Irexit party yay or nay?

badtoro

Hurrache wrote: »

I wonder is it because we're a pretty small country and everyone within political circles and the periphery are well known.

Any outside organisation trying to get involved in the recent referendum were hunted down pretty well with groups getting together to do so so I'd expect experience from then will be used and improved in the future.

We've also got a good referendum commission so less likely to push out bill**** and get away with it.

We are and we have, but there are more ways to skin a cat. We've also a fairly sterling history in political corruption, as well as opaque and influenced decision making. I remember one lobby group shouting about their exports when the EU sanctioned Russia after Crimea. So influence can be circuitous and nuanced and may not go direct to a politicians pocket. I find myself returning to one politician in particular, I can't explain why. That's without going near intentional social disruption.

I don't think we are prepared to repel outside influence tbh.

fly_agaric

I find it hard to understand the taxation of mncs as a wedge issue to try & stoke anti-EU feelings here. It must work to some extent as its pretty much always brought up by eurosceptics. Is that our only attraction for inward investment now? A low tax country that enables creative accounting and will go to bat in the EU/ECJ like a good little lap-dog for the mncs? Do the public really feel outraged about possibility of Apple having to pay back tax + angry with the EU over it?

We might be benefiting, but overall the actions of these predatory mncs are weakening the economies and societies of the countries we want to trade with, our allies in the EU.
If the EU can put some manners on them through harmonising taxation rules and enforcing regulation on them we are ultimately better off in the long run. These companies have too much money & power & the EU is one of the few bodies big enough to call them to account.

demfad

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

Yet the UK Marches on with the brexit, how come?

What what happen on their streets if they voided the election result as you recommend, probably wouldn't like to imagine.

Sure, no election is perfect as one or more sides will peddle their own point of view and be creative with their marketing. That's life, that's the system that exists, and maybe that's the best alternative outside of a dictatorship. Has there ever been a 'perfect election' with zero distortion?

Once saw a chap remove someone's election poster only to replace it with one of his own, and the election still went ahead, shocker!

Part of the strategy to keep Brexit seems to be the threatening of Civil disturbances should it be threatened. I have seen no evidence of this in any protest to date for instance Farage's enemy of the people march on the Supreme Court. Cancelled due to zero interest.
If a local election referendum, Mayoral election or General election have been found by the EC to be corrupt the election is re-run (in the given constituency in the case of Brexit). It is up to the parliament to quash it in the case of this referendum.
There have been plenty of elections where electoral crimes have not taken place. When crimes have been committed they need to be addressed. The fact that two Government Ministers Boris Johnson and Michael Gove lead the Vote Leave campaign is a strong hint as to why the Government wont pursue it.
Their policy has been to personally attack the whistleblowers including outing one of them publicly as gay. I have no idea what Corbyn as opposition leader is doing.

4068ac1elhodqr

demfad wrote: »

Part of the strategy to keep Brexit seems to be the threatening of Civil disturbances should it be threatened. I have seen no evidence of this in any protest to date ....

Or you could also say:

Part of the strategy to 'reverse' Brexit, seems to be suggesting there would be zero consequences, least alone any civil disturbances should it be threatened 'cancelled '.

Perhaps there is no evidence of damage potential, because no occurance of 'outright dismissal' of such a large vote (maybe the 2nd largest ever turnout in the uk for any election) has occured in modern times, in modern western society.

As asked already, can you show evidence of a 'perfect election' in democratic society, one with zero interference, dressing up of facts or creative marketing?

Whether it's a 'wrong or right' choice, stopping it in it's tracks could be more damaging, and a re-run might even anger non-voters to actually go out and make a protest vote and move the 52% margin even further up, then what?

Imagine re-running the Scottish ref (55% no) after just 2yrs beacuse one side exagerated what might happen in 5yrs time (hard to prove anyway), or slightly over spent their marketing budget...

listermint

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

Or you could also say:

Part of the strategy to 'reverse' Brexit, seems to be suggesting there would be zero consequences, least alone any civil disturbances should it be threatened 'cancelled '.

Perhaps there is no evidence of damage potential, because no occurance of 'outright dismissal' of such a large vote (maybe the 2nd largest ever turnout in the uk for any election) has occured in modern times, in modern western society.

As asked already, can you show evidence of a 'perfect election' in democratic society, one with zero interference, dressing up of facts or creative marketing?

Whether it's a 'wrong or right' choice, stopping it in it's tracks could be more damaging, and a re-run might even anger non-voters to actually go out and make a protest vote and move the 52% margin even further up, then what?

Imagine re-running the Scottish ref (55% no) after just 2yrs beacuse one side exagerated what might happen in 5yrs time (hard to prove anyway), or slightly over spent their marketing budget...

Why worry as soon as brexit happens scot indy will be a knock on effect.

Surely you as a betting man can see that in the futures....

4068ac1elhodqr

listermint wrote: »

Why worry as soon as brexit happens scot indy will be a knock on effect.

Surely you as a betting man can see that in the futures....

That wasn't the question. But yes, agree with you that Scot will become an 'Indie Alba' type state not long after the Brexitious has taken place.

The odds for the result of the next ScotIndRef: Leave: 2.0 (evens).

Really would prefer better value, such as what is offered elsewhere for this weeks Swe election i.e. <2.5 +/- .25 for the SD to gain the most seats.

As a side-note the average mean price for the Brexit was 3.6, fancy.

oscarBravo

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

Or you could also say:

Part of the strategy to 'reverse' Brexit, seems to be suggesting there would be zero consequences, least alone any civil disturbances should it be threatened 'cancelled '.

Do you have any examples of anyone, anywhere, ever, suggesting that there would be zero consequences of cancelling Brexit?

4068ac1elhodqr

demfad wrote: »

Part of the strategy to keep Brexit seems to be the threatening of Civil disturbances should it be threatened. I have seen no evidence of this in any protest to date for instance Farage's enemy of the people march on the Supreme Court. Cancelled due to zero interest.
If a local election referendum, Mayoral election or General election have been found by the EC to be corrupt the election is re-run (in the given constituency in the case of Brexit). It is up to the parliament to quash it in the case of this referendum.
There have been plenty of elections where electoral crimes have not taken place. When crimes have been committed they need to be addressed. The fact that two Government Ministers Boris Johnson and Michael Gove lead the Vote Leave campaign is a strong hint as to why the Government wont pursue it.
Their policy has been to personally attack the whistleblowers including outing one of them publicly as gay. I have no idea what Corbyn as opposition leader is doing.

Can agree with some of that, but to be clear the CorpTax issue isn't an anti-eu (as some would like to think) proposition. It's simply to raise an issue, 'a weakness'.

Any junior Analyst of any type, in any industry will always examine the W&T part of SWOT (weakness and threat) part of any situation along with opportunities and strengths.

If you have a team of 27 and one member is considered by others as a bit of 'one-ticky pony' with economic reliance on a single USP offering, what would happen if that unique offering was lost?

I.e.
Is there any preperation taking place, if the 'advantage' was lost (bearing in mind other existing disadvantages)?

Was the IFAC right to call TH (or a similar event, by any other means) a bigger risk to Ireland than the mighty Brexit?

4068ac1elhodqr

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do you have any examples of anyone, anywhere, ever, suggesting that there would be zero consequences of cancelling Brexit?

Excatly to say either 'nothing would happen' or that 'it would' is improper and simply speculation. There is 'significant risk' however if it was.

listermint

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

Can agree with some of that, but to be clear the CorpTax issue isn't an anti-eu (as some would like to think) proposition. It's simply to raise an issue, 'a weakness'.

Any junior Analyst of any type, in any industry will always examine the W&T part of SWOT (weakness and threat) part of any situation along with opportunities and strengths.

If you have a team of 27 and one member is considered by others as a bit of 'one-ticky pony' with economic reliance on a single USP offering, what would happen if that unique offering was lost?

I.e.
Is there any preperation taking place, if the 'advantage' was lost (bearing in mind other existing disadvantages)?

Was the IFAC right to call TH (or a similar event, by any other means) a bigger risk to Ireland than the mighty Brexit?

Why do you keep saying 1 member out of 27 as 'tricy'

As has been pointed out to you several times, We are NOT the only member with a low tax rate or even the lowest.

Why keep telling people on the internet that read your posts that ireland is the black sheep of Europe in relation to tax, when we are in a group of nations with low tax.

Its not fair to use that line anymore, You should know that now. Please stop

4068ac1elhodqr

listermint wrote: »

As has been pointed out to you several times, We are NOT the only member with a low tax rate or even the lowest.

Yes a 'few' others (who would face similar consequences) all far below the average.

But it's equally unfair to imply it isn't a primary factor in attracting multi-national inward investment.

listermint

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

Yes a 'few' others (who would face similar consequences) all far below the average.

But it's equally unfair to imply it isn't a primary factor in attracting multi-national inward investment.

hang on a sec here, You keep saying its 27 versus 1.

Stop trying to wriggle your way out of the angle you had been using.

Its not factual nor fair. So at least use accurate information if you are going to pursue some form of them and us argument. Which is what you have been doing.

Moving the goalposts at the first point of being called out. Classic!

4068ac1elhodqr

listermint wrote: »

hang on a sec here, You keep saying its 27 versus 1.

Stop trying to wriggle your way out of the angle you had been using.

Its not factual nor fair. So at least use accurate information if you are going to pursue some form of them and us argument. Which is what you have been doing.

Moving the goalposts at the first point of being called out. Classic!

No angle, aside from Hungary it's Ireland that is the primary focus and perhaps the 'primary beneficiary' currently of the low-tax policy. Sure you can bring up Malta (a tiny island) or other tiny poor states such as Montengro with similar rates, but do they come up in conversation as much, in places such as Davos? Do they have $tr companies?

And what would happen to these smaller states if everyone was on the same rate, probably small crushed economies.

Again it might only take a few of the large players (Ger/Ita/Spa) to drop theirs to cause damage. Why is the UK is quickly heading for 17%, just for the laugh, or to attain an advantage (as Japan recently complained about).

But yes, continue to change the subject, and drill down exact figures as a clear distraction.

listermint

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

No angle, aside from Hungary it's Ireland that is the primary focus and perhaps the 'primary beneficiary' currently of the low-tax policy. Sure you can bring up Malta (a tiny island) or other tiny poor states such as Montengro with similar rates, but do they come up in conversation as much, in places such as Davos? Do they have $tr companies?

And what would happen to these smaller states if everyone was on the same rate, probably small crushed economies.

Again it might only take a few of the large players (Ger/Ita/Spa) to drop theirs to cause damage. Why is the UK is quickly heading for 17%, just for the laugh, or to attain an advantage (as Japan recently complained about).

But yes, continue to change the subject, and drill down exact figures as a clear distraction.

So from 27 versus 1, we are now at 27 versus a few. Then few more.

Okay just wanted to flesh out and expose your point for what it was. Not true.

oscarBravo

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

And what would happen to these smaller states if everyone was on the same rate...

That's not what tax harmonisation means. You know that, because it's been repeatedly explained to you.

Repeat after me: that's not what tax harmonisation means.

Is it getting through yet?

That's not what tax harmonisation means.

Cabaal

Without a doubt stay in EU,
No question about it, yes the EU isn't perfect but Ireland would be an awful backward country without its influence and even now we still continue to benefit from it in terms of funding, regulations etc.

For feck sake we can't even clean up our rivers without the EU forcing us to do it by fining us for non compliance of regulations we previously agreed to follow, imagine if we were left to our own devices?

Bit cynical

Cabaal wrote: »

For feck sake we can't even clean up our rivers without the EU forcing us to do it by fining us for non compliance of regulations we previously agreed to follow, imagine if we were left to our own devices?

Do we want to clean up our rivers? If not, why do we want someone to order us? If we do want to clean up our rivers, why do we need someone to order us?

Seth Brundle

Bit cynical wrote: »

Do we want to clean up our rivers? If not, why do we want someone to order us? If we do want to clean up our rivers, why do we need someone to order us?

Is that really supposed to be a question on whether we need Europe?

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

Do we want to clean up our rivers? If not, why do we want someone to order us? If we do want to clean up our rivers, why do we need someone to order us?

The human condition?

An Ciarraioch

Hermann Kelly seems to be under the mistaken impression that simply transferring the UKIP strategy to Ireland will suffice here - for one thing, British Euroscepticism already had a strong base with roughly half the Conservative party membership and a significant fraction of Labour supporters, and for another, there isn't anywhere near the same degree of anti-immigrant sentiment in this country, as the flat response to his claims on the housing crisis showed.

Rhineshark

Bit cynical wrote: »

Do we want to clean up our rivers? If not, why do we want someone to order us? If we do want to clean up our rivers, why do we need someone to order us?

I'm pretty okay with the EU as a collective giving Ireland's government a swift kick in the pants when it comes to looking after common resources that they put on the long finger.


I don't know why Ireland needs a boot applied when it comes to small things like having potable water but apparently it does, as the people of Roscommon might agree. And regions from the northwest down through the Midlands and west.

It would be ideal if we didn't need to be told. But our successive governments have always been inclined to be rather laissez faire - or at least laissez Catholic Church - when it comes to general social provision. Neccessary but unsexy stuff, akin to infrastructure in the US.

I would prefer a more socialised way of doing things, we are definitely to the right of much of western Europe when it comes to that. It's all a bit ad hoc and some things get kicked down the road until it's suddenly a major problem - our water system needed upgrading all the way through the boom but we left it slide. I was *fine* with Ireland getting told by the EU to clean up its water a few years ago and reduce trihalomethane formation, a side effect of our use of chlorination and our naturally organic-rich groundwaters.

So if it takes 27 other countries telling us to get our finger out and do these things, it's better that and Ireland take neccessary steps before it has to be told off by the rest in future. They are not unreasonable things.

Rhineshark

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Hermann Kelly seems to be under the mistaken impression that simply transferring the UKIP strategy to Ireland will suffice here - for one thing, British Euroscepticism already had a strong base with roughly half the Conservative party membership and a significant fraction of Labour supporters, and for another, there isn't anywhere near the same degree of anti-immigrant sentiment in this country, as the flat response to his claims on the housing crisis showed.

Sorry for two posts in succession but I've been thinking a lot about that the past few days.

This lot feel gratingly artifical. This is not a home grown nationalist movement, it is the nationalist movement next door attempting to solve the problem to my view. Kelly's Director of Communications for the far-right political grouping in the EU Parliament which is mostly UKIP (and 5 Star, then odds and ends of AfD, Swedish Democrats et al), and thus headed by Nigel Farage, to whom he's reportedly close. Also that whole weird Russia angle of the article that was linked some pages back. (See also - increase in Russian clandestine activity and the expansion of the embassy since 2014).

The arguments are those we saw in Britain and are mostly even less relevent here than they were there. Go onto social media and an easy majority of pro-Irexit commenters turn out to be UK Brexiters, with a high proportion of UKIPpers. Other than that, yer man's page is just stock alt-right effort. Farage was tone-deaf when he came over, Kelly's got a couple more arguments set at least in the right country but its all just basic Brexit under it - and a lot of Pepewhistles on his own Twitter page.

I do about 95% expect a crash and burn faster than that of Renua. And I'm not sure it won't turn out to be a one-man party. But there a plan of sorts showing one way or another. The stated aim of FI is to run MEP candidates and then MPs. On the assumption that Irish voters have low turnout for EU elections (and we do) and don't really pay attention to who we send (pretty sure the majority don't), combined with a core of eejit right wing breitbart nationalists (if we have them), it is conceivably their candidates could end up representing Ireland in Europe.

Ireland certainly wouldn't benefit from being represented by Irish UKIP, even by after the alleged Brexit date. Farage's ilk would benefit though, the Brexit ideologues.

By any given metric at the moment, I think that this is going nowhere. But there's been a lot of damage done in apparently stable democracies, closely allied countries that have collapsed into political chaos. While I don't think we have the societal structure to entertain this particular brand of bull****, we do share some weaknesses with the US and UK - media, language bubble and closely interlinked social media. And some exploitable national issues if these arrogant meddlers could remove their heads from their backsides long enough to look.

Even if they're hopeless, the very effort merits keeping an eye on, given Kelly's connections to the various horsemen of the stupid apocalypse. But we should pay attention to the EU elections. Sending Dustin the Turkey to Eurovision is one thing. Sending Nigel Farage's pals to represent Irish interests in the EU is quite another.

Imreoir2

Rhineshark wrote: »

Sorry for two posts in succession but I've been thinking a lot about that the past few days.

This lot feel gratingly artifical. This is not a home grown nationalist movement, it is the nationalist movement next door attempting to solve the problem to my view. Kelly's Director of Communications for the far-right political grouping in the EU Parliament which is mostly UKIP (and 5 Star, then odds and ends of AfD, Swedish Democrats et al), and thus headed by Nigel Farage, to whom he's reportedly close. Also that whole weird Russia angle of the article that was linked some pages back. (See also - increase in Russian clandestine activity and the expansion of the embassy since 2014).

The arguments are those we saw in Britain and are mostly even less relevent here than they were there. Go onto social media and an easy majority of pro-Irexit commenters turn out to be UK Brexiters, with a high proportion of UKIPpers. Other than that, yer man's page is just stock alt-right effort. Farage was tone-deaf when he came over, Kelly's got a couple more arguments set at least in the right country but its all just basic Brexit under it - and a lot of Pepe on his own Twitter page.

I do about 95% expect a crash and burn faster than that of Renua. And I'm not sure it won't turn out to be a one-man party. But there a plan of sorts showing one way or another. The stated aim of FI is to run MEP candidates and then MPs. On the assumption that Irish voters have low turnout for EU elections (and we do) and don't really pay attention to who we send (pretty sure the majority don't), combined with a core of eejit right wing breitbart nationalists (if we have them), could end up representing Ireland in Europe.

Ireland certainly wouldn't benefit from being represented by Irish UKIP, even by after the alleged Brexit date. Farage's ilk would benefit though, the Brexit ideologues.

By any given metric at the moment, I think that this is going nowhere. But there's been a lot of damage done in apparently stable democracies, closely allied countries that have collapsed into political chaos. While I don't think we have the societal structure to entertain this particular brand of bull****, we do share some weaknesses with the US and UK - media, language bubble and closely interlinked social media. And some exploitable national issues if these arrogant meddlers could remove their heads from their backsides long enough to look.

Even if they're hopeless, the very effort merits keeping an eye on, given Kelly's connections to the various horsemen of the stupid apocalypse. But we should pay attention to the EU elections. Sending Dustin the Turkey to Eurovision is one thing. Sending Nigel Farage's pals to represent Irish interests in the EU is quite another.

I cant see this crowd going any further than the home grown europhobes who have tried before. If their strategy is to stand in the European elections then one wonders why they think they will do any better than Peter O'Loughlin of Identity Ireland (remember them?) did in the last European elections, he managed to get one whole percent on the Irexit platform at the time, and the country is more pro-EU now.

Its true to say that Irish people tend not to care very much about the European elections, but this is exactly why the Irexiteers will find it impossible to gain traction, people just don't care.

prawnsambo

Rhineshark wrote: »

I do about 95% expect a crash and burn faster than that of Renua. And I'm not sure it won't turn out to be a one-man party. But there a plan of sorts showing one way or another. The stated aim of FI is to run MEP candidates and then MPs. On the assumption that Irish voters have low turnout for EU elections (and we do) and don't really pay attention to who we send (pretty sure the majority don't), combined with a core of eejit right wing breitbart nationalists (if we have them), it is conceivably their candidates could end up representing Ireland in Europe.

I'd have thought it would be very unlikely given that we don't have a FPP system and the EU elections are very heavily contested by the big parties.

ancapailldorcha

One thing I really wanted to avoid saying because it would just be so facile, easy and obvious was that some people just hate the EU to the point where they'll prioritise that hatred over their own welfare and freedom. I thought that this was just an easy answer to a complex question and problem facing many European countries and the EU itself. However, given the lack of anything positive about Brexit, the fact that some people in Ireland think Ireland should leave makes this the only logical explanation.

I mean, look at the stuff demfad was posting over the last few years. I'll be honest and admit that I was dismissive and just waved my hand at times at what I thought was just a mere conspiracy theory. But as time goes on, we see that the Europhobic right is little more than a den of venality, sleaze, hatred and bigotry. It's like fire. It has no interest in helping or nourishing, only in destruction. They want to see the EU burn. Maybe they hate the idea of a united public, of countries working together, of their friends in the tabloid press losing money as the Eurocrats have no interest in being lobbied by them. Or maybe it's just that a tiny amount of very wealthy people stand to make bank at the expense of or even the death of the EU.

If someone has a better explanation, please do enlighten me. I have Irish friends who despise the EU and yet they can give me no alternative vision for a post-Irexit Ireland.

Rhineshark

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I cant see this crowd going any further than the home grown europhobes who have tried before. If their strategy is to stand in the European elections then one wonders why they think they will do any better than Peter O'Loughlin of Identity Ireland (remember them?) did in the last European elections, he managed to get one whole percent on the Irexit platform at the time, and the country is more pro-EU now.

Yeah overall I agree. There is a prospect for muckstirring and he's connected to some good muckstirrers though. So I figure it's worth saying it if only to call attention to the EU elections. I think we're probably pretty innoculated against this particular brand of bull**** but we're not immune from more targeted bull****.

Also, if my theory is correct and it does fit what's there so far it's a bloody cheek.

Rhineshark

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'd have thought it would be very unlikely given that we don't have a FPP system and the EU elections are very heavily contested by the big parties.

Actually that is a very good point that I hadn't considered. True enough, that is much less likely to get the sort of UKIP cluster that happened in the UK.

4068ac1elhodqr

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If someone has a better explanation, please do enlighten me. I have Irish friends who despise the EU and yet they can give me no alternative vision for a post-Irexit Ireland.

It's highly unlikely that is the case, or that they want to see it 'burn' (perhaps a conspiracy within itself!). All it amounts to is generally is a type of protest vote across the EU (as well as UK/US).

If peoples have concerns, and they aren't addressed or even listened to, they will naturally shout louder, even to their own demise to make a point. e.g. Swe Demo's aren't about to have their worst election result in about 100yrs just because of the price of butter.

This can be applied to anything e.g. if you sell superb coffee, you'll get little feedback from the public. Now paint the walls with a crazy pattern, play Rick Astley's hits over the cafe PA and people will let you know, or even go without their morning fix.

Ireland has no chance of leaving anytime soon (although some traders have them in 6-8th place) {7%} for leaving next, as of today.

But run forward 5yrs+, add in Turkey's membership or the Barca type agreements into the mix, not to mention post-brexit, and various other trends and who knows you may or may not see a higer percent of 20%.

listermint

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

It's highly unlikely that is the case, or that they want to see it 'burn' (perhaps a conspiracy within itself!). All it amounts to is generally is a type of protest vote across the EU (as well as UK/US).

If peoples have concerns, and they aren't addressed or even listened to, they will naturally shout louder, even to their own demise to make a point. e.g. Swe Demo's aren't about to have their worst election result in about 100yrs just because of the price of butter.

This can be applied to anything e.g. if you sell superb coffee, you'll get little feedback from the public. Now paint the walls with a crazy pattern, play Rick Astley's hits over the cafe PA and people will let you know, or even go without their morning fix.

Ireland has no chance of leaving anytime soon (although some traders have them in 6-8th place) {7%} for leaving next, as of today.

But run forward 5yrs+, add in Turkey's membership or the Barca type agreements into the mix, not to mention post-brexit, and various other trends and who knows you may or may not see a higer percent of 20%.

It's not unlikely.

I have friends of mine who literally want to see Brussels deconstructed. Their words.

They will even rant and rave about it on Facebook telling anyone who will listen how Russia is right and Russia is being oppressed by the EU .

That is irrational hatred.

The same people I keep telling them , look lads go live in Russia then come back to me. I do that to their face in the pub though. They rarely have anything to respond but on Facebook they just dump random links. I've stopped replying in virtual world.

Madness

oscarBravo

Vera Unsightly Bellows wrote: »

But run forward 5yrs+, add in Turkey's membership...

Yeah, the "Turkish membership of the EU is imminent" bare-faced lie was used to good effect in the Brexit campaign, why not wheel it out here as well?