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

First Up

ILoveYourVibes wrote:

Yes there should be a way to remove EVERY president.

Of course; by the same way they are appointed.

mick087

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?

You are taking what i said out of context. No i dont mean me as an individual should be able to remove President of the EU.

Im not able to take part in removing or electing the President of the EU because i dont have a vote Graham.

Podge_irl

mick087 wrote: »

You are taking what i said out of context. No i dont mean me as an individual should be able to remove President of the EU.

Im not able to take part in removing or electing the President of the EU because i dont have a vote Graham.

You don't have a vote in the election or removal of the Taoiseach either.

mick087

Podge_irl wrote: »

You don't have a vote in the election or removal of the Taoiseach either.

My issues with the EU would be geopolitical and ideological differences.Yes i have these issues with my own government too, much more in fact.
The differernce is that I can vote my own government. I will never have the chance to vote on von der Leyen or Madame Lagarde.

Podge_irl

mick087 wrote: »

My issues with the EU would be geopolitical and ideological differences.Yes i have these issues with my own government too, much more in fact.
The differernce is that I can vote my own government. I will never have the chance to vote on von der Leyen or Madame Lagarde.

You have no vote on Gabriel Makhlouf either.

The EU is not a federal body. The members of the EU are the states in Europe and those states have a vote. I don't understand how people can not want a federal Europe while wanting to run it on federal lines

KyussB

sameoldname wrote: »

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.



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.

Countries have directly funded government spending using money creation all over the world, in the US historically with Greenbacks, and the UK historically and even in modern/present times, in the last economic crisis and even this year due to the coronavirus.

Only this year the Bank of England and UK government extended the 'Ways and Means' facility at the BoE, where the UK government is directly financed by the central bank...

You don't speak for the majority of economists - and you demonstrate an ignorance of economic history, and of present economic practice.

You obviously have no idea how Quantitative Easing works if you think it has to be 'repaid' - the BoE rolls over QE debts effectively forever, and doesn't demand any interest on it - in fact, the interest rate is even negative at times...

sameoldname wrote: »

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.

You're the only poster here to present the idea that monetary expansion should be uncoupled from the real economy. I've always explicitly advocated that it be tied to the real economy, by limiting it based on reaching Full Output and the inflation target - exactly as central banks already do.

Everyone who scaremongers about hyperinflation, always seems to have no idea of the difference between an economy well below Full-Output/Full-Employment, and one where GDP/Employment is maximized at Full Output - where the former does not lead to significant inflation (hence why central banks are presently printing out gigantic amounts of money to try and stoke inflation...), and the latter does lead to excessive inflation if spending does not stop.

Nobody ever argued spending should continue when at Full Output - I always argue the opposite - pretending that I do argue that, would be lying about what I advocate, in order to manufacture a false hyperinflation claim.

If you think a ~1% GNI spending can ever lead to hyperinflation, then you're in disagreement with practically all economists - outside of Austrian crackpots who are always predicting hyperinflation 'just around the corner'.

KyussB

micosoft wrote: »

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

I don't think you understand what the term 'not even wrong' means - it refers to claims that can not be falsified - yet there is a wealth of historical evidence to back/prove my claims - and if my claims were wrong they would be easily falsified by historical evidence.

blanch152

mick087 wrote: »

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.

No, we weren't. We were given the option of which candidate in our constituency we could vote for.

For example, I could have wanted Michael McGrath as Taoiseach. How could voting for any of the candidates in Dublin West have helped this?

micosoft

mick087 wrote: »

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.

How exactly were "we" given the option who we wanted to vote as Taoiseach?

Fianna Fail has one more seat than Sinn Fein due to the fact they had the automatic return of the Ceann Comhairle. Well short of a majority.

The three parties - FF, FG, Greens came together and decided a rotating scheme for Taoiseach. The party with the second most TD's will not be part of that. Where exactly were we consulted on this?

Ursula von der Leyen had the support of the majority of MEP's and EP parties and all of the council of ministers which is just as much, if not more of a democratic mandate.

Look - we can keep going around in circles but the simple fact of the matter is that the EU is just as democratic as the Irish system. You are free to disagree with the choice but you have to accept the democratic mandate.

steddyeddy

This is the same sort of thing that happened in the Brexit vote. People threw out a leading, simplistic question in order to appeal to idiots and it worked.

We might pay 16 billion more than we receive in obvious EU payouts, however, what do you think the value of being in the largest single market in the world is? It's a lot more than 16 billion.

View

mick087 wrote: »

My issues with the EU would be geopolitical and ideological differences.Yes i have these issues with my own government too, much more in fact.
The differernce is that I can vote my own government. I will never have the chance to vote on von der Leyen or Madame Lagarde.

You had a chance to vote in the recent European elections and your vote should have elected an MEP after one or more counts.

In those elections, the voters decided to return the EPP (European Peoples Party) to the European Parliament with a plurality of the seats.

Based on those election results, the European Council decided to nominate a member of the EPP - the largest party - for the post of President of the European Commission and, after discussion, selected von der Leyen as their nominee.

It was the subsequent vote of affirmation by the democratically elected MEPs that secured the post for von der Leyen, after which she was formally appointed, by the European Council, to the position of President of the European Commission. That position is not the “President of the EU”, but rather one of several Presidential positions in the EU.

To the best of my knowledge no country or countries elect the President of their Central Bank since that would almost certainly guarantee questionable economic decisions.

Lastly, it should be pointed out that Ireland is not in a good position to complain about the method used to select the European Commission and its President, since we effectively destroyed moves toward reforming the current method as a result of the first referendum on the Lisbon Treaty (we can’t simultaneously demand a more democratic Commission and that there must be an “Irish Commissioner”, since any normal democratic party based politics would guarantee that there would be no “Irish Commissioner” on some of many occasions given that we are a small percentage of the total population of the EU).

mick087

micosoft wrote: »

How exactly were "we" given the option who we wanted to vote as Taoiseach?

Fianna Fail has one more seat than Sinn Fein due to the fact they had the automatic return of the Ceann Comhairle. Well short of a majority.

The three parties - FF, FG, Greens came together and decided a rotating scheme for Taoiseach. The party with the second most TD's will not be part of that. Where exactly were we consulted on this?

Ursula von der Leyen had the support of the majority of MEP's and EP parties and all of the council of ministers which is just as much, if not more of a democratic mandate.

Look - we can keep going around in circles but the simple fact of the matter is that the EU is just as democratic as the Irish system. You are free to disagree with the choice but you have to accept the democratic mandate.

There is nothing democratic about the EU. I have never been given the chance to vote on leaving or staying i the EU.
I voted to reject the Lisbon Treaty back in i think 2008 i rejected this becuase they cannot justifiy the strengthening of European powers towards a more federalist Europe and still to this day do not trust there future military plans.

So i voted to reject this treaty and was over joyed with the result. But within 48 hours i was told we would have to vote again.

mick087

View wrote: »

Lastly, it should be pointed out that Ireland is not in a good position to complain about the method used to select the European Commission and its President, since we effectively destroyed moves toward reforming the current method as a result of the first referendum on the Lisbon Treaty (we can’t simultaneously demand a more democratic Commission and that there must be an “Irish Commissioner”, since any normal democratic party based politics would guarantee that there would be no “Irish Commissioner” on some of many occasions given that we are a small percentage of the total population of the EU).

Yes this part i would agree with but i did vote to reject the Lisbon treaty.

I was suspicious at the time of this of this treaty but i guess there is little i can do now.

Graham

mick087 wrote: »

There is nothing democratic about the EU. I have never been given the chance to vote on leaving or staying i the EU.

Where do you get the misconception that democracy = voting on everything.

You get to elect someone to represent you.

You're free to stand for election yourself.

Podge_irl

You are more then welcome to vote for a party committed to withdrawing from the EU in a general election. Of course, they all do laughably awful. The entire reason you don't have more direct democracy in the EU is because it isn't a federalist entity. It is a supranational one and your democratic rights are, for the most part, maintained by our elected representatives.

There was, in fact, no formal mechanism for leaving the EU until the Lisbon Treaty.

mick087

Graham wrote: »

Where do you get the misconception that democracy = voting on everything.

You get to elect someone to represent you.

You're free to stand for election yourself.

I dont think having a referendum once in every generation on memebership of the EU is a misconception.

Elect someone to represent me in an organization that didn't listen to me in the past is not an easy task.

Yes i am free to stand for election and i have discussed this. But i dont Currently think the majority in Ireland would vote to leave the EU. Of course in time opinions change.

mick087

Podge_irl wrote: »

You are more then welcome to vote for a party committed to withdrawing from the EU in a general election. Of course, they all do laughably awful. The entire reason you don't have more direct democracy in the EU is because it isn't a federalist entity. It is a supranational one and your democratic rights are, for the most part, maintained by our elected representatives.

There was, in fact, no formal mechanism for leaving the EU until the Lisbon Treaty.

Your quite right i am permitted to vote for a party committed to leaving the EU.

What is laughable today sometimes is not laughable down the line.

Graham

mick087 wrote: »

Yes i am free to stand for election and i have discussed this. But i dont Currently think the majority in Ireland would vote to leave the EU.

So you don't get your way.

That's democracy.

mick087

Graham wrote: »

So you don't get your way.

That's democracy.

Not a quetion of me me getting my way Graham, it was the fact that the treaty was rejected and within 48 hours we was told to Vote again.
Do you think that was fair and democratic?

Is democracy never in my lifetime to have an opportunity of voting to remain or leave the EU?

Graham

mick087 wrote: »

Not a quetion of me me getting my way Graham, it was the fact that the treaty was rejected and within 48 hours we was told to Vote again.

because you think voting is undemocratic or something else?

ohnonotgmail

mick087 wrote: »

Not a quetion of me me getting my way Graham, it was the fact that the treaty was rejected and within 48 hours we was told to Vote again.
Do you think that was fair and democratic?

Is democracy never in my lifetime to have an opportunity of voting to remain or leave the EU?

we voted the second time on an improved deal.

Graham

Pretending we were forced to vote on the same deal twice makes for much better barstoolery.

In reality, the second vote was taken after we had been given legally-binding assurances about taxation, abortion, military neutrality and an agreement not to reduce the number of Commissioners in the European Union.

mick087

Graham wrote: »

Pretending we were forced to vote on the same deal twice makes for much better barstoolery.

In reality, the second vote was taken after we had been given legally-binding assurances about taxation, abortion, military neutrality and an agreement not to reduce the number of Commissioners in the European Union.

Do you think democracy is never in your lifetime having an opportunity of voting to remain or leave the EU?

mick087

Graham wrote: »

because you think voting is undemocratic or something else?

I replied to your questions you ignored mine?

ohnonotgmail

mick087 wrote: »

Do you think democracy is never in your lifetime having an opportunity of voting to remain or leave the EU?

are there any other issues we should have a referendum on regularly?

VinLieger

mick087 wrote: »

Do you think democracy is never in your lifetime having an opportunity of voting to remain or leave the EU?

There is no reason to have a referendum on something when polling consistently shows its approval at 90%+ it would be a waste of time and money.

Holding Referendum just for the sake of them is a horrifically bad idea, there needs to be a damn good reason to consider changing out constitution.

mick087

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

are there any other issues we should have a referendum on regularly?

What do you consider regular?

ohnonotgmail

VinLieger wrote: »

There is no reason so have a referendum on something when polling consistently shows its approval at 90%+ it would be a waste of time and money.

Holding Referendum just for the sake of them is a horrifically bad idea, there needs to be a good reason to consider changing out constitution.

i know but i was just curious if it was only the EU they had an issue with.

KyussB

The basic problem with the question of democracy in the EU, is how many sovereign powers do you transfer from sovereign nations, to a quasi-confederation where each member has a veto on reform/restructuring, with federal-like elements that look vaguely democratic but are nowhere proportional in scale to a national government - before you stop calling it a democracy.

The more sovereign powers you transfer, without just setting up a full-scale federal fucking government already, at the same scale of economic control and power over the EU, as a national government has over a country - then the more complex, technocratic and exploitable it becomes - and the less democratic it becomes.

We've had several "shit or get off the pot" moments with the EU already, where it's been clear we have to federalize already, or we have to roll something back (the Euro, to merely being an exchange currency alongside national currencies) until we're ready to federalize - and we're just kicking the can down the road continuously instead, while watching our economies fester and become more and more unequal, leaving upcoming generations behind and unable to work to afford a sustainable and good quality of life, and watching far-right parties gain greater and greater power in Europe as a result of dissatisfaction with all of this.

Jizique

mick087 wrote: »

Do you think democracy is never in your lifetime having an opportunity of voting to remain or leave the EU?

Waiting 5 years to hear a Brexiter give me a benefit of the UK leaving the EU and I really don’t want to start listening to the same sh*te in this country.
We were a backward backwater before joining the EU, and just like a funeral and its “to dust you shall return” litany, that will happen in short measure.
Of course the EU is not democratic, it benefits small nations like Ireland who have the same number of commissioners as the largest; listening to Matt Carty from landlocked Monaghan on radio this morning ranting about the Common Fisheries Policy was a throwback to Farage.