is this european co-operation

bigstar

anyone think its speaks volumes that the eu countries, including our own, dont seem to be too interested in cooperating to weather the financial crisis and just worry about their own economies. each nation only looking to bail out its own banks

Scofflaw

bigstar wrote: »

anyone think its speaks volumes that the eu countries, including our own, dont seem to be too interested in cooperating to weather the financial crisis and just worry about their own economies. each nation only looking to bail out its own banks

Well, yes. It gives the lie, quite aside from anything else, to all the drivel about the EU being a superstate - and the idea that the member states are 'provinces' of the EU is exposed as the joke it always was. It's a salutary reminder that the EU is composed of 27 sovereign member states who are in it because it benefits them, and that their loving kindness towards the other members is not infinite.


cordially,
Scofflaw

nhughes100

It definitely shows that when push comes to shove all the nice little EU philosophies are put on the back burner, imagine if they hadn't "approved" Ireland's bailout plan for the banks. The very notion that they could possible interfere re-iterates my belief that this project has gone far enough.

djpbarry

nhughes100 wrote: »

It definitely shows that when push comes to shove all the nice little EU philosophies are put on the back burner, imagine if they hadn't "approved" Ireland's bailout plan for the banks. The very notion that they could possible interfere...

The EU has a say in these matters because we, as a nation, have agreed that this should be the case, as have the other 26 member states.

nhughes100

Well as Brian Lenihan said last Monday week when the Irish banking system was on the verge of collapse the EU was sadly lacking in support and action and we didn't have time to get agreement from 27 other countries. In my opinion it wouldn't have mattered an iota if what the government did was against any EU regulation, Ireland comes first, you can save your EU idealist fluffy heart of Europe rhetoric for the next referendum which will no doubt be sold to us as the saviour of the recession.

djpbarry

nhughes100 wrote: »

Well as Brian Lenihan said last Monday week when the Irish banking system was on the verge of collapse the EU was sadly lacking in support and action and we didn't have time to get agreement from 27 other countries.

What would you have liked to see happen? Would you have rather the EU stepped in and said "Hang on there now Brian; we'll take it from here..." ?

nhughes100 wrote: »

In my opinion it wouldn't have mattered an iota if what the government did was against any EU regulation, Ireland comes first...

If every member state had that attitude, the common market wouldn't last very long, would it?

K-9

nhughes100 wrote: »

Well as Brian Lenihan said last Monday week when the Irish banking system was on the verge of collapse the EU was sadly lacking in support and action

Ah yeah, I suppose if they did step in, there would be cries of EU interference from some!

seamus

Yep, it's such typical Irish begrudgery to fight and fight and tell people to feck off and leave us alone to look after ourselves and then cry out when those same people don't come to our aid.

The EU could have done nothing right in this situation.

Scofflaw

seamus wrote: »

Ah yeah, I suppose if they did step in, there would be cries of EU interference from some!

Yep, it's such typical Irish begrudgery to fight and fight and tell people to feck off and leave us alone to look after ourselves and then cry out when those same people don't come to our aid.

The EU could have done nothing right in this situation.

In fact, if we look, we'll see that exactly such an opinion has already been expressed.

Damned if they do...

nhughes100 wrote:

The very notion that they could possible interfere re-iterates my belief that this project has gone far enough.

...and...

nhughes100 wrote:

Well as Brian Lenihan said last Monday week when the Irish banking system was on the verge of collapse the EU was sadly lacking in support and action

...damned if they don't.

amused,
Scofflaw

nhughes100

djpbarry wrote: »

What would you have liked to see happen? Would you have rather the EU stepped in and said "Hang on there now Brian; we'll take it from here..." ?
If every member state had that attitude, the common market wouldn't last very long, would it?

No I don't see why he should have to go to the EU to sort out an internal problem. Every member state is exhibiting a me fein attitude during this crisis and the common market seems to be doing allright. Even your precious Lisbon treaty wouldn't have sorted out the red tape on this one.

I actually like what the government did on this one.

Scofflaw wrote: »

In fact, if we look, we'll see that exactly such an opinion has already been expressed.

Damned if they do...



...and...



...damned if they don't.

amused,
Scofflaw

Not quite, stay out of our internal affairs and stick to your brief and we'll get on grand.

The Corinthian

nhughes100 wrote: »

Not quite, stay out of our internal affairs and stick to your brief and we'll get on grand.

And our domestic banks are not an internal affair? The effect on the EU of their collapse is arguable less that the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, after all.

I get the impression that your idea of an affair that is not 'internal' can be defined by the fact that our caps can be seen out looking for help.

nhughes100

The Corinthian wrote: »

And our domestic banks are not an internal affair? The effect on the EU of their collapse is arguable less that the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, after all.

I get the impression that your idea of an affair that is not 'internal' can be defined by the fact that our caps can be seen out looking for help.

Eh What?

The Corinthian

nhughes100 wrote: »

Eh What?

How is coordinating (and imposing) an economic strategy (and fund) on other EU countries to stop the collapse of domestic banks not involving oneself in the internal affairs of member states any more than trying to push a common treaty or even taxation system?

It appears that some are more than happy to cherry pick when sovereignty is an issue and when it is not, based upon whether we can profit from it. If so, then the rest of Europe is probably better off without us.

nhughes100

I was actually supporting Lenihans position of acting unilaterally. The eu didn't co-ordinate any strategy until after the Irish government propped up the banks, I think the notion that we would have to go to the EU to see if they agree and if it is legal is proposterous. We needed to act immediately so comparing this crisis to a referendum or tax harmonisation which has been going on for decades is not fair.

I don't think profiting from it was the governments idea here, I think saving the Irish banking system was their aim and from what I hear from people working in banks we were on the brink. I'm still somewhat confused as to whether you support the Irish government or the EU's position on the bail out?

The Corinthian

nhughes100 wrote: »

I was actually supporting Lenihans position of acting unilaterally.

That's not what I was responding to though:

Not quite, stay out of our internal affairs and stick to your brief and we'll get on grand.

And this comment appears to be your criteria for the validity of any EU involvement rather than anything specific to the current crisis.

As Scofflaw pointed out, on one side you derided any EU interference, then criticized their lack of interference. When questioned on this you responded with your aforementioned criteria.

So you would need to define when something is an 'internal affair' and when it is not; should the EU have helped? In which case you need to explain how the domestic banking crisis is less a domestic affair than an EU referendum, for example.

Or if you feel that it is an 'internal affair', then you should really be happy that they did not attempt to impose anything and stop moaning about the lack of 'European co-operation'.

Otherwise you're cherry picking.

djpbarry

nhughes100 wrote: »

...I think the notion that we would have to go to the EU to see if they agree and if it is legal is proposterous.

So if the British government decided to give £50 billion, no strings attached, to every non-Irish retail bank operating in the UK, while simultaneously imposing an "Irish tax" on all Irish banks, that'd be ok with you? Or would you want the EU to step in and prevent unfair competition?

nhughes100

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's not what I was responding to though:

And this comment appears to be your criteria for the validity of any EU involvement rather than anything specific to the current crisis.

As Scofflaw pointed out, on one side you derided any EU interference, then criticized their lack of interference. When questioned on this you responded with your aforementioned criteria.

So you would need to define when something is an 'internal affair' and when it is not; should the EU have helped? In which case you need to explain how the domestic banking crisis is less a domestic affair than an EU referendum, for example.

Or if you feel that it is an 'internal affair', then you should really be happy that they did not attempt to impose anything and stop moaning about the lack of 'European co-operation'.

Otherwise you're cherry picking.

I am happy that they didn't impose anything, not only that they followed our lead eventually. I wasn't moaning about the lack of European co-operation I was moaning at the overall inability of the EU to make decisions quickly which really shows up what an ineffective organisation it really is. Not only that the EU ideal to which all good little Europeans aspire to is really only for the good times. Let them stick to debates about the size of sausages etc, leave the governing to the governments. It's not cherry picking, it's a double moan. I dont see why we should wait for the EU when our economy is on the brink of collapse and the fact that this highlights their inefficiences.

djpbarry wrote: »

So if the British government decided to give £50 billion, no strings attached, to every non-Irish retail bank operating in the UK, while simultaneously imposing an "Irish tax" on all Irish banks, that'd be ok with you? Or would you want the EU to step in and prevent unfair competition?

To what are you comparing this to? The Irish government nor any other government that I'm aware off that has propped up financial institutions has imposed a tax on "Foreign banks" You're trying to put words in my mouth, deal with real situations.

Fact of the matter is the EU is a lumbering old elephant of an organisation that is obsessed with red tape and as I've said it has run it's course in my opinion.

Scofflaw

nhughes100 wrote: »

Fact of the matter is the EU is a lumbering old elephant of an organisation that is obsessed with red tape and as I've said it has run it's course in my opinion.

And worth every penny it is too.

ambiguously,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

By the way, I'm surprised no-one has put the spotlight on what happens when you're not in the EU - the UK seizes your banks' assets under their terror laws, as they've done to Iceland (to the tune of €5bn and the vast disgust of the Icelanders). That's what you can do to countries that aren't part of the club, and exactly what would have happened to us if we had been outside the EU.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Corinthian

nhughes100 wrote: »

I wasn't moaning about the lack of European co-operation I was moaning at the overall inability of the EU to make decisions quickly which really shows up what an ineffective organisation it really is.

Except this is not what you actually said. Please explain how "not quite, stay out of our internal affairs and stick to your brief and we'll get on grand" relates to "the overall inability of the EU to make decisions quickly".

In short, you're backtracking.

limklad

Scofflaw wrote: »

By the way, I'm surprised no-one has put the spotlight on what happens when you're not in the EU - the UK seizes your banks' assets under their terror laws, as they've done to Iceland (to the tune of €5bn and the vast disgust of the Icelanders). That's what you can do to countries that aren't part of the club, and exactly what would have happened to us if we had been outside the EU.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I though UK were nuts doing this. What was Gordon Brown thinking of? It back to the fishing wars. Talk about bad relations the UK are getting now. It was even more insane for UK Councils and Public Organisations to have their money in another country outside their own, where they cannot regulate (have no say) the Finance. UK have shot themselves in the Foot badly.

It gives the impression for smaller countries within the EU and outside the EU, that bigger nations will bully you if you do not do what they want!!

Scofflaw

limklad wrote: »

I though UK were nuts doing this. What was Gordon Brown thinking of? It back to the fishing wars. Talk about bad relations the UK are getting now. It was even more insane for UK Councils and Public Organisations to have their money in another country outside their own, where they cannot regulate (have no say) the Finance. UK have shot themselves in the Foot badly.

It gives the impression for smaller countries within the EU and outside the EU, that bigger nations will bully you if you do not do what they want!!

I would say it was something more of a reminder of the value of being inside the EU, with a set at the same table as the UK, and on the same footing. The UK may have grumbled about our bank guarantee, and complained to the Commission, but I think their treatment of Iceland makes it quite clear how much further they might have gone if we weren't EU members ourselves. Now that's real bullying!

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

I wonder if we'll see any Sovi.. I mean Russian submarine bases being set up in Iceland. I'm sure any bail out would come with strings attached. That would be one in the eye for Brown.

Off topic I know, but still, the world is changing rapidly.

limklad

Scofflaw wrote: »

I would say it was something more of a reminder of the value of being inside the EU, with a set at the same table as the UK, and on the same footing. The UK may have grumbled about our bank guarantee, and complained to the Commission, but I think their treatment of Iceland makes it quite clear how much further they might have gone if we weren't EU members ourselves. Now that's real bullying!

cordially,
Scofflaw

I disagree with that reason for been within the EU for protection for these sort of reasons because if they do that to others outside the EU they can do it in other ways inside the EU using different rules. They could end up in getting us into more difficulty by having our hands tied instead using other countries to do it for them within the EU.

We were bloody luckily that other Mainland EU countries Banking system were in as much mess as ours, that took similar actions as ourselves.

Iceland was considering Joining the EU, looks like that over now, since they are now technically in an "Finance war" with Britain, just like the "Cod war" in 1975-1976.

It also look like the Lisbon Treaty or any Treaty will not get passed now in the short term future (5 years perhaps), since Britain has given more motives for the Euro-sceptics to tell the population in order prevent further integration or Expansion.

Scofflaw

limklad wrote: »

I disagree with that reason for been within the EU for protection for these sort of reasons because if they do that to others outside the EU they can do it in other ways inside the EU using different rules. They could end up in getting us into more difficulty by having our hands tied instead using other countries to do it for them within the EU.

Not really. Not having to deal with Iceland on the Council makes a difference, I would say. Certainly the UK was pretty unhappy with our bank rescue plan, but all they did was grumble that maybe it was 'uncompetitive'. As to having our hands tied, that turned out not to be the case, because we got to go ahead on our own, plus then benefiting from the EU-wide efforts.

limklad wrote: »

We were bloody luckily that other Mainland EU countries Banking system were in as much mess as ours, that took similar actions as ourselves.

Undoubtedly - but Iceland was in a similar mess, and it didn't get the same treatment as us.

limklad wrote: »

Iceland was considering Joining the EU, looks like that over now, since they are now technically in an "Finance war" with Britain, just like the "Cod war" in 1975-1976.

Er, no, that's the wrong way round. Iceland has always been unable to join the EU because of various internal interests' resistance. It now looks a good deal more on the cards than before - specifically their unions are putting EU membership as a price for wage restraint.

limklad wrote: »

It also look like the Lisbon Treaty or any Treaty will not get passed now in the short term future (5 years perhaps), since Britain has given more motives for the Euro-sceptics to tell the population in order prevent further integration or Expansion.

Again, I'm not sure that's the case. The UK acted as it always would have done - but of the two small neighbours that pissed it off, it acted against the non-EU one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nhughes100

The Corinthian wrote: »

Except this is not what you actually said. Please explain how "not quite, stay out of our internal affairs and stick to your brief and we'll get on grand" relates to "the overall inability of the EU to make decisions quickly".

In short, you're backtracking.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. People like you were telling us to vote for Lisbon as it would help make the EU such a super efficient organisation, are you trying to tell me that the EU can make decisions quickly?? And I don't mean anything to do with the financial crisis if that's what is confusing you. The less interferance the better,

djpbarry

nhughes100 wrote: »

People like you were telling us to vote for Lisbon as it would help make the EU such a super efficient organisation, are you trying to tell me that the EU can make decisions quickly?? And I don't mean anything to do with the financial crisis if that's what is confusing you. The less interferance the better,

So let's see now; your position is this:

1. You're annoyed because the EU can't make decisions quickly and efficiently
2. You're also annoyed because people urged a 'Yes' vote to Lisbon to improve the efficiency of the EU
3. You're annoyed because the EU makes too many decisions that "interfere" with Ireland

Have I got all that right? If I have, then I'm rather confused and I doubt I'm the only one.

nhughes100

Looks like I'm finally getting through to you Eurocrats.

Definitely yes on 1, on two yeah as if that nonsense was going to improve anything's efficiency and 3 yes definitely.

Now whats confusing about that? Or maybe we should setup a cross Europe committee to deal with it with each person having voting powers relative to their representation in the European parliament.

Now that I've answered your questions maybe you could tell us where you came up with your Irish tax on Irish banks in the Uk nonsense, more euro weenie what if what if, better not offend anyone, don't do anything just in case something happens.

djpbarry

nhughes100 wrote: »

Definitely yes on 1, on two yeah as if that nonsense was going to improve anything's efficiency and 3 yes definitely.

Lisbon would make the EU more efficient; it's been covered in depth on this forum before and I don't have time now to rehash old posts, but feel free to illustrate how you feel it would do no such thing.

Could you also list some of these decisions the EU makes that adversely "interfere" with Ireland? Bear in mind that these decisions usually apply to all member states, usually to the benefit of the EU as a whole.

nhughes100 wrote: »

Now that I've answered your questions maybe you could tell us where you came up with your Irish tax on Irish banks in the Uk nonsense, more euro weenie what if what if, better not offend anyone, don't do anything just in case something happens.

I was making the point (as Scofflaw has repeatedly) that the British government can do nothing about our decision to underwrite our banks because we are in the EU; they can do whatever the hell they like to Iceland though.

limklad

nhughes100 wrote: »

better not offend anyone,

Too late!! The very mention of offending someone, will result that you will have offended them by mentioning it. :eek:

nhughes100

All going off Topic, no it's not an example of European co-operation more an example of EU ineptness. I've already made my views of Lisbon on this forum, interesting to see that since Iceland is outside the EU you couldn't care less what the Brits to the them.

limklad

Scofflaw wrote: »

Again, I'm not sure that's the case. The UK acted as it always would have done - but of the two small neighbours that pissed it off, it acted against the non-EU one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Does this mean should we start an unofficial war with Britain then? What should we call it. "Banking war" since they are firing shots at us because we wanted to save our "poor decision making banks" to save our crippling economy.

It still should not be a reason for joining the EU, especially if it feels it going to be threaten by staying outside.
Other EU countries should act on Britain and rap their "knuckles" because of it.

sink

limklad wrote: »

Other EU countries should act on Britain and rap their "knuckles" because of it.

Could that not be construed as other countries infringing upon Britain's sovereignty? Where do you draw the line? (Actual Question)

Scofflaw

limklad wrote: »

Does this mean should we start an unofficial war with Britain then? What should we call it. "Banking war" since they are firing shots at us because we wanted to save our "poor decision making banks" to save our crippling economy.

It was more that our actions annoyed the UK, since it almost immediately started sucking funds out of their banks and into ours (the Irish banks have branches throughout the UK), but we were able to take them without really much reference to how the UK would take it, because we would be highly unlikely to suffer any repercussions.

The reason we - unlike Iceland - get to act with this sort of impunity is because we're in the EU. If the UK bullies us, the other small countries in the EU take note. Of course, they also take note of the UK bullying Iceland, but Iceland isn't in the EU.

limklad wrote: »

It still should not be a reason for joining the EU, especially if it feels it going to be threaten by staying outside.

It's not the reason that Iceland was considering joining the EU. That was more the run on their currency (down from 95 to the euro at the start of the year to 305 to the euro recently) courtesy of currency speculators - something that wouldn't have happened had they been in the euro - and the comfort of having the ECB as a final resort rather than themselves, because it turned out they couldn't afford to prop up their own banks.

limklad wrote: »

Other EU countries should act on Britain and rap their "knuckles" because of it.

Hmm. The UK was within its legal rights, and acting well within its sovereignty - I don't think there's a basis, other than moral, for the other EU countries to do anything. There is certainly no basis for the EU to do so, since EEA members like Iceland don't get the same deal.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

nhughes100 wrote: »

...interesting to see that since Iceland is outside the EU you couldn't care less what the Brits to the them.

I don't believe anyone said anything of the sort.

limklad wrote: »

Other EU countries should act on Britain and rap their "knuckles" because of it.

You think the EU should tell Britain what they should and shouldn't be doing?

The Corinthian

nhughes100 wrote: »

Definitely yes on 1, on two yeah as if that nonsense was going to improve anything's efficiency and 3 yes definitely.

Leaving aside #2, the other two points essentially contradict each other; on one side you complain that the EU cannot make decisions and then complain when they do as they would 'interfere' with a nation's domestic policy.

Now whats confusing about that? Or maybe we should setup a cross Europe committee to deal with it with each person having voting powers relative to their representation in the European parliament.

This is the paradox of the Eurosceptic position though, and very much related to your previous contradiction - transferring voting powers to the European parliament would certainly make the EU democratic, but it would also bypass the national governments, an people like you would then whinge about national sovereignty and how we're just going to get bullied by the larger populations in other EU states.

I've already pointed out your contradiction, btw, you might address it this time though.

dante18

The Corinthian wrote:

This is the paradox of the Eurosceptic position though

There is no paradox in the eurosceptic position. The eurosceptic position is that the EU should have the minimum amount of power to interfere in the internal affairs of its sovereign member states.

When eurosceptics say that the EU is undemocratic, it's not because they believe it would be more acceptable if it was more democratic. They're just using it as one reason why it would be unwise for us to continue to transfer more of our national sovereignty to institutions that are by their nature undemocratic.

It would be like a socialist saying that he is opposed to fascism and the fascists didn't really make the trains run on time. It doesn't mean that he would be any more likely to support the fascists if they had made the trains run on time. It's the same with the eurosceptic position.

I myself have no problem with the fact that the EU is undemocratic as I don't see it as having any legitimate claim to sovereignty over my country. I would be opposed to any further 'integration' into the EU regardless of how democratic it becomes. I'm more concerned about how democratic our own national political institutions are.

nhughes100

It would appear you are confusing democracy with efficiency. You also seem confused with what is a contradiction. As I've already stated in a previous post these view points are not mutually exclusive

"You're annoyed because the EU can't make decisions quickly and efficiently "

"You're annoyed because the EU makes too many decisions that "interfere" with Ireland "

Kindly explain how making decisions quickly and efficiently co-relate to making decisions that interfere in internal affairs. I think you assume incorrectly that when the EU pokes it's nose into sovereign matters that it does so in an efficient manner.

I never said once that more powers should be transferred to the EU to make it more efficient, we were all told that the Nice treaty would sort out loads of EU inefficiences only to be told that Lisbon would really sort them out.

Now that surely addresses your allegations even though I've already answered your questions several times, but typical Euro weenie - talk and talk and talk and nitpick and split hairs and talk some more. Maybe I should start giving yes and no answers, although I'm sure eurocrats can split them too.

nhughes100

djpbarry wrote: »

the British government can do nothing about our decision to underwrite our banks because we are in the EU; they can do whatever the hell they like to Iceland though.

Maybe you'd like to phone a friend?

The Corinthian

dante18 wrote: »

There is no paradox in the eurosceptic position. The eurosceptic position is that the EU should have the minimum amount of power to interfere in the internal affairs of its sovereign member states.

When eurosceptics say that the EU is undemocratic, it's not because they believe it would be more acceptable if it was more democratic. They're just using it as one reason why it would be unwise for us to continue to transfer more of our national sovereignty to institutions that are by their nature undemocratic.

I agree with you in so far that complaining that the EU as being undemocratic is a red herring. The reality is that Eurosceptism ultimately boils down to little more than 'little islander' xenophobia and the sovereignty issue has only limited sellability to the wider public, and so - as we saw in the referendum - other, more socially palitable, arguments are trotted out.

nhughes100 wrote: »

It would appear you are confusing democracy with efficiency. You also seem confused with what is a contradiction.

And you appear to be attempting to redefine these issues so as to backtrack on your contradictions.

Kindly explain how making decisions quickly and efficiently co-relate to making decisions that interfere in internal affairs.

Kindly explain how a common policy would not interfere in internal affairs? Would a joint statement that does not actually apply any common policy be fine for you? Or would that simply be another example of inefficiency and lack of cooperation? Or were the EU to impose a common policy to be followed by all the member states would you whinge about their interference in our domestic affairs?

This is the contradiction that you do not seem to be able to grasp. You want the EU to be proactive, but not actually do anything - leaving us in a situation whereby they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Now that surely addresses your allegations even though I've already answered your questions several times, but typical Euro weenie - talk and talk and talk and nitpick and split hairs and talk some more. Maybe I should start giving yes and no answers, although I'm sure eurocrats can split them too.

It would address them had you not come out with nonsense.

djpbarry

nhughes100 wrote: »

djpbarry wrote: »

I was making the point (as Scofflaw has repeatedly) that the British government can do nothing about our decision to underwrite our banks because we are in the EU; they can do whatever the hell they like to Iceland though.

Maybe you'd like to phone a friend?

Ah yes, I see what you've done; you've taken a statement of fact and deliberately misinterpreted it as opinion. Well done.

nhughes100

The Corinthian wrote: »

I

And you appear to be attempting to redefine these issues so as to backtrack on your contradictions.

Kindly explain how a common policy would not interfere in internal affairs? Would a joint statement that does not actually apply any common policy be fine for you? Or would that simply be another example of inefficiency and lack of cooperation? Or were the EU to impose a common policy to be followed by all the member states would you whinge about their interference in our domestic affairs?

This is the contradiction that you do not seem to be able to grasp. You want the EU to be proactive, but not actually do anything - leaving us in a situation whereby they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

It would address them had you not come out with nonsense.

Since you haven't the courtesy to answer any of my queries, I won't answer yours until you do so.

I'd love for you to point out where I said I wanted the EU to be more proactive.

Let me spell it out for you, I don't want the EU at all, I want a return to a European trading community, no parliament, no beurocracies, no interferance, no euro, no direct control over interest rates.

Your accusation at xenophobia is offensive but typical of Euro weenies playing the race card instead of engaging in an adult debate.

getz

am i correct in saying in saying that the republic .dosent allow other EU countrys to open banks[except the ulster bank] in the republic when i was in gorey last year i went to the halifax branch to draw out money from my account and was told that untill they get the ok from the irish goverment they couldent open as a bank?- this must be in breach of EU regulations--a bit slow as a lot of money from the EU has gone to the farming industry--i am only having a go because you are to quick to be anti/brit again

The Corinthian

nhughes100 wrote: »

Since you haven't the courtesy to answer any of my queries, I won't answer yours until you do so.

There's a surprise :rolleyes:

I'd love for you to point out where I said I wanted the EU to be more proactive.

If you're complaining about the inefficency of the EU to act on the present crisis, what would you suggest if that they are not more proactive? Perhaps be more efficient at doing nothing? Do you still not see how you're not making sense?

Let me spell it out for you, I don't want the EU at all, I want a return to a European trading community, no parliament, no beurocracies, no interferance, no euro, no direct control over interest rates.

I know this is what you want, which underlines my point on the use of arguments such as the undemocratic nature of the EU being simply used as red herrings by Eurosceptics such as yourself.

Your accusation at xenophobia is offensive but typical of Euro weenies playing the race card instead of engaging in an adult debate.

Were other Europeans different races you might be right, but that is not the case. That level of racial subdivision has not been taken seriously since the 1940's. What I was referring to was a far more petty form of tribalism - the 'little islander' mentality. In essence it's provincialism given the shrinking nature of the modern World.

If you are really interested in understanding what race or nation states are, I suggest you read up on the history of both; in particular how migration over even the last few centuries has shaped the former and how the latter were in effect invented in most cases.

Finally, I also find it amusing how someone who would use terms such as 'Euro weenies' can have the balls to lament the lack of adult debate. Pathetic.

Hitman Actual

nhughes100 wrote: »

Let me spell it out for you, I don't want the EU at all, I want a return to a European trading community, no parliament, no beurocracies, no interferance, no euro, no direct control over interest rates.

I understand that this is the common stance among euro-sceptics, but even so, do you not see the benefits of being part of a common currency? Especially in the common market trading community that you desire?

BTW (and completely off-topic), your understanding of the term "euro-weenie" is flawed. It's usually a derogatory term used by Americans for the fact that Europe is not as strong and decisive as it should be, so someone who's pro-European-integration isn't really a "euro-weenie"; rather, the term is more fitting for a euro-sceptic.

bigstar

can the two boys hughes and corinthians please grow up, its worse than watching the dail. my OP was about the reaction from EU members to the banking crisis. each country backed their own, without much concern for other, but i agree the EU was slow to react, which questions its validity as a anything more than a trade organisation. im not eurosceptic, but i think its healthy to debate the role of the EU, especially because, as i see it, the EU's main aim at the moment is to consolidate itself as major power in global politics. and i think it would be detrimental to society to allow the EU to become less accountable to its citizen than it already is. anyway thats going off topic as is nearly everything in this thread.

nhughes100

There's a surprise :rolleyes:

Well what's good for the goose etc etc.

If you're complaining about the inefficency of the EU to act on the present crisis, what would you suggest if that they are not more proactive? Perhaps be more efficient at doing nothing? Do you still not see how you're not making sense?

For the last time, my reference to EU inefficiency was no exclusively aimed at the current crisis.

I know this is what you want, which underlines my point on the use of arguments such as the undemocratic nature of the EU being simply used as red herrings by Eurosceptics such as yourself.

Were other Europeans different races you might be right, but that is not the case. That level of racial subdivision has not been taken seriously since the 1940's. What I was referring to was a far more petty form of tribalism - the 'little islander' mentality. In essence it's provincialism given the shrinking nature of the modern World.

The eternal arguement of the Euro Sceptic, sure what have you got to fear, the EU has only been good for Ireland. Anyone who disagrees is a small minded neanderthal member of Sinn Fein.

If you are really interested in understanding what race or nation states are, I suggest you read up on the history of both; in particular how migration over even the last few centuries has shaped the former and how the latter were in effect invented in most cases.

I am well versed in history, not just the parts that suit my argument either. Again more assumptions and condescending Euro crat attitude.

Finally, I also find it amusing how someone who would use terms such as 'Euro weenies' can have the balls to lament the lack of adult debate. Pathetic.

I don't believe I was the one calling you a racist/xenophobe. I think Euro weenie describes the EU perfectly.

To answer another persons comment, no I don't think the EURO is a good idea, it's cost lots of Irish jobs thanks to the high cost of our exports, it means we are tied to interest rates that we have no control over, it's convenience for Eurozone holidays is entirely over rated.

To the OP apologies, I actually answered the Topic question but I won't be called a xenophobe just for having anti EU opinion. It's like calling people who won't vote for Obama racist. Maybe some of them are but maybe some of them want to vote for McCain.

Scofflaw

dante18 wrote: »

There is no paradox in the eurosceptic position. The eurosceptic position is that the EU should have the minimum amount of power to interfere in the internal affairs of its sovereign member states.

Most of the power the EU has to do so, though, flows from the common market. The oft-decried 'political' competences of the EU are over external affairs.

Given that most eurosceptics claim to support the 'common market', you can hardly complain about interference in 'internal affairs'.

dante18 wrote: »

When eurosceptics say that the EU is undemocratic, it's not because they believe it would be more acceptable if it was more democratic. They're just using it as one reason why it would be unwise for us to continue to transfer more of our national sovereignty to institutions that are by their nature undemocratic.

It would be like a socialist saying that he is opposed to fascism and the fascists didn't really make the trains run on time. It doesn't mean that he would be any more likely to support the fascists if they had made the trains run on time. It's the same with the eurosceptic position.

Refreshingly honest!

dante18 wrote: »

I myself have no problem with the fact that the EU is undemocratic as I don't see it as having any legitimate claim to sovereignty over my country.

Well, see above. I'd be interested in what your definition of sovereignty is.

dante18 wrote: »

I would be opposed to any further 'integration' into the EU regardless of how democratic it becomes. I'm more concerned about how democratic our own national political institutions are.

I've said it before, but to my mind much of the 'democratic deficit' we identify with the EU is actually a national democratic deficit.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Corinthian

bigstar wrote:

my OP was about the reaction from EU members to the banking crisis. each country backed their own, without much concern for other, but i agree the EU was slow to react, which questions its validity as a anything more than a trade organisation. im not eurosceptic, but i think its healthy to debate the role of the EU, especially because, as i see it, the EU's main aim at the moment is to consolidate itself as major power in global politics. and i think it would be detrimental to society to allow the EU to become less accountable to its citizen than it already is. anyway thats going off topic as is nearly everything in this thread.

Unfortunately the EU is caught in the sovereignty-democracy quandary on this one. Make it more democratically accountable and you bypass the national governments or must prepare that you may get outvoted, thus ceding sovereignty. Protect that sovereignty and in effect you are maintaining a power of veto which is ultimately anti-democratic (or if we were to have a referendum and Carlow could veto the national majority, would you consider that democratic?).

I've come to the conclusion that the EU will likely muddle its way along and any real political unification will take decades if not centuries of disagreement and procrastination. On the plus side, it worked for the Swiss.

nhughes100 wrote: »

For the last time, my reference to EU inefficiency was no exclusively aimed at the current crisis.

Whether for the current or any other crisis my point is equally valid.

I don't believe I was the one calling you a racist/xenophobe. I think Euro weenie describes the EU perfectly.

Then if you are going to indulge in name calling I suggest you don't complain about the lack of adult debate.

To the OP apologies, I actually answered the Topic question but I won't be called a xenophobe just for having anti EU opinion. It's like calling people who won't vote for Obama racist. Maybe some of them are but maybe some of them want to vote for McCain.

What defines the voter as racist or not is down to why they prefer McCain to Obama. While it is wrong to assume that it is down to racism, it is just as wrong to assume that it is not.

With regard to Eurosceptism, however, I can firmly say that it almost always seems to boil down to xenophobia. I've lost count of how many discussions I've had where a Eurosceptic will eventually concede that the real reason they're anti-EU is because they "have nothing in common with the Europeans" or "they're not like us". This is not an isolated occurrence but, in my experience, the overwhelming reason behind Eurosceptism and this, my friend, is called xenophobia.

Of course you might be that rare breed of Eurosceptic that opposes the EU on a purely economic or democratic basis, but given your responses and apparent contradictions, I somewhat doubt it.

nhughes100

Rest assured I won't be conceding any Xenophobic tendencies. You'll find that the 400 million odd Europeans are still there even if the EU wasn't. You confuse my opposition of an organisation with being a racist. I'd ask you to point out where in my posts you derived that, but that would be like a turkey asking for Christmas. Don't read between the lines as I don't write between them.

The Corinthian

nhughes100 wrote: »

You confuse my opposition of an organisation with being a racist.

You're still confusing xenophobia with racism. The two are not interchangeable.

Or do you consider other Europeans to be of a different race then?

I'd ask you to point out where in my posts you derived that, but that would be like a turkey asking for Christmas. Don't read between the lines as I don't write between them.

Already told you. Your arguments have been contradictory and in areas you have little genuine interest in. So we don't actually know the real motivation for your Eurosceptism. And experience has taught me that if I were to press you hard enough and you were forced to genuinely explain why you oppose the EU, it would come down to good, old-fashioned, little-islander, a-nation-once-again, xenophobia.