Irexit party yay or nay?

Quin_Dub

stuff.hunter wrote: »

all of the above wont generate as much revenue as manufacturing plant so another wrong example here
...what will be next? public sector jobs create more money for economy than private?

The point is though that the non manufacturing jobs are at a much higher salary - Those manufacturing/assembly jobs would have been barely above minimum wage.. The jobs that are there now would typically be 2 or 3 times that level.

So , whilst there may not be ancillary jobs in supply chain or logistics etc. close to a manufacturing site as you might have had you now have a work-force with far greater income levels so shops, restaurants etc. all benefit.

But - Back on topic , there would be absolutely ZERO manufacturing jobs , or indeed any multi-national jobs created in Ireland were we to leave the EU and any that we do have would wither away fairly rapidly..

FreudianSlippers

stuff.hunter wrote: »

oh, looks like everyone forgot Troika already ....
im done here

I'm not even remotely sure what this is supposed to mean... anyone else?

stuff.hunter wrote: »

...so unfair tax advantage is in your understanding ok???

It's not ok, but it's not not ok for the reasons which you think. The unfairness is actually to other companies who didn't/couldn't avail of the discounted rate of CT. Either way, the loopholes which existed at the time to allow Apple to lawfully structure their tax has been closed so the initial point is moot.

PS: I should point out that I don't believe there has been any allegation outside of this thread and by a specific poster (read: you) that Facebook or Google are "evading tax" or otherwise not appropriately contributing their share of CT in Ireland.

seamus

Thankfully despite any launch of a party, all of this "Irexit" nonsense seems to be getting very short shrift when proposed. Even in the places where the fringe stuff frequently flourishes like Facebook and Twitter, anyone who tries to promote it is fairly consistently being exposed as an English/Unionist troll trying to stir up some kind of alternative support.

As far as I can tell there's even less appetite for this in Ireland than the failure that was the Irish Christian Conservative party, aka Renua.

4068ac1elhodqr

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

1) I never made that statement;
2) You were speaking in the present, not past tense.

You implied they were not dodging tax, so your statement might only have some fact, if you ignore anything between 2003-2014..

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Google, Facebook and Apple all pay tax in Ireland and are therefore not dodging any tax

You should have stated 'since 2014' in this statement for clarity.
Makes a great slogan this doesn't it: "proudly tax compliant since 2014".

Twenty Grand

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The point is though that the non manufacturing jobs are at a much higher salary - Those manufacturing/assembly jobs would have been barely above minimum wage.. The jobs that are there now would typically be 2 or 3 times that level.

So , whilst there may not be ancillary jobs in supply chain or logistics etc. close to a manufacturing site as you might have had you now have a work-force with far greater income levels so shops, restaurants etc. all benefit.

But - Back on topic , there would be absolutely ZERO manufacturing jobs , or indeed any multi-national jobs created in Ireland were we to leave the EU and any that we do have would wither away fairly rapidly..

Some of the pharma and medical operators would be clearing 60k and upwards of 80k with overtime and shift bonus.

Not bad for someone pushing a few buttons.

Quin_Dub

Twenty Grand wrote: »

Some of the pharma and medical operators would be clearing 60k and upwards of 80k with overtime and shift bonus.

Not bad for someone pushing a few buttons.

Which is why we still have Pharma jobs in this country (although to be fair , it is quite a bit more than "pushing buttons") , but the simple assembly jobs of Dell manufacturing etc. are long gone and never coming back.

paw patrol

seamus wrote: »

Thankfully despite any launch of a party, all of this "Irexit" nonsense seems to be getting very short shrift when proposed. Even in the places where the fringe stuff frequently flourishes like Facebook and Twitter, anyone who tries to promote it is fairly consistently being exposed as an English/Unionist troll trying to stir up some kind of alternative support.

As far as I can tell there's even less appetite for this in Ireland than the failure that was the Irish Christian Conservative party, aka Renua.

Parties generally start small , it doesn't matter if the ideas aren't that popular at the outset . a few decent operators and the party can gain some traction and become a small minority party and then grow.
There main challenge will be to get some decent representatives who do TV and Radio well and keep any nutter in the basement.


I'll be there on sat to see what they say , so far their mission statements reads as something I'd like.

prawnsambo

Everybody suddenly finds that there are other threads that are somehow far more interesting.

How anyone in this country could find anything of interest in a party who's stated objective is (despite all evidence available across the water) to leave the EU, is frankly bizarre.

Put it out of its misery and never speak of it again.

4068ac1elhodqr

Just seen on one of the tabloid websites, there is actually a new group formed/getting formed for it: 'the Irexit Freedom party' with candidates to stand in elections and everything
How does that abbreviate? Ifrexitarty Can't see any appetite for it anytime soon, but give it a few years and who knows.
What would work a treat is some of those N.Korea style election posters - superb artwork and design (ignoring NK's crazytimes plans).

The article states Ireland is now a net contributor to the European Union, unlike previous decades
- giving €2.7bn per year to unelected officials, still a good bargain for the summer holibobs.

Rhineshark

paw patrol wrote: »

Parties generally start small , it doesn't matter if the ideas aren't that popular at the outset . a few decent operators and the party can gain some traction and become a small minority party and then grow.
There main challenge will be to get some decent representatives who do TV and Radio well and keep any nutter in the basement.


I'll be there on sat to see what they say , so far their mission statements reads as something I'd like.

How do you feel about their sideways push for a hard border, their Trump support and their complete lack of any sort of plan for the practicalities other than aspirational Brexiteer-speak? (Edit: actually the closest thing to a general plan seems to be rejoin the UK or at least cling to the UK market. So back to the 1920s or 1970s depending.)

Seriously, have a read of their Twitter.

prawnsambo

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

The article states Ireland is now a net contributor to the European Union, unlike previous decades
- giving €2.7bn per year to unelected officials, still a good bargain for the summer holibobs.

This bollocks needs to be nipped in the bud. It's pure nonsense and the kind of crap that Boris Johnson could probably sell in the Telegraph, but please don't expect anyone to fall for it here. There are unelected officials in every permanent government, the EU's decision makers are all elected.

Anthracite

stuff.hunter wrote: »

oh, looks like everyone forgot Troika already ....
im done here

The Troika that bailed us out of the absolute sh*tstorm that Fianna Fail sent us into and bankrupted the country?

Yeah, I think you are right. People will be blessing FF again much sooner than they will thank the Troika.

4068ac1elhodqr

prawnsambo wrote: »

This bollocks needs to be nipped in the bud. It's pure nonsense and the kind of crap that Boris Johnson could probably sell in the Telegraph, but please don't expect anyone to fall for it here. There are unelected officials in every permanent government, the EU's decision makers are all elected.

Sure, e.g. Juncker was probably elected by someone, somewhere else, but would he favour or have benefited from an EU-wide public democratic election for the important role of commission president?

If it was put to the EU public of 1/2bn to directly vote on, would he still have won (bear in mind many folks didn't have any liking for Juncker), Cameron even ran a type of 'stop Juncker campaign'.

prawnsambo

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

Sure, e.g. Juncker was probably elected by someone, somewhere else, but would he favour or have benefited from an EU-wide public democratic election for the important role of commission president?

If it was put to the EU public of 1/2bn to directly vote on, would he still have won (bear in mind many folks didn't have any liking for Juncker), Cameron even ran a type of 'stop Juncker campaign'.

The head of the civil service isn't elected either. What part of this is causing you problems?

Anthracite

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

Sure, e.g. Juncker was probably elected by someone, somewhere else, but would he favour or have benefited from an EU-wide public democratic election for the important role of commission president?

Can you tell me who you voted for to carry out the equivalent to his role in Ireland?

4068ac1elhodqr

prawnsambo wrote: »

The head of the civil service isn't elected either. What part of this is causing you problems?

No problem with it, just an observation.

Wonder should the public have more direct participation in selecting the chap who's probably at the very top of the food chain in Europe.

Isn't the Irish Presidency decided by public election, would you have a problem with this, or prefer it wasn't that way?

4068ac1elhodqr

Anthracite wrote: »

Can you tell me who you voted for to carry out the equivalent to his role in Ireland?

Don't be nosey.

Anthracite

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

Don't be nosey.

The answer is 'nobody'.

I wish people would inform themselves before wading into debates like this. This kind of ignorance is exactly what led to Brexit.

prawnsambo

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

No problem with it, just an observation.

Wonder should the public have more direct participation in selecting the chap who's probably at the very top of the food chain in Europe.

Isn't the Irish Presidency decided by public election, would you have a problem with this, or prefer it wasn't that way?

The Irish President is a constitutional office, the head of the civil service is not. The people who decide on the direction of the EU are the council of ministers. I'm sure you know this. What are you trying to prove/obfuscate?

Rhineshark

Topic long since moved on to the civil service red herring but I've been seeing this argument cropping up and it annoys me for its shallowness, so jumping a moment to the money.

I really don't get the "we pay into the EU, it's taking our money!!" argument.

Personally, I'm happy that Ireland has gone from being a "sick man of Europe" to the point that we no longer need the help (although we might need some after brexit). I think it should be more a point of pride than resentment that we can now pay our way rather than needing the help of our neighbouring countries. (Dunno about anyone else but I had to take welfare for a year and I found the whole thing crushing. My mood rose considerably once I was able to support myself again.)

And I am absolutely fine with some of that money being invested in less well-off member states. Because I do not agree with the drastic wealth inequality in the world and this method of investing in poorer regions helps to deal with that. The whole point of it is that we can trade better and more smoothly when we're all on a more of less equal playing field rather than a few countries asset-stripping the rest. I don't really get this short-sighted attitude of "If I'm not benefiting MOST then it's all **** and I'm quitting!" I'm actually pretty good with paying it forward.

Also, FoM would be less of an issue. While the immigration problem is mostly countries that didn't bother using the restrictions they had available and then complained, there *is* a serious emigration problem in the east. Much like Ireland had. Improve prospects in those countries, as our prospects were improved here, and those countries will start seeing their emigres return. Like here.

Also, do people really think the CU/SM just works magically and for free? Individual countries need to hire far less customs officials and border patrols, but the peripheral countries still need them. Is the argument "lol, your problem, I don't see why we should have to pay for this extremely valuable trading system to work, how 'bout you pay and we benefit?"

How about phytosanitary testing? Rules of origin? Research into health effects? No? We shouldn't pay anything towards that either? No-one should? It should just all appear out of the ether? Maybe the labs will donate their time, materials and efforts because no-one wants to pay.

And then there's investment into satellite and GPS, education, medicines. That doesn't come free either. Scientists have to eat too.

Everything comes at a cost. The costs are way down due to economy of scale and elimination of needless replication of customs etc but it's still not free. Ireland is actually a pretty wealthy country now and can pay a contribution.


E2.7b for direct, mostly tariff-free and almost unfettered access to one of the largest markets in the world plus through the deals we negotiated as a group most of the rest of the world ain't a bad deal. Especially when we therefore need to spend far less on the services we would need to allow for trade outside the SM. Which would be far more restricted because RoI has little economic clout alone. This is why we were still dependant on the UK after independence.


In short, the bitching I'm starting to see about having to pay money for the amount we get in return is like crying that the brand new car you're getting for a tenth of the asking price isn't free. It was pretty ridiculous when opt-outs-and-rebate UK was doing it. It's just shameful if Ireland starts acting the maggot that way, having been paying in for two (?) years. Cry me a river, honestly...

4068ac1elhodqr

Anthracite wrote: »

The answer is 'nobody'.

I wish people would inform themselves before wading into debates like this. This kind of ignorance is exactly what led to Brexit.

i). Incorrect.
ii). For better or worse 52% of the UK electorate made a choice, suppose you could call 17.4m folks ignorant, or would it be more ignorant, to name call a democratic majority, ah who knows for sure.

Anthracite

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

i). Incorrect.

So we vote for the head of the civil service now? I must have missed that. :rolleyes:

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

ii). For better or worse 52% of the UK electorate made a choice, suppose you could call 17.4m folks ignorant, or would it be more ignorant, to name call a democratic majority, ah who knows for sure.

Is that the formula? Let me have a go, let's see how the logic stacks up:

For better or worse 44% of the German electorate made a choice to vote for the Nazis, suppose you could call 17m folks ignorant, or would it be more ignorant, to name call a democratic majority*, ah who knows for sure.

*a majority of seats in parliament

4068ac1elhodqr

Anthracite wrote: »

So we vote for the head of the civil service now? I must have missed that. :rolleyes:

Meant voting in general when the opportunity arises. (Obviously can't vote when this isn't the facility to do so, so a silly question regarding civil service).

Anthracite wrote: »

Is that the formula? Let me have a go, let's see how the logic stacks up:

For better or worse 44% of the German electorate made a choice to vote for the Nazis, suppose you could call 17m folks ignorant, or would it be more ignorant, to name call a democratic majority*, ah who knows for sure.

*a majority of seats in parliament

Ah so you've just compared 44% to 52%, and then compared the Brexiters to the Nazi party, fair enough, whatever floats your boat :eek:.

Arthur Daley

Jez the Stockholm syndrome is alive and well here anyway.

Ireland is in debt to the tune of €200bn as confirmed today by the MoF. Third most indebted country in the developed world. I hope this party open a euro sceptic debate on that debt and the EU/ECBs role in it. And how this is supposed to be paid off.

You won't get it in the current back slapping echo chamber that exists to date.

prawnsambo

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

i). Incorrect.
ii). For better or worse 52% of the UK electorate made a choice, suppose you could call 17.4m folks ignorant, or would it be more ignorant, to name call a democratic majority, ah who knows for sure.

He is correct. Juncker is the head of the EU civil service, he's not a head of state, despite efforts by the disingenuous in the brexiter ranks to cast him in that role.

And ignorance was clearly at play in that vote. Lie after lie was spouted, just like the one you're trying to push here. And you can still see them being parrotted to this day on social media. And we haven't even got to the nonsense coming out of the likes of Davis, Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Raab and Gove.

prawnsambo

Arthur Daley wrote: »

Jez the Stockholm syndrome is alive and well here anyway.

Ireland is in debt to the tune of €200bn as confirmed today by the MoF. Third most indebted country in the developed world. I hope this party open a euro sceptic debate on that debt and the EU/ECBs role in it. And how this is supposed to be paid off.

You won't get it in the current back slapping echo chamber that exists to date.

Yes, because the EU/ECB gave idiots a lot of money on easy credit terms and forced them to buy property with it. More brexiter nonsense.

Rhineshark

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

No problem with it, just an observation.

Wonder should the public have more direct participation in selecting the chap who's probably at the very top of the food chain in Europe.

Isn't the Irish Presidency decided by public election, would you have a problem with this, or prefer it wasn't that way?

The Irish president is a figurehead, Ireland is a parliamentary republic, not a presidential or semi-presidential system so how he's elected isn't really relevent to the price of fruit. All the EU countries are either one of the three above or a constitutional monarchy (in practice a parliamentary system).

So the system used within the EU should be reasonably familiar.

You vote directly for members of the European Parliament (well, you can, it would be nosey to ask if you yourself bothered so I won't :P).

Depending on your own sovereign state's methods you may have voted for one of the 28 members of the Council. In Ireland, that is the leader of the ruling party, as it is in the UK, as both work out as parliamentary. Cyprus, France, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal and Romania directly elect their HoS, so technically they directly elect representatives to both Parliament and Council.

The semi-directly elected European Council (heads of state) nominates the Commission president which is voted on by the directly elected Parliament. The nominated president and the Council nominate the other 27 members, one per state, who are then voted on by the Parliament.

Basically, checks and balances. Works pretty well tbh. And no, I would not prefer everyone to be directly elected. As a person living in a very small country, I appreciate that we smaller populations are not just automatically drowned out by the population ten times the size. And that's just the one next door.

Arthur Daley

prawnsambo wrote: »

Yes, because the EU/ECB gave idiots a lot of money on easy credit terms and forced them to buy property with it. More brexiter nonsense.

Well were did it come from then? I thought we didn't have a brass farthing without Europe, so it wasn't self generated. the easy credit came from somewhere.

ancapailldorcha

No more one-liners or sniping please.

Rhineshark

So far you've not really given enough to actually debate, so yeah, it's not really stacking. You've said we have massive debt, true enough. Then you made some vague insinuations for people to fill in the blanks and then argued that it doesn't work. It's actually kinda difficult to engage with that approach.

Can you...lay out a position? Actual facts to work with here? You've laid out one fact and then kinda wandered off.