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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Ireland to leave EU should Britain exit ?
Comments
-
There are less employees in the whole EU is at most 25k (official full time employees) which is less then the civil service of Ireland. Given those 25k look after a union of 506 million people vs only 4 million for us I'd say that's extremely efficient! Far more waste in the UK govt. tbh....
Well, as per usual the EU fudge the numbers and make it impossible to find out how many people are involved. The budget for administration for the EU is £9,000,000,000. Do you believe only 25,000 are on the books? Here is an interesting blog post from January 2007....
"How many people work for the EU?
An old EU joke: "How many people work in Brussels?" "About half of them."
For years groups like Britain in Europe have been saying that 'only' around 20,000 people work for the EU. We decided to check that up, and there is a piece in the Sunday Telegraphabout it.
The European Commission's website says that it employs 25,000 people. The French Government says all the EU institutions put together employ about 35,000. In a recent parliamentary answer in the UK, the Government plumped for 37,000 for the EU as a whole.
However, if you can find them, the official figures from the EU's "establishment plans" for 2007 (on page 6 of the DG Admin 'statistical bulletin') show that there are 42,548 temporary and permanent EU officials. In addition, it lists 8,123 "external" Commission staff, which are staff paid on appropriations - contract agents, seconded national experts, technical and administrative assistance etc, giving a total of over 50,000.
However the Commission's table does not list any external staff employed by the other institutions and the agencies. Since the summer we've been trying to find out these numbers, which has proved a bit of a nightmare. Some agencies, such as the European Police College have refused to supply the numbers, and others have sent pretty prickly emails. One said that we had to send them a "motivated letter" (Our motive: we want to know and it's our money). However, despite all that, the information we've managed to uncover shows a significant number of 'hidden' employees.
We've found, for example, that the European Parliament has at least an extra 2,254 staff working for it not listed on the statistical bulletin (this figure is likely to have increased since it was supplied back in June, given that the official numbers of staff have gone up).
And there are lots of "off balance sheet" staff in the balooning number of EU agencies too. We're still waiting for some further figures and clarification, but based on the Commission's statistical bulletin, plus what additional figures we have for external staff, for the other institutions and agencies, the EU has around 54,000 staff.
And there may well be more on top of this. The Commission's confusing table doesn't list second and third 'pillar' agencies such as Europol (which has a staff of 600), or the European Defence Agency (which has a staff of at least 94), or the EU Satellite Centre.
Trying to make a comparison with the size of the UK civil service isn't easy, because so many of the EU numbers are just not published. However, we found that while there are 4,640 Senior Civil Servants in the Government (earning £54K upwards), there are almost 10,000 officials in the Commission alone earning a comparable salary. We only have the salary grades for the Commission, but if one assumes that the same proportion (34%) of all EU staff (54,000 or so) were on roughly this salary scale, then there will be around 18,000 members of EU staff on Senior Civil Service pay (so it's nearly four times as big).
What's going on? Why so many new agencies?
One factor is the EU agencies' role in the development of US-style 'pork-barrel' spending in the EU: "You get the food standards agency, we get the gender institute" etc. This motive for expansion is made incredibly overt during talks on the budget.
For example, during the negotiations on the new financial perspective the EU's budget for administration (and setting up lots of lovely new agencies) was increased from 49.3 billioneuros to 50.3 billion euros, between the publication of the United Kingdom Presidency Proposal on 14 December and the publication of the UK's final proposals on 19 December.
Amazingly the UK Government actually admitted in a parliamentary answer that it had agreed to the extra €1bn as a kind of sweetener:
"A number of changes, including the change to the budget for administration costs,were necessary to the UK presidency proposal of14 December in order to generate a political consensus for an agreement on the 2007-13 Financial Perspective at the European Council on 15-17 December"
The growth of EU agencies is also an example of the EU's turn towards populism: price controls on text messages, putative 'bans' on violent computer games etc. The agencies allow the EU to be seen to be "doing something" in a whole range of new areas, from food safety to human rights.
Bizarrely, the EU is now also investing inadvertising its agencies - a glossy new 'EU agencies campaign' tells people "Whatever you do - we work for you", and has placed adverts in in-flight magazines on some of Europe's biggest airlines, boasting of agency staff of "more than 2,500" (actually it's more like 4,500) and "significant budgetary resources." (why doesn't the civil service just start plugging itself too?)
Of course, the real point about the EU is not the number of people who work for it. Every day literally thousands of national civil servants descend on Brussels to take part in its hundreds of expert committees, and the drawing up of regulations, directives and decisions which affect nearly half a billion people. The power of the EU doesn't just depend on employing a lot of pen pushers, but on imposing a whole supranational legal system."0 -
Well that would explain the hordes of Bulgarians that have descended on Britain. Oh wait, they haven't.
Anyway, your point makes absolutely no sense. Even if it were true that there is an oversupply of cheap labour in the UK, shouldn't that leave businesses with a lower wage bill and, therefore, greater profits to reinvest, creating the more "highly trained jobs" you refer to? We'll ignore for a moment that investing in "expensive machinery" doesn't necessarily create "highly trained jobs" - if anything, it will make lower-paid positions redundant, further increasing the supply of cheap labour.
Factors affecting labour productivitySkills and qualifications of workers.
If workers become more skilled with relevant training, then this can increase labour productivity.
Morale of workers. In a period of industrial unrest and low worker morale, productivity is likely to fall. If workers are motivated and happy, productivity is likely to be higher. Morale of workers could be affected by wages, industrial relations, whether they feel they have a stake in the company, non-monetary benefits, e.g. do they enjoy the job?
Technological progress. The implementation of new technology is one of biggest factors in improving productivity. For example, the assembly line introduced from the 1920s made huge strides in productivity. In recent years, the development of micro computers and the internet have also enabled improvements in productivity.
Substitution of capital to labour. If labour becomes cheap and freely available, firms may have less incentive to spend money on capital and use labour intensive methods rather than capital intensive methods. Labour intensive processes are likely to have lower levels of productivity.
Rules and regulations. If it is very hard to fire lazy workers, then productivity growth may be constrained. Though the absence of any labour market regulations could lead to high turnover and poor worker morale, which could also diminish labour productivity.
Capacity utilisation. In a boom, firms may squeeze more output out of existing capacity through encouraging people to work overtime – this increases labour productivity. In a recession, firms may hold onto workers, rather than let them go – even if they are just working at 80% capacity – therefore labour productivity falls.
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5887/economics/uk-labour-productivity/0 -
-
Cheep labour due to an oversupply of workers holds productivity back, instead of investing in expensive machinery and creating skilled, highly trained jobs they just send a bus to Bulgaria etc.
So why does immigration not impact any of the other EU nations that accept more immigrants from the East such as Germany? If you bothered read any of the analysis you'd see that one of the key reasons is the better training of continental workers. German, Bulgarian, French and Polish workers learn how to fix their machines. British workers just stand there waiting for the repair guy. You are exactly the opposite of wrong. As an aside it's British business people who consistently underinvest in capital machinery. Again, the fundamental failures in British Industry can be entirely laid at the British Governments and Industries feet.
TBH you seem to have an astonishing disregard for the facts if they don't suit your ideological stance. Even the Bank of England disagrees with you.0 -
So why does immigration not impact any of the other EU nations that accept more immigrants from the East such as Germany? If you bothered read any of the analysis you'd see that one of the key reasons is the better training of continental workers. German, Bulgarian, French and Polish workers learn how to fix their machines. British workers just stand there waiting for the repair guy. You are exactly the opposite of wrong. As an aside it's British business people who consistently underinvest in capital machinery. Again, the fundamental failures in British Industry can be entirely laid at the British Governments and Industries feet.
TBH you seem to have an astonishing disregard for the facts if they don't suit your ideological stance. Even the Bank of England disagrees with you.
It's simple fact that cheep labour means companies invest less in modern efficient machinery, you would think I said something radical ffs. I notice I am the one posting links etc, not just a rant.0 -
Well, as per usual the EU fudge the numbers and make it impossible to find out how many people are involved. The budget for administration for the EU is £9,000,000,000. Do you believe only 25,000 are on the books? Here is an interesting blog post from January 2007....
"How many people work for the EU?
An old EU joke: "How many people work in Brussels?" "About half of them."
Nearly split a rib there laughing.For years groups like Britain in Europe have been saying that 'only' around 20,000 people work for the EU. We decided to check that up, and there is a piece in the Sunday Telegraphabout it.
The European Commission's website says that it employs 25,000 people. The French Government says all the EU institutions put together employ about 35,000. In a recent parliamentary answer in the UK, the Government plumped for 37,000 for the EU as a whole.
However, if you can find them, the official figures from the EU's "establishment plans" for 2007 (on page 6 of the DG Admin 'statistical bulletin') show that there are 42,548 temporary and permanent EU officials. In addition, it lists 8,123 "external" Commission staff, which are staff paid on appropriations - contract agents, seconded national experts, technical and administrative assistance etc, giving a total of over 50,000.
However the Commission's table does not list any external staff employed by the other institutions and the agencies. Since the summer we've been trying to find out these numbers, which has proved a bit of a nightmare. Some agencies, such as the European Police College have refused to supply the numbers, and others have sent pretty prickly emails. One said that we had to send them a "motivated letter" (Our motive: we want to know and it's our money). However, despite all that, the information we've managed to uncover shows a significant number of 'hidden' employees.
We've found, for example, that the European Parliament has at least an extra 2,254 staff working for it not listed on the statistical bulletin (this figure is likely to have increased since it was supplied back in June, given that the official numbers of staff have gone up).
And there are lots of "off balance sheet" staff in the balooning number of EU agencies too. We're still waiting for some further figures and clarification, but based on the Commission's statistical bulletin, plus what additional figures we have for external staff, for the other institutions and agencies, the EU has around 54,000 staff.
And there may well be more on top of this. The Commission's confusing table doesn't list second and third 'pillar' agencies such as Europol (which has a staff of 600), or the European Defence Agency (which has a staff of at least 94), or the EU Satellite Centre.
Trying to make a comparison with the size of the UK civil service isn't easy, because so many of the EU numbers are just not published. However, we found that while there are 4,640 Senior Civil Servants in the Government (earning £54K upwards), there are almost 10,000 officials in the Commission alone earning a comparable salary. We only have the salary grades for the Commission, but if one assumes that the same proportion (34%) of all EU staff (54,000 or so) were on roughly this salary scale, then there will be around 18,000 members of EU staff on Senior Civil Service pay (so it's nearly four times as big).
There is a really really simple answer to this. None of these agencies are Civil Servents. They are employees of the agencies listed. Totally dishonest comparison unless every UK quango is also to be included in the list of UK Civil service employees. But if you want the comparison then sure... go with
UK - 750k employees and a budget of 100 billion
EU - 50k and a budget of 9 billion.
Still seems good value compared to the wasteful and incompetent Britishcrats running the United Kingdom from London. I can see why the Scots are looking to secede when their tax pounds are being spent on all these quangos.
Perhaps it's more sensible to have a single EU agency managing food standards etc rather then 28? Perhaps in order to have a single market (Which you seem to think is the only purpose for the EU) you need a single agency to set common rules and arbitrate on them over 28 countries. More if you include the EFTA. All seems common sense to be - a single quango instead of 28....What's going on? Why so many new agencies?
One factor is the EU agencies' role in the development of US-style 'pork-barrel' spending in the EU: "You get the food standards agency, we get the gender institute" etc. This motive for expansion is made incredibly overt during talks on the budget.For example, during the negotiations on the new financial perspective the EU's budget for administration (and setting up lots of lovely new agencies) was increased from 49.3 billioneuros to 50.3 billion euros, between the publication of the United Kingdom Presidency Proposal on 14 December and the publication of the UK's final proposals on 19 December.
Amazingly the UK Government actually admitted in a parliamentary answer that it had agreed to the extra €1bn as a kind of sweetener:
"A number of changes, including the change to the budget for administration costs,were necessary to the UK presidency proposal of14 December in order to generate a political consensus for an agreement on the 2007-13 Financial Perspective at the European Council on 15-17 December"
Even the Tories think it's a good idea!
You need to make your mind up whether EU is distant and undemocratic, not responding to citizens needs OR completely populist, doing what the hoi polloi want doing! Or is it both!The growth of EU agencies is also an example of the EU's turn towards populism: price controls on text messages, putative 'bans' on violent computer games etc. The agencies allow the EU to be seen to be "doing something" in a whole range of new areas, from food safety to human rights.
Bizarrely, the EU is now also investing inadvertising its agencies - a glossy new 'EU agencies campaign' tells people "Whatever you do - we work for you", and has placed adverts in in-flight magazines on some of Europe's biggest airlines, boasting of agency staff of "more than 2,500" (actually it's more like 4,500) and "significant budgetary resources." (why doesn't the civil service just start plugging itself too?)Of course, the real point about the EU is not the number of people who work for it. Every day literally thousands of national civil servants descend on Brussels to take part in its hundreds of expert committees, and the drawing up of regulations, directives and decisions which affect nearly half a billion people. The power of the EU doesn't just depend on employing a lot of pen pushers, but on imposing a whole supranational legal system."
Grand. Change the topic.0 -
Nearly split a rib there laughing.
There is a really really simple answer to this. None of these agencies are Civil Servents. They are employees of the agencies listed. Totally dishonest comparison unless every UK quango is also to be included in the list of UK Civil service employees. But if you want the comparison then sure... go with
UK - 750k employees and a budget of 100 billion
EU - 50k and a budget of 9 billion.
Still seems good value compared to the wasteful and incompetent Britishcrats running the United Kingdom from London. I can see why the Scots are looking to secede when their tax pounds are being spent on all these quangos.
Perhaps it's more sensible to have a single EU agency managing food standards etc rather then 28? Perhaps in order to have a single market (Which you seem to think is the only purpose for the EU) you need a single agency to set common rules and arbitrate on them over 28 countries. More if you include the EFTA. All seems common sense to be - a single quango instead of 28....
Even the Tories think it's a good idea!
You need to make your mind up whether EU is distant and undemocratic, not responding to citizens needs OR completely populist, doing what the hoi polloi want doing! Or is it both!
Grand. Change the topic.
Where did you get the £100 billion for uk government administration?0 -
It's simple fact that cheep labour means companies invest less in modern efficient machinery, you would think I said something radical ffs. I notice I am the one posting links etc, not just a rant.
I posted links with all of my statements. You merely cut and paste articles from certain UK newspapers. And no. It's not a simple fact and pretty much every manufacturing business does the opposite to your "simple" fact. An enabler of deskilling is automation. Which means spending lots more money on efficient machinery. Read the Bank of England Report I linked to.
In any case you are still avoiding addressing my point:
- Why has this low productivity not occurred in other EU countries that have taken in more immigration?
The simple answer is that low British productivity has nothing to do with the EU but is a result of British government policy (Education and Industry) and British industries failure to invest. Both of these are entirely within the remit of the British People.0 -
Where did you get the £100 billion for uk government administration?
I suggest you read the Guardian as well as the Mail/Telegraph. They have an excellent OpenData repository. The analysis they did here covers the entire UK spend. They even have an Excel download for a deeper analysis.0 -
I posted links with all of my statements. You merely cut and paste articles from certain UK newspapers. And no. It's not a simple fact and pretty much every manufacturing business does the opposite to your "simple" fact. An enabler of deskilling is automation. Which means spending lots more money on efficient machinery. Read the Bank of England Report I linked to.
In any case you are still avoiding addressing my point:
- Why has this low productivity not occurred in other EU countries that have taken in more immigration?
The simple answer is that low British productivity has nothing to do with the EU but is a result of British government policy (Education and Industry) and British industries failure to invest. Both of these are entirely within the remit of the British People.
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21646235-if-britain-cannot-get-more-its-legion-cheap-workers-recovery-will-stall-bargain
"When people are cheap, firms would rather hire than invest in machines or technology. So productivity is held down."
Note that link is from the economist. Now to answer your question "Why has this low productivity not occurred in other EU countries that have taken in more immigration?" Well first of all other leading economies in the EU have suffered from lower productivity, just not as much as the UK and that is because the UK'S economy is different, less manufacturing and more financial services, here is a link to support what I am saying from the financial times.
http://m.ft.com/cms/s/0/3e0082a8-e502-11e4-bb4b-00144feab7de.html
"Lawyers, accountants and management consultants lie at the heart of the UK’s productivity problem, explaining almost a quarter of a shortfall since 2008"
So although what manufacturing we do have has been stifled by a lack of investment the poor productivity numbers are inflated compared to others due to our financial services industry.0 -
Advertisement
-
I suggest you read the Guardian as well as the Mail/Telegraph. They have an excellent OpenData repository. The analysis they did here covers the entire UK spend. They even have an Excel download for a deeper analysis.
That was 2009 after labour's watch, the whole gist of the article is about how the Torys wanted to cut those figures! Still having difficulty seeing how you got 100 billion for uk government administration, it's actually 14 billion. Also, I missed your answer, do you believe the EU is efficient and only employing 25000 with a 9 billion administration budget?0 -
That was 2009 after labour's watch, the whole gist of the article is about how the Torys wanted to cut those figures! Still having difficulty seeing how you got 100 billion for uk government administration, it's actually 14 billion. Also, I missed your answer, do you believe the EU is efficient and only employing 25000 with a 9 billion administration budget?
It's at the bottom of the data table in that article in black and white. Has there been a lock step change in staffing and funding for the UK govt in the past five years? You really need to decide if you are talking about administration of core civil servants or all supported agencies. Deciding you will measure core civil service for the UK govt. but include all agencies funded by the EU is simply a dishonest comparison.
Not when you create misleading and dishonest statements that the 9 billion is for 25k employees which is manifestly is not. Does that answer your question?0 -
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21646235-if-britain-cannot-get-more-its-legion-cheap-workers-recovery-will-stall-bargain
"When people are cheap, firms would rather hire than invest in machines or technology. So productivity is held down."
Note that link is from the economist. Now to answer your question "Why has this low productivity not occurred in other EU countries that have taken in more immigration?" Well first of all other leading economies in the EU have suffered from lower productivity, just not as much as the UK and that is because the UK'S economy is different, less manufacturing and more financial services, here is a link to support what I am saying from the financial times.
http://m.ft.com/cms/s/0/3e0082a8-e502-11e4-bb4b-00144feab7de.html
"Lawyers, accountants and management consultants lie at the heart of the UK’s productivity problem, explaining almost a quarter of a shortfall since 2008"
So although what manufacturing we do have has been stifled by a lack of investment the poor productivity numbers are inflated compared to others due to our financial services industry.
I can agree with that. The smart thing to do if you use cheap labour is to make up the difference with better manufacturing equipment. Instead the stupidity of British industry is to go cheap on labour and investment. I'm not sure how this is contradicting my opinion that you invest in equipment if you want to deskill.
In any case what has any of this got to do with the EU? Seems to be poor decisions by British Government and Business is holding the UK back. All other EU nations have the migration rules and Germany has the same migratory patterns. This is a British Problem in or out of the EU.0 -
Err... there's nothing 'open' about an 'ever closer union'. The intention is pretty clear.Well, I disagree, why use such an open to interpretation phrase as "ever closer union" instead of just saying "push towards a united Europe" or "look to achieve a federal Europe"
As to your seeking a phrase such as "look to achieve a federal Europe", have you already forgotten that "a first step in the federation of Europe" was also cited?
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt, I see.
Yes, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain... let's change the subject and forget how gallag came out with a pile of nonsense, persists in trying, with what can only described as blatant dishonesty at this stage, to try and convince us that black is white and that he lack the courage to admit the farce that he calls an argument.Anyway, that aside
So how about that not aside?0 -
Man, it's like I have offended your religion lol, I simply believe the people were sold on the ideal of a common market, not the political union being forged today, look at your post ffs, why are you so offended? Iv seen crowds in Iran calmer when presented with a picture of big Mo!The Corinthian wrote: »Err... there's nothing 'open' about an 'ever closer union'. The intention is pretty clear.
As to your seeking a phrase such as "look to achieve a federal Europe", have you already forgotten that "a first step in the federation of Europe" was also cited?
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt, I see.
Yes, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain... let's change the subject and forget how gallag came out with a pile of nonsense, persists in trying, with what can only described as blatant dishonesty at this stage, to try and convince us that black is white and that he lack the courage to admit the farce that he calls an argument.
So how about that not aside?0 -
Em, ok, thanks for that.Factors affecting labour productivity
Chunk of text copied from interweb
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5887/economics/uk-labour-productivity/
Copy and paste does not a great argument make.
So what? It was still only about 40,000 in total. The likes of UKIP were scaremongering about the millions who could potentially “steal” British jobs.The numbers of Bulgarians and Romanians coming to the UK doubled in 2014…0 -
Because I don't like liars, and at this stage your continued attempts to try and claim black is white and then change the subject without admitting you got it wrong is getting beyond ridiculous and you deserve to be brought up on it.Man, it's like I have offended your religion lol, I simply believe the people were sold on the ideal of a common market, not the political union being forged today, look at your post ffs, why are you so offended? Iv seen crowds in Iran calmer when presented with a picture of big Mo!
The idea that the EEC/EU was nothing more than a common market is at best a British invention. It's how the conservatives sold it to the public when joining. If you want to be pissed at anyone, be pissed at them. Otherwise stop trying to perpetuate this lie and then going into bare-faced denial when it's pointed out to you in black and white that this was never the case.0 -
Em, ok, thanks for that.
Copy and paste does not a great argument make.
So what? It was still only about 40,000 in total. The likes of UKIP were scaremongering about the millions who could potentially “steal” British jobs.
So linking to facts does not make a good argument but just quoting and ranting does? Also, it was closer to 50,000 more romanians and Bulgarians came last year, exactly as immigration watch predicted, By next year there will be about a quarter of a million here!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3080028/Number-foreigners-work-rising-10-times-faster-Brits-sharp-rise-Romanian-Bulgarian-workers.html
And 186,000 Romanians and Bulgarians, whose residents have had full freedom of movement and access to work since January 2014, are also working here.
Despite assurances from Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs that there would be no major influx after employment restrictions were lifted, workers from the two Eastern European countries soared by 38,000 – or 26 per cent – in the year to March.
Let's face it, the left have constantly predicted immigration numbers wrong, Labour admit it now! The leaders of other large EU countries have admitted it was a mistake, the people of Europe are swinging to the right and the working class have suffered wage deflation and downward pressure on rights and conditions!0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Because I don't like liars, and at this stage your continued attempts to try and claim black is white and then change the subject without admitting you got it wrong is getting beyond ridiculous and you deserve to be brought up on it.
The idea that the EEC/EU was nothing more than a common market is at best a British invention. It's how the conservatives sold it to the public when joining. If you want to be pissed at anyone, be pissed at them. Otherwise stop trying to perpetuate this lie and then going into bare-faced denial when it's pointed out to you in black and white that this was never the case.
Haha you are really invested in this! I am correct!! You are wrong! The original EU was never about political union, it started as an agreement between France and Germany about coal and steel and has evolved over different ammendments. At the very least you seem to agree with me that it certainly has been missold to the British!0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Nope, you're just attempting to change the subject still, which was your willful attempt to deceive people with your made up 'facts'. If I'm invested in anything is not allowing you to lie without being called out.Haha you are really invested in this! I am correct!!
And there we have another lie by you. It's been pointed out several times that the European Coal and Steel Community specifically cited "a first step in the federation of Europe" from the very start.You are wrong! The original EU was never about political union, it started as an agreement between France and Germany about coal and steel and has evolved over different ammendments.
Why are you purposely ignoring this? Honestly, it's there in black and white - how do you manage to filter it out with a straight face, or is it just dishonesty?
By themselves, not by anyone else. I'm glad you're keeping this tradition for self deception alive and well.At the very least you seem to agree with me that it certainly has been missold to the British!
You can put your fingers in your ears and hum loudly, pretending that the EU was not clearly set up from the onset to be far more than a common market, but those are the facts and those facts are what the casual reader will decide upon, not your rather transparent and empty denials.0 -
-
The Corinthian wrote: »Nope, you're just attempting to change the subject still, which was your willful attempt to deceive people with your made up 'facts'. If I'm invested in anything is not allowing you to lie without being called out.
And there we have another lie by you. It's been pointed out several times that the European Coal and Steel Community specifically cited "a first step in the federation of Europe" from the very start.
Why are you purposely ignoring this? Honestly, it's there in black and white - how do you manage to filter it out with a straight face, or is it just dishonesty?
By themselves, not by anyone else. I'm glad you're keeping this tradition for self deception alive and well.
You can put your fingers in your ears and hum loudly, pretending that the EU was not clearly set up from the onset to be far more than a common market, but those are the facts and those facts are what the casual reader will decide upon, not your rather transparent and empty denials.
We shall agree to disagree!0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Hopefully the Uk decides to leave the E.U. I feel that if they leave there will be a domino effect which would be music to my ears. There is no point in Irish people voting really because all the parties will just bow down to the E.U and do as they are told which is a shame. Irish decisions are made in Brussels not in Dublin and fundamental I believe that the people we vote for should make 100 % of decisions on behalf of the Irish people clearly no one agrees with that statement in Ireland, I must be alone but I will be investing in the UK eu referendum as I feel if they leave we could leave too. The EU has gone out of control and they are controlling everything and with us being such a small country our voice isn't heard and isn't cared about. Like the Soviet Union it eventually fell and similarly the E.U will fall all big unions between countries eventually fall and the E.U will fall soon but how soon is the question. 2017 might be the year0
-
-
Clearly both Ireland and Europe didn't monitor anything looking at Spain,Greece,Portugal Etc. Europe is in charge and did nothing both europe and Ireland did nothing. There is many different people to blame for what happened. But I would mainly blame Fine Fail, they are a public embarrassment and sadly the biggest party in this country over the course of history but the public have learnt a lesson after what happened and voted Fine gael in who are a LOT better than Fine Fail. And I feel that Fine Gael are here to stay in power as the youth certainly wont be voting Fine Fail. A Fine Gael led Ireland not in the EU would be a great sight. Irish people should make decisions on behalf of Ireland in my opinion. Clearly the majority of Irish people are pro EU but I do feel that if the UK votes out then Ireland will be out within a few years0
-
Clearly both Ireland and Europe didn't monitor anything looking at Spain,Greece,Portugal Etc. Europe is in charge and did nothing both europe and Ireland did nothing. There is many different people to blame for what happened. But I would mainly blame Fine Fail, they are a public embarrassment and sadly the biggest party in this country over the course of history but the public have learnt a lesson after what happened and voted Fine gael in who are a LOT better than Fine Fail. And I feel that Fine Gael are here to stay in power as the youth certainly wont be voting Fine Fail. A Fine Gael led Ireland not in the EU would be a great sight. Irish people should make decisions on behalf of Ireland in my opinion. Clearly the majority of Irish people are pro EU but I do feel that if the UK votes out then Ireland will be out within a few years
And neither did the US monitor Lehmans and the rest. And neither did the UK government monitor RBS etc etc. I'm not really sure what your point is here TBH. The EU had considerably less responsibility then either the US or UK Governments for the mess of global deregulation.
If you are fond of the notion that Irish People were somehow independent before the EU (when in actual fact we were within the UK sphere of economic domination including the punt pinned to Sterling) this is simply factually untrue. Luckily the Irish electorate and Politicians don't base their decisions on xenophobic "feelings" but on the actual fact that being part of the EU gives the Irish People more say in their destiny then we had in the past 800 years.0 -
And neither did the US monitor Lehmans and the rest. And neither did the UK government monitor RBS etc etc. I'm not really sure what your point is here TBH. The EU had considerably less responsibility then either the US or UK Governments for the mess of global deregulation.
If you are fond of the notion that Irish People were somehow independent before the EU (when in actual fact we were within the UK sphere of economic domination including the punt pinned to Sterling) this is simply factually untrue. Luckily the Irish electorate and Politicians don't base their decisions on xenophobic "feelings" but on the actual fact that being part of the EU gives the Irish People more say in their destiny then we had in the past 800 years.
Agree, yous even get say in your destiny several times if need be!0 -
Advertisement
-
Look at it this way the two richest countries in europe are Norway and Switzerland both not in the E.U. No more needs to be said and look at Australia thats the type of system Ireland should be aiming for. Like if you look at Switzerland and see the huge impact not being in the E.U has had on them on paper you would be out canvasing now for us to leave. Too many Irish people just don't have a clue just politically correct europeans and nothing different look at the facts, if we left the E.U and had Fine Gael in power what we could do is amazing and I hope the people of the UK acknowledge that they could be far better off without listening to Brussels0
-
Haha you are really invested in this! I am correct!! You are wrong! The original EU was never about political union, it started as an agreement between France and Germany about coal and steel and has evolved over different ammendments. At the very least you seem to agree with me that it certainly has been missold to the British!
The original EU never for saw the dissolution of the Soviet Union. A less aggressive Soviet administration yes but an actual redrawing of the map to the extent that was witnessed in 1991 was never taken into account when the founders Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg first began this voyage into a new world where enemies became companions.0 -
If you don't vote the way europe wants you too. You'll be voting again. They gave us a slap on the wrist for voting against them. To hear my fellow Irish citizens defend them offends me0
-
If you don't vote the way europe wants you too. You'll be voting again. They gave us a slap on the wrist for voting against them. To hear my fellow Irish citizens defend them offends me
You think Europe is a monolithic entity when it is not. The EU consists of 28 nations each having their own opinions and different ways of doing things. Bulgaria and Greece are located right next to Turkey a Muslim majority country. Russian speaking peoples are located across Europe including Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania each are € members. Britain has devolved parliaments in Belfast and Edinburgh. The parliament of Europe represents people from Nations that don't even exist Catalonia, Flanders and Kosovo. Irish citizens share European citizenship so your ignorance of not knowing any of this shows us your lack of attention when it comes to issues that directly affect this country.0 -
Your statement makes no sense. The two ritches countries in europe where their youth have the best chance in life are not in the E.U. The E.U must be stopped. The Swiss and Norwegians are laughing at us and they will never ever go into the eu after seeing what it is doing to their neighboring countries. as i have said before the irish public are quiet thick and just dont understand simple logic. The eu is creating laziness among-st the Irish youth. I want the best for my country thats why in anti eu0
-
If you don't vote the way europe wants you too. You'll be voting again. They gave us a slap on the wrist for voting against them. To hear my fellow Irish citizens defend them offends me
Untrue. The democratically elected Government of Ireland decided to re-hold the election after negotiated further concessions from our EU partners. No slap on the wrist - merely asking us what concessions we wanted and offering them to us.0 -
Your statement makes no sense. The two ritches countries in europe where their youth have the best chance in life are not in the E.U. The E.U must be stopped. The Swiss and Norwegians are laughing at us and they will never ever go into the eu after seeing what it is doing to their neighboring countries. as i have said before the irish public are quiet thick and just dont understand simple logic. The eu is creating laziness among-st the Irish youth. I want the best for my country thats why in anti eu
Well given your inability to spell I find it odd you call the Irish "thick". I'm guessing you aren't actually Irish either by your non-native use of grammar and your insulting attitude towards the Irish Peoples democratic choice to be part of the EU.
I doubt the Norwegians or Swiss are laughing at the fact they have to implement every EU directive and have to contribute significant amounts of money (in the billions) to the EU budget every year without any say. But then I don't believe logic plays any part in your anti EU diatribe....0 -
-
-
If we leave the EU we'll have very little chance of evolving into "the best small country in the world in which to do business".
Not that theres much chance of that anyway, moving >>>>>>>forward>>>>> (Biffo Cowen speak)0 -
Advertisement
-
I presume, from what you say, that you've no idea about either and probably have never set foot in either.Your statement makes no sense. The two ritches countries in europe where their youth have the best chance in life are not in the E.U. The E.U must be stopped. The Swiss and Norwegians are laughing at us and they will never ever go into the eu after seeing what it is doing to their neighboring countries.
Both Switzerland and Norway are, many practical terms, in the EU in so far that both are required to, and do, implement EU legislation as it is issued from Brussels. Both have exactly the same freedom of movement that the rest of the EU has, for example.
The debate on whether Switzerland will join ended here a long time ago and the general feeling is more one of 'when', rather than 'if'. I see evidence of how we're not in the EU here every day; ordering anything over the Internet has a good chance of getting caught by customs in the post, I still get to use duty free whenever I go home to Ireland, but ultimately 90% if it's an EU rule on health, quality, labour or whatever, we probably have it already copied to Swiss law.
Norway, on the other hand is apparently laughing so much at EU members that it even advised the UK it was better off remaining one - which does not help your argument too much. So your claims turn out to be false. Sorry.
The rest of your posts are the usual, gleeful, prophecies of doom - wishful thinking with no argument, let alone evidence, to back them up, so I think we can safely file them in the 'crank' file.
You've not demonstrated much logic yourself, so I suppose by your reasoning you must be Irish. Still, EU is creating laziness? That's a new one and I'm not sure how it works. Care to explain?as i have said before the irish public are quiet thick and just dont understand simple logic. The eu is creating laziness among-st the Irish youth. I want the best for my country thats why in anti eu
In fairness, this is a valid criticism. If you need to democratically get people to vote multiple times in quick succession until they give you the 'right' answer, then there is a democratic defect.oscarBravo wrote: »Euroskeptic logic: voting more often is less democratic.
Thing is, while the EU is certainly flawed, the 'little islander' approach is far worse - not hard to see, given the quality of argument used to promote it.0 -
The EU didn't "need" the Irish public to vote at all; that's one of many constitutional idiosyncrasies unique to us. Couple it with an anti-EU cohort that's prepared to disseminate blatant lies, along with an electorate who would rather believe those lies than (heaven forfend) do any actual research on the topic, and you end up with a situation where the government is denied permission to ratify a treaty it negotiated in good faith for reasons that have precisely nothing whatsoever to do with the text or context of the treaty.The Corinthian wrote: »In fairness, this is a valid criticism. If you need to democratically get people to vote multiple times in quick succession until they give you the 'right' answer, then there is a democratic defect.
Under those circumstances, I don't see a major democratic defect in asking us to vote again. The alternative was to re-negotiate a treaty in order to remove aspects of it that were never in it. Given a choice between notionally undemocratic and blatantly, mind-bendingly stupid outcomes, I know which I'd pick.0 -
Perhaps, but repeating a vote in quick succession until you get the 'right' result is not terribly democratic. If it's a democratic deficit, it's properly an Irish one - it's our system that allows governments to do this, rather than anything to do with the EU, but it's still a democratic deficit.oscarBravo wrote: »The EU didn't "need" the Irish public to vote at all; that's one of many constitutional idiosyncrasies unique to us.
I understand what you're saying. As, I think Churchill once said "the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter", which is essentially what you're getting at. And to a great degree it is a dreadful system - with illiterate morons deciding on issues that they cannot even intellectually grasp, let alone make an informed judgment on, manipulated by lobby groups more than happy to empty blatant lies and FUD for this purpose (we get this here all the time).Couple it with an anti-EU cohort that's prepared to disseminate blatant lies, along with an electorate who would rather believe those lies than (heaven forfend) do any actual research on the topic, and you end up with a situation where the government is denied permission to ratify a treaty it negotiated in good faith for reasons that have precisely nothing whatsoever to do with the text or context of the treaty.
Under those circumstances, I don't see a major democratic defect in asking us to vote again. The alternative was to re-negotiate a treaty in order to remove aspects of it that were never in it. Given a choice between notionally undemocratic and blatantly, mind-bendingly stupid outcomes, I know which I'd pick.
However he once also said "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others", which is also true because as much as we may wish we could reply upon Platonic philosopher kings who will always be guided with the greater good in mind, they're not always so.
That's why the people retain the option to say 'no', and frankly should retain that option, even if they are, by and large, idiots.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »That's why the people retain the option to say 'no', and frankly should retain that option, even if they are, by and large, idiots.
I understand the philosophical arguments, I really do. Pragmatically, however, if you ask someone a question and they answer "no", and the consequences of that answer are potentially damaging and far-reaching, and you know they weren't listening to the question when you asked it...
...it's really not that big a deal to ask "are you sure?".
For me, the single biggest downside to having multiple referendums is having to listen to the Euroskeptics bleat on and on and on and on about how the nasty EU made us do it, which is just so headwreckingly predictable, and utterly wrong, and predictable precisely because of its wrongness (because wrongness is, let's face it, the primary raw material of most Euroskepticism).
As for the people having the right to say "no": they retained that right in the repeat referendum, despite what the nay-sayers would have us believe.0 -
Sometimes it's a big deal to get them to comprehend the difference between small and far away, TBH. Not everyone can be on the right hand side of the Bell curve, I'm afraid.oscarBravo wrote: »I understand the philosophical arguments, I really do. Pragmatically, however, if you ask someone a question and they answer "no", and the consequences of that answer are potentially damaging and far-reaching, and you know they weren't listening to the question when you asked it...
...it's really not that big a deal to ask "are you sure?".
The vast majority of Euroscepticism, at least in the EU, is ultimately based on xenophobia. Argue long enough and nine out of ten eurosceptics will eventually admit that it comes down to the Germans, Italians or whomever "not being like us". Everything else, all the 'reasonable' areguments are invariably based on false axioms or the use of complex terms which sounds authoritative until you realize they don't have a clue what they're talking about.For me, the single biggest downside to having multiple referendums is having to listen to the Euroskeptics bleat on and on and on and on about how the nasty EU made us do it, which is just so headwreckingly predictable, and utterly wrong, and predictable precisely because of its wrongness (because wrongness is, let's face it, the primary raw material of most Euroskepticism).
It's why we get people talking about Switzerland, who wouldn't know the first thing about Switzerland, and claim we could be just like them - a quick comparison of just CIE and SBB would quickly disabuse you of that fantasy. Or that the EU was really meant to be a common market, which it wasn't and demonstrably wasn't, but they'll go into some weird form of denial and just blatantly ignore any facts that don't back up their position.
Honestly, such is the level of fanaticism of ardent eurosceptics, that I'm convinced that either they are perfectly aware that they are dishonest in their arguments, presumably for 'the greater good', or have mental health issues.
Would you agree if it was a general election and they got to have it multiple times until SF got into power? That's the problem with what you say; it's fine as long as it's for the greater good that you recognize.As for the people having the right to say "no": they retained that right in the repeat referendum, despite what the nay-sayers would have us believe.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Would you agree if it was a general election and they got to have it multiple times until SF got into power? That's the problem with what you say; it's fine as long as it's for the greater good that you recognize.
Two problems with that analogy: first, it's the government that decides whether to hold a referendum (or an election). That right is granted to the government by the constitution, without limitation; the absence of such limitation has been upheld by the courts. If the government that won an election decided that it couldn't live with the result and called another one, it has the right to do so. I can't imagine a non-SF government re-running an election until SF got into power, somehow.
Second, the government were faced with a choice after losing the first Lisbon referendum. They could offer reassurances to the electorate that no, they wouldn't be conscripted into the EU abortion army or whatever bull**** the No side were peddling, and run the referendum again; or they could go back to the rest of the EU member states and tell them that they would have to re-negotiate the entire treaty because of some nonsense that wasn't even in the damn thing to start with.
No matter how you feel about multiple referendums, surely anyone reasonable can see that the latter option was simply untenable?
"Sorry lads, we have to re-negotiate the treaty."
"Why, what parts of it are a problem?"
"None, actually. All the objections are fictional. But we have to re-negotiate it anyway."
"...?!"
Faced with the choice between re-running the referendum, or telling the rest of the EU member states that they'd have to re-write the treaty on the basis of fictional objections - what would you have done?0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Perhaps, but repeating a vote in quick succession until you get the 'right' result is not terribly democratic.
Firstly, if the people still want to vote No, they can. You could hold 100 referendums in a row in Ireland, and we would not vote to leave the EU.
Secondly, why does this only apply to referendums? If a government collapses, the conventional wisdom is that it is democratic to hold another election, no matter haw recent the last one was, and people tend to frown and say "Boo! Undemocratic!" if the elected folks get together and cook up another government without an election.0 -
Not necessarily the best group to imbue such power too. Consider SF get into government and have a referendum for reunification. It's defeated. It's their prerogative to have another one, and an other and an other, if they wanted, until they get the yes they want.oscarBravo wrote: »Two problems with that analogy: first, it's the government that decides whether to hold a referendum (or an election).
I do think it a democratic deficit in the Irish system. But I also agree with you that the whole thing probably should never have gone to referendum in the first place. I know barristers who could not understand the Nice treaty, let alone Joe Murphy on the Rathmines omnibus. As I pointed out with the Churchill quotes earlier, it all probably comes down to a balance between tyranny and chaos, oligarchy and democracy.Second, the government were faced with a choice after losing the first Lisbon referendum.
Nice was about leaving the EU?Zubeneschamali wrote: »Firstly, if the people still want to vote No, they can. You could hold 100 referendums in a row in Ireland, and we would not vote to leave the EU.
Poor analogy. Running a referendum again is the equivalent of rejecting the outcome of the previous one and trying again until you get the outcome you like. A more accurate analogy would be to have an election, then the government deciding they want to throw the results out and run it again until they get the results they want. Then they let it stand.Secondly, why does this only apply to referendums? If a government collapses, the conventional wisdom is that it is democratic to hold another election, no matter haw recent the last one was, and people tend to frown and say "Boo! Undemocratic!" if the elected folks get together and cook up another government without an election.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Running a referendum again is the equivalent of rejecting the outcome of the previous one and trying again until you get the outcome you like.
No, it isn't. For example, the people rejected divorce, and after that referendum, there was no divorce. The result was not rejected. 10 years later the people passed it, and now there is divorce. If views change, we could re-run it and ban divorce again.
Nothing undemocratic there at all.
In the case of Nice and Lisbon, the No side yelled that it was undemocratic to hold it again because they somehow got the result they wanted the first time. They would say that.
But if the people democratically agreed with them, they would simply have voted No the second time.
What happened was that after some months of discussion, people changed their minds. Nothing undemocratic there.0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement