The boys in Europe slapping the timid Irish around again

Saruhashi

VinLieger wrote: »

You could ask anyone who gets married the same question.....

Again your logic is inverse here, it really just shows how good they have it in the EU, if leaving means they will be worse off.

You can get out of it however again no contract was ever made that could be easily broken, the idea is for them to be maintained.

People get divorced all the time and it doesn't cost them everything.

If it was impossible to get out of a marriage without completely bankrupting yourself then surely it seems wise to ask the question of whether marriage is actually a good idea in the first place. Especially if there is no provision for what will happen if things don't work out?

If a woman is married to a rich guy who gives her an allowance every week but also occasionally beats her up then we would not say "well the money he gives you just shows how good you have it". We would say "get out of there". If she replies "I can't leave because I will be homeless or he might murder me" then we do not say "well just shows how good you have it in the marriage, you aren't homeless or dead".

We would all say it's a pretty bad marriage if you have no option to get out of it and any attempt to get out of it will be extremely costly.

It just seems to me that the difficulty of leaving the EU should have us questioning how good it really is to be in the EU and whether or not it would be better to determine our own future.

_Kaiser_

Saruhashi wrote: »

People get divorced all the time and it doesn't cost them everything.

If it was impossible to get out of a marriage without completely bankrupting yourself then surely it seems wise to ask the question of whether marriage is actually a good idea in the first place. Especially if there is no provision for what will happen if things don't work out?

If a woman is married to a rich guy who gives her an allowance every week but also occasionally beats her up then we would not say "well the money he gives you just shows how good you have it". We would say "get out of there". If she replies "I can't leave because I will be homeless or he might murder me" then we do not say "well just shows how good you have it in the marriage, you aren't homeless or dead".

We would all say it's a pretty bad marriage if you have no option to get out of it and any attempt to get out of it will be extremely costly.

It just seems to me that the difficulty of leaving the EU should have us questioning how good it really is to be in the EU and whether or not it would be better to determine our own future.

Indeed.. it's supposed to be a mutually beneficial arrangement for both sides - like any contract - and similarly, people and organisations end contracts all the time without the world coming to an end.

Membership of the EU should not be a suicide pact.

_Kaiser_

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Why does it make such a difference to you to have borders and barriers based on what bit of land whatever the dominant tribes managed to wall off for themselves over the centuries?


How many threads have their been about how crap our politicians are and they can't be trusted , yet so many don't want anyone else making decisions either.

Well we've seen how well the unlimited access, open borders concept you're advocating is working in many parts of Europe with the "refugee" crisis haven't we?

In reality countries are made up of people who have a shared culture, history, tradition and laws and while immigration can be a valuable asset to a country both socially and economically, it should never be the free-for-all you (and indeed some in the corridors of power) are advocating. I'll also note that there's nothing wrong with a country or its people wanting to retain their sovereignty or identity.

But there's also more practical concerns too. Take Ireland as an example... while immigration from EU states has been largely positive, we are a small island nation with a total population which is far less than most major cities in Europe. We're a country which depends significantly on foreign investment and trade, and which is many ways is decades behind in services and infrastructure.
We have a hugely welfare-dependent State where 50% are getting some sort of payment, and we have a health system that's been in various levels of crisis for decades now, a ridiculous over-reliance on the property sector and yet another housing crisis in less than a decade as a result.

In short, we have neither the economy nor the supports to handle unrestricted migration as you would advocate.. to say nothing of the very real security concerns that this has posed to other EU countries in the last few years.

Your second point about local politicians, while valid, is completely unrelated.

VinLieger

Saruhashi wrote: »

People get divorced all the time and it doesn't cost them everything.

If it was impossible to get out of a marriage without completely bankrupting yourself then surely it seems wise to ask the question of whether marriage is actually a good idea in the first place. Especially if there is no provision for what will happen if things don't work out?

It does cost a lot, one party gets the house or they either sell it, there's children to figure out who gets them for how long etc, then theres probably some kind of alimony for one party, the legal costs for the entire thing not to mention the emotional toll and anxiety people experience through the entire process. You are effectively turning your life upside down. Its not impossible to leave the EU but why should it also be easy to do much like a divorce is a difficult process?

Saruhashi wrote: »

If a woman is married to a rich guy who gives her an allowance every week but also occasionally beats her up then we would not say "well the money he gives you just shows how good you have it". We would say "get out of there". If she replies "I can't leave because I will be homeless or he might murder me" then we do not say "well just shows how good you have it in the marriage, you aren't homeless or dead".

There is no case to be made that the UK's relationship with the EU is analogous to a spouse receiving abuse in a marriage.

Saruhashi wrote: »

We would all say it's a pretty bad marriage if you have no option to get out of it and any attempt to get out of it will be extremely costly.

It just seems to me that the difficulty of leaving the EU should have us questioning how good it really is to be in the EU and whether or not it would be better to determine our own future.

There is an option to get out but why should it be easy? If you were in business with someone and they signed a contract but halfway through they decided they didnt want to do it anymore and were able to just walk away without any penalties or reparations to you for lost business/earnings would you be happy with that contract? Would you have signed it in the first place?

If part of the original EU membership was that they could kick the UK out whenever they wanted without any issue there's no way the UK would have joined, why should it be possible the other way?

Saruhashi

VinLieger wrote: »

There is no case to be made that the UK's relationship with the EU is analogous to a spouse receiving abuse in a marriage.

Fair enough. I will get back to you when I have a better analogy.

It just feels like the extreme difficulty the UK is having with leaving the EU raises some valid questions about how much control the EU has over member states. When leaving is almost a suicidal act for the country choosing to leave, how we ignore the level of power that the EU apparently has?

VinLieger

Saruhashi wrote: »

Fair enough. I will get back to you when I have a better analogy.

It just feels like the extreme difficulty the UK is having with leaving the EU raises some valid questions about how much control the EU has over member states. When leaving is almost a suicidal act for the country choosing to leave, how we ignore the level of power that the EU apparently has?

Its not suicidal its simply very very difficult, and that's because for the entire system to work you need to integrate and align your operations with 27 other member states which is incredibly difficult as well to do in the first place.

The EU in its current form didn't just magically appear with the snap of a finger overnight it took a long time to get to where it is, people will argue that its jumped the shark and become a bureaucratic behemoth but that's another discussion entirely.
Im pointing out that due to how much its grown and the time its taken to get there expecting to be able to snap your fingers and leave without any issues at all is completely unrealistic. Its going to be difficult to do and the problem isnt that's its difficult its that people were lied to about how easy and glorious it would be so their expectations now that it turns out to be quite a difficult and laborious task are completely out of sync with reality.

El_Duderino 09

Saruhashi wrote: »

Isn't the fact that it is so extremely difficult, and potentially disastrous, for the UK to actually leave the EU an argument in itself for leaving the EU?
(or at least an argument for having never joined the EU in the first place)

If we've entered into a deal that it's impossible to get out of without killing ourselves then how was that ever a good deal?

Maybe. It then you have to consider the state of Ireland if we never joined the EU and never got all that money to invest in the country. We would probably have been left behind the rest of Europe who did band together.

Saruhashi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Maybe. It then you have to consider the state of Ireland if we never joined the EU and never got all that money to invest in the country. We would probably have been left behind the rest of Europe who did band together.

That's a fair point too.

How difficult should it be to leave the EU if that's what a member state wants?
How damaging should it be?

Is it worrying that we maybe couldn't leave the EU even if we wanted to?
Nobody knows how the future will develop so it feels like having no "get out" clause is a bad thing.

El_Duderino 09

Saruhashi wrote:

How difficult should it be to leave the EU if that's what a member state wants? How damaging should it be?

Again it depends. If membership of the EU gives lots of advantages, how difficult should it be to give up those advantages, harmonised laws and ease of trade? It's proving very difficult for the uk and they're likely to lose out to other countries who share those advantages. There's always the possibility of innovating like setting up as a dedicated tax haven or taking advantage of some other aspects