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
-
I would say, myself, that allowing the domestic banking sector to get to a point where the government apparently had absolutely no idea of the state of the banks was in itself an act of staggering incompetence, made even more grotesque by the number of years over which it was taking place and the number of warnings ignored.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Indeed so, and it makes one wonder further whether it was incompetence, or whether it might have been a strategy to drip drip drip the information, rather than do as the Americans did and get it all out and deal with it.
It seems hard to believe that no one in government or the Dept of finance was aware...0 -
Indeed so, and it makes one wonder further whether it was incompetence, or whether it might have been a strategy to drip drip drip the information, rather than do as the Americans did and get it all out and deal with it.
It seems hard to believe that no one in government or the Dept of finance was aware...
The evidence suggests that they had a fair idea, but preferred not to be aware of it.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
I read an article recently which played around with the legalities of a Euro exit situation. What I gleaned is that a unilateral exit from the Eurozone, whether in the aftermath of default or whatever, would leave the state in question open to be sued by other Eurozone states at the European Court of Justice for breaches of the relevant treaties establishing the Eurozone and any outstanding obligations. It is likely that the state in question would be effectively frozen out of the international financial markets. Former eurozone partners would also be well within their rights not to recognise any new national currency and to seize assets.
It appears that the only legitimate way for a current Eurozone state to exit the Euro as per the relevant treaties is for them to also simultaneously leave the EU. However, if agreed with other Member States, a Euro exiting state could theoretically be rapidly readmitted to the EU overnight, less the single currency. This would have to be approved at Council level to begin with, which in turn would likely have to approve further (EU and Euro) Treaty changes as such a situation is not currently explicitly envisaged under those instruments. In turn, a proposal for Treaty changes would also entail domestic parliamentary haggling and/or referenda in individual Member States. Given what we already know about the nature of European policymaking, this would hardly be an expeditious process for a state teetering on the brink, to put it mildly.0 -
mickthemick wrote: »Some politicans say that Ireland is too small to survive economicaly in a Globalized world without the EU. Look at Norway and Switzerland they've gotten on grand without it. Bigger market doesn't necessarily mean a more prosperous nation look at India, they have a common market with over 1 billion people it's not a rich country.
If we left the EU we could control our own economy without the interference of Brussels who didn't see the crash coming and who consistently get things wrong.
The EU is made up of a varied degree of different economies. It's good when things are going well, but when things are bad it's terrible.
Would people support a confederation of European States with a single Finance minister as I heard suggested last night on RTE news. Sounds like we would stop been a country if that happened.
It would be far worse for us to leave now.
Read this -
http://www.scribd.com/doc/64020390/xrm451260 -
mickthemick wrote: »Some politicans say that Ireland is too small to survive economicaly in a Globalized world without the EU. Look at Norway and Switzerland they've gotten on grand without it. Bigger market doesn't necessarily mean a more prosperous nation look at India, they have a common market with over 1 billion people it's not a rich country.
If we left the EU we could control our own economy without the interference of Brussels who didn't see the crash coming and who consistently get things wrong.
The EU is made up of a varied degree of different economies. It's good when things are going well, but when things are bad it's terrible.
Would people support a confederation of European States with a single Finance minister as I heard suggested last night on RTE news. Sounds like we would stop been a country if that happened.
Some extent of separation at another time, perhaps.
When things were going well there would have been more capacity to do so, in some shape or form. Unfortunately, for quite a long time, things were 'going well' due to the property bubble which in reality meant that things weren't going well at all.
Leaving the common market at this time would be seriously counter-productive to any prospects of economic recovery.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm not sure deteriorating is the right word - what I can see, I'd say, is that crisis, back at the beginning, was very deep, and that we've spent the last few years finding out how deep it really is.
The same logic applies, if you like, to our particular banking crisis - when it started, there was little appreciation how deep the hole in the banks was, and as that information was slowly revealed over time, I guess one might (and many did) say that the situation of the Irish banks was deteriorating, because the news appeared to be getting worse and worse. I would say that on the contrary, it was improving, because the actual position of the banks didn't change much, while the knowledge about their actual position constantly improved.
In terms of an analogy, it's like having dry rot in an old house you've bought. Initially you think there's just a bit, but as you start digging into it, you find that the rot is much more extensive than you thought. The amount of rot hasn't changed though - you've just found more of it, so while the news gets more and more depressing, the situation is actually improving, because you're getting a more and more realistic appreciation of the situation.
In the case of the euro crisis, the news has continued to get worse over time, but the appreciation of the depth of the crisis has grown for the same reason - and as a result of that, the pressure for coordinated and meaningful responses has grown. So we're now in a position where the knowledge and the political response are much improved from the early days of the crisis - whereas had that not improved, then the outcome of the real problems involved would certainly have been far more spectacular than it has been.
So, from my perspective, we're now into the 'coordinated response on the basis of knowledge' phase of the crisis, which is a better place than the 'running around like headless chickens looking for someone on whom to pin the blame for nebulous scary unknowns' phase - and I consider that an improvement rather than a deterioration. Deterioration, to me, would involve the crisis itself having got worse, in terms of real size or political response, and I don't think that's the case - quite the opposite.
Having said that, it's still a crisis, and it could still end disastrously (as opposed to just liveably miserably, as appears to be currently on the cards), but that will be the result of the original scale of the problems, not of any significant underlying increase in scale.
cordially,
Scofflaw
What absolute twaddle. Three words for you...mark to market.
If anything, there is a concerted effort to cover up/deny/keep head in sand about the true scale of the issue...which is the reason that bond spreads are trending up.
Scoffer strikes again...
Amused
Amberman0 -
Temporal deterioration...some examples for you to get your head around...
Pick any starting point for the baseline.
deterioration, degeneration, decadence, decline mean the falling from a higher to a lower level in quality, character, or vitality.
1. Political will and support shrinking in German politics and in the German public for the grand project.
2. House prices continue to fall, thereby worsening the situation at the banks/sovereigns where applicable
3. Bond spreads continue to trend higher
4. Bailout funds required to grow in size to be effective from initial estimates
5. GDP growth trending lower again
6. Greece shrinking faster than the Troica estimated
7. Unemployment ticking higher in many PIIGS
8. Inflation adjusted incomes falling
9. Eurocrats meeting in 4 star hotels instead of 5 star hotels as austerity bites
Take yer pick! Im sure theres many more.
Now...what isn't deteriorating? Some examples please.
Scoffingly
Amberman0 -
What hasn't changed is the level of political activity. As ever, the politicians at EU and domestic level make it look like they are busy busy busy, and give off the impression that they are taking it all seriously, beavering away burning the midnight oil on solutions, and using the language to give off these impressions. They are all talk and no action.
The reality is they have been sitting on their hands for three years, and we have seen an almost total failure of political leadership. This crises has now become almost as much a political crises as a financial one, due the this political failure.
If ever there was a situation which shows the inability of the EU to act swiftly and in a timely manner, this situation exposes how their failure to act has exacerbated a crises.0 -
-
I dread the solution which enables them to act in a timely manner...
I am sure many will agree, but what we currently have is not working. I look at individual governments around Europe, and see fudge, hand wringing, inactivity and window dressing, and they are doing everything apart from taking the necessary action. So it has been for the last three yeaars.
I look at the EU and see a similar level of sitting on their hands. The more sceptical side of me might wonder if it's not deliberate, as its impossible to think that we know what action to take and the EU don't, and wonder if,at some stage in the future when it all looks bleak, they will announce the EU will take action, but only if member states give up taxation and fiscal policies to the EU.0 -
Advertisement
-
and wonder if,at some stage in the future when it all looks bleak, they will announce the EU will take action, but only if member states give up taxation and fiscal policies to the EU.
I think that is a long shot...and am pretty sure many countries would block it.
I think a more likely scenario is that the incumbents currently steering the good ship Eurofarce are ousted by Eurosceptics and decision making becomes a bit more crisp as we embrace realistic and viable alternatives to the current system.
Could be a European-wide True-Finn type clean sweep coming soon.
It's beginning to look that way in Germany and France. Berlusconi looks like hes coming to the end of the line too and the Spanish premier isn't seeking re-election. As for G-Pap...its pretty clear he's toast.0 -
I think that is a long shot...and am pretty sure many countries would block it.
.
I suppose many countries might be so needy of financial support, that they will be in no position to block it if it's a condition of on-going financial support. We have already seen politicians in every country in Europe snubbing their noses at what their electorates want in the past in the past in favour of further EU integration, and to suppose this might change at the very time that the same politicians need billions in aid from the EU seems unlikely.I think a more likely scenario is that the incumbents currently steering the good ship Eurofarce are ousted by Eurosceptics and decision making becomes a bit more crisp as we embrace realistic and viable alternatives to the current system.
I thought that one of the issues which was exposed in recent years was that there is no mechanism to oust anyone in the EU, apart from the MEP's. How do you think they might be ousted?
My own view is that revolution is closer and closer all the time, as those who rule us become more and more distant from us, and as they become less and less connected to what the people of Europe want. It might never happen, but there is a considerable amount of anger building up across europe, with no visible method of allowing that steam to be vented.0 -
Temporal deterioration...some examples for you to get your head around...
Pick any starting point for the baseline.
deterioration, degeneration, decadence, decline mean the falling from a higher to a lower level in quality, character, or vitality.
1. Political will and support shrinking in German politics and in the German public for the grand project.
2. House prices continue to fall, thereby worsening the situation at the banks/sovereigns where applicable
3. Bond spreads continue to trend higher
4. Bailout funds required to grow in size to be effective from initial estimates
5. GDP growth trending lower again
6. Greece shrinking faster than the Troica estimated
7. Unemployment ticking higher in many PIIGS
8. Inflation adjusted incomes falling
9. Eurocrats meeting in 4 star hotels instead of 5 star hotels as austerity bites
Take yer pick! Im sure theres many more.
Now...what isn't deteriorating? Some examples please.
Scoffingly
Amberman
Everything there was already factored in to my first response, so you could re-read that if you like?
Again, with the "building anger" thing, all crises tend to involve an erosion of trust in institutions and in joint efforts, but your belief that this will grow into some kind of "True Finn" eurosceptic sweep of Europe confuses what you'd like to happen with what's likely.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Which is?I look at individual governments around Europe, and see fudge, hand wringing, inactivity and window dressing, and they are doing everything apart from taking the necessary action.
Have we? When?We have already seen politicians in every country in Europe snubbing their noses at what their electorates want in the past in the past in favour of further EU integration...0 -
Which is?
Have we? When?
The decision to essentially ignore the outcomes of the referenda on the EU Constitution in France and Holland, to rehash the vast majority of it in the Lisbon Treaty in order to avoid referenda in those countries and then then forcing the Irish electorate to vote again on that Treaty until they got the answer they wanted, without any change to the substance of the Treaty itself.0 -
Ah, that weasel word. Covers a multitude, doesn't it?The decision to essentially ignore the outcomes of the referenda on the EU Constitution in France and Holland, to rehash the vast majority of it in the Lisbon Treaty in order to avoid referenda in those countries...
I'm going to ask you a question that I've asked several people who have had the same complaint as you. I've never gotten an answer, but maybe you'll surprise me.
Given that you object to the majority of the Constitution being included in the Lisbon treaty, what percentage of the Constitution would be acceptable in a treaty before you would consider it a different document? Also, how do you measure that percentage, and by what measure is that percentage objectively the correct one?
Yeah, those thugs from Brussels kicking my door down and putting a gun to my head to force me to vote again - don't they know that the less often you vote, the more democratic it is?...and then then forcing the Irish electorate to vote again on that Treaty until they got the answer they wanted, without any change to the substance of the Treaty itself.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »those thugs from Brussels [...] don't they know that the less often you vote, the more democratic it is?
Patently; as the citizens of Brussels have never had a vote on the EU.
And the Lisbon percentage thing is very silly. From that perspective you could argue that 0.000000000000000000000000001% change is a sufficient grounds from which to argue that the documents are different to an acceptable level - ah, 'acceptable'; that weasel word covers a multitude, doesn't it?0 -
RandomName2 wrote: »Patently; as the citizens of Brussels have never had a vote on the EU.
And the Lisbon percentage thing is very silly. From that perspective you could argue that 0.000000000000000000000000001% change is a sufficient grounds from which to argue that the documents are different to an acceptable level - ah, 'acceptable'; that weasel word covers a multitude, doesn't it?
Depends on what the change is. Take a 10,000 word life insurance contract, change the word "death" for "injury", and you have completely different contract. What oscar is asking, though, is what degree of change an opponent would have considered as materially changing the Treaty.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
The decision to essentially ignore the outcomes of the referenda on the EU Constitution in France and Holland, to rehash the vast majority of it in the Lisbon Treaty in order to avoid referenda in those countries and then then forcing the Irish electorate to vote again on that Treaty until they got the answer they wanted, without any change to the substance of the Treaty itself.
1) The previous poster's claim was:We have already seen politicians in every country in Europe snubbing their noses at what their electorates want in the past in the past in favour of further EU integration
I believe that in an EU context, "every" country does mean more than three.
2) In a democracy, defeat of a proposal does not alter the existing legal structure. In an EU context, that means the democratically mandated legal commitments by member states to working towards specified objectives remains in situ in such a case.
Hence, the member states honoured their democratic legal commitments - you are not suggesting that they should have disregarded them, I hope...0 -
I thought that one of the issues which was exposed in recent years was that there is no mechanism to oust anyone in the EU, apart from the MEP's. How do you think they might be ousted?
The mechanisms are comparable to the existing ones we have domestically.
A quick summary:
1) EP - Direct Elections (presuming the MEP stands for re-election)
2) Commission - Vote by the EP
3) Council of Ministers - Vote by the Oireachtas (our Ministers only obviously)
4) European Council - as 3 above for the Taoiseach, vote by the Council for the Council President.
Possibly impeachment in extremely rare cases - as independence is a prerequisite of the bodies:
5) ECJ
6) ECB
7) Court of Auditors0 -
Advertisement
-
Everything there was already factored in to my first response, so you could re-read that if you like?
Again, with the "building anger" thing, all crises tend to involve an erosion of trust in institutions and in joint efforts, but your belief that this will grow into some kind of "True Finn" eurosceptic sweep of Europe confuses what you'd like to happen with what's likely.
cordially,
Scofflaw
So you can see a multitude of key metrics moving from higher quality to lower quality (deteriorating), but you cannot see the entire deterioration?
Hmmm....ok. I'm going to let this slide and stop embarrassing you.
Again, please give some key metrics which aren't deteriorating...might enhance your case (I'm trying to help you here).
Also, if you think, for example, that I'd want a Le Penn in charge of France, you are in fantasy land. This is not an outcome I would cheer for.
However, look at the poll numbers...it is a huge mistake to think it is a long shot...it looks like Le Pens election is one of the two most probable outcomes in the next French presidential election.
If a French bank explodes as many are predicting and France loses its AAA credit rating (could we call that a deterioration if it were to happen?)...I have no idea how the French would react politically, but it isn't a long shot to think that Le Penn would use such an event to garner support for their scape-goating agenda.0 -
So you can see a multitude of key metrics moving from higher quality to lower quality (deteriorating), but you cannot see the entire deterioration?
Hmmm....ok. I'm going to let this slide and stop embarrassing you.
Again, please give some key metrics which aren't deteriorating...might enhance your case (I'm trying to help you here).
Too kind! Perhaps my first version was too long, so I'll summarise - you see 'key metrics' as 'deteriorating', I see them as being revealed, and my view is that the response to the crisis is becoming increasingly coordinated as the depth of it becomes more apparent, having followed the classic pattern of an initial withdrawal towards nationalistic isolationism - something exacerbated by Merkel's weakness. If the political response to the crisis was becoming less coordinated, I would be very deeply concerned. Where there's a will, there's a way - so evidence that there is a will suggests to me that a way will be found.Also, if you think, for example, that I'd want a Le Penn in charge of France, you are in fantasy land. This is not an outcome I would cheer for.
I'm very glad to hear it - I find the idea that any citizen of a small European nation would cheer for nationalism in the large European nations bizarre, to say the least. Those who think we're being "bullied" and "sidelined" in the EU would find their vocabularies devoid of terms to describe our likely treatment in a Europe of states controlled only by the dictates of national interest.However, look at the poll numbers...it is a huge mistake to think it is a long shot...it looks like Le Pens election is one of the two most probable outcomes in the next French presidential election.
If a French bank explodes as many are predicting and France loses its AAA credit rating (could we call that a deterioration if it were to happen?)...I have no idea how the French would react politically, but it isn't a long shot to think that Le Penn would use such an event to garner support for their scape-goating agenda.
Obviously not - in times of trouble, people do turn to more extreme parties, and by and large it's the more extreme parties that are nationalistic to the exclusion of wider viewpoints. However, with respect to the French National Front, this is hardly an unprecedented show of popular support, given their strong performance in 2002.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Revelations are static...i.e. the true unemployment rate is, say 9%. That is a revelation.
A deterioration would be if the unemployment rate went from 9% to 10%.
See how that works?0 -
Revelations are static...i.e. the true unemployment rate is, say 9%. That is a revelation.
A deterioration would be if the unemployment rate went from 9% to 10%.
See how that works?
If you have, let's say, a property bubble, then you'll have a construction bubble. A construction bubble implies a lot of people working in construction who would not be so employed in the absence of the bubble. So if your property bubble bursts, unemployment will rise - but the rise is a predictable outcome of the existing problems, not something new and alarming in itself.
See how that works?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Ah, that weasel word. Covers a multitude, doesn't it?
I'm going to ask you a question that I've asked several people who have had the same complaint as you. I've never gotten an answer, but maybe you'll surprise me.
Given that you object to the majority of the Constitution being included in the Lisbon treaty, what percentage of the Constitution would be acceptable in a treaty before you would consider it a different document? Also, how do you measure that percentage, and by what measure is that percentage objectively the correct one? Yeah, those thugs from Brussels kicking my door down and putting a gun to my head to force me to vote again - don't they know that the less often you vote, the more democratic it is?
Firstly, I didn't necessarily say that I objected to anything. I was merely highlighting a possible example, in light of a previous posters comment, which could be construed as an illustration of a chain of events which could throw into question the respect of unelected bureaucrats and technocrats in Brussels for processes of national democracy.
Having said that, in the interest of full disclosure, I will declare my own view here as I have obviously hit a nerve. I am broadly pro-European but not willing to blindly agree with everything which is proposed by politicians who are prone to be pathological liars and a (substantially unelected) number of graduates from the College of Europe who are of the view that they know what's best for Europe and are intent on establishing a federal state at all costs, particularly at the cost of national democracy. I am also very concerned that where debate on the future of the EU is proposed either openly or on places like Boards, people who adopt a more (often constructively) critical stance on the direction of the EU tend to be castigated as narrow minded slack jawed nationalists. This is certainly not the case with respect to me in any event.
I, in fact, was, on balance, in favour of Lisbon I (despite some reservations) and felt it was a reasonable compromise on the EU Constitution. However, I was disgusted at the way the result was handled and subsequently handled by politicians in the wake of the rejection of Lisbon I. I admit that this revulsion was primarily on a point of principle rather than practicality, as such. I accept that referenda have, and will again in future, be put a second or third time but there has often been a period of a number of years before a matter has traditionally been put to referendum again, particularly in this country, though it appears that when it comes to the EU, those principles are thrown out the window and referenda are merely viewed by the political class as a necessary (though it is also debateable whether they need to run referenda on the EU at all, but this is for another day) evil as rubber stamping exercises (Nice, Lisbon).
I felt that the political class, in Ireland certainly, and to an extent Europe in general 'gamed' Lisbon II, in particular, in light of worsening economic conditions and cynically played on people's fears. Lisbon II had little or nothing to do, explicitly at least, with job creation. Having said that, I would of course not suggest that 'thugs from Brussels' forced anyone to do anything but would point out that the methods used were much more subtle. Reasoned debate was substantially replaced by fear. And while I have great confidence in the people on Boards to disregard attempts to engender fear, bear in mind that the non-expert majority may not be in a favourable position to do so. Fear is a well established technique for encouraging people to adopt a certain view or behave a certain way, despite the existence of possible other objective counter arguments which are often smothered in those circumstances. I cannot see that ratifying Lisbon has done anything in particular for job creation in Ireland in any case.
Bringing this all back on message to this thread, I would be of the view that the blind faith placed in the ability of both national and European politicians (and bureaucrats) to administer a political and currency union has substantially bore some fruition and is substantially (though not entirely) responsible for landing us in the position we now face.
I guess my takeaway point would be that I would suggest that when considering this whole issue, this is not a black and white intellectual battle between Europhiles and slack jawed nationalists. There is, as far as I can see, a considerable number of people populating a large grey area between these poles who are not simply willing to take everything they are told at face value, whether that relates to the evils or the virtues of the proposed direction of the EU and Euro projects. A more grown up and considered debate is desirable.0 -
I guess I'll chalk that up as yet another non-answer to my question, so. A verbose non-answer, to be fair, but a non-answer nonetheless.
That only works if you carefully define "respect for processes of national democracy" in terms that support the simplistic "no means no" thesis. You've crafted such a definition quite nicely later in your post, but you've forgotten to take into account the fact that it's a subjective definition, and as such is only useful when used to support your argument. In other words, you're begging the question.I was merely highlighting a possible example, in light of a previous posters comment, which could be construed as an illustration of a chain of events which could throw into question the respect of unelected bureaucrats and technocrats in Brussels for processes of national democracy.
What a coincidence! I too am broadly pro-European but not willing to blindly agree with everything which is proposed by politicians, whether or not they are of the view that they know what's best for Europe and regardless of their intentions vis-a-vis a federal state.Having said that, in the interest of full disclosure, I will declare my own view here as I have obviously hit a nerve. I am broadly pro-European but not willing to blindly agree with everything which is proposed by politicians who are prone to be pathological liars and a (substantially unelected) number of graduates from the College of Europe who are of the view that they know what's best for Europe and are intent on establishing a federal state at all costs, particularly at the cost of national democracy.
Which can only mean that your self-declaration of yourself as such, which was clearly designed to cast people who disagree with you in the opposite light, isn't all that meaningful.
Such castigation tends to happen almost exclusively in certain readers' interpretations of other people's posts.I am also very concerned that where debate on the future of the EU is proposed either openly or on places like Boards, people who adopt a more (often constructively) critical stance on the direction of the EU tend to be castigated as narrow minded slack jawed nationalists.
There's that careful definition you're talking about earlier. You've established a standard for respect of national democracy that you admit is not a practical one (and therefore not usefully objective), but based on a point of (presumably subjective) principle.I, in fact, was, on balance, in favour of Lisbon I (despite some reservations) and felt it was a reasonable compromise on the EU Constitution. However, I was disgusted at the way the result was handled and subsequently handled by politicians in the wake of the rejection of Lisbon I. I admit that this revulsion was primarily on a point of principle rather than practicality, as such.
Your principle, like that of many others, seems to be that it doesn't matter why people give the answer that they give; merely that they should be condemned to accept the results of that answer no matter what.
With the greatest of respect, that's not a principle that I think should inform any project, let alone one as important as the European Union.
I have trouble reconciling this statement - one which is archetypal of the anti-Lisbon campaign - with your earlier assertion that you were broadly supportive of the Lisbon treaty. Leaving that aside, why was your support so tentative that you went from thinking it was a good idea to implement it to thinking it a bad idea merely on the basis of being asked the same question twice?I cannot see that ratifying Lisbon has done anything in particular for job creation in Ireland in any case.
I might agree, if I had ever seen such blind faith expressed anywhere on this forum.Bringing this all back on message to this thread, I would be of the view that the blind faith placed in the ability of both national and European politicians (and bureaucrats) to administer a political and currency union has substantially bore some fruition and is substantially (though not entirely) responsible for landing us in the position we now face.
I agree, but I disagree that one side of the debate is guilty of taking everything at face value. That is as offensive a caricature as that of the "slack jawed nationalist", and gives the lie to the idea of a considered debate, frankly.I guess my takeaway point would be that I would suggest that when considering this whole issue, this is not a black and white intellectual battle between Europhiles and slack jawed nationalists. There is, as far as I can see, a considerable number of people populating a large grey area between these poles who are not simply willing to take everything they are told at face value, whether that relates to the evils or the virtues of the proposed direction of the EU and Euro projects. A more grown up and considered debate is desirable.0 -
I was merely highlighting a possible example, in light of a previous posters comment, which could be construed as an illustration of a chain of events which could throw into question the respect of unelected bureaucrats and technocrats in Brussels for processes of national democracy.
It is up to the government and parliament of each member state to operate (for want of a better word) in accordance with the provisions of their national democracy. It isn't up to the "unelected bureaucrats and technocrats in Brussels" to decide anything in relation to this. Hence this "chain of events" has nothing to do with them and everything to do with the member states. And bar the cases of outright unconstitutional actions, the decisions of democratic parliaments are ipso facto fully democratic.Having said that, in the interest of full disclosure, I will declare my own view here as I have obviously hit a nerve. I am broadly pro-European but not willing to blindly agree with everything which is proposed by politicians who are prone to be pathological liars ...
I can appreciate the sentiments but we hit a bit of an impasse here. Under the provision of BnahE, only our democratically elected government has the right to negotiate international treaties on our behalf. This is what they do.
Obviously, if we want them to negotiate X rather than Y, then the time to express this is before and during any negotiations. If we don't do so, or worse, have no idea of what X or Y are, much less whether we either want them or wish to reject them, then our negotiators are wasting their time negotiating on our behalf.
Indeed while the media liked to talk about "a crisis for the EU" in the aftermath of the Nice I & Lisbon I referenda here, it really isn't a crisis for the EU, rather it is a crisis for Ireland. The logical course of action for the other member states would be to say to us: "Okay, off you go and go through the Treaties clause by clause, when you hit clauses you have a problem with, you say so and we can have a look at them". That though would immediately expose the fact that the referendum process is totally unsuited to establishing that clause A or B or C were problematic as the fact that, let's say, Joe Higgins objected to clause A doesn't mean that anyone else did, much less a majority.
Our system is akin to calling the surgeon in to operate and while he stands there waiting, having the layman (try and) review the medical data in order to make a decision on whether the patient has a condition and its possible treatment.... and a (substantially unelected) number of graduates from the College of Europe who are of the view that they know what's best for Europe and are intent on establishing a federal state at all costs, particularly at the cost of national democracy.
As above - it is up to the member states to decide the future of the EU. If they decide to abolish it tomorrow, the graduates of the College of Europe get no more say in the matter than anyone else.I accept that referenda have, and will again in future, be put a second or third time but there has often been a period of a number of years before a matter has traditionally been put to referendum again, particularly in this country,
I believe this point was argued before the Supreme Court here and rejected by them.referenda are merely viewed by the political class as a necessary (though it is also debateable whether they need to run referenda on the EU at all, but this is for another day) evil as rubber stamping exercises (Nice, Lisbon).
Largely correct imo, but the political class has some justification for their view. The people (in the constitution) left it up to the Oireachtas to ratify international treaties, the politicians have basically been bounced into them for EU Treaties as there is no mechanism to establish whether a proposed Treaty is constitutional until after it is passed. Hence you get "We'll just put it all to the people, in case we might have missed something" referenda.I felt that the political class, in Ireland certainly, and to an extent Europe in general 'gamed' Lisbon II, in particular, in light of worsening economic conditions and cynically played on people's fears.
And the Lisbon I referenda featured no scare mongering by the No side? Or is just that such tactics are acceptable in securing a No?
Arguably, there wouldn't have been a Lisbon II referendum at all if the No side hadn't engaged in that behaviour in Lisbon I particularly given the narrow margin in it.
As it is, if you are claiming that fear played a large part in influencing decision making in a referendum then you are essentially making a strong argument for their abolition as it is pointless in holding them if the result can be easily decided by such tactics. The alternative, in that case, is to leave it to the Oireachtas to decide.There is, as far as I can see, a considerable number of people populating a large grey area between these poles who are not simply willing to take everything they are told at face value, whether that relates to the evils or the virtues of the proposed direction of the EU and Euro projects. A more grown up and considered debate is desirable.
I can partially agree with that but from witnessing multiple referenda, I don't believe they are in any way conducive to considered debate. Indeed, in the case of EU Treaties, they are particularly stupid as the time to make decisions on what you are willing to agree to is before and during the negotiations not afterwards (so as to ensure that is in fact what you do negotiate).
Having lived in countries with multiple systems of government (including Switzerland), I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the place for considered debate in a democracy ultimately must be the parliament. That though, of course, puts the onus on the voter to choose carefully the political views they want to see represented there.0 -
Having lived in countries with multiple systems of government (including Switzerland), I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the place for considered debate in a democracy ultimately must be the parliament. That though, of course, puts the onus on the voter to choose carefully the political views they want to see represented there.
Of course, the results are interesting. Switzerland, with its attempt to be as democratic as it can be, is a rich and successful and stable country. It has been like that for many years.
The EU is different. It's aim since its inception has been to take away more and more powers from the member states to itself, and once given up the acquis commmunautaire ensures there is no mechanism for powers to be given or taken back by the individual countries.
There simply is no point in the Irish parliament discussing fishing poilcy, or agricultural policy and so on, and no point in the Irish people having referendums on many subjects, because they Irish parliament, and Irish people, have no power to change any of the majority of issues which they have given away.
Look at the relative fortunes of Ireland vs Switzerland. The former with little real democracy, and latter with attempts at real democracy.
We've seen in the past how the EU operates, with democracy sacrificed for political gain, with most countries people denied an opportunity to express their will, and those who do express their will are pressured and coerced into changing it.
My hunch is that the EU is going to try to move to take over taxation and fiscal policy, and invoke this crises, which they have created, as the excuse.
At which point national parliaments become more like local governemnts, and referendums in individual countries become pointless as individual countries will have given up their powers in all important matters to the EU.
I might be wrong, but I'll bet the EU will use this crises to attempt to sieze more power to the center.0 -
Of course, the results are interesting. Switzerland, with its attempt to be as democratic as it can be, is a rich and successful and stable country. It has been like that for many years.
The EU is different. It's aim since its inception has been to take away more and more powers from the member states to itself, and once given up the acquis commmunautaire ensures there is no mechanism for powers to be given or taken back by the individual countries.
There simply is no point in the Irish parliament discussing fishing poilcy, or agricultural policy and so on, and no point in the Irish people having referendums on many subjects, because they Irish parliament, and Irish people, have no power to change any of the majority of issues which they have given away.
Look at the relative fortunes of Ireland vs Switzerland. The former with little real democracy, and latter with attempts at real democracy.
We've seen in the past how the EU operates, with democracy sacrificed for political gain, with most countries people denied an opportunity to express their will, and those who do express their will are pressured and coerced into changing it.
My hunch is that the EU is going to try to move to take over taxation and fiscal policy, and invoke this crises, which they have created, as the excuse.
At which point national parliaments become more like local governemnts, and referendums in individual countries become pointless as individual countries will have given up their powers in all important matters to the EU.
I might be wrong, but I'll bet the EU will use this crises to attempt to sieze more power to the center.
Since the EU cannot take powers from the Member States, who remain, in the words of the German Constitutional Court, the "masters of the Treaties", this is all ignorant bunkum.
There is no mechanism by which the EU can take powers from the Member States that the Member States do not give to it. Even where the ECJ rules that a power granted to the EU by the Member States in a treaty implies or requires that the EU exercise another power, reversal of the ruling only requires a clarification be inserted into the next Treaty.
So if, as a result of this crisis, the Member States (or the eurozone ones) decide to use the EU as a forum for jointly making economic decisions, that's what will happen - and if not, not. The EU cannot make it happen, because the EU doesn't write the EU Treaties.
Really, there's no excuse for this kind of ignorance of the basic legal processes of the EU.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
If you have, let's say, a property bubble, then you'll have a construction bubble. A construction bubble implies a lot of people working in construction who would not be so employed in the absence of the bubble. So if your property bubble bursts, unemployment will rise - but the rise is a predictable outcome of the existing problems, not something new and alarming in itself.
See how that works?
cordially,
Scofflaw
So when you say revelation, do you actually mean projection?
Give me a quick refresher...whats the central planners statisticians track record for accuracy like in that department?
From what I can see (if you'd like to me to give you evidence, I can) ...they are hopelessly optimistic and almost always wrong...hence...(drumroll)
...deterioration!
See how that works?0
Advertisement