Ursula Von Der Leyen - addressing the Oireachtas yesterday. Opinions on her speech?

I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that the improvement in the Irish economy could've happened regardless of membership. Many of the policies that reformed the economy could have been instituted domestically.

Compare Ireland with Sweden, who joined the EC in 1995. Even after their economic crisis in 92, Sweden maintained a significant edge in terms of GDP per capita.

There is nothing to suggest really that Ireland's economy could not have performed well (perhaps equally so) outside of the EC - this may have been especially the case had the UK remained out.

The benefits of being part of the Single Market is estimated to be worth over €30 billion to Ireland. 40% of our exports go to other counties within that Single Market. Membership also gives us access to the EU trade deals with global markets like Canada, Japan, South Korea and Singapore. Are you seriously suggesting that a small open economy would of fared better on it's own? Then there is the €40 billion in EU funds that we have received since 1973.

Hate to puncture the optimism re Ireland, be somewhat unpatriotic and burst the nice bubble you have going but the rich non EU/somewhat (more) detached from the EU countries in Western Europe, and a technological/scientific powerhouse and doted on client/ally of the world's greatest power (i.e. Israel) are IMO not great comparitors to Ireland.

You could just as easily make a comparison between Ireland and some of the small peripheral states in east/south of Europe that haven't managed to make it into the EU + ended up far more detatched for historical or geographical reasons, but that doesn't look quite as good for the argument. They are all pretty poor and have problems with corruption holding them back (including that clientelist/3rd-worldish "the local big man/chieftain will provide for us" kind of disease that has died off a bit in Ireland, but still has a lingering popularity with alot of the voting public). They have improved much more slowly over the decades (post fall of Soviet Union, shattering of Yugoslavia) compared to peers who did make it into the EU (e.g. progress of Romania [probably not great example, as its not a very "small" country] and Moldova, or Croatia and some of the Balkan countries still outside?).

I can accept argument that maybe Ireland could also have done quite well while having a more detached relationship with the EU, but I think we needed to be fully in EU Single Market etc. for the development "model" that we used, which worked fairly well to increase wealth/development here over decades of EU membership to function. Then question comes in as to whether it is better to be on inside, be fully involved and have some say even if it is less than the bigger countries, vs being semi-detached? As said I think none of the semi-detached western European rich countries are really like Ireland or can be compared to Ireland can they? I think we've benefitted by getting fully involved.

Oh wow, how wrong can you be.

That means putting the UK in control of all of our trade. That worked out well in the past...

When they change the rules on UK-EU trade then Ireland has to fall in line with no say.

No thanks.

In the EU we have a say the same as every other member.

If we have to choose between closer links to the UK and the EU (and it's the UK which has stupidly forced this situation) then it's the EU every time, hands down.

The UK starved us, the EU enriched us.

Nonsense.

The choke-hold on our economy which was the link to Sterling until 1979 made us poorer.

The Euro brought us the Germanic concepts of fiscal stability and low interest rates which are beneficial. It's not the EU/Eurozone/Germans fault that this was taken advantage of in the early to mid 00s era to excuse utterly irresponsible lending. All, and I mean ALL, of the adverse effects of the "Celtic Tiger" were homegrown and could have been countered by homegrown policy.

If you want us to go back to having our own currency then you need to look at when we did have our own currency and explain how we were better off as a result.

But we didn't even have our own currency for nearly 60 years after independence - we were shackled to Sterling so the UK's economic problems became our economic problems too. We had no input into interest rates etc.

We only had a free-floating currency for 18 years, 1979-1997 but even then the UK's economy still had a big influence on ours and most of our trade was with the UK.

Sure we could set our own interest rates if we were not in the euro, but those rates would be higher (to account for the greater risk of investing here if we devalue etc.) so how exactly would that benefit us?

People come out with this "the EU is anti-democratic" guff but they never provide any details of exactly how it is supposedly undemocratic. Because if they try to make an argument it can be easily dismantled. So they never try and stick to the silly slogans.

No I don't recall any links from you. Must have missed it, so maybe you could repost? Was referring to https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119961463/#Comment_119961463

So may as well go away + have a look at a few links myself given I'm not an expert...

I think I kind of see what you were getting at (it mentions its possible parliament only has consultative role in some cases):

But the EU parliament is in there and involved, even at the beginning, and then throughout the whole process, even though it is Commssion proposing the legislation...

The way the EU works, would seem very, very, very unlikely you'd have Commission initiating legislation that the parliament is extremely hostile to and despises from start, and somehow it getting (edit: syntax) it rammed through into law (with Council) against the parliament opposition. Could you give me example of that happening maybe?

Anyway further down the page (1st link), also seems to be some specific things the Parliament can have a full veto on as well (the "Consent" procedure section).

I'll repeat the points from earlier, I don't think you really care that the EU parliament is weaker + has less power than a national parliament, or that EU Commission President is appointed rather than directly elected or chosen by parliament or such in a process closer to direct democracy. It's just a point of attack. As other poster pointed out, changing both things would move the EU to a structure much more like a federal state.