Why don't we leave the EU? Join the Swiss in EFTA

BetterLisbon

The Corinthian wrote: »

As I already pointed out it was not misrepresented by anyone other than coir. "Downward pressure on wages" is not "minimum wage" - saying the latter and then claiming you meant the former was a blatant attempt to intentionally mislead.

Multinationals directly involved in DFI have specifically cited the Euro as a reason for being in Ireland - indeed, if you know anything about the accounting practices involved, it makes it easier and cheaper to move your profits from your other European operations to Ireland where they will end up paying less in tax.

As succinctly put by BlitzKrieg; 'reality'. Otherwise you are simply just making things up as you go along, with no basis in fact, and frankly should be shunted off to the Conspiracy Theories board with the rest of the tin-foil hat brigade.

In short, no one here is interested in wasting their time on fantasy - that that is ultimately what "speculative and aspirational" arguments are.

You do know that there was more red tape in Irish business before we joined the EEC? Ironically, as with taxation of the self-employed, it probably feels like there is more red tape now because there was little or no enforcement of it before the mid-nineties.

In reality we tightened things up largely because we were viewed internationally as a bit of a cowboy country in terms of business practices - you didn't even need ID to open up a savings account in a bank - and we needed to build up confidence so as to attract FDI.

Ironically it is easier to set up a bank account in Lichtenstein than Ireland now - nonetheless all this actually has little or nothing to do with being in the EU.

You'll find that unemployment was affected by economic policies that generally had little or nothing to do with the EEC/EU, such as the Lynch government's famous giveaway budget - which saw a drop in unemployment in the short term, followed by a sharp increase once we realized that we had overspent ourselves into a deep deficit hole - remember the eighties? Ultimately if you want to look at external influences, OPEC was more influential than the EEC on Irish employment figures.

Of course, employment increased as a result of the Celtic Tiger, and the EU did play a part in that - something that you tend to gloss over, even though it has been repeatedly been pointed out to you.

You're just throwing shìt at the discussion and hoping that if you throw enough some will stick.

And that is what "speculative and aspirational" arguments essentially are - shìt. They have no merit other than to discredit someone or something for through hearsay, not fact.

You could continue doing this in the hope of convincing me or others, but in doing so with "speculative and aspirational" arguments you simply reinforce the belief that eurosceptics are a bunch of nutjobs who have only a passing acquaintance with reality.

If you want to convince me or others, do so with facts, not fantasy.

Ok then take a read of this article where the Swiss business community recommend against EU membership for Switzerland.
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/Swiss_business_dismisses_EU_membership.html?cid=8906020&rss=true

Scofflaw

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Ok then take a read of this article where the Swiss business community recommend against EU membership for Switzerland.
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/Swiss_business_dismisses_EU_membership.html?cid=8906020&rss=true

This thread isn't about whether Switzerland should be a member of the EU, though.

regards,
Scofflaw

The Corinthian

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Well Corinthian you have confirmed once again the dogmatic and absolutist position that europhiles tend to take when challenged.

What dogmatic and absolutist position would that be other than to demand you base your arguments in something akin to reality?

for a start this whole thread is speculation about life in EFTA so how do you expect anything other than speculative and idealistic arguments in the abscence of objective experimental data.

You're confusing speculation with random fantasy. For a while you have made little attempt at rational speculation and instead simply threw up scenarios and arguments that have been repeatedly debunked.

Which brings in an interesting contradiction in your postings. I cant remember a single weblink to objectively back up your arguments. It seems your arguments are a given just because.

I've posted numerous links earlier in this thread. If you wish to challenge the veracity of any particular point I've made I will supply links, but for the last few posts I don't think I have made any factual claims that would be considered controversial.

Its also absurd when you look back through the archives of the Guardian or the London Independent in late 1998/early 1999 and late 2002/early 2003 (when blair had planned a euro referendum). There you will see the article saying investors would leave, the city of London would die etc. if the UK stayed out. Similarly for the Danish and Swedish euro referenda. The "currency risk" argument was endlessly repeated but has been debunked.

Why do you keep on making ridiculous and simplistic comparisons? The Punt is no more sterling than we are Swiss.

"You do know that there was more red tape in Irish business before we joined the EEC? Ironically, as with taxation of the self-employed, it probably feels like there is more red tape now because there was little or no enforcement of it before the mid-nineties." - Do you have any weblinks to back this up or is it just speculation.

It's experience. I set up my first company in 1990, before the Celtic Tiger. My experience of it was far more expensive and slow than today. However, it was also very badly policed. For example, all you had to do back then is not return accounts for 18 months and they just struck you off - nowadays closing down a company is far more difficult.

"You do know that there was more red tape in Irish business before we joined the EEC? Ironically, as with taxation of the self-employed, it probably feels like there is more red tape now because there was little or no enforcement of it before the mid-nineties." - Do you have any weblinks to back this up or is it just speculation.

I opened enough bank accounts prior to 1995 to know.

"You'll find that unemployment was affected by economic policies that generally had little or nothing to do with the EEC/EU, such as the Lynch government's famous giveaway budget - which saw a drop in unemployment in the short term, followed by a sharp increase once we realized that we had overspent ourselves into a deep deficit hole - remember the eighties? Ultimately if you want to look at external influences, OPEC was more influential than the EEC on Irish employment figures." - Do you have any weblinks to back this up or is it just speculation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland#1960s

The live register speaks volumes btw.

You mean the one that had higher unemployment in pre-Euro Ireland in the 1980's?

You see corinthian you fall on your own sword so many times. You demand iron clad proof from eurosceptics yet take as a given europhile arguments. This is a classic sign of a dogmatic or absolutist position. What puts the jewel in the crown is your resorting to argumentum ad hominem and this is something i find repeating amongst europhiles when challenged.

I have not been asking for iron-clad proof of anything. However, I do want to see something more than fantasy.

The Corinthian

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Ok then take a read of this article where the Swiss business community recommend against EU membership for Switzerland.
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/Swiss_business_dismisses_EU_membership.html?cid=8906020&rss=true

Christ - and because Ireland and the Irish are just like Switzerland and the Swiss, then it must be true... even though it has been pointed out several times how different we are on so many levels.

I do not deny that it is not in Switzerland's interests to join the EU at present, but they are not the same as Ireland, and additional do not need to leave the EU or Eurozone like Ireland would in your rose tinted fantasty.

BetterLisbon

The Corinthian wrote: »

What dogmatic and absolutist position would that be other than to demand you base your arguments in something akin to reality?

You're confusing speculation with random fantasy. For a while you have made little attempt at rational speculation and instead simply threw up scenarios and arguments that have been repeatedly debunked.

I've posted numerous links earlier in this thread. If you wish to challenge the veracity of any particular point I've made I will supply links, but for the last few posts I don't think I have made any factual claims that would be considered controversial.

Why do you keep on making ridiculous and simplistic comparisons? The Punt is no more sterling than we are Swiss.

It's experience. I set up my first company in 1990, before the Celtic Tiger. My experience of it was far more expensive and slow than today. However, it was also very badly policed. For example, all you had to do back then is not return accounts for 18 months and they just struck you off - nowadays closing down a company is far more difficult.

I opened enough bank accounts prior to 1995 to know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland#1960s

You mean the one that had higher unemployment in pre-Euro Ireland in the 1980's?

I have not been asking for iron-clad proof of anything. However, I do want to see something more than fantasy.

The contradictions in your position are pure comedy. You offer your own experience as fact yet you repeatedly dismissed my experience as fantasty.
Anyway what you are showing is the usual europhile trick of when another country refuses closer integration and succeeds (or doesnt fail) there is "no comparison" to Ireland. Yet when another refuses closer integration and fails its proof of the Irish need for closer integration.
Your glib dismissals of "fantasy" and "not based on reality" are also common europhile gambits to avoid discussion of the issue, which is that countries have refused closer integration and been highly successful.

BetterLisbon

The Corinthian wrote: »

Christ - and because Ireland and the Irish are just like Switzerland and the Swiss, then it must be true... even though it has been pointed out several times how different we are on so many levels.

I do not deny that it is not in Switzerland's interests to join the EU at present, but they are not the same as Ireland, and additional do not need to leave the EU or Eurozone like Ireland would in your rose tinted fantasty.

Again when another country refuses closer integration and succeeds there is "no comparison" with Ireland. i am sure if switzerland was up the swanny you would be using it as a bogeyman to warn of the perils of refusing closer integration.

Scofflaw

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Again when another country refuses closer integration and succeeds there is "no comparison" with Ireland. i am sure if switzerland was up the swanny you would be using it as a bogeyman to warn of the perils of refusing closer integration.

I strongly doubt whether the Corinthian would be doing anything so intellectually dishonest. On the other hand, I'm sure if it was up the swanny it would be figuring as largely in your posts as Iceland currently does.

regards,
scofflaw

The Corinthian

BetterLisbon wrote: »

The contradictions in your position are pure comedy. You offer your own experience as fact yet you repeatedly dismissed my experience as fantasty.

In some cases I offer personal experience, in others I supplied proof which you subsequently ignored. Either way even anecdotal evidence is more than you have supplied and that is the only comedy here.

Anyway what you are showing is the usual europhile trick of when another country refuses closer integration and succeeds (or doesnt fail) there is "no comparison" to Ireland.

Comparisons are not always to be dismissed, but simplistic comparisons are. You and other eurosceptics have repeatedly cited countries such as Switzerland as comparable to Ireland, without bothering to explain what commonality is present that would make such comparisons valid. Somehow we are to accept that were we to leave the EU we would become like the Swiss, yet you never explain why would be like the Swiss in any way other than not being in the EU. Indeed, if we want to cite similar countries, why would we not be more like the Albanians? Or the Moldovans? Or Serbians? Or the Icelanders? They're not in the EU either. You simply assume that we would end up like the Swiss, ignoring the vast cultural, historical and economic differences that make Switzerland very different to Ireland.

Yet when another refuses closer integration and fails its proof of the Irish need for closer integration.

Where did I do that?

Your glib dismissals of "fantasy" and "not based on reality" are also common europhile gambits to avoid discussion of the issue, which is that countries have refused closer integration and been highly successful.

But you have only given us fantasy. Where have you given us here anything other than shallow speculation and fancy?

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Again when another country refuses closer integration and succeeds there is "no comparison" with Ireland. i am sure if switzerland was up the swanny you would be using it as a bogeyman to warn of the perils of refusing closer integration.

No. I have repeatedly pointed out that EU membership does not suit certain nations. Of course if Switzerland were up the swanny, then they would have to reassess their position on the EU, just as we would were the political and economic conditions better for us outside the EU than in.

However, neither of these scenarios has occurred, and yet you continue to compare two very different nations for reasons that remain occult.

molloyjh

BetterLisbon wrote: »

The contradictions in your position are pure comedy. You offer your own experience as fact yet you repeatedly dismissed my experience as fantasty.

I've seen a lot of posts from you BL but never have you mentioned "experience" at anything. Have you, like Corinthian, set up your own business and experienced first hand the differences he was talking about over the last 20-25 years?

Exactly what is this "experience" you're talking about?

bonkey

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Again when another country refuses closer integration and succeeds there is "no comparison" with Ireland. i am sure if switzerland was up the swanny you would be using it as a bogeyman to warn of the perils of refusing closer integration.

That sounds suspiciously like another of those speculative positions.

Switzerland is not Ireland. This isn't because its convenient for any given position....its because its demonstrably true.

BetterLisbon

bonkey wrote: »

That sounds suspiciously like another of those speculative positions.

Switzerland is not Ireland. This isn't because its convenient for any given position....its because its demonstrably true.

Funny though, before Icelands crash there was "no comparison". When it crashed and had a surge of pro-EU/pro-Euro sentiment it was offered to us as poof of the need for closer integration. When their economy started recovering quickly and pro-EU/pro-Euro sentiment ebbed away there was "no comparison" again.

Scofflaw

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Funny though, before Icelands crash there was "no comparison". When it crashed and had a surge of pro-EU/pro-Euro sentiment it was offered to us as poof of the need for closer integration. When their economy started recovering quickly and pro-EU/pro-Euro sentiment ebbed away there was "no comparison" again.

Proof, perhaps? After all, they can't really have been used as evidence of the need for closer integration, since they're not part of the EU. What I recall is that Iceland's wish to join the EU was used as evidence that people felt safer inside the EU.

not holding my breath,
Scofflaw

bonkey

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Funny though, before Icelands crash there was "no comparison".

I've never even seen someone feel the need to suggest there wasn't.

The only situation I can imagine where someone would have been trying to do that would be where EU secessionists were trying to assert something like "why not be like Iceland".

When it crashed and had a surge of pro-EU/pro-Euro sentiment it was offered to us as poof of the need for closer integration.

Really?

The only thing I can recall hearing is the witticism that the difference between Iceland and Ireland was one letter and 6 months.

Could you give an example of someone expressing this "surge" of sentiment?

When their economy started recovering quickly and pro-EU/pro-Euro sentiment ebbed away there was "no comparison" again.

Again...really?

Surely, the "no comparison" there would have been the comparison's between our economies, why they both failed, and why Iceland's recovery isn't comparable to what Ireland faces?

In fact, the more I think about it, you've presented a case where we went from "not the same" to a case of "they would have been better off if they were more like us (i.e. we're not the same)", and then on to a case of "not the same".

So I'm not entirely sure how this is a counter-point to what I'm saying at all. Ignoring that you haven't presented anyone actually saying anything, you've presented three scenarios where the underlying point is that Ireland and Iceland are in different situations.

My position is just that. Iceland and Ireland are in significantly different positions, and that this is demonstrably true, just as Switzerland and Ireland are in significantly different positions (as is demonstrably true). The differences in position can be overlooked only be simplificiations so gross in nature, they effectively undermine any value to the comparison.

SkepticOne

Scofflaw wrote: »

Proof, perhaps? After all, they can't really have been used as evidence of the need for closer integration, since they're not part of the EU. What I recall is that Iceland's wish to join the EU was used as evidence that people felt safer inside the EU.

not holding my breath,
Scofflaw

Here's Brian Cowen arguing that the EU and the Euro saved Ireland from becoming an Iceland. Similar arguments have been used more recently although they are rarer now for obvious reasons.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLG39290120081016

EU, euro saved Ireland from Iceland fate -Irish PM

Darren Ennis
BRUSSELS
Thu Oct 16, 2008 12:44pm EDT

BRUSSELS Oct 16 (Reuters) - Ireland's prime minister said European Union membership saved his country from a financial meltdown similar to Iceland's and the credit crisis had shown Irish voters the merits of the bloc's reform treaty.

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

Here's Brian Cowen arguing that the EU and the Euro saved Ireland from becoming an Iceland. Similar arguments have been used more recently although they are rarer now for obvious reasons.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLG39290120081016

Yes, but we're discussing BL's contention that Iceland was used as an argument in favour of closer integration, rather than the integration we already have or had - at least, that was the claim I was objecting to.

Mind you, it's possible he meant the integration we already have, exactly as you've taken it - after all, you're more likely to have taken the same meaning as him from it. So if you're both saying that Iceland was used as an argument that it was a good thing to be inside the euro/EU as opposed to EEA/EFTA (that is "closer integration" in the sense of "closer than EFTA/EEA"), that's true - and indeed, still holds, because Iceland is still a lot further up the creek than we are (interest rates & inflation @c 7%, IMF loans, currency still worth a third of what it was in 2007, uncertain access to world markets, unemployment treble what it was in 2007, 40% of households struggling to make ends meet). As for it being rarer, Iceland's plight just isn't news any more as such.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SkepticOne

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, but we're discussing BL's contention that Iceland was used as an argument in favour of closer integration, rather than the integration we already have or had - at least, that was the claim I was objecting to.

So you think Cowen, in his use of comparisons with Iceland, is arguing for a continuation of current levels of integration rather than further integration?

That is a very interesting and I suspect unique interpretation.

bonkey

SkepticOne wrote: »

So you think Cowen, in his use of comparisons with Iceland, is arguing for a continuation of current levels of integration rather than further integration?

That is a very interesting and I suspect unique interpretation.

I would say that the correct interpretation is that Cowen is saying that he's glad we don't have less integration, as that would have most likely put us in a far worse state.

Choosing to interpret that as a stance on further integration, either pro- or contra- is, from where I sit, reading into his statements what one wants to hear.

Imagine someone coming out of a carcrash with some bad bruising, and saying that they're glad they wore their seatbelt and had airbags....because had they not had those measures, they'd have been far more seriously injured. Is that person suggesting cars need more safety features? Are they saying cars don't need more safety features? Or are they simply saying that they're happy that their car doesn't have fewer safety features?

I'd take option 3 there. You seem to be suggesting that it must be either option 1 or 2.

SkepticOne

bonkey wrote: »

Imagine someone coming out of a carcrash with some bad bruising, and saying that they're glad they wore their seatbelt and had airbags....because had they not had those measures, they'd have been far more seriously injured. Is that person suggesting cars need more safety features? Are they saying cars don't need more safety features? Or are they simply saying that they're happy that their car doesn't have fewer safety features?

To take your example, if someone wanted to argue for further safety features in cars and how they may save lives, they are very likely to point to past safety features as an example.

I'm assuming here that the person has some purpose in making a public statement. They are not merely saying something because it is interesting to them.

If it was part of a debate where the opponent was suggesting that seatbelts should be removed from cars, then you might be correct in your interpretation, however in the absence of that you would have to conclude that they were arguing for further safety measures.

Now look at the Cowen statement. Who is arguing in the article that there should be less integration? No one. Also look at the second part of the article about Lisbon.

Cowen would not be drawn on the issue of a second poll. But said the EU's response to the financial turmoil of recent months could cause a re-think by the Irish public about the treaty.
"People can reflect had we not been in the EU or in the single currency and had we our own currency and given the limited resources, whether we would have been able to withstand the financial problems of recent weeks and months," Cowen said.

It is clear therefore that the point Cowen is trying to make is that integration with the EU is a good thing [saved us from being "an Iceland"] and therefore we should have more of it [by adopting the Lisbon treaty].

bonkey

SkepticOne wrote: »

It is clear therefore that the point Cowen is trying to make is that integration with the EU is a good thing [saved us from being "an Iceland"] and therefore we should have more of it [by adopting the Lisbon treaty].

Lets say you're right.

If that's the case...you must then agree that Cowen was not only saying "we're in a different place than Iceland", but also saying "trying to be more like Iceland would be bad".

The point that sparked off this latest round of discussing Iceland was my comment that Ireland and Switzerland aren't the same. BetterLisbon tried to construe this as some sort of throwaway comment which would change if the Swiss economy tanked...and drew a comparison to Iceland.

By his argument, before the crash and now. people are saying "Ireland is not Iceland", but around the time of the crash, that all turned about face. The example isn't showing that at all. Its showing that right when this alleged about-face happened, the likes of Cowen were still saying "we're in a different situation to Iceland...and lets be glad of it".

So before the crash, we were different to Iceland. During the crash, we were different to Iceland. After the crash, we're still different to Iceland.

Which would, in turn, suggest that this comparison with Iceland isn't really a good tool by which to undermine or challenge the notion that Ireland is different to Switzerland.

SkepticOne

bonkey wrote: »

If that's the case...you must then agree that Cowen was not only saying "we're in a different place than Iceland", but also saying "trying to be more like Iceland would be bad".

The point that sparked off this latest round of discussing Iceland was my comment that Ireland and Switzerland aren't the same. BetterLisbon tried to construe this as some sort of throwaway comment which would change if the Swiss economy tanked...and drew a comparison to Iceland.

The point is there's a double standard being employed by EU supporters.

On the one hand Iceland is a perfectly valid comparison (according to EU supporters) if it is used to illustrate what are perceived by them to be negative aspects of being outside the EU.

However if, on the other hand, someone wants to point out certain positive aspects of being outside the EU and wishes to use Iceland as an example, then suddenly Iceland becomes invalid (according to these same people) on the (bleedingly obvious) basis that it is not Ireland.

You can't have it both ways unfortunately.

bonkey

SkepticOne wrote: »

The point is there's a double standard being employed by EU supporters.

On the one hand Iceland is a perfectly valid comparison (according to EU supporters) if it is used to illustrate what are perceived by them to be negative aspects of being outside the EU.

However if, on the other hand, someone wants to point out certain positive aspects of being outside the EU and wishes to use Iceland as an example, then suddenly Iceland becomes invalid (according to these same people) on the (bleedingly obvious) basis that it is not Ireland.

You can't have it both ways unfortunately.

In one situation, membership was claimed to be an advantage for us.

That's a distinction between the two countries which both sides are willing to point to at various times and claim is an advantage or disadvantage.

Membership aside, however, there are any number of other differences between the two countries. There are a number of key distinctions which favour Iceland, which cannot be spun to be disadvantages at different times.

Its not hypocritical in any way to point this out. It is, rather, facing facts.


In the good times, Iceland had these advantages going for it. It had other advantages which it accrued from not being EU members, sure. If Ireland modeled itself on Iceland, it could perhaps hope to enjoy the latter set of these advantages, but could not magically obtain the advantages that low population coupled with natural resources that Iceland had.

So, in the good times, there were the things Iceland enjoyed which we could hope to emulate, and those we could not. It is only reasonable and honest to acknowledge both sets.

In bad times, Iceland still had these advantages going for it. It possibly also had the advantages accrued from not being an EU member. It additionally had disadvantages which came from not being an EU member (as Cowen drew reference to). If someone wished to draw a comparison in those times, it would again be less then honest to refuse to acknowledge this full set of factors.

There is nothing hypocritical in acknowledging the factors in play. No-one (that I am aware of) has said that Iceland didn't have any advantages from not being in the EU...what they have said is that those advantages on their own are not enough, as it is only when taken alongside the natural resources (particularly per capita) that they produce the Icelandic model.

Will Iceland recover quickly? Perhaps....because the factors that made them pretty well off in the first place remain. We don't have those per-capita resources, so its still not the case that we can point at Iceland and say "we'd do as well as them outside the EU".

The same holds true for Switzerland. Comparable-ish population (Switzerland is slightly larger), comparable-ish size, comparable-ish natural resources. Location, on the other hand....completely different. Indigenous industry....completely different. Population distribution...completely different. Current state of national infrastructure....completely different. Political system...significantly different. These are all factors which mean Ireland can't just decide to become like Switzerland by leaving the EU. If Switzerland's economy tanks....those factors still remain...but there could be additional factors which say "leaving the EU would also make us more prone to getting ****ed like the Swiss".

Acknowledging changing factors is not hypocritical. I would argue, rather, it is quite the opposite...it is dealing with reality.

SkepticOne

bonkey wrote: »

In one situation, membership was claimed to be an advantage for us.

That's a distinction between the two countries which both sides are willing to point to at various times and claim is an advantage or disadvantage.

Membership aside, however, there are any number of other differences between the two countries. There are a number of key distinctions which favour Iceland, which cannot be spun to be disadvantages at different times.

[stuff about Iceland snipped]

At least we've moved beyond the trite pointing out that Ireland is not [insert other country] and refusing to consider any comparisons whatsoever. Now that it has been pointed out that EU supporters also make comparisons between Ireland and other countries (with examples given) we can proceed to discuss things in a more rational manner.

Of course, no two countries are the exactly same, but countries that might be quite different in certain ways can still be used as a valid comparison in other ways.

If you feel a comparison is not valid then point out why, but don't refuse to discuss it simply on the basis that it is a comparison with another country as has happened on this thread.

bonkey

SkepticOne wrote: »

At least we've moved beyond the trite pointing out that Ireland is not [insert other country] and refusing to consider any comparisons whatsoever.

With respect, we were beyond that earlier. You can review the thread to see how we got from there to here if you like...but it doesn't exactly cover anyone in glory.

Now that it has been pointed out that EU supporters also make comparisons between Ireland and other countries (with examples given) we can proceed to discuss things in a more rational manner.

I'd have hoped we could have done so the first time it was explained why the simple equating of "not a member of EU" with all sorts of good things was false...but somehow after going through the detail, generalisations were dragged back into the discussion.

But lets move forwards, not back. Would you not agree that the first rational step would be to establish what comparisons can be validly made? Those who feel we can/should model ourselves on the likes of Iceland or Switzerland, and would be better off for doing so...should they not begin by establishing why the feel there is a valid comparison to be drawn?

Of course, no two countries are the exactly same, but countries that might be quite different in certain ways can still be used as a valid comparison in other ways.

If you feel a comparison is not valid then point out why, but don't refuse to discuss it simply on the basis that it is a comparison with another country as has happened on this thread.

Have we been reading the same thread? That's exactly what happened with the comparison to Switzerland. A large amount of detail has been offered as to why we're different....although precious little has been offered as to why its valid to suggest that we could obtain their success as a non-Euro, Schengen-and-EFTA member.

Iceland, most recently, was brought in with BL presenting a "summary" of unspecified people having made unspecified arguments in the past....all three stances being "Iceland is different to Ireland", but this being portrayed as somehow unreasonable. If he wasn't going to go to the bother of establishing a coherent argument with detail, I hardly think anyone can be expected to explain how they disagree with the missing detail.

Indeed, it has somehow fallen on you to make his argument for him...and even then, you haven't offered any reasons why Iceland is a valid comparison with Ireland....you've merely expanded on the notion that its hypocritical to say that its different, but where that difference varies based on the conditions at the time.

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

So you think Cowen, in his use of comparisons with Iceland, is arguing for a continuation of current levels of integration rather than further integration?

That is a very interesting and I suspect unique interpretation.

It's not really an interpretation - it's what he said. He was pointing out that EU membership had been, and still was, good for us. Sure, he may then have used that to argue for further integration through Lisbon, but even a barely aware opponent could point out that those are two separate things, and many barely aware opponents did so throughout the referendum campaigns.

Claiming that he meant "if we don't adopt Lisbon, we'll be like Iceland" - now that would be a unique interpretation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Corinthian

SkepticOne wrote: »

At least we've moved beyond the trite pointing out that Ireland is not [insert other country] and refusing to consider any comparisons whatsoever. Now that it has been pointed out that EU supporters also make comparisons between Ireland and other countries (with examples given) we can proceed to discuss things in a more rational manner.

With all due respect I think you will find that the only person who has been making such simplistic comparisons, at least for the last good while in this thread, has been BetterLisbon. When I reentered this discussion it was precisely to highlight this:

The Corinthian wrote: »

That is the entire problem with the premise behind this thread, that by adopting a tiny part their model (rabid independence) we would suddenly become like them. We won't because there is a lot more to being Swiss, Norwegian, Icelandic or Liechtensteiner than remaining out of the EU and joining EFTA.

What has been rejected is not a comparison with Switzerland, but an unsubstantiated comparison with Switzerland - simply saying that if we left the EU and joined EFTA we'd become like the Swiss without suggesting where such a comparison is applicable is simply wishful thinking, not reason.

This is not to suggest that some have not made similar europhilic comparisons to Iceland, but I think you'll find that the only time that Iceland has really been mentioned recently has been when pointing out that BetterLisbon has been rather selective in his choice of country to compare Ireland to.

Indeed, one could argue that Iceland will still be better off in the long run remaining in EFTA, however there is a significant cost to that at this stage, given the shape of their economy, and increasingly they appear to want not to pay it.

SkepticOne wrote: »

Of course, no two countries are the exactly same, but countries that might be quite different in certain ways can still be used as a valid comparison in other ways.

How is Ireland similar to Switzerland? How would these similarities mean that Ireland would benefit to life in EFTA, like Switzerland? The onus is really on the eurosceptic side of the argument here to make this case, not simply throw daydreams at us in the hope that we will believe in them on faith.

You need to ask yourself, why is a country like Switzerland better off outside the EU and why is a country like Spain, Greece or (arguably) Iceland better in? Does Ireland share that Swiss quality / qualities or is it closer to the others?

This is the nub of the thread's premise - not that we would have monetary control again or some de jure independence from Brussels.

If you feel a comparison is not valid then point out why, but don't refuse to discuss it simply on the basis that it is a comparison with another country as has happened on this thread.

If you look back on this thread, reasons have repeatedly been given as to why such comparisons are flawed.

BetterLisbon

The Corinthian wrote: »

With all due respect I think you will find that the only person who has been making such simplistic comparisons, at least for the last good while in this thread, has been BetterLisbon. When I reentered this discussion it was precisely to highlight this:

What has been rejected is not a comparison with Switzerland, but an unsubstantiated comparison with Switzerland - simply saying that if we left the EU and joined EFTA we'd become like the Swiss without suggesting where such a comparison is applicable is simply wishful thinking, not reason.

This is not to suggest that some have not made similar europhilic comparisons to Iceland, but I think you'll find that the only time that Iceland has really been mentioned recently has been when pointing out that BetterLisbon has been rather selective in his choice of country to compare Ireland to.

Indeed, one could argue that Iceland will still be better off in the long run remaining in EFTA, however there is a significant cost to that at this stage, given the shape of their economy, and increasingly they appear to want not to pay it.

How is Ireland similar to Switzerland? How would these similarities mean that Ireland would benefit to life in EFTA, like Switzerland? The onus is really on the eurosceptic side of the argument here to make this case, not simply throw daydreams at us in the hope that we will believe in them on faith.

You need to ask yourself, why is a country like Switzerland better off outside the EU and why is a country like Spain, Greece or (arguably) Iceland better in? Does Ireland share that Swiss quality / qualities or is it closer to the others?

This is the nub of the thread's premise - not that we would have monetary control again or some de jure independence from Brussels.

If you look back on this thread, reasons have repeatedly been given as to why such comparisons are flawed.

Corinthian you still avoid the issue of double standards. When Iceland was up the swanny and there was a temporary surge of pro-EU/pro-Euro sentiment it was cast iron proof that small countries needed closer integration. But when Iceland returned to its euroscepticism all of a sudden the comparisons stopped.

The Corinthian

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Corinthian you still avoid the issue of double standards. When Iceland was up the swanny and there was a temporary surge of pro-EU/pro-Euro sentiment it was cast iron proof that small countries needed closer integration. But when Iceland returned to its euroscepticism all of a sudden the comparisons stopped.

I'm avoiding what? Did you not bother to read my last reply (that you quoted) where I addressed this directly?

molloyjh

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm avoiding what? Did you not bother to read my last reply (that you quoted) where I addressed this directly?

You are wasting your time. BL only sees what he wants to, not whats really there. Apparently unsubstantiated claims and opinion are equally as valid (in his eyes) as claims and opinion that have relevant sources backing them up. So your post is highlighting some thing that is entirely relevant to most reasonable individuals, but yet utterly irrelevant to BL.

BetterLisbon

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm avoiding what? Did you not bother to read my last reply (that you quoted) where I addressed this directly?

The problem Corinthian is that you came down on me like a ton of bricks for offering subjective and speculative arguments yet you are nowhere to be seen when the shoe is on the other foot.

The Corinthian

BetterLisbon wrote: »

The problem Corinthian is that you came down on me like a ton of bricks for offering subjective and speculative arguments yet you are nowhere to be seen when the shoe is on the other foot.

Again, I have responded to this accusation and while you may disagree with this response, you actually have to address it first rather than pretend I never made it.