Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Should Ireland Leave the EU?
Comments
-
It's amazing when you contrast the political structure of the EU with the old soviet union. There are many similarities. I believe Ireland should leave the EU, not because it would lead to fast economic prosperity, but because calling your country a sovreign nation under the coercion of the EU is a contradiction. Most great nations are not under the control of the EU socialist machine.0
-
FreudianSlippers wrote: »A few points. Are you talking about the EU or the Eurozone?
Secondly, Norway is effectively a non-represented member of the EU, they implemented the first pillar completely by their membership of the EEA.
Norway is also a horrible comparison to almost any European country: they have about 4.9million people with a purchasing GDP per capita of just over $52,000; we have about 4.5-4.6million people with a purchasing GDP per capita of just over $38,000.
That's a massive difference. It's also a massive difference because of oil. Norway is probably the biggest exporter of oil not in OPEC, the 5th biggest exporter of oil in the world and the 3rd biggest exporter of natural gas. Norway is rich.
Switzerland is an equally (or perhaps more) absurd comparison; 11th in the world for purchasing GDP, the most competitive economy in the world, the MEDIAN household income is $100,000 annually, their economy grows at 3% per year, and they are largely in line with EU policy to remain competitive. Switzerland is rich.
Ireland is a small country on Western Europe with no money, no utilised resources, no "business plan" for the future. We NEED the EU, we NEED the Eurozone, we NEED to pull our heads out of our asses and stop blaming the Euro for the ineptitudes of the people running this country and the vast majority of the people in it.
Words cannot express the problems with this post. We don't need the EU. Competitive Trade agreements are not exclusive to european nation states. Switzerland isn't screwed because they value their economic and social sovereignty, unlike the Irish Government who is generally incapable of long term planning, as evidenced by the bailout failure.
If Ireland is to recover, we must divorce the country from the socialist practices of the Eurozone. Those who trade sovereignty for a quick boom are losers long term. The Eurozone is responsible for lending these fraudulent loans to Government bodies who are simply not able to pay them back!
Why were loans of such magnitude actually issued under false pretense? The EU had to know at some stage this situation was coming down the line. Our Government isn't the only one to blame here. Not by a long shot. As clueless as they are...
These bailouts are basically constitutionally illegal. Article 47 of the Irish Constitution illustrates this point succinctly.
2. 1° Every proposal, other than a proposal to amend the Constitution, which is submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people shall be held to have been vetoed by the people if a majority of the votes cast at such Referendum shall have been cast against its enactment into law and if the votes so cast against its enactment into law shall have amounted to not less than thirty-three and one-third per cent. of the voters on the register.
Bailout for EU Banks = ILLEGAL. No other way to mince this.0 -
Ahh, the old "we can be like Switzerland" fantasy. To begin with, you ignore the fact that Ireland is nothing like Switzerland; we lack the banking industry - indeed much industry at all - and socially we do not share the same social mentality as the Swiss.Words cannot express the problems with this post. We don't need the EU. Competitive Trade agreements are not exclusive to european nation states. Switzerland isn't screwed because they value their economic and social sovereignty, unlike the Irish Government who is generally incapable of long term planning, as evidenced by the bailout failure.
And then there is the question of the Swiss not being "screwed because they value their economic and social sovereignty". This is unfortunately arguable as they are already in a position where they are forced to implement a good number of EU rules, without any say in their formulation, are completely dependant on trade with the Eurozone (over 70% of their trade) - to the point that the SNB had to take drastic action to protect the EURCHF exchange rate in 2011.
And then there is the question of Swiss banking; They're under serious pressure, that they have largely been forced to accept, to clean up their act there, from the EU and especially the US. Luxembourg hasn't had the same problem, despite having similar banking 'services' because it's in the 'club'.
So the whole comparison is laughable and indicative of wishful thinking rather than fact.
Which socialist practices are these? Indeed, what I find amusing is that if anyone was socialist it was Ireland, prior to our accession to the EEC.If Ireland is to recover, we must divorce the country from the socialist practices of the Eurozone.
It might help if you understood what the text says as it is irrelevant to your argument.These bailouts are basically constitutionally illegal. Article 47 of the Irish Constitution illustrates this point succinctly.
2. 1° Every proposal, other than a proposal to amend the Constitution, which is submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people shall be held to have been vetoed by the people if a majority of the votes cast at such Referendum shall have been cast against its enactment into law and if the votes so cast against its enactment into law shall have amounted to not less than thirty-three and one-third per cent. of the voters on the register.0 -
There's no meaningful comparison.It's amazing when you contrast the political structure of the EU with the old soviet union. There are many similarities. I believe Ireland should leave the EU, not because it would lead to fast economic prosperity, but because calling your country a sovreign nation under the coercion of the EU is a contradiction. Most great nations are not under the control of the EU socialist machine.
The EU is composed of
- democracies
- which have conditionally and by consent transferred limited powers to a rules-based entity
- which is itself also subject to its own internal democratic controls and
- which operates within a common value system.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Ahh, the old "we can be like Switzerland" fantasy. To begin with, you ignore the fact that Ireland is nothing like Switzerland; we lack the banking industry - indeed much industry at all - and socially we do not share the same social mentality as the Swiss.
Of course, Switzerland is really nothing like 99% of the world. It is probably the best example of a fully sovereign nation however. The Swiss do not play ball with bullying tactics from outside soviet like jurisdictions. This is commendable. Not to say I agree with all of their practices. Banking secrecy should come with certain limitations.The Corinthian wrote: »So the whole comparison is laughable and indicative of wishful thinking rather than fact.
I never said they were directly comparable, I merely used Switzerland as an example of a genuine economic and social sovereign state. It is one of the most unique economies in the world, that is a given.
What is important to note however, is that the swiss have not succumbed to risking the integrity of their federal constitutional doctrine in favor of empty promises from the european union.
Just because they trade with the EU and follow eu trade agreements, does not mean Switzerland is willing to risk their independence for trade agreements. The Swiss franc interest rate is not controlled by an unelected puppet EU ministerial electorate.
Without the EU/EEC, you would still have a situation whereby actual European countries would trade with each other. You don't need an overlord in Brussels to direct economic decisions...The Corinthian wrote: »Which socialist practices are these? Indeed, what I find amusing is that if anyone was socialist it was Ireland, prior to our accession to the EEC.
Wealth redistribution through draconian personal taxation is one major example. We actually have a fairly high rate of personal income tax laid down by the EU. The lower rate is 20%, the higher rate is 42%. Sliding taxation schemes are democratically socialist practices, of which are not found in more economically free economies.
For example, the isle of man has a tax cut off rate and a lower tax rate of 10% and a higher rate of 18%. The Isle of Man is not in the European Union. Their taxation policies would be crushed under the iron glove of the EU. Total eradication. Just because it's not extreme socialism, does not mean socialist practices aren't employed.The Corinthian wrote: »It might help if you understood what the text says as it is irrelevant to your argument.
The point is that no referendum for the Irish people was proposed. This is illegal. That is to say the Eurocrats are essentially laughing at our own constitutional laws by not following them. I fail to see how that example is not indicative of an illustration of the lack of sovereignty afforded to our own nation as a result of unelected men in faraway lands pulling the strings.
Long term, the EU is bad for national sovereignty. Unless you are willing to refute this claim.0 -
Advertisement
-
There's no meaningful comparison.
The EU is composed of
- democracies
- which have conditionally and by consent transferred limited powers to a rules-based entity
- which is itself also subject to its own internal democratic controls and
- which operates within a common value system.
This is irrelevant, because the real laws that are handed down by the Eurozone override most of our own decision making. You can have a democracy, as long as you let the guys in Brussels do all the heavy lifting. Nothing democratic about that.
I fail to see how the EU is nothing short of a much less extreme version of the old soviet union. Infact, I would go as far as saying that politically speaking, they share some common characteristics.0 -
That, I'm afraid is completely at variance with the legal position as anyone vaguely familiar with EU law would understand them.This is irrelevant, because the real laws that are handed down by the Eurozone override most of our own decision making.
The Eurozone doesn't hand down anything. The institutions of the EU including the Council, the Commission and the ECB act within the constraints laid down by the EU treaties.
Outside the EU, states are free to cooperate with each other through instruments they agree too, so long as they do not conflict with their obligations under EU law. Hence, for instance, the EU-26 can set up an intergovernmental arrangement if they all agree to it. That arrangement is neither the EU nor the Eurozone, although it has implications for members of both.0 -
-
Actually I don't think you've been paying much attention because the Swiss have been forced to play ball. Switzerland now has to adhere to numerous EU treaties and directives, many of which are unpopular there. It was forced to intervene to prop up the Euro against the Swiss Franc (as I already pointed out). And it was forced to change it's banking and taxation practices to keep the EU and, in particular, the US happy.Of course, Switzerland is really nothing like 99% of the world. It is probably the best example of a fully sovereign nation however. The Swiss do not play ball with bullying tactics from outside soviet like jurisdictions. This is commendable.
So, I'm afraid that this notion of yours that they are fully sovereign, at least much more than any EU country, is quite mistaken.
Whether you agree or not is irrelevant; after all you are the one claiming that they should be sovereign and do as they wish in this regard, otherwise you're arguing against yourself.Not to say I agree with all of their practices. Banking secrecy should come with certain limitations.
You made a direct comparison between the Swiss and Irish governments in relation to the EU, so backtracking now and admitting that a comparison is flawed is quite disingenuous.I never said they were directly comparable, I merely used Switzerland as an example of a genuine economic and social sovereign state. It is one of the most unique economies in the world, that is a given.
You mean they've not joined - the rest about "empty promises" is simply your opinion of why.What is important to note however, is that the swiss have not succumbed to risking the integrity of their federal constitutional doctrine in favor of empty promises from the european union.
Why the Swiss are not in the EU comes down to two things; they can presently remain outside (they have both the industry and financial sectors to afford it) and because their own system historically avoids ceding power to Bern, let alone Brussels. Promises, empty or not, would make no difference.
Neither would such promises make any difference in the long term, because the Swiss are well aware that they will most likely join in the long term. They are already too integrated with the EU as things stand, and they have no choice in this regard because they are surrounded, and they know this.
Actually the Swiss Franc rate is at this stage de facto controlled by the Euro - please read the article I referenced with regard to their moves to stabilize the EURCHF exchange rate. At this stage both fiscal and monetary policy in Switzerland is dominated by this.Just because they trade with the EU and follow eu trade agreements, does not mean Switzerland is willing to risk their independence for trade agreements. The Swiss franc interest rate is not controlled by an unelected puppet EU ministerial electorate.
Sure, and without an Ireland all the counties would still trade with each other too. Indeed, Dublin would likely be better off. What's your point?Without the EU/EEC, you would still have a situation whereby actual European countries would trade with each other. You don't need an overlord in Brussels to direct economic decisions...
Here's another example of where you don't seem to know much. Ireland actually has a much lower rate of personal income tax now than it did before it's accession to the EU.Wealth redistribution through draconian personal taxation is one major example. We actually have a fairly high rate of personal income tax laid down by the EU. The lower rate is 20%, the higher rate is 42%. Sliding taxation schemes are democratically socialist practices, of which are not found in more economically free economies.
Additionally, recent increases to tax are due to recessionary and debt pressure - Iceland has had to impose similar taxation hikes and it had nothing to do with being in the EU or not.
Neither is Iceland, yet it has much higher rates of tax than Ireland. Or Norway, for that matter. You appear to be cherry picking your examples.For example, the isle of man has a tax cut off rate and a lower tax rate of 10% and a higher rate of 18%. The Isle of Man is not in the European Union.
In fact the example you gave is a bit of a disaster, because other than not actually being a sovereign state outside of the EU, much of its economic affluence has been subsidized by the UK - a practice that is being now curtailed and is likely to see taxes increased.
Do you understand the difference between socialism and Keynesianism?Just because it's not extreme socialism, does not mean socialist practices aren't employed.
You have not demonstrated this. You quoted an irrelevant part of the constitution, is all.The point is that no referendum for the Irish people was proposed. This is illegal.
This is about the only thing I would not necessarily dispute, but then again, I also see the scenario of remaining outside of a major political bloc as potentially being worse for national sovereignty.Long term, the EU is bad for national sovereignty. Unless you are willing to refute this claim.
Sovereignty is only worth something if you have the power to defend it. I'm a future World of supernational blocs, Ireland would not have such an option.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Actually I don't think you've been paying much attention because the Swiss have been forced to play ball. Switzerland now has to adhere to numerous EU treaties and directives, many of which are unpopular there. It was forced to intervene to prop up the Euro against the Swiss Franc (as I already pointed out). And it was forced to change it's banking and taxation practices to keep the EU and, in particular, the US happy.The Corinthian wrote: »So, I'm afraid that this notion of yours that they are fully sovereign, at least much more than any EU country, is quite mistaken.
Just because they implement alot of european agreements, is not enough to undermine their constitutional laws. Unlike most european states, the swiss could at least in theory refuse to implement any policies not through coercion, but through their own legislature. Switzerland is still a federal republic.The Corinthian wrote: »Whether you agree or not is irrelevant; after all you are the one claiming that they should be sovereign and do as they wish in this regard, otherwise you're arguing against yourself.
It is simply a fact that any country that joins the eu, surrenders it's economic and social freedom to unelected bureaucrats from Brussels. This is not an opinion, it is a simple fact.The Corinthian wrote: »You made a direct comparison between the Swiss and Irish governments in relation to the EU, so backtracking now and admitting that a comparison is flawed is quite disingenuous.
No, I made a comparison between the integrity of their constitution and our own. Our constitution has been fundamentally compromised through coercion from the EU. I doubt a bailout would be voted in over there. Would not fly for a microsecond. Irish Government has no choice in the matter, they do.
They haven't joined for very good reason. This is not my opinion, it is a matter of swiss federal legislature.The Corinthian wrote: »You mean they've not joined - the rest about "empty promises" is simply your opinion of why.The Corinthian wrote: »Why the Swiss are not in the EU comes down to two things; they can presently remain outside (they have both the industry and financial sectors to afford it) and because their own system historically avoids ceding power to Bern, let alone Brussels. Promises, empty or not, would make no difference.
I would go further. They aren't willing to trade their independence on the whim of European promise. You can't trust outside influences inherently, only co-operate. Most Governments are skeptical of each other, if you don't believe me, try sharing classified documents from one country to the next. The EU association is a moot point.The Corinthian wrote: »Neither would such promises make any difference in the long term, because the Swiss are well aware that they will most likely join in the long term. They are already too integrated with the EU as things stand, and they have no choice in this regard because they are surrounded, and they know this.
It will be a cold day in hell before the Swiss joined the EU:)The Corinthian wrote: »Actually the Swiss Franc rate is at this stage de facto controlled by the Euro - please read the article I referenced with regard to their moves to stabilize the EURCHF exchange rate. At this stage both fiscal and monetary policy in Switzerland is dominated by this.
No, it's not. It is heavily influenced by the European Union, their largest trade partner. The Swiss control their own rate of inflation, not the EU. This is a fact! Their laws aren't handed down from an unelected thief mob from Brussels.
Ireland should not trade economic and social sovereignty for easy trade agreements. To do that, is to destroy the purpose of a nation state - to be independent in both fiscal and social matters.The Corinthian wrote: »Sure, and without an Ireland all the counties would still trade with each other too. Indeed, Dublin would likely be better off. What's your point?The Corinthian wrote: »Here's another example of where you don't seem to know much. Ireland actually has a much lower rate of personal income tax now than it did before it's accession to the EU.
This is irrelevant, the point is that those countries can wake up one day and simply change it if need be, Ireland cannot. We are on the European leash, they are not. You are missing my point entirely.The Corinthian wrote: »Additionally, recent increases to tax are due to recessionary and debt pressure - Iceland has had to impose similar taxation hikes and it had nothing to do with being in the EU or not.
It was still their own decision, they had the choice unlike Ireland. It may benefit their interests, but they weren't forced by the EU. That is my point.The Corinthian wrote: »Neither is Iceland, yet it has much higher rates of tax than Ireland. Or Norway, for that matter. You appear to be cherry picking your examples.
Again, this is a product of their own fiscal decisions, not of the Eurokrauts from Brussels.The Corinthian wrote: »In fact the example you gave is a bit of a disaster, because other than not actually being a sovereign state outside of the EU, much of its economic affluence has been subsidized by the UK - a practice that is being now curtailed and is likely to see taxes increased.
You are totally incorrect. The Isle of Man is in fact a fully sovereign crown dependency. It is in their interests to implement these policies because of the fact their nearest neighbor is in the EuroZone, but it's ultimately their choice.The Corinthian wrote: »Do you understand the difference between socialism and Keynesianism?
Irrelevant to the discussion at hand.The Corinthian wrote: »You have not demonstrated this. You quoted an irrelevant part of the constitution, is all.
Let me ask you, should these bailout terms be ratified without a democratic vote by our own people? This section I cited is fully relevant to this point. These loans are being payed back without input from the Irish people. This contravenes our own constitutional terms. It is simply Illegal.The Corinthian wrote: »This is about the only thing I would not necessarily dispute, but then again, I also see the scenario of remaining outside of a major political bloc as potentially being worse for national sovereignty.
Everything I have said up until this point leads to this fundamental point - the trading of a national identity to some Socialist EU Monster state. A massive loss of social and economic sovereignty, essentially.The Corinthian wrote: »Sovereignty is only worth something if you have the power to defend it. I'm a future World of supernational blocs, Ireland would not have such an option.
At least not until we leave the Eurozone.0 -
Advertisement
-
Could we all agree never to use Switzerland and Norway as counterexamples again?
Debates can stand on their own merits, even if the ramifications are entirely theoretical. Displaying how similar or dissimilar Switzerland is to Ireland is a nonsensical endeavour.0 -
RandomName2 wrote: »Could we all agree never to use Switzerland and Norway as counterexamples again?
Debates can stand on their own merits, even if the ramifications are entirely theoretical. Displaying how similar or dissimilar Switzerland is to Ireland is a nonsensical endeavour.
I have only compared these countries based on one single factor - their constitutional integrity. Comparing these countries economically and socially is secondary to the point I am making - that EU membership sets aside a nations Constitution in place of the EU socialist regime.
This eventually leads to the destruction of a national identity, as evidenced by the number of our young people leaving for non EU countries every day. 111 is the magic number.
The EU is largely responsible for the mess we are currently in. This is not an opinion, it is a fact. The bailout terms are unconstitutional. You can't argue out of this single point.0 -
RandomName2 wrote: »Could we all agree never to use Switzerland and Norway as counterexamples again?
Debates can stand on their own merits, even if the ramifications are entirely theoretical. Displaying how similar or dissimilar Switzerland is to Ireland is a nonsensical endeavour.
Well, Norway is a terrible example in comparison to Switzerland at least. They are economically socialist, a terrible example of a free market economy. They would not be rich, had they not struck oil. Infact, up until that point, Norway was a pretty poor country. They got lucky basically:D0 -
I have only compared these countries based on one single factor - their constitutional integrity. Comparing these countries economically and socially is secondary to the point I am making - that EU membership sets aside a nations Constitution in place of the EU socialist regime.
This eventually leads to the destruction of a national identity, as evidenced by the number of our young people leaving for non EU countries every day. 111 is the magic number.
The EU is largely responsible for the mess we are currently in. This is not an opinion, it is a fact. The bailout terms are unconstitutional. You can't argue out of this single point.
The idea that the EU is governed by a "socialist regime" is laughable - perhaps you care to clarify what exactly you mean by socialist though since you seem to be using it as an epitaph.
The reason young people are emigrating isn't the loss of our national identity, it's unemployment, and they are leaving for countries such as Canada and Australia not because these are non-EU countries but because they are English-speaking countries with jobs.0 -
Benny_Cake wrote: »The idea that the EU is governed by a "socialist regime" is laughable - perhaps you care to clarify what exactly you mean by socialist though since you seem to be using it as an epitaph.
The reason young people are emigrating isn't the loss of our national identity, it's unemployment, and they are leaving for countries such as Canada and Australia not because these are non-EU countries but because they are English-speaking countries with jobs.
The EU is a socialist authoritarian construct. This is a fact, not an opinion > http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865 The Maastricht treaty is the stuff of nightmares for myself, personally.0 -
So can Ireland. But as with Ireland, there are consequences to refusing as has been consistently advised at every EU-related referendum by the Federal Swiss Government (and all major political parties, bar the SVP) to it's citizens.Just because they implement alot of european agreements, is not enough to undermine their constitutional laws. Unlike most european states, the swiss could at least in theory refuse to implement any policies not through coercion, but through their own legislature. Switzerland is still a federal republic.
And having the fig-leaf of independence when in reality you have no option but to accept EU treaties, like Switzerland, is different how? Outside of appearance?It is simply a fact that any country that joins the eu, surrenders it's economic and social freedom to unelected bureaucrats from Brussels. This is not an opinion, it is a simple fact.
You did not and now you are attempting to backtrack.No, I made a comparison between the integrity of their constitution and our own.
No, it is your opinion that they haven't joined for very good reason. It is also the opinion of may Swiss. It is also the opinion of many Swiss that they haven't joined for very poor reasons too, and others still have differencing views along this spectrum. But all these are opinions, like yours - not facts.They haven't joined for very good reason. This is not my opinion, it is a matter of swiss federal legislature.
Have you ever been, let alone spent time in Switzerland? I ask this because you don't appear to have much of a clue on their psyche.I would go further. They aren't willing to trade their independence on the whim of European promise. You can't trust outside influences inherently, only co-operate. Most Governments are skeptical of each other, if you don't believe me, try sharing classified documents from one country to the next. The EU association is a moot point.
It might be, but they're a practical people at the end of the day.It will be a cold day in hell before the Swiss joined the EU:)
Do you actually know how inflation works, out of interest? Or how the various fiscal and monitory tools to deal with it are related?No, it's not. It is heavily influenced by the European Union, their largest trade partner. The Swiss control their own rate of inflation, not the EU. This is a fact! Their laws aren't handed down from an unelected thief mob from Brussels.
Grow up. Seriously. Ireland couldn't even manage an independent currency until 1979 and was grossly dependant on the UK (where it had no say) before the EU. And for all the whinging about the Irish economy today, it's still better than the good old days.Ireland should not trade economic and social sovereignty for easy trade agreements. To do that, is to destroy the purpose of a nation state - to be independent in both fiscal and social matters.
So we can have the freedom to have higher taxes? Why did you imply that being outside of the EU would give us lower taxes then? More twisting of the truth?This is irrelevant, the point is that those countries can wake up one day and simply change it if need be, Ireland cannot. We are on the European leash, they are not. You are missing my point entirely.
Except that is not what happened. Ireland was not 'forced' to have a second Nice referendum any more than the Icelandic people were 'forced' to impose such hardships on themselves. Now ask what would happen if either refused?It was still their own decision, they had the choice unlike Ireland. It may benefit their interests, but they weren't forced by the EU. That is my point.
False. It is a self-governing British Crown Dependency, it is absolutely not fully sovereign. You also ignored my point, and evidence, on subsidies there.You are totally incorrect. The Isle of Man is in fact a fully sovereign crown dependency.
No, because you are making claims about socialist policies that are in reality not socialist. Again, do you know the difference?Irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
You may not like it. It may even be immoral. But is it illegal? Under our constitution, no.Let me ask you, should these bailout terms be ratified without a democratic vote by our own people? This section I cited is fully relevant to this point. These loans are being payed back without input from the Irish people. This contravenes our own constitutional terms. It is simply Illegal.
Indeed, that's the choice that all communities throughout history have to periodically make. It's a Hob's son's choice, no doubt, but not making it can be a lot worse.Everything I have said up until this point leads to this fundamental point - the trading of a national identity to some Socialist EU Monster state. A massive loss of social and economic sovereignty, essentially.
That makes no sense. It's a soundbyte that has no relevance.At least not until we leave the Eurozone.0 -
The EU is a socialist authoritarian construct. This is a fact, not an opinion > http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865 The Maastricht treaty is the stuff of nightmares for myself, personally.
It is opinion, actually, the opinion of one man 5 years ago.
There is a revealing sentence here:Mr Bukovsky paid a visit to the European Parliament on Thursday at the invitation of Fidesz, the Hungarian Civic Forum. Fidesz, a member of the European Christian Democrat group, had invited the former Soviet dissident over from England, where he lives, on the occasion of this year’s 50th anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian Uprising.
This would be the Fidesz party that has recently removed the independence of the Hungarian central bank, launched attacks against the independent media, deregistered nearly 300 religious groups, gerrymandered the electoral system, and forced through a reactionary constitution. Not to mention putting anti-Semites into cultural positions. This was opposed by the EU:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/curtain-comes-down-on-liberal-hungary-6286332.html0 -
The Irish economy was also essentially socialist prior, and for some time after, our accession to the EEC, with high levels of subsidy, protectionism and taxation. And we were poor and economically weak to boot too.Well, Norway is a terrible example in comparison to Switzerland at least. They are economically socialist, a terrible example of a free market economy. They would not be rich, had they not struck oil. Infact, up until that point, Norway was a pretty poor country. They got lucky basically:D
It would appear that based on that, a comparison of Ireland to Norway is a much better one than with Switzerland, which shares practically no similarity with Ireland (outside of a cultural affection towards an agricultural past).0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »So can Ireland. But as with Ireland, there are consequences to refusing as has been consistently advised at every EU-related referendum by the Federal Swiss Government (and all major political parties, bar the SVP) to it's citizens.
Yes, this is the intention. To bully the nation states into submission. The EU is working when they are causing economic mayhem and subjecting millions of people into misery. Centrally planned economies which the EU advocates illustrates this point.
This is not "advice", it's economic bullying. If it was economically socially democratic, Irish people would have a say in the matter. We don't. The great EU dictators have decided for our people.
This is the result of the EU and it's coercion. If the EU didn't exist, this situation would not be relevant. Like the Soviet Union, they bully countries into accepting their laws and policies. The Lisbon farce we had here was a prime example. "You voted wrong, so vote again, stupid Irish people" - said the Eurokrauts.The Corinthian wrote: »And having the fig-leaf of independence when in reality you have no option but to accept EU treaties, like Switzerland, is different how? Outside of appearance?
Point out exactly, because I am pretty sure I know what I said.The Corinthian wrote: »You did not and now you are attempting to backtrack.The Corinthian wrote: »No, it is your opinion that they haven't joined for very good reason. It is also the opinion of may Swiss. It is also the opinion of many Swiss that they haven't joined for very poor reasons too, and others still have differencing views along this spectrum. But all these are opinions, like yours - not facts.
A recent poll would refute that claim. The Swiss aren't stupid, they are well aware of what would happen should they integrate fully within the European Union. In 2001, 78% of the Swiss voted agaisnt the EU. The Swiss appear to be right leaning Libertarians, not EU loving socialists.The Corinthian wrote: »Have you ever been, let alone spent time in Switzerland? I ask this because you don't appear to have much of a clue on their psyche.
Neither do you.The Corinthian wrote: »It might be, but they're a practical people at the end of the day.
Practical enough to refuse EU membership on moral and economic grounds.The Corinthian wrote: »Do you actually know how inflation works, out of interest? Or how the various fiscal and monitory tools to deal with it are related?
Yes, I understand inflation is not a simple decision, that it is the product of complex economic disparagies between member states. However, if for example Switzerland joined the EU, they would not ultimately control their interest rate through their own currency, they would have to sit back and let the gravy train politicians from Brussels sort that out.The Corinthian wrote: »Grow up. Seriously. Ireland couldn't even manage an independent currency until 1979 and was grossly dependant on the UK (where it had no say) before the EU. And for all the whinging about the Irish economy today, it's still better than the good old days.
The UK is one of most euroskeptic countries in existence. The fact they retain their currency is an illustration of this. Thatcher was a fierce critic of the EU. And rightly so.The Corinthian wrote: »So we can have the freedom to have higher taxes? Why did you imply that being outside of the EU would give us lower taxes then? More twisting of the truth?
Because our tax decisions can be made at the local Federal level in the case of a republic, not some faceless politicians in Brussels. It's a simple concept, really!The Corinthian wrote: »Except that is not what happened. Ireland was not 'forced' to have a second Nice referendum any more than the Icelandic people were 'forced' to impose such hardships on themselves. Now ask what would happen if either refused?
Remember when we voted No? Yeah, Constitutionally speaking, that would have stood if Ireland was more libertarian leaning. But no, the european overlords decided the voice of the Irish people was "wrong" and so asked them to vote the "correct" answer next time.The Corinthian wrote: »False. It is a self-governing British Crown Dependency, it is absolutely not fully sovereign. You also ignored my point, and evidence, on subsidies there.
You are 100% correct here. I am totally mistaken.The Corinthian wrote: »No, because you are making claims about socialist policies that are in reality not socialist. Again, do you know the difference?
Not in the extreme sense, but the more economically socially democratic sense. It's certainly not fiscally conservative or libertarian leaning. I would say more center left. As I said, they may not be as extreme as the soviet union, but the elements of economic planning are still in force today by the EU.The Corinthian wrote: »You may not like it. It may even be immoral. But is it illegal? Under our constitution, no.
No, if it contravenes our Constitution, it is technically illegal. Dev would be rolling in his grave over this.The Corinthian wrote: »Indeed, that's the choice that all communities throughout history have to periodically make. It's a Hob's son's choice, no doubt, but not making it can be a lot worse.
I don't like any form of socialism myself. Just because you or other countries may think it to be proper, does not mean everybody will agree. The British people generally despise the EU, despite being part of the union. Any Libertarian or fiscal conservative would disagree with the EU as a whole. At least I hope they would.The Corinthian wrote: »That makes no sense. It's a soundbyte that has no relevance.
Gotta throw in some buzz phrases now and again:pac:0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »The Irish economy was also essentially socialist prior, and for some time after, our accession to the EEC, with high levels of subsidy, protectionism and taxation. And we were poor and economically weak to boot too.
It would appear that based on that, a comparison of Ireland to Norway is a much better one than with Switzerland, which shares practically no similarity with Ireland (outside of a cultural affection towards an agricultural past).
You are bang on here. Switzerland is generally a right libertarian country. Left libertarianism is closer to unstructed collective Anarchism, but not quite. Their fierce immigration laws and fiscal conservatism is a great example of this. Ireland and Norway are far more socially liberal when it comes to wasting funds through Government ineptitude and whatnot:pac:0 -
Advertisement
-
Ignoring the socialist nonsense, how is our constitution at all altered by the "EU"? We have no alterations made without referenda thus far and I am doubtful we ever will.I have only compared these countries based on one single factor - their constitutional integrity. Comparing these countries economically and socially is secondary to the point I am making - that EU membership sets aside a nations Constitution in place of the EU socialist regime.
In all, I also should point out that you are yet another person that doesn't understand what sovereignty is. The phrase is bandied about like crazy around here by people with little to no notion of what they are talking about:
Firstly, there is no such thing as "economic sovereignty" - consumer sovereignty, absolutely, but that has no impact on your statement; secondly, there are many types of sovereignty - in Ireland, the sovereign happens to be the people. The question of internal sovereignty represents the question of legitimacy, or what power can a government have over its people (in other words, from where does the power to exercise authority stem?)
There is no "simple" answer to this, however, we place sovereignty with the people, meaning the Irish people have complete authority over this state and we use the method of democratic elections to create a government with popular majority whom we entrust with the creation of laws in our best interest. Now, I'll leave you to go out and research the doctrine of public sovereignty and read the meritorious arguments on both sides for a traditional versus modern internal sovereignty system.
If you believe we need an absolute sovereignty, then you need to research that as well. It would mean that we have no constitution, no common law, so societal or moral laws (i.e. the government has full control over your religion and personal lives eg abortion, marriage, etc.) and no recognition of International laws.
It is therefore true that all countries in the western world, both inside and outside the EU (including the USA, Switzerland, Australia, etc.) have given up or pooled some sovereignty to NATO, the WTO, the UN and so on. This is done because of the shared recognition that it will benefit the sovereign people of that nation. Very few "laws" preventing the sovereign from doing something are regulations and/or have direct effect in the EU (I'm assuming you understand the difference between regulations, directives, decisions and internal agreements as forms of secondary legislation in the EU as well as the concept of direct effect, both vertical and horizontal).
What is put in place are laws that benefit the individual sovereign that restrains the Member State from committing injustices against that person (i.e. abortion prevention, etc.) where the person can sue the Member State and directly apply EU laws to their benefit where there is an interest.
One must also remember that all secondary legislation must be implemented in the form of legislation in that Member State. Slight variances exist in many directives, for example, between Member States where the scope of the directive is implemented but done specifically so for that MS. This is our government exercising the role that we elected them to do. We further gave the mandate to the EU to give up and pool some sovereignty in order to implement legislation for our benefit. But it does not mean we have "given up" our sovereignty... we still retain 90% of it.
This makes absolutely no sense...This eventually leads to the destruction of a national identity, as evidenced by the number of our young people leaving for non EU countries every day. 111 is the magic number.The EU is largely responsible for the mess we are currently in.
We are largely responsible for the mess we are currently in. If you could explain how the EU caused it that would be amazing. I'm guessing you cannot and will not.
They are unequivocally not unconstitutional... you cannot support this whatsoever. You're forgetting that we went to the IMF and the EU for a bailout and we are bound to follow their instructions if we want the money... it's as simple as that. When we go back to the bond markets we can make our own rules again.This is not an opinion, it is a fact. The bailout terms are unconstitutional. You can't argue out of this single point.0 -
WTF!!!! What centrally planned economies which the EU advocates? Give some evidence of this - and when you do, please make sure you actually know what a centrally planned economy is.Centrally planned economies which the EU advocates illustrates this point.
But it does exist; as does the US, Russian Federation, USA, India, China and Brazil. Pretending that we are independent of Realpolitik, does not make it so.This is the result of the EU and it's coercion. If the EU didn't exist, this situation would not be relevant.
You originally said: "Switzerland isn't screwed because they value their economic and social sovereignty, unlike the Irish Government who is generally incapable of long term planning, as evidenced by the bailout failure."Point out exactly, because I am pretty sure I know what I said.
Nothing about either constitution, only the governments. When I pointed out that your example was factually wrong was when you began to change your story.
I never claimed they were europhiles. I simply disagreed with your simplistic reasoning as to why they might not be.A recent poll would refute that claim.
I've spent quite a considerable time in Switzerland so I suspect I have more of a clue than you, merci vilmal.Neither do you.
Practical only. If you think moral, then you know little about the Swiss.Practical enough to refuse EU membership on moral and economic grounds.
That's nonsense. If they abandoned the Swiss Franc, that might be true, but otherwise they would retain monetary policy, just as the British do. Additionally monetary policy is only one means of dealing with inflation - arguably fiscal polished are more effective.Yes, I understand inflation is not a simple decision, that it is the product of complex economic disparagies between member states. However, if for example Switzerland joined the EU, they would not ultimately control their interest rate through their own currency, they would have to sit back and let the gravy train politicians from Brussels sort that out.
I wasn't taking about the UK - I was pointing out that your fantasy about 'independent' Ireland was largely a fantasy. Why did you change the subject?The UK is one of most euroskeptic countries in existence. The fact they retain their currency is an illustration of this. Thatcher was a fierce critic of the EU. And rightly so.
Which taxes are these?Because our tax decisions can be made at the local Federal level in the case of a republic, not some faceless politicians in Brussels. It's a simple concept, really!
That's not what I asked. Stop ranting please.Remember when we voted No? Yeah, Constitutionally speaking, that would have stood if Ireland was more libertarian leaning. But no, the european overlords decided the voice of the Irish people was "wrong" and so asked them to vote the "correct" answer next time.
I think you mean dramatic, rather than democratic sense.Not in the extreme sense, but the more economically socially democratic sense. It's certainly not fiscally conservative or libertarian leaning. I would say more center left. As I said, they may not be as extreme as the soviet union, but the elements of economic planning are still in force today by the EU.
Elements of economic planning are still in force today by all nations, including liberal capitalist economies such as the US - and before you suggest this is down to Obama, please note that his republican predecessor did the same, just in other areas, such as agricultural subsidies.
If it contravenes our Constitution - which you have not demonstrated.No, if it contravenes our Constitution, it is technically illegal. Dev would be rolling in his grave over this.
Total non-sequitur to what I said.I don't like any form of socialism myself. Just because you or other countries may think it to be proper, does not mean everybody will agree. The British people generally despise the EU, despite being part of the union. Any Libertarian or fiscal conservative would disagree with the EU as a whole. At least I hope they would.
Propped up by centralized protectionism of uncompetitive industries and, in particular, a disastrously uncompetitive agricultural sector (pop into a Swiss supermarket and check out the price of meat.You are bang on here. Switzerland is generally a right libertarian country.
Additionally social welfare is very generous, unemployment insurance even more so (highest in Europe) and medical care is guaranteed for all.
Very 'right libertarian' :rolleyes:0 -
This is the result of the EU and it's coercion. If the EU didn't exist, this situation would not be relevant. Like the Soviet Union, they bully countries into accepting their laws and policies. The Lisbon farce we had here was a prime example. "You voted wrong, so vote again, stupid Irish people" - said the Eurokrauts.
[...]
Remember when we voted No? Yeah, Constitutionally speaking, that would have stood if Ireland was more libertarian leaning. But no, the european overlords decided the voice of the Irish people was "wrong" and so asked them to vote the "correct" answer next time.
Crotty v. An Taoiseach [1987] IESC 4, specifically the second part of the judgment, clarified that the SEA must go to the people for referendum as the Supreme Court felt that it sufficiently altered our Constitution.
The first Nice Treaty was put to the people and only 35% or so turned out, hardly a view of the sovereign as a whole. The main complaint (as in Lisbon later) was that the government had not explained the treaty well or sufficiently considered the question of military neutrality.
It is for the people, not the courts or the government to decide on whether a question should be re-put to the people. In this case, Ireland obtained a Seville Declaration and made major clarifications and changes to the treaty (as they did with Lisbon "2" as well) and the new Nice Treaty was voted on.
On both Nice 2 and Lisbon 2, the people were NOT voting on the same treaty - there is nothing unconstitutional about that.
Although she was responsible for the signing of over 600 EU Directives into British Law.The UK is one of most euroskeptic countries in existence. The fact they retain their currency is an illustration of this. Thatcher was a fierce critic of the EU. And rightly so.
Again, incorrect and misinterpretation of our constitution.No, if it contravenes our Constitution, it is technically illegal. Dev would be rolling in his grave over this.
I don't like socialism either, but I think Ireland was far more socialist prior to EU membership.I don't like any form of socialism myself. Just because you or other countries may think it to be proper, does not mean everybody will agree. The British people generally despise the EU, despite being part of the union. Any Libertarian or fiscal conservative would disagree with the EU as a whole. At least I hope they would.0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »Ignoring the socialist nonsense, how is our constitution at all altered by the "EU"? We have no alterations made without referenda thus far and I am doubtful we ever will.
Article 29.5.2 - “The State shall not be bound by any international agreement involving a charge upon public funds unless the terms of the agreement shall have been approved by Dáil Éireann.”
Completely illegal. As if the criminals in the ECB give a toss however. Where was the referrendum for this bailout? I know I wasn't part of it. It's a sham I tell you.0 -
Last time I checked Dáil Éireann approved said agreements, so it is neither unconstitutional nor illegal.Article 29.5.2 - “The State shall not be bound by any international agreement involving a charge upon public funds unless the terms of the agreement shall have been approved by Dáil Éireann.”0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Last time I checked Dáil Éireann approved said agreements, so it is neither unconstitutional nor illegal.
But he can't blame the EU if the Dáil did it (which they did).0 -
-
You are bang on here. Switzerland is generally a right libertarian country. Left libertarianism is closer to unstructed collective Anarchism, but not quite. Their fierce immigration laws and fiscal conservatism is a great example of this. Ireland and Norway are far more socially liberal when it comes to wasting funds through Government ineptitude and whatnot:pac:
You still haven't answered my question about what you mean by socialist. If you mean a social market economy (capitalism with limited government involvement and a safety net in the form of public health and social welfare) then every western democracy is to some extent, socialist.0 -
3-ish points in reply:Article 29.5.2 - “The State shall not be bound by any international agreement involving a charge upon public funds unless the terms of the agreement shall have been approved by Dáil Éireann.”
Completely illegal. As if the criminals in the ECB give a toss however. Where was the referrendum for this bailout? I know I wasn't part of it. It's a sham I tell you.
Firstly, as I mentioned previously you should consider the concept of direct effect in the EU. Specifically the Van Gend en Loos case (26/62 [1963] ECR 1).
Also, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft 11/70 [1970] ECR 1125:A public authority may not impose obligations on a citizen except to the extent to which they are strictly necessary in the public interest to attain the purpose of the measure.
Secondly, can you show me how this agreement is an "international agreement"? We have entered into a credit facility with non-state bodies (EFSF and IMF) where we are borrowing money to run the country. The ECB have nothing to do with the bank bailout... it still wouldn't be an international agreement.
Thirdly, how does any agreement involve a "charge upon public funds"?
Finally, I will say that your question is answered very well here0 -
Advertisement
-
The Corinthian wrote: »WTF!!!! What centrally planned economies which the EU advocates? Give some evidence of this - and when you do, please make sure you actually know what a centrally planned economy is.
Not in the traditional sense, no, but the rules and regulations handed down from the Eurokrauts is akin to cental planning of communist states, just a less extreme version. Fits in perfectly with the social democratic position of the EU. The EU plan centrally, but are simply more discrete and less severe than the Soviet Union. USSR Lite:)The Corinthian wrote: »You originally said: "Switzerland isn't screwed because they value their economic and social sovereignty, unlike the Irish Government who is generally incapable of long term planning, as evidenced by the bailout failure."
A bailout would never happen in Switzerland. They would take it to the international court of justice if required. The difference between here and Switzerland, is that they typically obey their Constitution.The Corinthian wrote: »Nothing about either constitution, only the governments. When I pointed out that your example was factually wrong was when you began to change your story.
No, my primary point was that because they are outside of the EU, they have basically full control over their economic policies. Would the EU allow their taxation policies if the Isle of Man joined the European Union? I think not. That was my point. The distinction you pointed out is secondary.The Corinthian wrote: »I never claimed they were europhiles. I simply disagreed with your simplistic reasoning as to why they might not be.
Point taken.The Corinthian wrote: »I've spent quite a considerable time in Switzerland so I suspect I have more of a clue than you, merci vilmal.
The Corinthian wrote: »Practical only. If you think moral, then you know little about the Swiss.
Swiss people aren't angels by any means, but at least they stand by their principles.The Corinthian wrote: »That's nonsense. If they abandoned the Swiss Franc, that might be true, but otherwise they would retain monetary policy, just as the British do. Additionally monetary policy is only one means of dealing with inflation - arguably fiscal polished are more effective.
But what would happen if they adopted the Euro?The Corinthian wrote: »I wasn't taking about the UK - I was pointing out that your fantasy about 'independent' Ireland was largely a fantasy. Why did you change the subject?
At the moment yes. I hope this won't be the case in the future. An Ireland without the EU will eventually lead to a better Ireland.The Corinthian wrote: »Which taxes are these?
Mostly direct taxes. Which are largely immoral. Indirect taxation should be the priority. Look at Hong Kong - feck all regulation and direct taxation, yet they seem to be doing ok.The Corinthian wrote: »That's not what I asked. Stop ranting please.
Right.The Corinthian wrote: »I think you mean dramatic, rather than democratic sense.
Right.The Corinthian wrote: »Elements of economic planning are still in force today by all nations, including liberal capitalist economies such as the US - and before you suggest this is down to Obama, please note that his republican predecessor did the same, just in other areas, such as agricultural subsidies.
Some moreso than others. The EU is one of the best examples at present. The Communist parties of both the Republiic of China and Cuba are worse however.The Corinthian wrote: »If it contravenes our Constitution - which you have not demonstrated.
Article 29.5.2 - “The State shall not be bound by any international agreement involving a charge upon public funds unless the terms of the agreement shall have been approved by Dáil Éireann.”The Corinthian wrote: »Total non-sequitur to what I said.
Right.The Corinthian wrote: »Propped up by centralized protectionism of uncompetitive industries and, in particular, a disastrously uncompetitive agricultural sector (pop into a Swiss supermarket and check out the price of meat.
This is intentional on their part. The swiss don't like competition in these areas. The EU policies would not allow them to protect their agri sector.The Corinthian wrote: »Additionally social welfare is very generous, unemployment insurance even more so (highest in Europe) and medical care is guaranteed for all.
Well, they are a rich country.The Corinthian wrote: »Very 'right libertarian' :rolleyes:
What would you consider to be their main political ideology?0
Advertisement