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
-
The Corinthian wrote: »To correct you, the French garrison in Rome was recalled in 1870 due to the Franco-Prussian War - not booted out by anyone. Only after they left did Italian forces take Rome.
I said that.
That you are judging on the basis of race.
The only criteria you have suggested is genetic.
It is easier to become a Swiss citizen than an Irish one, so your point is a bit pointless.
Nope... It takes over a decade to be eligible for Swiss Citizenship by naturalisation as birth isn't recognised, its the longest in the world and only by residence after 12 years. In Ireland it is less than that.
Switzerland expects immigrants to either support themselves independently and/or be conversent in either French, Italian, German or Romansch to find employment.
BTW
Afrikaners are not Culturally or Idigenous to Africa like Zulus, Xzhosa or Bantu.
French Zouaves guarded the Papal States after the official Army departed.southsiderosie wrote: »Wow, you definitely didn't read my original post. I AM A MEMBER OF THE IRISH DIASPORA... I am an AMERICAN whose mother is second-generation Irish. I am just TEMPORARILY living in Ireland, thanks to funding from the US government. My mother is one of those proud soda-bread baking, rebel-song singing Irish Americans who has considered applying for Irish citizenship for instrumental reasons (she works in IT), but doesn't know jack about Irish politics beyond the fact that THE ENGLISH SHOULD GET OUT OF THE NORTH!!! Her entire extended family, and the neighborhood she grew up in Chicago are like this...as are most of the Irish-Americans I knew from years of living in Boston.
Most multi-nationals located in Ireland because corporate taxes are low, it's English speaking, and it used to be cheap. If you think US corporations are in any way, shape or form nationalistic (American or Irish), there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
I was in Boston when the scandal broke with Cardinal Law, and I was in Dubin when the Ryan Report was released. Boston is probably the most "Irish" city in the US, and still the public response was as different as night and day. Again, this is a strong signal that Irish and Irish-Americans are not as culturally similar as you think.
Funny you mention illegal immigration...another key difference between the US and Ireland is that Americans hold birthright, civic citizenship to be sacred. Despite shrieking from the right, we are not going to change our constitution - despite MASSIVE levels of illegal immigration that dwarf the situation in Ireland. Yet the Irish voted to change their constitution after less than a decade of mass migration...once again, highlighting a significant cultural difference: Americans have a totally different concept of citizenship. I understand, given Ireland's history, why there are more tribalistic notions of national membership. But, frankly, if America was structured that way, there wouldn't be an Irish diaspora to speak of anyway.
Finally, you keep talking about the "diaspora" like they are some kind of monolith. However, after more than three generations of European migration, most families are "mixed": there's some Polish, some Italian, some Irish, etc. Again, I'm an example of this: my father is non-white, and let me tell you NOBODY in Ireland thinks I have any Irish blood in me. Even my 'fenian' mother has a German grandmother (and we have the chocolate cake recipes to prove it).
I will try to refrain from further comment, but I don't for the life of me understand why you have such faith in what is essentially an 'imagined community' of people who have few tangible links to Ireland beyond Paddy's Day frippery or naked economic interest.
So what if Irish Diasporans are mixed... Anyone that has 50%-75% Irish Ancestry and 50%-25% of e.g. Scottish and Something else to me is Irish, more so if they have an Irish Person for a spouse.
Ireland was cheap before the flood of cheap credit from the EU and a new currency that caused massive inflation, turned this place now into an expensive but economically damaged country.
Eastern Europe EU Countries are doing better than us, because their own currency being weaker is creating some form of growth in tourism/goods&service exports.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »That is a fair point. My main issue with most Eurosceptic arguments is that they tend to be based, in reality, on purely nationalistic, often racialist, considerations and then sold, poorly, on an economic basis (because the nationalistic or racialist would not find enough support).
Unfortunately, I think the reality of the modern globalized World is such that nationalism is really a luxury that can no longer be afforded. Even countries such as Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are slowly coming to this conclusion and the former two are in a far better position to stand on their own that Ireland ever has been, and the latter has all but given up the ghost.
Small fish in big ponds don't tend to survive - from a nineteenth century perspective, only a few have ever managed to in Europe, by pure fluke, and none of them have full sovereignty today. The twenty-first century is one of super-nations and traditional, nation states simply do not have the power to compete.
It's not necessarily a very positive argument in favour of EU membership, however it is a realistic one, and until someone can come up with a realistic alternative, I cannot see us leaving or even wanting to.
So corinthian how hard have you looked for eurosceptic arguments? In my experience europhiles happily glibly dismiss any opposition to the EU as nationalisitic/racist etc. I have very rarely seen europhiles even briefly contemplete principled opposition. Well i would urge you to look up jens peter bonde (denmark), pana (ireland), daniel hannan (uk), harry van bommel (holland) or even my own website www.betterthanlisbon.org which doesnt expire for another few months for good eurosceptic arguments. The irish media wants to give all publicity to the lunatic fringe of euroscepticism to tar us all with the same brush as we saw with coir getting all the publicity in lisbon2. Ironically i see the EU as highly nationalistic and even racist. European jobs for european workers, 100 quid for europeans in A&E and 300 quid for non-europeans, fortress europe (schengen) etc.
I reject your worldview totally. The world needs small nations, concentration of power into blocs has always ended in tears and bloodshed. This is my fear for europe. your dismissal of the soverignty of small nations rather echoes what the british told us 100 years ago. We left their union and did alright.0 -
southsiderosie wrote:I will try to refrain from further comment, but I don't for the life of me understand why you have such faith in what is essentially an 'imagined community' of people who have few tangible links to Ireland beyond Paddy's Day frippery or naked economic interest.
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,
Scofflaw0 -
BetterLisbon wrote: »So corinthian how hard have you looked for eurosceptic arguments? In my experience europhiles happily glibly dismiss any opposition to the EU as nationalisitic/racist etc. I have very rarely seen europhiles even briefly contemplete principled opposition. Well i would urge you to look up jens peter bonde (denmark), pana (ireland), daniel hannan (uk), harry van bommel (holland) or even my own website www.betterthanlisbon.org which doesnt expire for another few months for good eurosceptic arguments. The irish media wants to give all publicity to the lunatic fringe of euroscepticism to tar us all with the same brush as we saw with coir getting all the publicity in lisbon2. Ironically i see the EU as highly nationalistic and even racist. European jobs for european workers, 100 quid for europeans in A&E and 300 quid for non-europeans, fortress europe (schengen) etc.
I reject your worldview totally. The world needs small nations, concentration of power into blocs has always ended in tears and bloodshed. This is my fear for europe. your dismissal of the soverignty of small nations rather echoes what the british told us 100 years ago. We left their union and did alright.
Unfortunately, while it's perfectly possible to make useful criticism of the EU from a small-nations position (indeed, it's probably the single best counter-position), it's also necessary to have some understanding of the EU and of the treaties which govern it - and, frankly, you have repeatedly demonstrated an almost absurd level of ignorance about both, something which inspires no confidence in your criticisms.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
Remittances as in Foreign Nationals Sending money home to the family back in Lithuania.
For example in Britain, one body showed that even though Foreigners generated £100Million Pounds to the Treasury... Those same people sent back over £1 Billion back to their family in their homeland.
However, alot of Multi-Nationals practise something similar where the money they generate in one nation is taken out of that place and sent to the Original Based HQ... Avoiding Corporate Tax in several Jurisdictions and paying a small amount of declared Tax in its home country.
There is a Flight of capital which I suspect also leads to avoiding Tax, especially if it is cash in hand where the elompoyee pay isn't properly recorded.
I think there is still a strong occurance of this happening even now, during tough times because tax is higher and it leads to a large black economy emerging.
Yes, immigrants send money back, sure we know that ourselves!
As for tax, I do share your concern as do others, hence CCTB, we will defend it at all costs though our main worry on that level maybe the US, not the EU.
If we are outside the EU, we aren't that attractive to Multi Nationals and our biggest defence on the global front, the EU, is gone. Obama could target our tax laws with the comfort of knowing the EU will not defend us.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Advertisement
-
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).Nope... It takes over a decade to be eligible for Swiss Citizenship by naturalisation as birth isn't recognised, its the longest in the world and only by residence after 12 years. In Ireland it is less than that.
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.Switzerland expects immigrants to either support themselves independently and/or be conversent in either French, Italian, German or Romansch to find employment.
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.Afrikaners are not Culturally or Idigenous to Africa like Zulus, Xzhosa or Bantu.
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?French Zouaves guarded the Papal States after the official Army departed.
So is 50% you racial purity cut-off point?So what if Irish Diasporans are mixed... Anyone that has 50%-75% Irish Ancestry and 50%-25% of e.g. Scottish and Something else to me is Irish, more so if they have an Irish Person for a spouse.0 -
I'll take a look at your site when I have a bit more time. However, you will have to admit that the lunatic fringe of Euroscepticism is regrettibly the most vocal. Even here on Boards, most Eurosceptic threads tend to be started by people like DaBrow.BetterLisbon wrote: »The irish media wants to give all publicity to the lunatic fringe of euroscepticism to tar us all with the same brush as we saw with coir getting all the publicity in lisbon2.
It's a valid fear, but remaining a collection of small nations is not necessarily going to avoid bloodshed either - just ask Denmark, Norway, Holland or Belgium.I reject your worldview totally. The world needs small nations, concentration of power into blocs has always ended in tears and bloodshed. This is my fear for europe.
The last millennium, we have been slowly coalescing into larger and larger political units. Refusing, or failing, to do so until the nineteenth century, resulted in Italy being constantly dominated by foreign powers, for example. Even Ireland, and her warring, fractured kingdoms became easy pickings for foreign powers to come in and take over.
Small nations survive, but only through luck and they ultimately only retain nominal sovereignty - look at the independent micro-states of Europe, for example.
Today we live in a World dominated increasingly by super-national states. Developing nations such as India, Brazil and, especially, China are rapidly eclipsing the 'small nations' and so we are left in a situation whereby we must evolve or die - even the remaining EFTA members are all aware that their days outside of the EU are numbered.
That it will happen, with out without our consent, is a historical inevitability - all that remains is that we do it on the best terms we can get.0 -
The Corinthian wrote:Today we live in a World dominated increasingly by super-national states. Developing nations such as India, Brazil and, especially, China are rapidly eclipsing the 'small nations' and so we are left in a situation whereby we must evolve or die - even the remaining EFTA members are all aware that their days outside of the EU are numbered.
Why do you assume that small nation states and big super-national states can't co-exist peacefully? If one of the big nations starts to threaten our security or our interests then it's very likely that we won't be the only people affected. As an independent nation state we can form an alliance with those other countries and collectively we'll be in a position to resolve the problem. A coalition of independent European nation states acting collectively to protect their interests can achieve as much as a super-national USE.0 -
Unfortunately, while it's perfectly possible to make useful criticism of the EU from a small-nations position (indeed, it's probably the single best counter-position), it's also necessary to have some understanding of the EU and of the treaties which govern it - and, frankly, you have repeatedly demonstrated an almost absurd level of ignorance about both, something which inspires no confidence in your criticisms.
regards,
Scofflaw
That comment kinda sums up everything thats wrong with europhiles. Any criticism is glibly dismissed as "ignorance". I have read the EU treaties and other pertinent international treaties and conventions so i am far from ignorant. Sadly those of us who campaigned for a no vote in referenda are all too used to the argumentum ad hominem.0 -
Because historically they never do unless the smaller state de facto cedes sovereignty. City states ceded to small states, small states ceded to modern nation states and in the future the trend is almost certain to continue with nation states ceding to super-national states.Why do you assume that small nation states and big super-national states can't co-exist peacefully?
Worldwide there are very few small states that retain any meaningful sovereignty. In Europe there are none.
Possibly, assuming it is in their interests, but then you are relying on others to protect you, and that does not come without a price. No such thing as a free lunch.If one of the big nations starts to threaten our security or our interests then it's very likely that we won't be the only people affected.
No and there is a good historical example of this - Switzerland. The old Swiss Confederacy was a very loose coalition of independent cantons. Other than having separate, often competing, economic policies they followed separate, often competing, foreign policies.A coalition of independent European nation states acting collectively to protect their interests can achieve as much as a super-national USE.
In 1798 Napoleon invaded and faced insignificant and disorganized resistance. Some cantons rose to defend the confederation, others chose to remain neutral (but ultimately were invaded anyway) and some even aided the French invasion.
Once they regained their independence, the Swiss realized this and abandoned their loose confederacy and adopted a far more centralized system (although much less than others) that exists to this day.
Independent nation states almost always act in self-interest - it's just Realpolitik. Mutual defense or trade associations only work so long as they are in everyone's narrow self interest.0 -
Advertisement
-
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 dareThe 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.0 -
-
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.0 -
You better explain that to all the industries and sciences that use purity measures that are under 100% as a measure of acceptability.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.
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.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.
So Charlize Theron personally terrorized and murdered 'native' Africans?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.
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.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.0 -
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 relevance0 -
-
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 seriously0 -
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.Nothing here you post is of relevance and you can't even keep on topic discussion.
No-one can take you seriously
Now, how about you exonerate yourself rather than avoid recrimination, as you are doing, and respond to my questions?0 -
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.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
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).0 -
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.0 -
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.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).
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.
0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.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.
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?)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.0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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."0
Advertisement