Ireland to contribute €16 billion more than it receives to EU in next 7 years

Graham

10000maniacs wrote: »

Also goods shipped back to the USA from multinational companies based here will increase GDP but won't increase Ireland's wealth.

That is one of the downsides to being a tax haven being so successful at attracting foreign direct investment.

I'm not sure we can blame the EU for that, in fact I get the distinct impression the larger global community would really rather we stopped.

Let's just hope the EU don't start and consider the Billions in profit we've facilitated the transfer of out of the EU largely untaxed.

mick087

lawred2 wrote: »

None of that means anything other than possibly being adequately emotive to make it on to page 3 of a Brexit pamphlet...

Why do you think None of that means anything other than possibly being adequately emotive to make it on to page 3 of a Brexit pamphlet?

Graham

In what ways do you think the EU is undemocratic?

How do you suggest it becomes more equal and democratic?

mick087

Graham wrote: »

In what ways do you think the EU is undemocratic?
How do you suggest it becomes more equal and democratic?

Ursula von der Leyen
European Council could should longer take it upon itself to pick the president of the EU Commission.
EU citizens should vote

10000maniacs

Graham wrote: »

That is one of the downsides to being a tax haven being so successful at attracting foreign direct investment.

I'm not sure we can blame the EU for that, in fact I get the distinct impression the larger global community would really rather we stopped.

Let's just hope the EU don't start and consider the Billions in profit we've facilitated the transfer of out of the EU largely untaxed.

We can blame the EU and be critical of our politicians for capitulating to the EU for the very simple reason that the €16 billion is based on GDP and not real wealth.
We should pay something, but why are we the 5th largest net contributor with only 1% of the EU population?
Why aren't the Irish press and media all over this scandal?
FF and FG want us to be seen as the good boys in the class.
Problem is we can't afford to be. We will be bitten in the bum very quickly with this annual €2.2 billion payout.

KyussB

Graham wrote: »

In what ways do you think the EU is undemocratic?

How do you suggest it becomes more equal and democratic?

The EU isn't going to become democratic until it has a central federal government, with powers and scale of GDP commanded, comparable to that of a national government, except over the whole of the EU.

Everything short of that is going to be a hodge-podge of democratic deficits, caused by delegating powers to an EU level, without an effective accountable government for wielding those powers - and where reforms over how those powers are exercised, is not decided by a central government, but instead can be vetoed by any of the 27 parliaments.

27 hands on the steering wheel instead of 1. None of them able to form a consensus on how to un-fuck the Euro (all of them have given up even discussing it). Therefore the imbalances caused by the Euro are going to continue gradually spinning the EU apart economically - until more countries break from the EU.

There are a number of different ways to fix that, and more still that can be done to kick the can down the road - but unfortunately, the EU always seems to wait until economies are on the brink of collapse before taking the most minimal of measures needed - leaving millions of people perpetually fucked economically, and causing malaise in our economies that e.g. leaves people unable to afford homes, and without future prospects.

Dytalus

mick087 wrote: »

Ursula von der Leyen
European Council could should longer take it upon itself to pick the president of the EU Commission.
EU citizens should vote [/B]

Are you against the federalisation of the EU? Or are you in favour of it?

Because that's what voting for Commission President would do - further drive the federalisation of the EU by removing the member state governments control of the executive body.

As it stands the executive branch of the EU (analogous to our Cabinet) is (almost) entirely appointed by the Member State governments with the (democratically elected) MEPs in Parliament being able to veto appointments. This mimics the formation of a lot of executive branches in plenty of democratic countries (including here). The only distinction is that instead of the Taoiseach selecting every Commissioner the member state governments each select 2 (and the Member States heads of state/government select the President).

It is purposely structured this way to ensure the EU is primarily controlled (and therefore secondary to, and answers to the wishes of,) the Member States themselves. The more control you take away from our own national governments and hand to the citizens (by voting for Commissions/Commission Presidents) the more direct you make our link with the EU administration - making the EU a body which answers to the citizens and not the member governments. You're cutting Dáil Eireann (or the French/German/Belgian/Polish) governments out from all except the Council itself.

I'm actually very much in favour of further drives towards federalisation - I think it necessary to ensure the prosperity and survival of the EU nations going into the future. Is that something you would agree with?

sameoldname

KyussB wrote: »

I understand hyperinflation better than anyone on the forum, and have been blue in my face for years explaining how the triggers of hyperinflation are economic collapse, foreign-denominated debt, economic sanctions etc. etc. - that these things are almost always needed to get the ball rolling for hyperinflation, before money creation comes into the mix - that money creation on its own isn't typically a trigger, unless a government deliberately decides to default that way.

Until a sane country actually attempts to implement sustained government spending by direct money creation you have the luxury of claiming what you do. Your expertise in hyper-inflation not withstanding, the majority of economists do not agree with you.

KyussB wrote: »

Don't know if you've been paying any attention for the last decade, but trillions are routinely printed and shoved into the hands of finance and corporations - i.e. predominantly wealthier sectors - these days, by central banks. People only scaremonger about hyperinflation when created money would go to government or everyday people, rather than just to the wealthy.

I'm not going to bother to explain the difference between quantitative easing and directly printing money into a governments coffers but I'll give you a clue: one has to be repaid or an asset secured, the other seemingly not.

KyussB wrote: »

To suggest that ~1% worth of GNI worth of money creation for the EU budget - in a deflationary environment - will lead to hyperinflation, just displays ignorance and a likely following of discredited Austrian economics.

To suggest that sustained monetary expansion uncoupled from the requirements of the real economy would not lead to hyper-inflation in the medium to long term is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, of which you have none.

Once any country starts down the road of financing itself by printing money in a sustained fashion like you're suggesting I don't see what is to prevent all government spending coming from monetary expansion? Why tax when you can print?

Anyway, we're miles off topic here.

micosoft

View wrote: »

Germany could have achieved “keeping Germany’s exports cheaper” by unilaterally, as a sovereign nation, pursuing policies to keep their DM exchange rate lower, and their exports higher as a result, without ever having adopted the Euro. As such your analysis fails.

Which China, the largest exporter in the world, has easily managed to do.

micosoft

mick087 wrote: »

Ursula von der Leyen
European Council could should longer take it upon itself to pick the president of the EU Commission.
EU citizens should vote [/B]

Not sure why you have to bold this? Do you think it makes your suggestion sound well thought out?

Nobody voted in Michael Martin as Taoiseach.

And for my part I quite like a system that elevates Irelands vote to being 1 out of 27 rather than 1 out of 100 (Irelands population as a % of EU)....

mick087

Dytalus wrote: »

Are you against the federalisation of the EU? Or are you in favour of it?

Because that's what voting for Commission President would do - further drive the federalisation of the EU by removing the member state governments control of the executive body.

As it stands the executive branch of the EU (analogous to our Cabinet) is (almost) entirely appointed by the Member State governments with the (democratically elected) MEPs in Parliament being able to veto appointments. This mimics the formation of a lot of executive branches in plenty of democratic countries (including here). The only distinction is that instead of the Taoiseach selecting every Commissioner the member state governments each select 2 (and the Member States heads of state/government select the President).

It is purposely structured this way to ensure the EU is primarily controlled (and therefore secondary to, and answers to the wishes of,) the Member States themselves. The more control you take away from our own national governments and hand to the citizens (by voting for Commissions/Commission Presidents) the more direct you make our link with the EU administration - making the EU a body which answers to the citizens and not the member governments. You're cutting Dáil Eireann (or the French/German/Belgian/Polish) governments out from all except the Council itself.

There are many arguments for of a federal reform of the EU, barriers stand in the way of this.
Would federal Europe have any democratic legitimacy?
United States of Europe i hope is not coming in the near future.
I would say at the moment all EU states are seeing some sort of rise in euroscepticism. separatism, populist and nationalism some are seeing the rise of all three

When you are not able to vote for the leader of such a powerful organisation its time to worry.

micosoft

KyussB wrote: »

I understand hyperinflation better than anyone on the forum

You don't. You're not even wrong.

mick087

micosoft wrote: »

Not sure why you have to bold this? Do you think it makes your suggestion sound well thought out?

Nobody voted in Michael Martin as Taoiseach.

And for my part I quite like a system that elevates Irelands vote to being 1 out of 27 rather than 1 out of 100 (Irelands population as a % of EU)....

Yes i do apologize for bolding this, i did try to unbold it.
There was no malice intended.

Michael Martin party had the most TDS.
But i agree he was not voted in by an overhaul majority.
But at least we was given the option who we wanted to vote as Taoiseach.

Podge_irl

mick087 wrote: »

There are many arguments for of a federal reform of the EU, barriers stand in the way of this.
Would federal Europe have any democratic legitimacy?
United States of Europe i hope is not coming in the near future.
I would say at the moment all EU states are seeing some sort of rise in euroscepticism. separatism, populist and nationalism some are seeing the rise of all three

When you are not able to vote for the leader of such a powerful organisation its time to worry.

She is not the "leader" of the EU in any meaningful sense. You many have noticed that discussions around the Covid funds and EU budgets didn't involve the commissioners, it involved the Heads of State.

You don't want a federal EU yet you somehow want the President of the EU Commission to have the trappings of a federal head? Your logic is all over the place.

The EU is, ultimately, controlled and led by the member states. It is a supranational organisation, not a federal body. While it has problems, for the most part the claims of it being undemocratic stem from a (potentially wilful) misunderstanding of what it is.

micosoft

mick087 wrote: »

There are many arguments for of a federal reform of the EU, barriers stand in the way of this.
Would federal Europe have any democratic legitimacy?
United States of Europe i hope is not coming in the near future.
I would say at the moment all EU states are seeing some sort of rise in euroscepticism. separatism, populist and nationalism some are seeing the rise of all three

When you are not able to vote for the leader of such a powerful organisation its time to worry.

Can you give an example of where a powerful leader is voted in directly?

mick087

micosoft wrote: »

Can you give an example of where a powerful leader is voted in directly?

Ursula von der Leyen

Dytalus

mick087 wrote: »

There are many arguments for of a federal reform of the EU, barriers stand in the way of this.
Would federal Europe have any democratic legitimacy?
United States of Europe i hope is not coming in the near future.
I would say at the moment all EU states are seeing some sort of rise in euroscepticism. separatism, populist and nationalism some are seeing the rise of all three

When you are not able to vote for the leader of such a powerful organisation its time to worry.

You have avoided addressing the fundamental point of my post: If you allow the citizens of the EU to vote for Commission President, you are removing one of the more powerful tools our national governments have to control the EUs. It would be one of the more substantial single actions towards federalisation that you could enact (a full United States of Europe would require a great deal of other steps, but this is nevertheless a very significant one).

Knowing this, do you still think that citizens should be the ones to elect the Commission President?

mick087

Podge_irl wrote: »

She is not the "leader" of the EU in any meaningful sense. You many have noticed that discussions around the Covid funds and EU budgets didn't involve the commissioners, it involved the Heads of State.


You don't want a federal EU yet you somehow want the President of the EU Commission to have the trappings of a federal head? Your logic is all over the place.

The EU is, ultimately, controlled and led by the member states. It is a supranational organisation, not a federal body. While it has problems, for the most part the claims of it being undemocratic stem from a (potentially wilful) misunderstanding of what it is.

Do you think it was a democratic process how she became President?
because i dont.

Im losing faith in the EU each and everyday my logic to me seem in order.

Yes correct it does have problems opinions are changing.

micosoft

mick087 wrote: »

Ursula von der Leyen

She's not. She was nominated by the European Council made up of democratically elected leaders which was ratified by the democratically elected European Parliament.

You are making the radical claim that it's not democratic for to not have the EU president be directly elected. I am asking you if you can give examples to support this claim. Where are these directly elected powerful leaders elsewhere that demonstrate it's only democratic to directly elect leaders. Because I'm struggling.

mick087

Dytalus wrote: »

You have avoided addressing the fundamental point of my post: If you allow the citizens of the EU to vote for Commission President, you are removing one of the more powerful tools our national governments have to control the EUs. It would be one of the more substantial single actions towards federalisation that you could enact (a full United States of Europe would require a great deal of other steps, but this is nevertheless a very significant one).

Knowing this, do you still think that citizens should be the ones to elect the Commission President?

Yes i do think we should vote for the president of the EU.

I did not vote for her and i have no idea how to get rid of her.
Is not very democratic.

mick087

micosoft wrote: »

She's not. She was nominated by the European Council made up of democratically elected leaders which was ratified by the democratically elected European Parliament.

I am asking you if you can give examples to support your suggestion that she be directly voted in by the EU electorate. Where are these directly elected powerful leaders?

Nominated? Yes that i agree

Again she was not elected by the citizens of the EU but as you put it nominated. I do not agree with this sytem we will never agree and will go around in circles.

mick087

Dytalus wrote: »

You have avoided addressing the fundamental point of my post: If you allow the citizens of the EU to vote for Commission President, you are removing one of the more powerful tools our national governments have to control the EUs. It would be one of the more substantial single actions towards federalisation that you could enact (a full United States of Europe would require a great deal of other steps, but this is nevertheless a very significant one).

Knowing this, do you still think that citizens should be the ones to elect the Commission President?

Yes and we would be giving to the citizens of the EU that most powerful tool called the vote. We would be taking the nomination from the few to let the people to decide.

Graham

mick087 wrote: »

I did not vote for her and i have no idea how to get rid of her.

Have you asked your elected representatives?

Podge_irl

mick087 wrote: »

Do you think it was a democratic process how she became President?

Yes.

She is head of an administrative body for a supranational organisation. She was chosen by the Heads of State of the members. The EU is not a federal body - it makes far more sense for its leadership to be chosen by its members, i.e. the heads of state.

First Up

mick087 wrote:

Again she was not elected by the citizens of the EU but as you put it nominated. I do not agree with this sytem we will never agree and will go around in circles.

And you will keep going around in ever decreasing circles until you understand that the EU is a union of sovereign nations, not a single electoral area.

Would Mairead McGuiness, Paul Hogan or Pascal Donohue (or Pat Cox previously) be in their positions if they needed a majority from the European electorate? Would any of the smaller member states ever have seats at any tables?

micosoft

mick087 wrote: »

Nominated? Yes that i agree

Again she was not elected by the citizens of the EU but as you put it nominated. I do not agree with this sytem we will never agree and will go around in circles.

OK. I'm going to try and make this simple.

The Taoiseach of Ireland is not directly elected. Michael Martin was nominated as was widely reported.
The Prime Minister of the UK is not directly elected. Boris was nominated.
The Chancellor of Germany is not directly elected. Merkel was nominated.
The President of the United States is not directly elected. Trump won the electoral college.

Are you suggesting none of these countries are democratic?

mick087

Graham wrote: »

Have you asked your elected representatives?

Yes i did Graham.

Graham

So you know the answer to the question you asked or you genuinely think there should be a means for you as an individual to remove the President of the EU.

How would you remove our President?

ILoveYourVibes

yes spain is a mess ...and the quality of life there is higher than here.

ILoveYourVibes

Graham wrote: »

So you know the answer to the question you asked or you genuinely think there should be a means for you as an individual to remove the President of the EU.

How would you remove our President?

Yes there should be a way to remove EVERY president.