of Europe. There are many of us who would just like to be part of a different kind of Europe to the one we're in. We'd like to be in Europe but not run by Europe.

maggie_thatcher wrote:

Retaliatory tariffs only work if group A is equivalent in size to group B. Our economy is tiny in comparison to the EU - if we put the tariffs too high, they'd simply stop trading with us...too low and we don't make any money from it - unfortunately for us, "too low" is higher than "too high", so it won't work.

It wouldn't work if it was used on its own, but in combination with the devaluation of the currency and a decrease in the corporation tax rate, I think we'll be able to cover the costs.

I don't think we'll need to worry about tariffs anyway. I think we can expect a smooth tariff-free transition from EU membership to EFTA membership.

k-9 wrote:

Yes, but property bubble have happened in countries for centuries, pre the Euro and they had control over interest rates

The bubble itself might have been unavoidable but the size and the timing of the bubble were determined by factors that had a lot to do with our membership of the eurozone.

k-9 wrote:

Indeed, only a couple of countries in the Euro had property bubbles.[/quote

The reason had a lot to do with demographics. Ireland's population is younger than most other other European countries.

k-9 wrote:

I also have no confidence that our Central Bank would have acted properly.

Do you think they would have been more likely to act in Ireland's interests?