IF BRITAIN LEAVES THE EU MUST IRELAND LEAVE TOO?

poeticseraphim · 03-07-2012 12:20am

plasmaguy wrote: »

Not sure if Ireland has to leave or should leave.

The EU has just become far too big too quickly.

There is no directly elected president as there is in the United States.

The most powerful person in Europe is Angela Merkel (something the europhiles will laughably deny of course) who wasn't voted by a single European outside of Germany. Merkel has only to answer to her own constituents/electorate in Germay and no-one else and is electorally accountable to no-one outside of Germany.

For reasons like this, the EU is badly designed. One of the other reasons the EU is flawed is because the blind fanaticism of EU-philes who think its the greatest thing ever when clearly it is anything but. They often point to spurious and often laughable reasons such as that it prevents war between France and Germany and often people in Europe are made to feel as if they don't vote for a certain referendum it will mean war between France and Germany.

Most of all the EU is run by politicians, none of who have the slightest clue about economics.

As currently designed its a flawed project.

Good post

The blinkered approach by both europhile and europhobes is equally damaging to anything practical.

Those who design EU treaties constantly with huge oversights and little insight into other aspects of the world beyond diplomacy...or even that. Every negative comment by Merkel or today with the Finnish Govt about summit deals or eurobonds or an aggressive approach to put her in favour with the electorate damages the stabilty of currency and institutions.

The will and desire for more Europe in Britain was never there it may not out and out leave but it's role has changed.

It would be helpful in public life if neither europhobes nor europhiles existed and a pragmatic approach was used. Sometimes i feel reality only dawns at the last minute.

southsiderosie · 03-07-2012 7:50am

plasmaguy wrote: »

Not sure if Ireland has to leave or should leave.

The EU has just become far too big too quickly.

There is no directly elected president as there is in the United States.

The most powerful person in Europe is Angela Merkel (something the europhiles will laughably deny of course) who wasn't voted by a single European outside of Germany. Merkel has only to answer to her own constituents/electorate in Germay and no-one else and is electorally accountable to no-one outside of Germany.

For reasons like this, the EU is badly designed. One of the other reasons the EU is flawed is because the blind fanaticism of EU-philes who think its the greatest thing ever when clearly it is anything but. They often point to spurious and often laughable reasons such as that it prevents war between France and Germany and often people in Europe are made to feel as if they don't vote for a certain referendum it will mean war between France and Germany.

Most of all the EU is run by politicians, none of who have the slightest clue about economics.

As currently designed its a flawed project.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Good post

The blinkered approach by both europhile and europhobes is equally damaging to anything practical.

Those who design EU treaties constantly with huge oversights and little insight into other aspects of the world beyond diplomacy...or even that. Every negative comment by Merkel or today with the Finnish Govt about summit deals or eurobonds or an aggressive approach to put her in favour with the electorate damages the stabilty of currency and institutions.

The will and desire for more Europe in Britain was never there it may not out and out leave but it's role has changed.

It would be helpful in public life if neither europhobes nor europhiles existed and a pragmatic approach was used. Sometimes i feel reality only dawns at the last minute.

Again, there seems to be a lot of confusion of terms here - the euro zone is not the same thing as the EU!

Angela Merkel is disproportionately powerful within the euro zone because Germany is the strongest economy, would have the strongest currency, and is the benchmark against which every other eurozone country is measured. And even here the tide is turning, especially given the change in French leadership and the enormity of the crisis in Spain and Ireland.

Within the European Union the UK still carries a great deal of influence. If it didn't, the regulatory framework - particularly when it comes to the financial industry - would look a lot different than it does now.

In addition, the question at hand is not 'does the EU suck?' - it is about how Ireland should react if the UK decides to leave the European Union. For once, can the fact that a thread includes the term 'EU' NOT be seen as an invitation to engage in mindless EU/euro zone bashing regardless of whether or not it is relevant to the actual topic of the thread?

FreudianSlippers · 03-07-2012 11:30am

plasmaguy wrote: »

For reasons like this, the EU is badly designed.

How is the EU badly designed? How could it be designed better? Directly elected European President? What does that president do? Where do they come from if not France, Germany or the UK?

One of the other reasons the EU is flawed is because the blind fanaticism of EU-philes who think its the greatest thing ever when clearly it is anything but. They often point to spurious and often laughable reasons such as that it prevents war between France and Germany and often people in Europe are made to feel as if they don't vote for a certain referendum it will mean war between France and Germany.

A fascinating point nonetheless. It seems that Europhobes tend to class anyone who supports the EU or the EZ as "euro-philes" whereas I would point that pro-EU and pro-EZ posters on boards tend to have reasons to back up their points. It tends to be the Europhobes that have a fanatic hatred of all things European.

But to tend to your point more specifically here, Membership of the EU has given us:

A comprehensive and cohesive legal environment with access to the ECJ;
A right of appeal for citizens to the ECJ once they have exhausted their national Courts;
Free movement of workers;
Free movement of goods, services and capital;
A common security policy and foreign policy, including peacekeeping, human rights and foreign aid;
Police and Judicial co-operation in criminal matters;
Common policy on agricultural and fishing matters;

...and that's just what I can think of off the top of my head at the moment. The benefits gained from our EU membership far outweighs the disadvantages (if any) - so I think your point is slightly cutting to the core of your own problem; that being that your so-called "euro-philes" are capable of coherently outlining why EU membership is beneficial to Ireland, whilst Europhobes tend to rely on hyperbole.

Most of all the EU is run by politicians, none of who have the slightest clue about economics.

Most of our politicians are failed teachers; so I think I'd rather have Merkel with her PhD than Kenny (I'm not even sure what his degree was in!)

djpbarry · 03-07-2012 11:43am

plasmaguy wrote: »

The most powerful person in Europe is Angela Merkel (something the europhiles will laughably deny of course) who wasn't voted by a single European outside of Germany. Merkel has only to answer to her own constituents/electorate in Germay and no-one else and is electorally accountable to no-one outside of Germany.

For reasons like this, the EU is badly designed.

The most powerful person in the world is Barrack Obama who wasn't voted for by a single person outside of the US. Obama has only to answer to his own electorate in the US and no-one else and is electorally accountable to no-one outside of the US.

For reasons like this, the world is badly designed.

The Corinthian · 03-07-2012 11:57am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

How is the EU badly designed? How could it be designed better?

The EU is quite badly designed, because it is essentially a compromise between europhile and eurosceptic visions.

For example, a common gripe by eurosceptics is the lack of democratic accountability by the bureaucracy in Brussels. Of course, as they are ultimately appointed by national governments, democratic accountability would involve national governments losing power and then we would hear the usual whinging about loss of national sovereignty from those same eurosceptics.

Conversely, where you have democratic accountability, you see very limited power, such as in the European Parliament or the "directly elected European president".

As a result we have a structure that just about works and that nobody is entirely happy with and most of the problems we are currently seeing at present are due to the fractured natuire of the EU, with national governments pursuing self-interest and able to because ultimately the have retained sovereignty, despite all the FUD that is thrown around.

Remember, all this nonsense about losing sovereignty to the Germans has nothing to do with our being in the EU; it's that we need their money and so can largely set the terms. You think the Russians wouldn't do the same - or worse - if they were shelling out that amount of money?

Most of our politicians are failed teachers; so I think I'd rather have Merkel with her PhD than Kenny (I'm not even sure what his degree was in!)

While he attended UCG, I don't know if he ever left with a degree. Certainly working "briefly as a primary school teacher" did not require one, AFAIK, and neither does being a TD, especially if you get to inherit your seat.

This isn't a criticism specific to Kenny, I'm sorry to say. The quality of Irish politicians has long been dogged my mediocrity and nepotism; you should hear what senior civil servants, who work directly with them, will often say.

FreudianSlippers · 03-07-2012 12:05pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

The EU is quite badly designed, because it is essentially a compromise between europhile and eurosceptic visions.

For example, a common gripe by eurosceptics is the lack of democratic accountability by the bureaucracy in Brussels. Of course, as they are ultimately appointed by national governments, democratic accountability would involve national governments losing power and then we would hear the usual whinging about loss of national sovereignty from those same eurosceptics.

Conversely, where you have democratic accountability, you see very limited power, such as in the European Parliament or the "directly elected European president".

As a result we have a structure that just about works and that nobody is entirely happy with and most of the problems we are currently seeing at present are due to the fractured natuire of the EU, with national governments pursuing self-interest and able to because ultimately the have retained sovereignty, despite all the FUD that is thrown around.

Remember, all this nonsense about losing sovereignty to the Germans has nothing to do with our being in the EU; it's that we need their money and so can largely set the terms. You think the Russians wouldn't do the same - or worse - if they were shelling out that amount of money?

Point taken and certainly I cannot disagree with you. My point was more generally that if one is going to throw around the accusation that "the EU is badly designed" then it should be supported by specifically to what the poster is referring and how they believe it could be alleviated.

You have very correctly made the point that it is an unholy compromise between those who seek closer integration and those who wish to, at the very least, convince their constituents that they are protecting national interests.

While he attended UCG, I don't know if he ever left with a degree. Certainly working "briefly as a primary school teacher" did not require one, AFAIK, and neither does being a TD, especially if you get to inherit your seat.

This isn't a criticism specific to Kenny, I'm sorry to say. The quality of Irish politicians has long been dogged my mediocrity and nepotism; you should hear what senior civil servants, who work directly with them, will often say.

Agreed, I wasn't picking on Kenny as an individual nor was I picking on teachers in general. But when the pot calls the kettle black, one must be sure that kettle doesn't have a PhD!

The Corinthian · 03-07-2012 12:22pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

My point was more generally that if one is going to throw around the accusation that "the EU is badly designed" then it should be supported by specifically to what the poster is referring and how they believe it could be alleviated.

You're not going to get that. Eurosceptism is not about an objective assessment of the EU, but about the EU being a threat to the nation state. Similarly, europhiles will often be just as blinkered as they have bought into the European federal project and thus often gloss over or ignore the EU's failings.

Given this, I do feel that eurosceptics are more likely, on balance, to be less objective and more prone to soapboxing, FUD tactics, evasion/digression and general ignorance due to an underlying belief in petty nationalism and xenophobia.

View · 03-07-2012 3:46pm

plasmaguy wrote: »

Not sure if Ireland has to leave or should leave.

The EU has just become far too big too quickly.

There is no directly elected president as there is in the United States.

The United States does not have a directly elected president.

Secondly, the EU isn't a Federation like the US so there is no obvious reason we should be comparing the EU to it.

Thirdly, if you do insist on comparing the EU to a Federation, then many Federations do not have directly elected Presidents - In addition, to the US, there is also: Canada, Australia, Belgium (all constitional monarchies), Germany, Switzerland (presidencies indirectly elected by their parliaments).

View · 03-07-2012 3:59pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

The EU is quite badly designed, because it is essentially a compromise between europhile and eurosceptic visions.

Hmm, you appear to be failing to distinguish between Federalists and Confederalists when you use the Eurosceptic label "Europhile".

Both can agree to short-term "pro-EU" compromises even if they have fundamentally different views of the distant future.

On the other hand, Eurosceptics' fundamental problem though is they can't persuade the government (and fellow citizens) of their own member state to agree with their point of view. Hclaims they claim that "the EU" is undemocratic rather than admit their powerlessness at their own member state level.

The Corinthian · 03-07-2012 8:06pm

View wrote: »

Hmm, you appear to be failing to distinguish between Federalists and Confederalists when you use the Eurosceptic label "Europhile".

Would differentiating the two strands of europhilia make any difference to or otherwise invalidate the point I made?

View · 05-07-2012 12:24pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Would differentiating the two strands of europhilia make any difference to or otherwise invalidate the point I made?

It makes a difference because the discussion at EU level is largely about compromises on the methods that should be used to achieve objectives (i.e. a "How do we it do it?" issue) and not on whether we should have an EU and/or abandon its objectives (the Eurosceptics' preferred positions).

Hence, the "design process" of the EU is an "organic" to and fro battle between Confederalist and Federalist positions with the former, not the latter, being the positions most usually adopted at decision times. Usually it takes a crises, or even crisii, to jolt the decisions towards the latter position and even then - as can be seen now - such steps are only taken after an awful lot of foot-dragging.

The Corinthian · 05-07-2012 12:43pm

View wrote: »

It makes a difference because the discussion at EU level is largely about compromises on the methods that should be used to achieve objectives (i.e. a "How do we it do it?" issue) and not on whether we should have an EU and/or abandon its objectives (the Eurosceptics' preferred positions).

That still doesn't make any difference to or otherwise invalidate the point I made.

It is not incorrect to say that the 'confederate' compromises in the EU are in many cases badly designed; the Euro being a case in point, in that unlike every other federal currency in the World (USD, CHF, CAD, etc) it's only as strong as its weakest link - because that level of federalism was shied away from.

Beyond that, I can't see what the point of your bringing this up was.

Usually it takes a crises, or even crisii, to jolt the decisions towards the latter position and even then - as can be seen now - such steps are only taken after an awful lot of foot-dragging.

That's not unusual and you see it in many former 'confederations'. The USA slowly shifted from a confederate to federate model in its first century of existence, with the crisis of their civil war acting as the final nail in the coffin. The Swiss realized (in large part due to the Helvetic Republic and a number of post-Napoleonic crises) that the loose confederation they had been following simply didn't cut it anymore.

Meanwhile every other loose confederation in history that did not make this transition eventually fell apart, for one reason or another - but at root because there was a limit to any unity of purpose.

IF BRITAIN LEAVES THE EU MUST IRELAND LEAVE TOO?

Comments