Nigel Farage MEP

MrD012

meglome wrote: »

Anyone who thinks leaving the EU would be in Ireland's interests is very foolish indeed.

so I'm foolish when I look at the Republic of Singapore , an Independent Sovereign Country similar in size and population to Ireland thats not part of any common currency or political union and yet is listed in the top 5 GDP per Capita Economies of the world by the IMF and World Bank ?

The Corinthian

MrD012 wrote: »

so I'm foolish when I look at the Republic of Singapore , an Independent Sovereign Country similar in size and population to Ireland

Singapore (710 km2) is similar in size to Ireland (70,273 km2)?

MrD012

Boskowski wrote: »

He will appeal to all those who think the EU is just a vehicle for Germany building the Fourth Reich while finding it totally acceptable if Britain were doing this instead.

Hold on a minute , the man wants an Independent Sovereign Britain , therefore if he achieves this explain to me how on earth is he building a Fourth Reich , the Fourth Reich is all about expansion and ruling over other countries .

Scofflaw

MrD012 wrote: »

so I'm foolish when I look at the Republic of Singapore , an Independent Sovereign Country similar in size and population to Ireland thats not part of any common currency or political union and yet is listed in the top 5 GDP per Capita Economies of the world by the IMF and World Bank ?

I used to go in and out of Singapore quite a bit in the late 90s/early 00s, and they were looking to us to see what we were doing. Of course, that was before we decided that we could get rich by selling each other property rather than through hard work.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Coyler

MrD012 wrote: »

so I'm foolish when I look at the Republic of Singapore , an Independent Sovereign Country similar in size and population to Ireland thats not part of any common currency or political union and yet is listed in the top 5 GDP per Capita Economies of the world by the IMF and World Bank ?

Are you talking about the same Singapore that in is a member of ASEAN and that the US has rights to use its air bases and naval ports?

I'm sorry but "Independent Sovereign Country" is meaningless. As stated previously on this forum repeatedly, the other examples often used by eurosceptics are Switzerland and Norway and they are described as fax democracies by their own politicians. They simply just aren't independent. No country is. Even the mighty US has to negotiate with the EU to gain access to the Common Market. What do you believe Ireland will succeed in gaining by not being in the EU seeing as other major economies do see a benefit forging closer relationships?

Even if I was to cast aside all the political relaties for Singapore, it's not successful due to any perceived independence, it's successful because what it has to offer the US and China, its largest trading partners. What it has to offer is very cheap services due to very low income tax and crime. This leads to no safety net for the poor which I'm not sure you could sell as a good thing to the average Irish person. The crime issue lead to questions of its freedom of speech and such powers as performing random drug tests on all citizens and caning for immigration violations. I'll safely assume you'll find similar friction here as well. Would you like to know how the labour laws compare?

Look, leaving the EU is certainly possible but you need to spell out what exactly the alternative is. The euroscpetic Tories are finding the same problem in the UK where public opinion has actually flipped since this issue came to the forefront and those alternatives suddenly change from being simple soundbites to granular policies. Claiming that if we leave the EU will result in us becoming Singapore, albeit an idealised one, needs to be backed up with a little bit of rigor and not wishful thinking.

The Corinthian

I must say that I find amusing the notion that Ireland could be like Singapore.

Last time I was there, I'll never forget a street sign I saw showing a woman with children going down an escalator, with two business men chatting at the bottom and blocking her path. The strap-line was 'Inconsideration Has Consequences'. And there are consequences.

And that's the thing about Singapore, it's clean and all works like clockwork, but there's a price for that. Everywhere you'll see signs warning you that eating or drinking or smoking in that particular public area will result in a hefty fine. You can't even get chewing gum there unless you have a prescription for it. No wonder William Gibson once described it as "Disneyland with the Death Penalty".

But no doubt we'll take to that kind of lifestyle without problem...

Scofflaw

The Corinthian wrote: »

I must say that I find amusing the notion that Ireland could be like Singapore.

Last time I was there, I'll never forget a street sign I saw showing a woman with children going down an escalator, with two business men chatting at the bottom and blocking her path. The strap-line was 'Inconsideration Has Consequences'. And there are consequences.

And that's the thing about Singapore, it's clean and all works like clockwork, but there's a price for that. Everywhere you'll see signs warning you that eating or drinking or smoking in that particular public area will result in a hefty fine. You can't even get chewing gum there unless you have a prescription for it. No wonder William Gibson once described it as "Disneyland with the Death Penalty".

But no doubt we'll take to that kind of lifestyle without problem...

Yeah...Orchard Road. You can't see any cops on Orchard Road, but all that means is you can't see them. The only real similarity with Ireland is the close business-government nexus at the top of the pile.

Clean, though....

cordially,
Scofflaw

MrD012

Coyler wrote: »

I'm sorry but "Independent Sovereign Country" is meaningless. They simply just aren't independent. No country is.

of course the republic of singapore is independent.

Singapore became an independent republic on 9 August 1965.Singapore's economy has grown by an average of nine percent each year. By the 1990s, the country had become one of the world's most prosperous nations, with a highly developed free market economy , strong international trading links, and the highest per capita gross domestic product in Asia outside of Japan.

you see you are confusing "trade agreements" with "political union" , it is not a requirement to have a political union in order to establish trading links , they are two complete different things , In singapore the people have supreme independent authority over the kind of society they want to live in , the public servants that they elect to carry out their wishes have complete control and freedom to carry said wishes and thus it is an independent sovereign state whereas in Ireland the same cannot be said , EU law supersedes all constitutional law and our public servants are not 'free' to carry out the wishes of those who elected them , they must at every stage be given permission from higher powers whether that be in Brussels , Frankfurt or Berlin .

Aso Singapore has managed to stay very strong through every economic depression because they have supreme control over their own currency

The Corinthian

MrD012 wrote: »

Aso Singapore has managed to stay very strong through every economic depression because they have supreme control over their own currency

Did the numerous replies that pointed out the huge difference between Singapore and Ireland pass you by, or have you convinced yourself that you can still use an example with little or no similarity to Ireland, in your argument, anyway?

Scofflaw

The Corinthian wrote: »

Did the numerous replies that pointed out the huge difference between Singapore and Ireland pass you by, or have you convinced yourself that you can still use an example with little or no similarity to Ireland, in your argument, anyway?

His opinions appear to exist without reference to facts in the first place - it's hard to see why he would be concerned by other people pointing out facts.

cordially,
Scofflaw

McDave

darkhorse wrote: »

Is a weasel someone who tells the truth, if so, thats exactly what he is.

So Nigel has been forced to tell the truth about his elitist behaviour in channelling large sums o money into his little offshore education trust wheeze. But that we all had that kind of money to squirrel away.

McDave

shanered wrote: »

Well I truly believe that the politicians we've had over the last good few years have been dreadful. None stood up against Europe in any sense, shape or form. we've been a pushover and hence half the woes of our current recession.
The last few treaties have been double voted in because the Paymasters and the puppets didn't like our democratic vote.
Bit of a farce in my view.
I have to say I respect the way Nigel has the balls to stand up against the powers that be such as the EU president and others.
Also think he is right about whatever he is talking about from any clips of him I can find.
I dont see many Irish politicians of his caliber, though we're not famous for good politicians at this stage are we?

Where do you stand on Nigel's use of offshore vehicles to channel large sums of money? Sounds like Nigel is quite happy to hang with the elite and their elitist ways when it suits him.

No, Farage is no better than the snout-in-trough politicians he supposedly excoriates.

shanered

McDave wrote: »

I don't subscribe to the 'default' school of thinking. Regrettably the real damage was done by the frontloading of a decade's worth of growth into the spending of the Ahern-McCreevy-Cowen bubble years. And the utter failure to put any brakes on the entire financial system - whether they be pirate banks, 'systemic' banks, building societies or even credit unions.

I can't personally blame Noonan for a problem he didn't cause. Hence you'll forgive me if I don't see the irony you see yourself. The link between Farage and Noonan is, I'm afraid, simply too tenuous for words.

What are you talking about, a problem he didn't cause?
He is a minister for finance.
Its like asking a plumber to fix up a house with bad pipework. Its already bad and is going to continue to get worse unless somebody does something about it.

Look, Farage availed of tax breaks in his own country, doesn't sound like as remotely on the same scale as the crimes against people that will eventually end happening due the actions and posturing of some senior officials.

Availing of tax "havens" like Isle of Man is minescule and on a different level then the way that the EU is making laws and expanding its control financially and politically over a vast amount of countries with a steamroller approach to democratic votes such as Nice and Lisbon treaties where we Irish need a second vote so that we can "understand".

darkhorse

McDave wrote: »

But that we all had that kind of money to squirrel away.

Try politics.

McDave

darkhorse wrote: »

Try politics.

Seems to work for Farage in the EP. Nice little earner.

McDave

shanered wrote: »

What are you talking about, a problem he didn't cause?
He is a minister for finance.
Its like asking a plumber to fix up a house with bad pipework. Its already bad and is going to continue to get worse unless somebody does something about it.

Look, Farage availed of tax breaks in his own country, doesn't sound like as remotely on the same scale as the crimes against people that will eventually end happening due the actions and posturing of some senior officials.

Availing of tax "havens" like Isle of Man is minescule and on a different level then the way that the EU is making laws and expanding its control financially and politically over a vast amount of countries with a steamroller approach to democratic votes such as Nice and Lisbon treaties where we Irish need a second vote so that we can "understand".

Noonan didn't cause Ireland's economic collapse. That's clear enough.

As for Farage and his little offshore wheeze, that puts him firmly in the company of the elites. Should play well with those who complain the EU is a gravy train for the privileged few, eh? Good old Noige. Man of the people.

As for EU 'crimes' and 'steamrollers', you're losing the plot a little bit there, aren't you.

darkhorse

McDave wrote: »

Seems to work for Farage in the EP. Nice little earner.

Yeah, I think he should do it for nothing.

McDave

darkhorse wrote: »

Yeah, I think he should do it for nothing.

I doubt he'd be interested if there was nothing on offer!

IrishWelshCelt

MrD012 wrote: »

Hold on a minute , the man wants an Independent Sovereign Britain , therefore if he achieves this explain to me how on earth is he building a Fourth Reich , the Fourth Reich is all about expansion and ruling over other countries .

Do you not see the irony in that Farage and UKIP want to leave the EU as they dont want a powerful centralised government that makes decisions for a union of countries which has no say in the matter yet he and his party champion the british system?

McDave

IrishWelshCelt wrote: »

Do you not see the irony in that Farage and UKIP want to leave the EU as they dont want a powerful centralised government that makes decisions for a union of countries which has no say in the matter yet he and his party champion the british system?

With a further irony that he has no support whatsoever in Scotland, and would be better off calling his party EIP.

shanered

McDave wrote: »

As for EU 'crimes' and 'steamrollers', you're losing the plot a little bit there, aren't you.

Never mentioned crimes, just that seem to have blatant disregard to our democracy such as was the respect given to our referenda. I would come close to calling the whole banking fiasco a crime although.
As to losing the plot, I think anybody who feels the whole EU European ideology and system is working fine and that Ireland is perfectly fine continuing its present course in the EU is losing the plot in my opinion.

View

shanered wrote: »

Never mentioned crimes, just that seem to have blatant disregard to our democracy such as was the respect given to our referenda.

Ah, "blant disregard" means the electorate exercised their right to make decisions you disagree with, right?

shanered

If I believe in it or not doesn't even come into it, its more what the EU as an institute trys to push on us and when we say no, it doesn't mean anything until they get their way.
Its the fact that No doesn't mean No when they are looking to pass something, but when a yes comes along its all gravy.
It was just after we voted no to the lisbon treaty that we fell into all this forgein bondholder debt, and we were presented with economic meltdown and told the only way is to vote yes.
Look , its not that I didn't want the decision, which I didn't, its just the way they go about it, its an absolute disgrace in my opinion.

View

shanered wrote: »

If I believe in it or not doesn't even come into it, its more what the EU as an institute trys to push on us and when we say no, it doesn't mean anything until they get their way.
Its the fact that No doesn't mean No when they are looking to pass something, but when a yes comes along its all gravy.

That's not an EU issue though. That's a domestic issue since it's up to the Oireachtas whether or not to call a referendum (whether it be a first or a second referendum).

Were "the EU" as insistent on "getting their way" as you imagine they would presumably have insisted a long time ago that we get rid of the political (but not necessarily constitutional) requirement to hold referenda on all bar the most minor of EU Treatiies, right?

Essentially you're complaining about the fact that the Oireachtas exercised the option to refer an issue to the people a second time - an option that only exists because the people approved the constitution with that possibility in it.

As to why the Oireachtas does so - constitutionally it is up to the government of the day to negotiate on behalf of Ireland. If they come away with what they regard as "the best deal available for Ireland" they are not going to walk away from that easily. For, unlike their domestic critics, they were privy to the negotiations and hence know what options were in practice available at the time.

And, yes, if we are supposedly unhappy with what our government is negotiating for us then that is again a domestic issue. The other governments aren't there to guess what we are unhappy about. That is up to us to figure out and communicate to our government during the negotiation process and it needs to be something concrete not "We don't like 'stuff"".

shanered

The was pressure on our government to force the issue I'm sure of it, it came along as extreme financial pressure to when we where told to pay off the bondholders between the first and second referendum.
Do you honestly that the EU central bank and senior EU officials had any part to play during our banking crises?
Do you believe this was the crucial factor for pushing us into voting yes?
I understand why you are saying it is a domestic matter, but I honestly believe the screw was being turned at a level higher than domestic in my opinion.

BlitzKrieg

As pointed out there would have been more effective ways of *tightening the screws* then the Lisbon debacles...

Scofflaw

shanered wrote: »

The was pressure on our government to force the issue I'm sure of it, it came along as extreme financial pressure to when we where told to pay off the bondholders between the first and second referendum.
Do you honestly that the EU central bank and senior EU officials had any part to play during our banking crises?
Do you believe this was the crucial factor for pushing us into voting yes?
I understand why you are saying it is a domestic matter, but I honestly believe the screw was being turned at a level higher than domestic in my opinion.

The "pay the (remaining) bondholders" pressure from the ECB came in 2010, as a condition of our bailout, not between the two Lisbon referendums. Bondholders were being paid off from 2008-2010 courtesy of Lenihan's blanket guarantee, which meant that failure to pay any bondholders or other creditors would have triggered the guarantee.

Of the two periods, the one where decision were made nationally was characterised by 100% repayment of every bondholder no matter how junior their debt was, while the ECB-instituted regime post-bailout was characterised by 100% repayment of remaining senior bondholders only, while junior bondholders were given significant haircuts amounting to €16bn.

FF have done a strikingly good job of promoting almost the exact opposite of the truth.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray

That's not quite so.

There were "liability management exercise" which amounted to buybacks, in 2009 at Anglo, and again on the 21st of October 2010.

The first buyback was pretty straightforward. The latter was a bit more bloody. At the latter date, which preceded the troika programme, junior bondholders were sent a letter warmly inviting them to offer their bonds for exchange at 20c in the €1, on the stated condition that they convene a bondholders' meeting to cancel the terms of the outstanding bonds, or face an alternative of 0.00001c in the €1.

This is, effectively, what a hard default is.

All but 8% of junior bondholders accepted the offer. While there was a legal challenge by Assenagon, that became irrelevant at the wind-up, and the remaining 8% effectively got wiped out altogether.

McDave

From earlier in the thread:

shanered wrote: »

Never mentioned crimes, just that seem to have blatant disregard to our democracy such as was the respect given to our referenda. I would come close to calling the whole banking fiasco a crime although.
As to losing the plot, I think anybody who feels the whole EU European ideology and system is working fine and that Ireland is perfectly fine continuing its present course in the EU is losing the plot in my opinion.

McDave

And earlier still!

shanered wrote: »

What are you talking about, a problem he didn't cause?
He is a minister for finance.
Its like asking a plumber to fix up a house with bad pipework. Its already bad and is going to continue to get worse unless somebody does something about it.

Look, Farage availed of tax breaks in his own country, doesn't sound like as remotely on the same scale as the crimes against people that will eventually end happening due the actions and posturing of some senior officials.

Availing of tax "havens" like Isle of Man is minescule and on a different level then the way that the EU is making laws and expanding its control financially and politically over a vast amount of countries with a steamroller approach to democratic votes such as Nice and Lisbon treaties where we Irish need a second vote so that we can "understand".

McDave

shanered wrote: »

Never mentioned crimes, just that seem to have blatant disregard to our democracy such as was the respect given to our referenda. I would come close to calling the whole banking fiasco a crime although.
As to losing the plot, I think anybody who feels the whole EU European ideology and system is working fine and that Ireland is perfectly fine continuing its present course in the EU is losing the plot in my opinion.

I'm afraid you did, old boy.

It seems you have a blind spot for what you actually write.

Not to mention a penchant for hyperbole.

For instance, who actually said the "whole EU European ideology and system is working fine" and "Ireland is perfectly fine continuing its present course in the EU"? Setting up and knocking down your own straw men, eh?

shanered

Right, I can see your trying to rubbish everything I'm saying.
Firstly, It really didn't require three posts.
Secondly, please don't refer to me as "old boy".
Thirdly, what crime did I mention?
Fortly, in relation to the straw man I presented which, nobody has to mention these things, I brought them up as my opinion.
What are you talking about?
Penchant for hyberbole, nice way of putting it though. If you believe what I think what the EU has done and is continuing to do is exaggerated, that's fine, that's your opinion.
And hey, leave my blind spot alone!:mad:

McDave

shanered wrote: »

Thirdly, what crime did I mention?

I've already gone to the trouble of quoting from your posts on the matter. It's really up to you to explain what you actually mean...

... which may transpire to be quite difficult when you actually denied point blank even using the word.

Your first three words from post 172 above - "Never mentioned crimes", having made this statement a mere eight posts earlier - "Look, Farage availed of tax breaks in his own country, doesn't sound like as remotely on the same scale as the crimes against people that will eventually end happening due the actions and posturing of some senior officials."

McDave

shanered wrote: »

Penchant for hyberbole, nice way of putting it though. If you believe what I think what the EU has done and is continuing to do is exaggerated, that's fine, that's your opinion.

What makes you think I "believe" in any particular state of affairs? I think it would be fairer to use less loaded terms like "point of view", "conviction" or "judgement", which is how I would tend to characterise my own perspectives on the moveable feast in a rapidly changing world that is the EU.


* * *


As for exaggeration and hyperbole on your part, I'm afraid the cap fits when one lists some of your statements on your thread, e.g.:

From post 137:

The last few treaties have been double voted in because the Paymasters and the puppets didn't like our democratic vote.

From post 142:

where we are now being Europes lapdog

From post 164:

EU is making laws and expanding its control financially and politically over a vast amount of countries with a steamroller approach to democratic votes

From post 172:

anybody who feels the whole EU European ideology and system is working fine and that Ireland is perfectly fine continuing its present course in the EU is losing the plot

From post 174:

the EU as an institute trys to push on us and when we say no, it doesn't mean anything until they get their way

* * *


Not to mention straight-up inaccuracies like:

From post 70:

Herman Van Rompuy, the unelected head of the EU state.

- Come on! There is no EU "state".

From post 97:

We may have been running slightly over budget in day to day terms

- "Slighty" over budget? Are you serious?


* * *


The above-quoted language is IMO either intemperate or inaccurate. Others might say provocative. However, I really don't think it's much of an effort to engage in constructive discussion.

shanered

McDave wrote: »

I've already gone to the trouble of quoting from your posts on the matter. It's really up to you to explain what you actually mean...

... which may transpire to be quite difficult when you actually denied point blank even using the word.

Your first three words from post 172 above - "Never mentioned crimes", having made this statement a mere eight posts earlier - "Look, Farage availed of tax breaks in his own country, doesn't sound like as remotely on the same scale as the crimes against people that will eventually end happening due the actions and posturing of some senior officials."

I think this is important as I never said any crimes have been commited, but look that in the future they may be.

Sorry for saying believe, you may have a point that point of view etc would have been better.

And as for all the hyperbole statements that you mention, re-reading them I must say that I believe that they are correct.
Your right using language as I do draws large conculsions, but they are conclusion which I have arrived at. Which is my opinion of what happened.

Look, I am really sorry if you feel I don't engage in constructive conversation, this really is something you will have to get over, for that is your opinion, which doesn't necessarily make it true.
Look I'd like to hear some of your opinions, maybe then we could have a constructive conversation rather then this , what seems to be de-constructive one.

The Corinthian

shanered wrote: »

Look, I am really sorry if you feel I don't engage in constructive conversation, this really is something you will have to get over, for that is your opinion, which doesn't necessarily make it true.

With respects, he has been engaging in constructive conversation; part of constructive conversation is not to simply accept the opinions of others as true, simply because they believe them to be true and to date he's pointed out where you've contradicted yourself, made unsubstantiated claims or come out with clearly false ones.

An inability, on your part, to acknowledge that you've done any of this, despite it have been very clearly demonstrated is infinitely more indicative of someone who cannot engage in constructive conversation, TBH.

shanered

The Corinthian wrote: »

With respects, he has been engaging in constructive conversation; part of constructive conversation is not to simply accept the opinions of others as true, simply because they believe them to be true and to date he's pointed out where you've contradicted yourself, made unsubstantiated claims or come out with clearly false ones.

An inability, on your part, to acknowledge that you've done any of this, despite it have been very clearly demonstrated is infinitely more indicative of someone who cannot engage in constructive conversation, TBH.

See bold part of your statement.

I agree with this.

Also is the reason why I disagree with the second bold part.

Which clearly false statements have I made?
Which unsubstantiated claims have I made?

I feel I have answered any statements put forward to me, and am willing to elaborate on them more if needed.

The Corinthian

TBH, McDave already did so above - at which point you chose no ignore the criticisms on the basis that he was not being 'constructive'. But let me briefly point out just one example of each:

shanered wrote: »

Which clearly false statements have I made?

This one, for example:

shanered wrote: »

Herman Van Rompuy, the unelected head of the EU state.

To begin with there is no 'EU State'. Secondly, there is no 'head of the EU'; there are four presidents - of the European Council, European Commission and European Parliament, of which Van Rompuy is the first. So, you came out with a false statement.

That you may be unaware that there is no actual 'EU president' is forgiveable, but that you believe the EU to be a State, of any kind, shows a frightening lack of knowledge on the subject, which naturally leads me to question other areas you "believe that they are correct".

Which unsubstantiated claims have I made?

Well there was this:

shanered wrote: »

Ireland's debt is more or less created with the banking debt we encountered, to claim that we are anywhere in the region of 80-90 billion in debt because of the our expenditure to income ratio is purely madness.
We are broke because we bailed out the banks.
We may have been running slightly over budget in day to day terms, but the debt that we have been laden with is because of the banks.
To say that our problem is because of your so called gap between expenditure and income is to a certain extent true but clearly distorts the fact that the majority of Ireland debt at the moment is because we are bailing out the banks.

This was pretty much debunked and decimated by Scofflaw's response, after which you dropped off the thread for a while.

I feel I have answered any statements put forward to me, and am willing to elaborate on them more if needed.

Well you chose not to respond to McDave, instead feigning indignation as your reason for not doing so and simply stating that you still believed what you said to be correct - even though there are numerous examples of where this has not been the case.

On top of which there does appear to be a trend, principally on the eurosceptic side of this discussion, to resort to hyperbole (McDave cited numerous examples by you, although honesty, you're actually not the worst). Such rhetorical devices may work well when speaking to the converted or the illiterate, but I'd like to think not here.

So if you wish to discuss constructive discussion, it would be a good idea to remember that constructive discussion involves rational and factual debate and not soapboxes, before you accuse other posters of not adhering to it.

shanered

Right, I conceed that Von Rumphoy is not head of the EU,
but the EU acts as a state, this I will uphold. I really don't think it shows a frightening lack of knowledge on the subject.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100053681/the-eu-wants-to-be-treated-as-a-state-by-the-united-nations/

As I do realise that it may not offically be recongised as a state it certainly acts like one. Which in my mind makes it a state.

I never ment to make a claim that McDave was not engaging in constructive conversation, only responding to his accusation that I was not engaging in it.

Right, I'll admit that I got things a little wrong on the exact economic figures, although there are varying different sources for information.

http://www.debtireland.org/download/pdf/audit_of_irish_debt6.pdf

I've been trying to break this down.

Direct Government Debt Billion €
Long Term Debt Securities Government 89.9
Short Term Debt Securities Government 1.9
Total 91.8
Covered debts of Irish banks
ELG Scheme 111
Deposit Guarantee Scheme 74.1
Promissory Notes 30.9
Nama Bonds 28.7
ELA, net of Promissory Notes 34.6
Total 279.3
Scale of Irish national debt at 31 March, 2011 371.1

Seems like we have ended up in in nearly 279 billion debt from this whole banking fiasco and it seems like the EU central bank had a part to play with the credit that was brought to the country.
We were bankrupted in a classic style with the EU central bank and the useless politicians that were in charge with absolute disasters of desicions made with the backing of the EU and EU central banks.
Look sorry if I'm "soapboxing" and taking opinions "only illiterate" or "coverted" would listen to.
Look anyways, can we please all start again, I feel there is a small bit of animosity creeping into here.

McDave

shanered wrote: »

I think this is important as I never said any crimes have been commited, but look that in the future they may be.

Sorry for saying believe, you may have a point that point of view etc would have been better.

And as for all the hyperbole statements that you mention, re-reading them I must say that I believe that they are correct.
Your right using language as I do draws large conculsions, but they are conclusion which I have arrived at. Which is my opinion of what happened.

Look, I am really sorry if you feel I don't engage in constructive conversation, this really is something you will have to get over, for that is your opinion, which doesn't necessarily make it true.
Look I'd like to hear some of your opinions, maybe then we could have a constructive conversation rather then this , what seems to be de-constructive one.

I'll take you up on your invitation in a few posts after this one. But if you'll indulge me a little bit, I'll give you a bit of background on my general POV.

I'm broadly in favour of the concept of an ever closer union, one of the founding principles/orientations of the EEC/EC/EU. However, I'm still in favour of member states retaining essential aspects of sovereignty, and am not in favour of an EU state proper, operating in the typical competences exercised by a state. I think the 2010 German constitutional court case on the Lisbon treaty is very instructive in this regard.

I want Ireland to remain a State performing essential cultural, educational, security and other competences in its own right. I support Ireland ceding/pooling competencies/powers to the EU where these get a better international return for the EU and for Ireland. I broadly support EU developments to date, and can foresee future developments I'd also support.

I'm not hostile to views that challenge the EU. To me, Crotty did Ireland a service with his challenge, although in retrospect the Supreme Court decision was poorly developed and passed up a good opportunity to define in some detail sovereignty from an Irish perspective.

Although I'd support some of the policies of Labour and the Greens, I don't share either of their traditional hostilities to the EU, although these have moderated in recent years. I don't share the more strident objections of SF or socialists like Joe Higgins or RBB.

I have absolutely no time for the anti-EU narratives of the British, which pervades most parties. I think the Tories are quite dishonest in their approach since Thatcher's parochial and divisive policies. I've no time whatsoever for UKIP and their negative populist posturing.

As to more contemporary developments in Ireland, I thought Libertas might produce a coherent opposition to the EU, keeping the pro-EU camp here honest. However, IMO Ganley is an anti-EU tactician and he has utterly failed, despite being highly articulate, to develop a constructive alternative vision.

When it comes to the EU, my view is that its proponents are finding it increasingly difficult to find a narrative they can sell to voters EU-wide. Despite that I think many voters basically understand what the EU is trying to achieve, although the EU is enduring a very bumpy ride these days.

And although there's a huge goal to shoot at, it's my view that anti-EU advocates are finding it difficult themselves to articulate a constructive alternative vision to the EU other than a return to pure national sovereignty, which I think most Europeans accept simply won't fly anymore. So the anti-EU side has to make do with tactics which exploit the downside of recent developments. It's the best they can do. And once the EU gets back on track, the anti narrative will be exposed for the essential negativity at its core.

I'd like to make one final comment about Ireland. The political stances of many on the left and SF aside, I really despise so much of the Euroscepticism on display in this country, emanating as it does from revolting organs like the UK Oirish press in this country. Seriously, what other country in the world has local versions of foreign newspapers masquerading as local products, and peddling colonial-style interests. I speak of the Sunday Times and the Oirish Mail stable in particular. Both papers have for years been insinuating a snide anti-EU, anti-German narrative. Talk about colonising minds!

So that's my general tuppence/two cents worth. I'll get back to you on some of the themes you've raised shortly.

McDave

The last few treaties have been double voted in because the Paymasters and the puppets didn't like our democratic vote.

I actually voted against the first Nice Treaty referendum. I did it specifically to give that gobdaw McCreevy and FF's non-campaign a bloody nose. I think a lot of others felt similarly. As for Lisbon I, a similar sentiment was at play. But when the second campaign really got its act together, the electorate voted in much greater numbers and delivered a resounding Yes.

I don't think it has anything to do with 'Paymasters' and 'puppets'. First of all, the EU is not in a position to force any outcome. And the Irish electorate is capable of voting in its own interests, no matter how narrow or conceptual.

I simply don't buy into the view that there is some Bilderberg guiding hand which enables the 'elites' to have their evil ways with voting fodder. The second votes here have IMO been closer to the French presidential voting system where voters are given the chance to blow off steam in the first round, and giving their definitive response in the run-off.

McDave

where we are now being Europes lapdog

First off: define 'Europe'. We are the lapdog of exactly what?

IMO, there are core drivers in Europe. Principally the major political cultures of Germany and France. I wouldn't underrate the influence of the Italians and the UK, but the Franco-German alliance is critical. Many other countries coalesce around the core and secondary influences. Most of those countries understand the EU is necessary to project their interests in the global environment. Whether they prosecute those interests through the EU as it is today, or another more focussed model down the road is not decisive for them. They'll pursue those interests regardless. Ireland can go along for the ride if it likes. But if it opts out, the others won't fundamentally care. So IMO, those countries are not especially interested in treating countries like Ireland as lapdogs.

We're constructively in, giving something to the project, or hanging in there in case, or we're out. That's the long and the short of it, I think.

McDave

EU is making laws and expanding its control financially and politically over a vast amount of countries with a steamroller approach to democratic votes

The EU can only act within its 'constitutional' treaty-based mandate. It's entitled to legislate within those strict parameters, once the *member states* consent through the Council to given proposals from the EU institutions. Any additional competence/power must be granted to it by the member states. Powers have been accreting slowly since the inception of the EEC. And always with a clear objective in mind.

The 'vast' amounts of countries are those which have decided to join the EU, now standing at 28 since the accession of Croatia. They have consented to cooperation based on the rule of law. A core have joined the Eurozone with stricter macroeconomic, and now financial, implications. The 'control' is limited and defined by law, as the participants have consented to. There is no particular steamrolling taking place - or would you care to specify some examples?

McDave

anybody who feels the whole EU European ideology and system is working fine and that Ireland is perfectly fine continuing its present course in the EU is losing the plot

What specific ideology is that?

As for the system, I'd say there's pretty much a consensus even at EU level that the system is compromised, slow-moving and frustrating. The EU has a system after a fashion, but is [deliberately?] clumsy compared to national systems. It works fine up to a point.

As for Ireland, I don't know anyone who thinks we're perfectly fine on any level, whether that be in running our own affairs or in our relationship with the EU. I'd suggest our problems with the EU are largely as a result of our own grotesque national incompetence in the course of 14 years of FF-led 'government'. There is no 'perfectly fine' course to pursue in the EU other than to work tirelessly for the best conditions we can get on our debts, including substantial relief on the ex-'promissory note' debt.

McDave

Herman Van Rompuy, the unelected head of the EU state.

There's simply no reasonable discussion to be had on this point. The EU is not a state as understood by any meaningful definition. It may exhibit some state features like having a bureaucracy as in the Commission, a parliament and a founding document. But in these features it is in some ways no more than a souped-up version of an international organisation like the UN, which has an assembly, budget, a bureaucracy and loads of laws. But no reasonable person would ever dream of suggesting the UN is a state.

McDave

I'm happy to discuss the merits or demerits of any of the above points!

micosoft

What I find so curious about the British Euroskeptic approach is the animosity shown towards the European Union yet the forceful support for the Union of Great Britain. Indeed, one can safely say the states within the EU have more say in the running of the EU then Wales, Scotland or NI have in the running of the United Kingdom. You can clearly show that most of the states in the UK have vastly diverse economies with the South West being a prosperous finance hub centred around an international city yet Wales and Scotland have deeply differing economies that arguably have suffered under Westminister's focus on the Southwest.

In essence, every argument Farage (or any other Euroskeptic that comes to mind) makes about the EU could equally be said about the United Kingdom.

- Faceless Bureaucrats - Check, starting with the Secretary for X
- Corruption - Check (moat cleaning anyone)
- Single Currency - Check, does not suit vast parts of the union
- Tax - Check - To hear Ulster Unionists ask for lower tax in NI says it call
- Legal system - No UK Constitution, laws set by first past the post parliament dominated by English parties

And so on.

So the question for the UK/English Euroskeptics is - Are you OK with unions providing that white* English people from the south east run them? Is that the difference between the EU and the UK that horrifies you so much?
If not are you going to support the Scottish referendum and go up to Edinburgh and campaign for a Yes vote. If not why not?

* I am serious - almost universally the Euroskeptic is anti immigration, indeed it is one of the planks of their platform.

McDave

There's a fallacy at the heart of a UKIP party which is despised in Scotland. UKIP is a total misnomer. EIP would be more appropriate.

micosoft

McDave wrote: »

There's a fallacy at the heart of a UKIP party which is despised in Scotland. UKIP is a total misnomer. EIP would be more appropriate.

Why then are they so pro union when it comes to the UK Union. Either they have a contradiction at the heart of their ideology or they are simply out and out English supremacists. Given Occams razor.....

McDave

micosoft wrote: »

Why then are they so pro union when it comes to the UK Union. Either they have a contradiction at the heart of their ideology or they are simply out and out English supremacists. Given Occams razor.....

It's basically an English nationalist party.

Nothing wrong with nationalism in itself, IMO. But I feel 'UK'IP has overreached itself intellectually, and its narrow message has limited its appeal. To broaden its appeal it would have to moderate in the direction of the Tory Party, in which case it would lose its raison d'être. Otherwise it's stuck to the right of the Tories attempting to drag them further to the right. A role which IMO doesn't have a great future.