why so afraid to go it alone

SimpleSam06

IRLConor wrote: »

So you don't see the general correlation around the world between wealth and lack of dictatorships?

I've lived in third world countries overwhelmed with natural resources and opulence, for about 1% of the population. Everyone else, well, thats unfortunate. Its not the wealth, its how its distributed.

You need a lot more than an injection of capital to turn around one of these places, you need the emergence of a strong and well educated middle class, which implies infrastructure and educational investment, stability and a whole host of other factors, which must unfotunately come from the top. The top in most of these countries has a tendency just to add another wing on the palace and raise another battalion or two in the case of capital influx.

If it was that easy these problems would no longer exist.

IRLConor wrote: »

Going on the figures in Wikipedia, the OPEC countries represent 76% of the reserves and 57% of production. If they stopped selling us oil or jacked up the prices much higher then I don't think Russia and Canada can take up the slack.

Food is a lot more sensitive than oil. Higher oil prices do have a crippling effect, but that is nothing compared to the buzz saw to the knees that food supplies being reduced would result in. We are all 48 hours from starvation, all the time. You can't outsource that.

I'm all for the growth of third world countries and the good things that will bring, but cutting the food subsidies is a really, really stupid way to attempt to make that happen.

cabinteelytom

The strategic argument ('how do we withstand a siege or food imbargo?') is a particularly weak argument for highly subsidised agriculture. The raw materials of such agriculture (animal feed, chemicals, fertiliser) have to be imported along vulnerable routes, eating into the logistical transport capacity (which may be needed elsewhere; let's hope there's some fight being put up somewhere.)
What we need in the siege situation is: just fields and fields of rough grazing maintained by cattle, which can be ploughed under, and will then give one or two harvests of cereals or potatoes, before any further fertiliser is required.
The Ceide fields model...one's nights' sleep destroyed by interminable corncrakes, but peace of mind, once the children have been taught to eat stirabout.

IRLConor

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I've lived in third world countries overwhelmed with natural resources and opulence, for about 1% of the population. Everyone else, well, thats unfortunate. Its not the wealth, its how its distributed.

You need a lot more than an injection of capital to turn around one of these places, you need the emergence of a strong and well educated middle class, which implies infrastructure and educational investment, stability and a whole host of other factors, which must unfotunately come from the top. The top in most of these countries has a tendency just to add another wing on the palace and raise another battalion or two in the case of capital influx.

If it was that easy these problems would no longer exist.

That's only one half of the problem though, and it's not the half we can solve easily. The other half is that many third world countries simply don't have enough money in their economies regardless of how it's distributed. We can help solve that and I would argue that it's a moral obligation to do so.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Food is a lot more sensitive than oil. Higher oil prices do have a crippling effect, but that is nothing compared to the buzz saw to the knees that food supplies being reduced would result in. We are all 48 hours from starvation, all the time. You can't outsource that.

So you don't realise that oil supply reduction == food supply problems?

Look, not being able to import food from another country is a scenario right up there with World War 3, Nuclear Holocaust and things like that. Yes, it's catastrophic but it's ridiculously unlikely to happen. It's certainly not likely enough to be a factor for deciding whether or not we leave the EU.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I'm all for the growth of third world countries and the good things that will bring, but cutting the food subsidies is a really, really stupid way to attempt to make that happen.

Long term all of those countries will stay poor if we continue to keep our tariffs and subsidies (on everything, not just food). I don't see how they can possibly compete if we continue the way we are.

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

Depends on the level of the EU tariffs! The Irish taxation institute has said the tax rate is not under threat. Most people I think will believe them on tax issues.

Actually, I would think since politics is involved, my guess is as good as their guess as to whether the tax rate is under threat. As far as I remember they made that statement prior to the referendum and subsequent reaction of Eurocrats to Irish vote. Did they make any such statements since then confirming that the CTR is not under threat?

You are also ignoring the far more immediate threat. Some people have that much fear of France and Germany, they are taking the eye off the ball! The US is our biggest threat to our tax laws.

Presumably you are referring to foreign US companies have to top up their taxes to the US rate to repatriate them. Does this just apply to US countries in Ireland or are we onto a level playing field with every other country - available (educated) workforce, ease of doing business, stable government, English language etc. etc.

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

That isn't a serious response. 1 Billion Euro for how many people? Do the Maths.

Your right - it wasn't a serious response.

Again just like the argument about Irish FDI in the US, the I Billion Euro is of far more importance to 4 Million Irish people, than 1 Billion in 500 Million peoples pockets. Seriously, this is getting ridiculous.

Same as 74,000 jobs by Irish firms in America is a drop in the Ocean compared to the US firms jobs here. I think you have a completely over exaggerated belief in Irelands importance on its own.

I'm merely pointing out that it is not just a one way street with FDI with the US. And since Ireland is so important, what was in it for the various US presidents involved in the peace process in NI?

On farming, the problem is as highlighted already, we'll need bigger farms to increase production. Many small farmers will leave the farms, putting extra pressure on employment.

Thats right, may as well pay farmers social welfare to do nothing! Much cheaper than EU subsidies.

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't think I have....Ganley bothers people on both Yes and No 'sides', but the No campaign is happy enough to say nothing as long as Ganley is putting money behind a No vote (and, it seems, happy enough to continue saying nothing in expectation of a repeat). As I say, the original Indymedia article is worth a read - plenty of people from organisations like CAEUC saying exactly that - they don't like Ganley, they think his connections are dubious, but they also think Chekov Feeny shouldn't have written the article.

He may be an SOB, but he's the No side's SOB, if you see what I mean.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fianna Fail were happy to say nothing about Ganley when he was contributing to their coffers (according to him, he was never asked where he made his money). Since Fianna Fail took political donations from him, should we be just as worried about their dubious connections?

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

People will buy less! Less Fillets, sirloins etc., less eating out.

McDonalds will probably close down ... and all the Italian restaurants that serve lasagne. There will be less eating out, but most people are not going to be on the breadline here and are highly likely to have meat once or twice a week. Can I remind you yet again, that Irish farmers produce more than good beef. Irish lamb is well up there as well on the continent.

74,000 is a drop in the ocean. If the US change their tax laws as is being mooted, we stand to lose far, far more than 74,000 jobs!

Will the tax laws just effect US companies based in Ireland (and not those based in other countries)?

No, didn't play a part in my vote. Don't like them telling me how to vote, probably the same as you don't like France and German politicians telling you how to vote! The hawks in Washington want a weak Europe for many reasons, Arms, oil, defence, financially and economically, The Euro overtaking the Dollar as the world currency etc. The Doves want a strong Europe.

But I don't think there are any plans to sign treaties with the US that hands over Irish souvernity to the US. I can assure you, I'll be voting 'No' to that treaty as well.

Ah, the Doves - France doesn't have an arms industry, does it?

French arms deal with Pakistan risks US ire
By Federico Bordonaro

The news last month that Pakistan is likely to get French air-to-air missiles (AAMs) and radar for its JF-17 fighter aircraft has raised some eyebrows in the US.

The reason is that MICA AAMs produced by MBDA and RC-400 multimission radar built by Thales may enrich China's rapidly growing military capabilities if sold to Pakistan, since Islamabad is developing its fighter plane jointly with Beijing. The JF-17 is a lightweight multi-role fighter co-developed by Pakistan .....

And probably the most powerful country in the world, the USA, can get rid of the tax advantage tomorrow!

It would take years for France and Germany to do the same, if ever.

Maybe, France's 10 year labour is about to bear fruit - now that it has such a powerful ally as Germany.

djpbarry

thehighground wrote: »

...my guess is as good as their guess as to whether the tax rate is under threat.

I very much doubt the Irish Taxation Institute is "guessing".

thehighground wrote: »

Did they make any such statements since then confirming that the CTR is not under threat?

Why? What would that prove?

thehighground wrote: »

And since Ireland is so important, what was in it for the various US presidents involved in the peace process in NI?

I'm assuming this is a rhetorical question?

thehighground wrote: »

Since Fianna Fail took political donations from him, should we be just as worried about their dubious connections?

Yes. Absolutely.

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't think you have directly said that meat is a necessity, but you seem to implicitly assume that it is. If you ask, you'll find that people will both cut down on the amount (and type) of meat they eat when there is less money available - see here, here, here, etc etc. Rise in meat consumption is directly linked to increased affluence - which is why China's meat consumption has more than doubled.

All of which means that meat is a luxury item. It may be a valuable dietary item, but it is discretionary, not necessary - it can be, and is, replaced by cheaper foods.

One of those links is about "Avian influenza remains a cause for concern". The first article is talking about low income families (which is probably at most 10% of EU population). You just cannot compare low income/poverty in Europe (1st world) to that in Asia & Africa.

Cheaper foods in Europe (1st world) would be cheaper cuts of meat like mince used in burgers, lasagne etc.

To some extent, that is the case, although not in the rather silly way you imply. The EU supports farmers because it considers a strong rural community desirable both for its own sake, and for the sake of food security. The objectives of the CAP are:

1. to increase productivity, by promoting technical progress and ensuring the optimum use of the factors of production, in particular labour;
2. to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural Community;
3. to stabilise markets;
4. to secure availability of supplies;
5. to provide consumers with food at reasonable prices.

Note that your sole suggested reason is the last on the list - and CAP does not provide it, since farmers do not set prices. What has been achieved is to provide retailers with food at reasonable prices.

No 1 is probably the only reason I have left out. I would also point out the number of other jobs that are created from Irish raw material( Irish farm produce - Kerry Foods is one of the Top 10 Irish companies and provides more employment than Intel does in Ireland). I think I have been suggesting that availability of supplies has been the main reason (I don't want my food supply dictated by some Southern Hemisphere nut job dictator).

First, most of the food shortages in the Third World are the result of transport, market, or political issues. Second, the Third World tends to subsistence farming precisely because of trade barriers like CAP, which means that First World markets are largely closed to Third World producers - which in turn is why many poverty reduction agencies argue against it.

Were there no agricultural tariffs and no CAP, it would be just as reasonable for agriculture to be exported to cheap-labour countries as it is to export manufacturing. That, in turn, would benefit poor countries, because their farmers would have a steady export market in food products, rather than being reliant on volatile commodities.

Hmm. You can't have it both ways. Either CAP is there to support the farmers and prevent a "race to the bottom" - which would result in cheaper food for the consumer - or not. If Ireland were outside the EU's tariff walls and CAP subsidies, we would be in the race to the bottom currently forced on the rest of the world by rich-market protectionism - whereas, as it is, our farmers benefit from exactly those inequalities, which we couldn't afford on our own.

Complete bull - climate (and war/government instability) are the main problem 3rd world countries have. Most of them can't feed themselves, let alone Europe. You can't grow food if you don't have lots of water. Whats the first thing Goal / Concern try and do in developing countries - thats right - dig a well for water.

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

Fianna Fail were happy to say nothing about Ganley when he was contributing to their coffers (according to him, he was never asked where he made his money). Since Fianna Fail took political donations from him, should we be just as worried about their dubious connections?

Well, obviously yes. However, Ganley was only one contributor to FF, and a much smaller one than the building trade and other property developers - and that worked out so well, didn't it?

Complete bull - climate (and war/government instability) are the main problem 3rd world countries have. Most of them can't feed themselves, let alone Europe. You can't grow food if you don't have lots of water. Whats the first thing Goal / Concern try and do in developing countries - thats right - dig a well for water.

Hmm. I see. "Dig a well for water" - well, we won't have that problem, so I imagine everything will be just fine.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ixtlan

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, obviously yes. However, Ganley was only one contributor to FF, and a much smaller one than the building trade and other property developers - and that worked out so well, didn't it?

Indeed. You can be sure that any major property developer or businessman who played as big a part on the yes campaign would have their motives questioned also. For example, if Michael O'Leary was taking out adds in the papers and giving "yes" interviews, would not people ask whether Ryanair might somehow benefit from a yes? With Ganley/Libertas/McEvaddy it's more obscure because the public is not really aware of the companies they control.

I'm not really convinced by the conspiracy theories relating to the US military. However I do believe that we as people are shaped by our environment and our work. Regardless of whether there is a documented agenda, it must be the case that for Ganley/McEvaddy a "no" vote for Lisbon is perceived by them (maybe even subconsciously) as more favourable for their business interests. The public then has to ask whether their business interests are interests that we want promoted.

Ix.

SimpleSam06

IRLConor wrote: »

That's only one half of the problem though, and it's not the half we can solve easily. The other half is that many third world countries simply don't have enough money in their economies regardless of how it's distributed. We can help solve that and I would argue that it's a moral obligation to do so.

We do not have a moral obligation to expose ourselves to the whims of autocratic despots any more than we have to. You can't gow oil in the fields of Mayo.

IRLConor wrote: »

So you don't realise that oil supply reduction == food supply problems?

If oil supplies petered out completely over the next year, we wouldn't starve, since we can grow what we need right here. It wouldn't be pretty, but we could do it. This is of course ignoring any and all other knock on effects of oil vanishing. More realistically, the political pressure that can be applied by Irish farmers is nothing compared with what might happen if we were completely dependent on foreign food imports, which is what happens if you remove the tarriffs.

IRLConor wrote: »

Look, not being able to import food from another country is a scenario right up there with World War 3, Nuclear Holocaust and things like that. Yes, it's catastrophic but it's ridiculously unlikely to happen.

First world farmers can never compete with third world farmers on a level playing field. Its not a question of not being able to import, but being subject to artificially increased prices and a general reduction in quality of life while some hole in the wall leverages its power to gain other concessions. These countries are not ruled by stable or ethical people, thats largely why they are in their current positions, and while it may be the politically correct line to toe to say that we should open our markets to them, it would be an extremely foolish move in every way, actually strenghtening those regimes.

If one felt so strongly about the poverty of third world countries, I would invite one to move there and attempt to resolve their political difficulties from within, the only place they can be resolved.

IRLConor wrote: »

Long term all of those countries will stay poor if we continue to keep our tariffs and subsidies (on everything, not just food). I don't see how they can possibly compete if we continue the way we are.

Its fairly inaccurate to say that farming is the only possible industry that can help third world countries to escape poverty, and protectionist tarriffs and subsidies exist in relatively few industries besides agricutlure.

fly_agaric

offtopic but...

IRLConor wrote: »

So you don't realise that oil supply reduction == food supply problems?

And the size of the problem for any country in such a circumstance depends on just how much you actually have to import doesn't it? So maybe we should be a bit prudent and take some care we do not seriously damage our own food security for a stupid moral crusade...

IRLConor wrote: »

Look, not being able to import food from another country is a scenario right up there with World War 3, Nuclear Holocaust and things like that. Yes, it's catastrophic but it's ridiculously unlikely to happen.

Why is it "ridiculously unlikely to happen"? "Not being able to import enough food" seems to happen quite regularly to poor African countries with unproductive/failed agriculture & no money for imports. Even if it is so unlikely perhaps it should be considered. If it did come to pass it would obviously be a disaster if we are too dependant on imported food because we've immolated our own agriculture for a righteous cause...

As for a Holocaust, every ex "3rd World" country worth its salt is expending vast resourses to develop their own shiny new ICBMs, nukes & biological weapons etc. The more balls in the air, the greater the probability someone somewhere sometime f\/cks up, IMO. It'll become nearly inevitable if something doesn't change.

djpbarry

fly_agaric wrote: »

And the size of the problem for any country in such a circumstance depends on just how much you actually have to import doesn't it?

Is oil not used in Irish agriculture any more?

fly_agaric wrote: »

"Not being able to import enough food" seems to happen quite regularly to poor African countries with unproductive/failed agriculture & no money for imports.

You can't really compare subsistence farming in the Third World with consumerism in the West. If a harvest fails for a subsistence farmer, that's it, they're screwed - they have no alternative.

fly_agaric

djpbarry wrote: »

Is oil not used in Irish agriculture any more?

You know what I'm getting at...

djpbarry wrote: »

You can't really compare subsistence farming in the Third World with consumerism in the West. If a harvest fails for a subsistence farmer, that's it, they're screwed - they have no alternative.

Food may be a consumer item (isn't almost everything?) in "the West" but it is still also a very basic necessity of life. If a country, however advanced & wealthy, cannot grow enough food for its own people and for some reason (e.g. perhaps you may recall recent issues concerning some big rice producers (India) holding back rice they normally export causing large price increases internationally...)
cannot get all the imports it needs its population will suffer & starve just like those African subsistance farmers. It is a risk which should be considered by ourselves and the EU generally when it comes to trade/subsidy issues around agriculture.

thehighground

djpbarry wrote: »

Is oil not used in Irish agriculture any more?
You can't really compare subsistence farming in the Third World with consumerism in the West. If a harvest fails for a subsistence farmer, that's it, they're screwed - they have no alternative.

Of course oil is used in Irish agriculture but Irish farmers could be energy self-sufficient - windfarms & grow crops for biofuels - if push came to shove!

Grain shortage in the US is put down to grain being grown for biofuels rather than food/feed for animals.

kevteljeur

thehighground wrote: »

Of course oil is used in Irish agriculture but Irish farmers could be energy self-sufficient - windfarms & grow crops for biofuels - if push came to shove!

Grain shortage in the US is put down to grain being grown for biofuels rather than food/feed for animals.

Ireland is in no way capable of being self-sufficient, beyond what would be classed as subsistence, which is true of any country. It's not even up for debate.

Discussing the advantage of the Irish farmer in world agriculture, and then suggesting oil-independent farming as a possibility are a contradiction in terms. Please don't attempt to bring up the possibility of taking Ireland back to a self-sufficient, largely rural state as some sort of viable alternative to being in the EU. Once again, trading with the EU would still involve implementing the vast majority of their rules and regulations, as decided by the 26 countries that would have a say in them, but without any interest in benefits to Irish economy or society.

But hey, that's the beautiful price of freedom; you can vote for the same people you can vote for now, who will then be openly powerless to do anything for you. A fantastic idea.

djpbarry

thehighground wrote: »

Of course oil is used in Irish agriculture but Irish farmers could be energy self-sufficient - windfarms & grow crops for biofuels - if push came to shove!

So we could economically grow enough food to feed the whole country AND grow enough "fuel crops" to provide the energy for harvesting said food? Are you sure about that?

thehighground

kevteljeur wrote: »

Ireland is in no way capable of being self-sufficient, beyond what would be classed as subsistence, which is true of any country. It's not even up for debate.

Discussing the advantage of the Irish farmer in world agriculture, and then suggesting oil-independent farming as a possibility are a contradiction in terms. Please don't attempt to bring up the possibility of taking Ireland back to a self-sufficient, largely rural state as some sort of viable alternative to being in the EU. Once again, trading with the EU would still involve implementing the vast majority of their rules and regulations, as decided by the 26 countries that would have a say in them, but without any interest in benefits to Irish economy or society.

But hey, that's the beautiful price of freedom; you can vote for the same people you can vote for now, who will then be openly powerless to do anything for you. A fantastic idea.

Can you point out where I said Ireland could be self-sufficient please? (The only vague hint that you might have got of self-sufficiency was my tongue in cheek comment if 'push came to shove' which is highly unlikely as we trade with oil producing countries such as Saudi Arabia (beef or oil has been done before). Ireland also has very close connections with the current ruler of another very large oil producing country, Dubai who also has extensive land (stud farms) in Ireland. Obviously he is intelligent to have noticed that dessert isn't great for producing food and you can't eat/drink oil.

thehighground

djpbarry wrote: »

So we could economically grow enough food to feed the whole country AND grow enough "fuel crops" to provide the energy for harvesting said food? Are you sure about that?

Tongue in cheek comment. See post above. Do you know anything at all about how trading works?

bringitdown

thehighground wrote: »

Can you point out where I said Ireland could be self-sufficient please? (The only vague hint that you might have got of self-sufficiency was my tongue in cheek comment if 'push came to shove' which is highly unlikely as we trade with oil producing countries such as Saudi Arabia (beef or oil has been done before). Ireland also has very close connections with the current ruler of another very large oil producing country, Dubai who also has extensive land (stud farms) in Ireland. Obviously he is intelligent to have noticed that dessert isn't great for producing food and you can't eat/drink oil.

LOL, howya doin Sheik, we decided to pull outta Europe any chance of a deal on the oul oil. I got a load a meat and carrots for shiftin.

Hypothetical coulds and woulds with no basis in reality don't get us out of the situation we find ourselves in. 'If push comes to shove' your suggestion is a return to that wildly successful agricultural based economy we had before we ever went begging to the EEC.

Mmmm dessert.

thehighground

bringitdown wrote: »

LOL, howya doin Sheik, we decided to pull outta Europe any chance of a deal on the oul oil. I got a load a meat and carrots for shiftin.

Hypothetical coulds and woulds with no basis in reality don't get us out of the situation we find ourselves in. 'If push comes to shove' your suggestion is a return to that wildly successful agricultural based economy we had before we ever went begging to the EEC.

Mmmm dessert.

This report from Jan 2007. There are no hypothetical coulds or woulds there

"Three senior Government ministers and their department secretaries joined the Taoiseach in high level negotiations and presentations - Micheal Martin (Trade and Enterprise); Mary Coughlan (Agriculture and Food); Mary Hanafin (Education and Science).

They met their counterparts and exchanged proposals for increasing bi-lateral trade between Ireland the Middle East. The Irish Ministerial Party also met Crown Prince Sultan and King Abdullah for highest level discussions.

The Irish Trade mission is targeting a slice of the massive Middle East Market for the full range of goods and services. The Saudi Five Year National Development Plan has ear-marked over €600 billion for investment in infrastructure and environment; power and water utilities; education and training; agriculture and food projects, three new cities, etc.

Food sales in the region are growing at over 6% per annum. This growth rate is likely to accelerate still further. The current growth is based on a very high birth rate and population growth of 4% per annum. In addition, Dubai is building tourist facilities to accommodate an extra 15 - 20 million big spending tourists by 2012.

Currently, Irish exports to the region are increasing at the rate of 40% per annum. Last year they reached a total of €400 million. Saudi Arabia is in the process of opening a new Embassy and Trade Office in Dublin.

SAGIA, the Saudi Inward Investment Authority is also planning to open a Dublin office.Their objectives include the formation of joint ventures, technology transfers, etc. with leading Irish food, agriculture, engineering, training and consultancy groups

Despite intensive negotiations with senior government ministers and officials, Saudi Arabia continues to maintain its ban on Irish and UK beef imports. The ban* relates to the incidence of BSE disease.

That ban is now lifted

bringitdown

That does not constitute an economy. That is where my sarcasm was directed.

thehighground

bringitdown wrote: »

That does not constitute an economy. That is where my sarcasm was directed.

Did I say it did constitute an economy. Its merely a demonstration that there are other countries in the world who like us, are not self sufficient and leads to a bit of trade. That is how an economy is sustained - on trade. EU countries are not the only trading countries in the world. And trading used to go on before the EU was invented. In fact, the Arabs probably invented trading. :rolleyes:

bringitdown

Wow, sorry I have been convinced these 'Arabs' probably invented trading.

My contention is that whilst we could go it alone (i.e. woulds and coulds as many of your posts contain), we CAN right now, as demonstrated by your post, negotiate favourable terms with countries outside the EU as a solo entity, stay within and have influence on the EU which constitutes a large chunk of our trade, participate in trade negotiation and tarriffing as part of a much more powerful block within the EU.

In answer to the threads original question: we CAN go it alone, I just don't think many people would like the result.

Particularly when your result is 'when push comes to shove' a return to majority argriculture. Remember (historical idiocy aside) we were in that position before and we were not exactly trading ourselves toward affluence.

thehighground

bringitdown wrote: »

Wow, sorry I have been convinced these 'Arabs' probably invented trading.

My contention is that whilst we could go it alone (i.e. woulds and coulds as many of your posts contain), we CAN right now, as demonstrated by your post, negotiate favourable terms with countries outside the EU as a solo entity, stay within and have influence on the EU which constitutes a large chunk of our trade, participate in trade negotiation and tarriffing as part of a much more powerful block within the EU.

What influence do we have in the EU? The vote on Lisbon was counted and they couldn't wait to tell us that our vote was irrelevant!

In answer to the threads original question: we CAN go it alone, I just don't think many people would like the result.

Particularly when your result is 'when push comes to shove' a return to majority argriculture. Remember (historical idiocy aside) we were in that position before and we were not exactly trading ourselves toward affluence.

Please don't misquote me. I never said we could return to majority agriculture. The comment 'when push comes to shove' was a tongue in cheek comment meant to illustrate that one of our few natural resources (farmland which won't move to India) can actually be used for biofuel production (i.e., not just beef!). At no stage did I say or indicate we could produce enough biofuels to be self-sufficient.

The last time we were in that position ('50s / '60s) we had nothing and Europe was still recovering from a war (so the UK wasn't shovelling cash into our development like they & we are in NI at the moment).

We were members of the EU for 25 years before anything began to improve which seems to indicate that the EU is not totally responsible for our current prosperity.

djpbarry

thehighground wrote: »

The vote on Lisbon was counted and they couldn't wait to tell us that our vote was irrelevant!

Can you provide a quote to back this up? Who said our vote was irrelevant?

thehighground wrote: »

The comment 'when push comes to shove' was a tongue in cheek comment meant to illustrate that one of our few natural resources (farmland which won't move to India) can actually be used for biofuel production (i.e., not just beef!).

Right, so, so far, you have claimed that beef, biofuels and trade deals with one of the most tyrannical regimes in the world is going to save our economy if we leave the EU. Your argument about beef and a "world food shortage" has already been shot to pieces; can you demonstrate how biofuel production would contribute to our economy? How much could we grow and how much of our energy needs could we meet with Irish-grown biofuels? I'm thinking not very much.

bringitdown

And moreover why not have the tyrannical trade as well as being part of a stable and powerful trading bloc?

thehighground

djpbarry wrote: »

Can you provide a quote to back this up? Who said our vote was irrelevant?

Immediate response, possibly French Foreign Minister, we were referred to as the "ungrateful Irish". Much mention of Ireland being 'left behind' in a two speed Europe for voting 'No'. Threats from Euro Elites elites when they actually realised that it is impossible to go ahead without us, that we will have to vote again. Much comment from the Europhiles on this board that 'Europe is very cross with us.' You mightn't agree with me, but my perception from that is that I wasted my time voting as it is irrelevant.

Right, so, so far, you have claimed that beef, biofuels and trade deals with one of the most tyrannical regimes in the world is going to save our economy if we leave the EU. Your argument about beef and a "world food shortage" has already been shot to pieces; can you demonstrate how biofuel production would contribute to our economy? How much could we grow and how much of our energy needs could we meet with Irish-grown biofuels? I'm thinking not very much.

There you go again - twisting and exagerating what I said. I'm really getting fed up with this type of behaviour from you.

That was an example that it was possible to do trade with countries outside the EU - and as it happens, Saudi Arabia has oil. At least, we are unlikely to trade arms with them, unlike some of our European colleagues. No doubt, you are up-in-arms at the thoughts of Sarkozy heading off to Beijing for the Olympics - not sure if he is representing the EU or France next month. Do you know who he is representing? And its highly unlikely that Saudi Arabia will actually need to buy boifuels from us

As for the world food shortage - can you give me one reference which supports your ascertain that there isn't one?

Here is a little information on one of the Top 5 Irish companies - which happens to be based on food production.

Kerry Foods.
Headquartered in Tralee, Ireland, the Group employs some 23,000 people throughout its manufacturing, sales and technical centres across Europe, North America, South America, Australia, New Zealand and Asian Markets.

Kerry supplies over 10,000 food, food ingredients and flavour products to customers in more than 120 countries worldwide. The Group has manufacturing facilities in 18 different countries and international sales offices in 20 other countries across the globe. The groups current market capitalisation is about €3.7 billion and the companies current annualised sales are in excess of €4.5 billion.

There is a bit more substance to this company than horsetrading with Arabs, don't you think?

---

portomar

to ALL you EU naysayers, holding up Iceland as abastion of what ireland could be EX-EU i say HA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Iceland_to_the_European_Union