What's your opinion of the EU?

DidierMc

Are you one of these trendy liberal types who support the EU because you think the EU is good for women, gay marriage etc?

Are you a business type who supports the EU because of free trade benifits which allow you access to new markets and the opportunity to exploit cheap labour in the east?

Do you oppose the EU because you feel it is part of the race to the bottom and is turning the workers of europe against eachother?

Or are you one of these eurosceptic types who believe the EU is a communist conspiracy to impose abortion on us?

Dr. Baltar

DidierMc wrote: »

Are you one of these trendy liberal types who support the EU because you think the EU is good for women, gay marriage etc?

Mostly this. Socially, Ireland is 10 years behind the continent in so many ways when it comes to things like LGBT rights and drug regulation. Quite frankly I see the Dáil as being a house full of Joe Duffys whereas the EU seems much more progressive to me.

Are you a business type who supports the EU because of free trade benifits which allow you access to new markets and the opportunity to exploit cheap labour in the east?

Also this. Free Trade, Free Travel and the Euro is a beautiful thing. If it weren't for the EU I wouldn't be capable of going on Erasmus to Eastern Europe, or have a really cheap holiday in Greece.

Finally, Ireland as a nation by itself is a small nation. But one small island on the world stage. The E.U. on the other hand if it were a nation would be a superpower to rival the U.S.A. or China.

BetterLisbon

DidierMc wrote: »

Are you one of these trendy liberal types who support the EU because you think the EU is good for women, gay marriage etc?

Are you a business type who supports the EU because of free trade benifits which allow you access to new markets and the opportunity to exploit cheap labour in the east?

Do you oppose the EU because you feel it is part of the race to the bottom and is turning the workers of europe against eachother?

Or are you one of these eurosceptic types who believe the EU is a communist conspiracy to impose abortion on us?

I am a eurosceptic because i believe in nations and in particular small nations. Concentration of power into blocs has always ended in tears and often blood. Now more than ever the world needs the dilution of power. I was ok with the original EEC but not the current political EU.

BetterLisbon

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

Mostly this. Socially, Ireland is 10 years behind the continent in so many ways when it comes to things like LGBT rights and drug regulation. Quite frankly I see the Dáil as being a house full of Joe Duffys whereas the EU seems much more progressive to me.
Also this. Free Trade, Free Travel and the Euro is a beautiful thing. If it weren't for the EU I wouldn't be capable of going on Erasmus to Eastern Europe, or have a really cheap holiday in Greece..

All bogus arguments. Social change was happening anyway, it was in fact driven by mass media allowing alternative viewpoints to get heard.
All the EFTA countries have the benefit of trade, travel etc. Montenegro has the euro without EU membership.

[/QUOTE=Dr. Baltar;65367696]
Finally, Ireland as a nation by itself is a small nation. But one small island on the world stage. The E.U. on the other hand if it were a nation would be a superpower to rival the U.S.A. or China.[/QUOTE]

Ireland was once a highly respected nation and member of the UN most notably in the non-proliferation treaty. Now we are a client state of NATO via our EU commitments.
True an EU nation woudl be a superpower, but why is that a good thing? Consider the damage done by superpowers.

ei.sdraob

DidierMc wrote: »

Are you one of these trendy liberal types who support the EU because you think the EU is good for women, gay marriage etc?

Are you a business type who supports the EU because of free trade benifits which allow you access to new markets and the opportunity to exploit cheap labour in the east?

Do you oppose the EU because you feel it is part of the race to the bottom and is turning the workers of europe against eachother?

Or are you one of these eurosceptic types who believe the EU is a communist conspiracy to impose abortion on us?

where do you fit?

DidierMc wrote: »

The gardaí and army are different though. Their primary function is to protect the capitalist state, private property and the ruling class.

Scofflaw

DidierMc wrote: »

Are you one of these trendy liberal types who support the EU because you think the EU is good for women, gay marriage etc?

Are you a business type who supports the EU because of free trade benifits which allow you access to new markets and the opportunity to exploit cheap labour in the east?

Do you oppose the EU because you feel it is part of the race to the bottom and is turning the workers of europe against eachother?

Or are you one of these eurosceptic types who believe the EU is a communist conspiracy to impose abortion on us?

Perhaps you should make it less clear which is the correct answer - 3 out of the 4 options are variants on "yes, I've stopped beating my wife".

amused,
Scofflaw

ART6

On balance I would be in favour of a federal state of Europe which, I suspect, is what at least German and possibly French politicians are aiming for. I say this because it is only by forming such a state in the future that European countries, and especially little one's like Ireland, are going to have any chance of competing on the world stage. To achieve that there has to be a common currency that can compete on the financial markets from a position of strength, and there has to be federal regulation of all aspects of federal activity while permitting individual states legislation on local matters.

The problem, as I see it, is that the project has been bungled. The Euro was introduced far too soon, before there was any chance of convergence between the economies of the member states. So, for example, interest rates that suited Germany most certainly didn't suit Ireland or Italy. We got the Celtic tiger because money was too cheap and we couldn't control our own interest rates (whether or not Brian Cowen et al would have had the sense enough to do that is another matter).

Then, to compound the problem, we admitted a number of new entrants that were attempting to emerge from the Soviet era. They were technologically quite advanced but sociologically and financially poor. Their low labour rates were inevitably going to cause a migration of commerce to them and drag down the more established democracies to their level rather than drag them up to ours.

There is also the issue of regulation. Far too much EU regulation is damaging to smaller economies even though it is mostly common sense. It is, as the Euro, applied without any real consideration of whether or not the small economy can adapt in the time given. The world emerging economic powers (China, India, etc) are not noticeably technically backward but they don't face anything like the level of regulation that the EU countries do. That doesn't mean don't regulate -- it just means doing it at a sustainable rate rather than as a blizzard.

Finally, in my view, there is the structure of the EU "government" itself. The EU Commission was given far too many powers and became an effective dictatorship of unelected bodies (or were seen to be by the "man in the street" and proclaimed as such by the patriotic media). The EU Parliament became the dumping ground for politicians who were no use to their party or to their electorate because there they were out of the way but could continue to feed at the trough, but they could not do anything that would deflect or amend the EU project. I suspect that the recent flurry of initial rejections of treaties in reforenda suggests that Joe Soap saw it that way even if it was untrue. The people rather than the politicians of the established EU democracies (France, Holland, UK etc) have kind of got used to running their own affairs and don't like to be told by someone from another country what to do. A major PR exercise should have been initiated but if it was then it's effect was pretty dismal.

So, to me, what should have been a dream for the future has been corrupted by national interests, led by buffoons with no idea of human psychology, and staffed by administrators who's main interest is protecting their own status. Ah well, what would I know? I'm just another Joe Soap.:o

SkepticOne

Overall I am pro EU. I like the free movement of goods, capital and people that it enables.

Certain aspects of it are problematic such as the Euro which I think was illconcieved and rushed into without proper consideration for the consequences.

I also feel there's a growing anti-democratic element. I don't have a huge problem with powers migrating to the centre but democracy seems to be being left behind somewhat.

People talk about liberal laws coming from Europe and I'm in favour of the majority of them. But why do we need the EU to have these laws? The answer is that we would not vote for them ourselves and therefore they need to be imposed. This is seen as an advantage of the EU however it is also an indication of its democratic nature.

anglo_celt

DidierMc wrote: »

Are you one of these trendy liberal types who support the EU because you think the EU is good for women, gay marriage etc?

Are you a business type who supports the EU because of free trade benifits which allow you access to new markets and the opportunity to exploit cheap labour in the east?

Do you oppose the EU because you feel it is part of the race to the bottom and is turning the workers of europe against eachother?

Or are you one of these eurosceptic types who believe the EU is a communist conspiracy to impose abortion on us?

And are you one of these religious fanatics?

hinault

This country has always been a part of Europe and as such I welcome full and total integration with our European neighbours.
We have always been and will continue to be closer to Berlin, than Boston.

Long may that continue!

View

SkepticOne wrote: »

I also feel there's a growing anti-democratic element. I don't have a huge problem with powers migrating to the centre but democracy seems to be being left behind somewhat.

Since every recent EU Treaty has seen the European Parliament's role being strengthened, it is hard to see how such a claim is credible. Unless that is, it is "anti-democratic" to strengthen the role of a democratically elected Parliament.

BetterLisbon

View wrote: »

Since every recent EU Treaty has seen the European Parliament's role being strengthened, it is hard to see how such a claim is credible. Unless that is, it is "anti-democratic" to strengthen the role of a democratically elected Parliament.

On its own that is true but said treaties have also expanded and consolidated the powers of the unelected commission. Also said treaties have abolished national vetoes which weaken national democracy.

SkepticOne

View wrote: »

Since every recent EU Treaty has seen the European Parliament's role being strengthened, it is hard to see how such a claim is credible. Unless that is, it is "anti-democratic" to strengthen the role of a democratically elected Parliament.

I think the answer to this is in the last part of my post.

SkepticOne wrote: »

People talk about liberal laws coming from Europe and I'm in favour of the majority of them. But why do we need the EU to have these laws? The answer is that we would not vote for them ourselves and therefore they need to be imposed. This is seen as an advantage of the EU however it is also an indication of its democratic nature.

The interesting thing about this is that it one of the things that people often cite in favour of increased EU powers i.e. that it can be used to impose measure that they agree with but would be rejected by national democratic processes.

BetterLisbon

SkepticOne wrote: »

I think the answer to this is in the last part of my post. The interesting thing about this is that it one of the things that people often cite in favour of increased EU powers i.e. that it can be used to impose measure that they agree with but would be rejected by national democratic processes.

Very well said Skeptic. The EU is a means to an end. German eurosceptics Mehr Demokratie call it "output legitimisation" or in plain english the ends justify the means.

NUIG_FiannaFail

hinault wrote: »

This country has always been a part of Europe and as such I welcome full and total integration with our European neighbours.
We have always been and will continue to be closer to Berlin, than Boston.

Long may that continue!

Exactly. The European Union and europe are the exact same things. You can't have one without the other. Anyone who votes against european treaties is a small minded xenophobe.

DaBrow

DidierMc wrote: »

Are you one of these trendy liberal types who support the EU because you think the EU is good for women, gay marriage etc?

Are you a business type who supports the EU because of free trade benifits which allow you access to new markets and the opportunity to exploit cheap labour in the east?

Do you oppose the EU because you feel it is part of the race to the bottom and is turning the workers of europe against eachother?

Or are you one of these eurosceptic types who believe the EU is a communist conspiracy to impose abortion on us?

A body that usurpes political power... Steals members natural resources and bullies its members into accepting treaties that it has previously rejected under threat.:mad:

Join EFTA I say:D:D:D

bonkey

NUIG_FiannaFail wrote: »

Exactly. The European Union and europe are the exact same things. You can't have one without the other.

The Swiss beg to differ.

IrishManSaipan

NUIG_FiannaFail wrote: »

Exactly. The European Union and europe are the exact same things. You can't have one without the other. Anyone who votes against european treaties is a small minded xenophobe.

Is Ned O'Keefe a small minded xenophobe?

"We do not want foreigners in here. Michael Collins, Liam Lynch, Patrick Pearse, James Connolly, would not have those foreigners running our business. It is about time we looked after our Irish people who are well educated."

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=DAL20100330.xml&Node=H12&Page=14

You FFers are comedy gold.

Denerick

Ideally I'd like to see a Liberal European superstate with a centralised constitution that guarantee's personal liberty, privacy, etc. etc. A political revolution on the American model. I want to see the regionalisation of the globe, forgot ancient lines on maps (Such as that troublesome one on this island) and group 'states' into geographic national entities, not arbitrary lines as contrived by ancient wars. In a federal system, Germany would break up into its constituent states. Spain into its constituent regions. Britain in Scotland, England, Wales, Cornwall, Ireland into Leinster, Munster, Connacht, and Ulster. But a federal government, based in Europe, with the same powers as the federal government of the USA in Washington, has to be the way to go.

Similarily I'd love to see a federal African Union, a Latin American Union, South East Asian Union etc. etc. This would set the path towards one world government and the guaranteed end of international conflict.

Its all a pipe dream though

View

BetterLisbon wrote: »

On its own that is true but said treaties have also expanded and consolidated the powers of the unelected commission. Also said treaties have abolished national vetoes which weaken national democracy.

Recent Treaties have done very little to "expand and consolidate" the powers of the Commission. If anything, increasing the power of Parliament has made it more assertive in its relation with the other EU institutions. The Commission, prior to its recent election by the Parliament, had to make more than a few concession in the "Framework agreement" it agreed with the Parliament.

As for the point about National Vetoes and National Democracy, I have yet to see any evidence that there was ever a democratic vote taken in any National Parliament prior to the use of a veto. Indeed, if anything they are the antithesis of democracy since they amount to "I lost the argument, so I'll take my ball and go home".

View

SkepticOne wrote: »

I think the answer to this is in the last part of my post. The interesting thing about this is that it one of the things that people often cite in favour of increased EU powers i.e. that it can be used to impose measure that they agree with but would be rejected by national democratic processes.

Some people may well hold that opinion. The fact that some do, can hardly be construed as "a growing anti-democratic element" since there is little evidence that this element is growing.

Stretching this - as you did - into "but democracy seems to be being left behind somewhat" is disingenuous and contradicted by the increased role of the European Parliament.

SkepticOne

View wrote: »

Some people may well hold that opinion. The fact that some do, can hardly be construed as "a growing anti-democratic element" since there is little evidence that this element is growing.

Stretching this - as you did - into "but democracy seems to be being left behind somewhat" is disingenuous and contradicted by the increased role of the European Parliament.

I would go with BetterLisbon on this. There has been some strengthening of the parliament but it is debatable whether this is compensates for migration of powers from national parliaments to the EU which is still dominated by the commission.

Obviously there's no way of weighing up one against the other objectively and it will always be a matter of opinion, but it is interesting, however, many of the supporters of greater centralisation of power in EU institutions don't disagree with the fact that national democracy is being bypassed but see it as a good thing since it leads to laws that would not have arisen purely through democratic processes.

I agree with them on the fact of democracy being bypassed but don't agree with them that it is desirable despite the fact that I agree with the laws themselves for the most part.

View

SkepticOne wrote: »

I would go with BetterLisbon on this. There has been some strengthening of the parliament ...

Some strengthening? The EP was a purely advisory body years ago. It now has equal co-decision rights with the Council in virtually every area (CFSP being the main exception). The member states have made deliberate decisions to incremental strengthen the EP in every recent treaty. Each decision may be minor in itself but they add up to a whole lot.

SkepticOne wrote: »

... but it is debatable whether this is compensates for migration of powers from national parliaments to the EU which is still dominated by the commission.

The Council and the EP are the decision making bodies of the EU. Those are the bodies that dominate the EU.

SkepticOne wrote: »

.... it is interesting, however, many of the supporters of greater centralisation of power in EU institutions don't disagree with the fact that national democracy is being bypassed but see it as a good thing since it leads to laws that would not have arisen purely through democratic processes.

Again, just because some people hold such opinions does not mean that many people hold them. That is a bit akin to making the leap from "Some Irish people support communism" to "Many Irish people support communism" - The first is a statement of fact, the second incorrectly implies that communism has sizable political support in Ireland.

I would suspect that the over-whelming majority of EU supporters would not accept for one moment your idea of "the fact of democracy being bypassed".

Lastly, I'd have to say the idea of "liberal laws coming from Europe" may sound good as a concept but it is largely incorrect in the case of the EU. It probably arises our of confusion over the rulings of the (non-EU) ECHR. The ECHR is a Council of Europe institution not an EU one.

Scofflaw

I've yet to see someone really back up this view that the Commission has "increased in power over the years" compared to any other part of the EU. It seems to be regarded as sufficient to refer to (a) the right of legislative initiative; and (b) the increased competences of the EU.

The right of legislative initiative has been there all along, of course, so that's clearly not the source of the "increasing powers" of the Commission. Equally clearly, simply increasing the competences of the EU doesn't make the Commission more powerful vis a vis the rest of the EU's institutions.

Am I missing something? Or is it that what people are really saying is that the EU has increased in competences over the years with respect to the member states - an argument which is subtly different from the "more powerful Commission" argument, and which substitutes a 'democratic' argument everyone can get behind for a 'nationalistic' argument that might leave people cold?

cordially,
Scofflaw

BetterLisbon

Scofflaw wrote: »

I've yet to see someone really back up this view that the Commission has "increased in power over the years" compared to any other part of the EU. It seems to be regarded as sufficient to refer to (a) the right of legislative initiative; and (b) the increased competences of the EU.

The right of legislative initiative has been there all along, of course, so that's clearly not the source of the "increasing powers" of the Commission. Equally clearly, simply increasing the competences of the EU doesn't make the Commission more powerful vis a vis the rest of the EU's institutions.

Am I missing something? Or is it that what people are really saying is that the EU has increased in competences over the years with respect to the member states - an argument which is subtly different from the "more powerful Commission" argument, and which substitutes a 'democratic' argument everyone can get behind for a 'nationalistic' argument that might leave people cold?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ok Scoff, in my view the commission has remained top dog due to its niche on legislative initiative. Each treaty has increased its scope and hence its power. Ditto the council of ministers. The parliament has been boosted progressively with each treaty and that does increase the democratic charachter of the union.
But europhiles tend to stop there and fail to note the substantial weakening of national parliaments as more and more policy areas come under the "community method". Under the community method (QMV in the council and majority in the EP) it is possible to impose laws on a country whose paliament (via the delegated minister) is opposed to. This strongly reduces the democratic charachter of the union as we could elect a government to make a law only for them to be overruled in Brussels.

Iwasfrozen

NUIG_FiannaFail wrote: »

Exactly. The European Union and europe are the exact same things. You can't have one without the other. Anyone who votes against european treaties is a small minded xenophobe.

Now you're getting it.

thebman

DidierMc wrote: »

Are you one of these trendy liberal types who support the EU because you think the EU is good for women, gay marriage etc?

Are you a business type who supports the EU because of free trade benifits which allow you access to new markets and the opportunity to exploit cheap labour in the east?

yes and I don't believe it does allow opportunity to exploit cheap labour from the east.

Do you oppose the EU because you feel it is part of the race to the bottom and is turning the workers of europe against eachother?

Or are you one of these eurosceptic types who believe the EU is a communist conspiracy to impose abortion on us?

Nope and nope.

I think the EU is the best thing to ever happen to Ireland TBH, I think it is probably the only reasons our politics aren't 100% corrupt.

evercloserunion

BetterLisbon wrote: »

All bogus arguments. Social change was happening anyway, it was in fact driven by mass media allowing alternative viewpoints to get heard.

I have actually never heard anyone argue that the EU did not at least greatly accelerate Ireland's progress in areas like equality and human rights. Even Eurosceptics give some of that credit to the EU.

Like, seriously? All the employment equality legislation and case law to come out of the EU for example, that was really all us?

Scofflaw

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Ok Scoff, in my view the commission has remained top dog due to its niche on legislative initiative. Each treaty has increased its scope and hence its power. Ditto the council of ministers. The parliament has been boosted progressively with each treaty and that does increase the democratic charachter of the union.
But europhiles tend to stop there and fail to note the substantial weakening of national parliaments as more and more policy areas come under the "community method". Under the community method (QMV in the council and majority in the EP) it is possible to impose laws on a country whose paliament (via the delegated minister) is opposed to. This strongly reduces the democratic charachter of the union as we could elect a government to make a law only for them to be overruled in Brussels.

That is pretty much the nationalist argument I posted in summary form, though. It's an argument that assumes that democracy is automatically better at the national level.

cordially,
Scofflaw

DidierMc

evercloserunion wrote: »

I have actually never heard anyone argue that the EU did not at least greatly accelerate Ireland's progress in areas like equality and human rights. Even Eurosceptics give some of that credit to the EU.

Like, seriously? All the employment equality legislation and case law to come out of the EU for example, that was really all us?

Loike seriously!

All progressive legislation in europe came about from campaigns by trade unions, socialists, social democrats and other progressive groups. Places like Britain, France, Germany etc had stronger left organisations and therefore had better legislation to protect workers and minorities. The EU being a common market just made uniform legislation that existed in the bigger european countries to equalise the market. You are extremely naive if you think the EU gives any gifts to workers out of the goodness of their heart.

The EU is a capitalist trade bloc and does what is best for the owners of capital.

DidierMc

thebman wrote: »

yes and I don't believe it does allow opportunity to exploit cheap labour from the east.


Nope and nope.

I think the EU is the best thing to ever happen to Ireland TBH, I think it is probably the only reasons our politics aren't 100% corrupt.

You don't believe it allows the opportunity to exploit cheap labour in the east? The whole purpose of expanding the EU to bring in the east was to reduce labour costs! Of course you probably believe it had something to do with making the EU more accountable and efficent or some nonsense like that.

Scofflaw

DidierMc wrote: »

You don't believe it allows the opportunity to exploit cheap labour in the east? The whole purpose of expanding the EU to bring in the east was to reduce labour costs! Of course you probably believe it had something to do with making the EU more accountable and efficent or some nonsense like that.

Not really - the Eastern European countries applied for EU membership pretty much the moment the USSR collapsed. The process then went along on the usual slow 'convergence' basis until Vladimir Putin came along and Russia started flexing its muscles again - whereupon the Nice Treaty was finalised in a hurry and all the ex-Communist countries absorbed at a gulp, to prevent them falling back into Russian orbit.

Classic geopolitics, and nothing to do with either EU efficiency or cheap labour. Indeed, the moratorium on free movement of Eastern Europeans which virtually every other EU country availed of by itself demonstrates the ridiculous nature of your supposition:

Although the free movement of persons is a fundamental precondition of the common market and an essential element of European citizenship, transition to full mobility of workers remains one of the most controversial issues regarding the accession of the new Member States in 2004 and 2007. This led to the insertion of a clause into the Accession Treaty in 2003, in order to help alleviate widespread fears that enlargement would lead to ‘social dumping’ – the movement of ‘cheaper’ labour from central and eastern European countries into the old EU15 Member States. Transitional arrangements were agreed, giving the EU15 Member States the option to restrict access to their labour markets to workers from the EU8 countries of central and eastern Europe. This provided for a ‘2 3 2 year arrangement’ where each old Member State decides which restrictions will be applied.

Somehow, though, I doubt mere consideration of the evidence is going to change the picture you see.

regards,
Scofflaw

DidierMc

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not really - the Eastern European countries applied for EU membership pretty much the moment the USSR collapsed. The process then went along on the usual slow 'convergence' basis until Vladimir Putin came along and Russia started flexing its muscles again - whereupon the Nice Treaty was finalised in a hurry and all the ex-Communist countries absorbed at a gulp, to prevent them falling back into Russian orbit.

Classic geopolitics, and nothing to do with either EU efficiency or cheap labour. Indeed, the moratorium on free movement of Eastern Europeans which virtually every other EU country availed of by itself demonstrates the ridiculous nature of your supposition:


Somehow, though, I doubt mere consideration of the evidence is going to change the picture you see.

regards,
Scofflaw

Oh right so it was nothing to do with bring cheap labour to the west, it was about bringing democracy, freedom and liberty to those poor deprived ex-communist states! Oh the EU is wonderful isn't it!

PopeBuckfastXVI

DidierMc wrote: »

Oh right so it was nothing to do with bring cheap labour to the west, it was about bringing democracy, freedom and liberty to those poor deprived ex-communist states! Oh the EU is wonderful isn't it!

Was the moratorium on free movement of Labour, flying in the face of one of the founding principles of the Union, put in place to specifically restrict 'cheap' labour moving west, actually about enabling the movement of cheap labour through some marvellous Machiavellian machinations?

Was the admittance of Ireland done in order to facilitate the movement of cheap labour east?

Maybe, just maybe, there is a hope that the standard of living of those countries in the East will be raised, in a similar way that ours was, through membership of the EU.

DidierMc

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Was the moratorium on free movement of Labour, flying in the face of one of the founding principles of the Union, put in place to specifically restrict 'cheap' labour moving west, actually about enabling the movement of cheap labour through some marvellous Machiavellian machinations?

Was the admittance of Ireland done in order to facilitate the movement of cheap labour east?

Maybe, just maybe, there is a hope that the standard of living of those countries in the East will be raised, in a similar way that ours was, through membership of the EU.

How was Ireland's standards of living raised by being in the EU? Do you not remember what the 80s was like?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Yes I do, and I also remember what the '90s were like.

You don't believe that access to EU markets, and EU membership contributed in *any* way to raising the standard of living in Ireland?

SkepticOne

Scofflaw wrote: »

That is pretty much the nationalist argument I posted in summary form, though. It's an argument that assumes that democracy is automatically better at the national level.

For me it is a position that holds that democracy is better at a national level than lack of democracy at a union level. Personally I'm not convinced the institutions we're ceding sovereignty to are at heart democratic ones despite their rhetoric or the somewhat increased power of the parliament. The dominant institution is still the commisson. That would be my main reservation about the EU although I believe on balance it to have been of benefit to Ireland.

Note that this is different from the idea of the commission increasing its powers relative to other EU institutions. You were arguing against this idea earlier but I don't think that point was actually made on this thread outside of your imagination.

thebman

DidierMc wrote: »

You don't believe it allows the opportunity to exploit cheap labour in the east? The whole purpose of expanding the EU to bring in the east was to reduce labour costs! Of course you probably believe it had something to do with making the EU more accountable and efficent or some nonsense like that.

Not really. Governments don't want to bring in people from other countries that won't be voting to take up cheap labor while their own people are unemployed and can vote.

It doesn't make sense to do that. One reason though they might be let in, is that developed countries such as Germany have low birth rates and large pension holes to fill.q

DidierMc

thebman wrote: »

Not really. Governments don't want to bring in people from other countries that won't be voting to take up cheap labor while their own people are unemployed and can vote.

It doesn't make sense to do that. One reason though they might be let in, is that developed countries such as Germany have low birth rates and large pension holes to fill.q

You should know by now that governments don't do what the people want, they do what the bankers, indusrialists, landlords, corporations and big business want.

DidierMc

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Yes I do, and I also remember what the '90s were like.

You don't believe that access to EU markets, and EU membership contributed in *any* way to raising the standard of living in Ireland?

So it took 20s years of EU membership to make a positive difference to the economy? I would say American FDI is far more responsible than EU membership. In fact the EMU and single currency has been terrible for Ireland.

BetterLisbon

evercloserunion wrote: »

I have actually never heard anyone argue that the EU did not at least greatly accelerate Ireland's progress in areas like equality and human rights. Even Eurosceptics give some of that credit to the EU.

Like, seriously? All the employment equality legislation and case law to come out of the EU for example, that was really all us?

Actually no evercloserunion i dont believe our EU membership was a substantial factor in social change. There was an international factor for sure but i credit mass media for that as alternatives were presented to those who simply never knew they existed.
Even if it was a substantial factor it doesnt follow that the ends justify the means. For example the enabling act brought about plenty of beneficial changes for Germany, in fact it allowed many things to get done that accelerated economic recovery, things that would have taken years to pass the democratic process.
Consequently i see this idea that because the EU imposed beneficial changes on us its "a good thing" to be a dangerous liason.

DidierMc

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Actually no evercloserunion i dont believe our EU membership was a substantial factor in social change. There was an international factor for sure but i credit mass media for that as alternatives were presented to those who simply never knew they existed.
Even if it was a substantial factor it doesnt follow that the ends justify the means. For example the enabling act brought about plenty of beneficial changes for Germany, in fact it allowed many things to get done that accelerated economic recovery, things that would have taken years to pass the democratic process.
Consequently i see this idea that because the EU imposed beneficial changes on us its "a good thing" to be a dangerous liason.

Indeed. It is up to the people themselves to introduce progressive changes rather than have it imposed upon them by external forces.

K-9

DidierMc wrote: »

So it took 20s years of EU membership to make a positive difference to the economy? I would say American FDI is far more responsible than EU membership. In fact the EMU and single currency has been terrible for Ireland.

That might have had more to with successive useless Governments not taking advantage of the EEC. It's up to the individual countries to make the best of it.

American FDI is very much linked to us being in the EU and indeed, the Euro.

BetterLisbon

Scofflaw wrote: »

That is pretty much the nationalist argument I posted in summary form, though. It's an argument that assumes that democracy is automatically better at the national level.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well i do believe that the nation state is the best expression of democracy. The nation state has served planet earth well by diluting power enough to prevent wars between nations, while retaining enough power to ensure reasonably fair societies. As i have said before the concentration of power into blocs is not healthy and has always met an ugly end.
I am getting a sense that you are trying to pin a "xenephobe" label on me via a tangent. Calling it a "nationalistic" argument i feel is a subtle wink-wink nudge-nudge in that direction. I think scoff you should desist from these lines of attack as they could very easily be taken as such.
Convenient namecalling of course is a comfort blanket for many europhiles as we saw in recent referenda particularly the Nice rerun. While its true the lunatic fringe of euroscepticism could be accused of xenephobia or even racism i think this namecalling is now such a learned behaviour that its now almost kneejerk.

BetterLisbon

DidierMc wrote: »

So it took 20s years of EU membership to make a positive difference to the economy? I would say American FDI is far more responsible than EU membership. In fact the EMU and single currency has been terrible for Ireland.

Standing ovation from me. It was in fact policies that were opposed by the EU that created the Celtic Tiger: Low Corpo Tax & currency devaluation in 1993.

DidierMc

K-9 wrote: »

That might have had more to with successive useless Governments not taking advantage of the EEC. It's up to the individual countries to make the best of it.

American FDI is very much linked to us being in the EU and indeed, the Euro.

Maybe you just seriously overestimate the potential of the EU to play a positive role in Ireland?

BetterLisbon

K-9 wrote: »

That might have had more to with successive useless Governments not taking advantage of the EEC. It's up to the individual countries to make the best of it.

American FDI is very much linked to us being in the EU and indeed, the Euro.

This leads to the bigger question about the market. Whats the point of being in a singel market if we have no goods to sell into that market. Until American FDI arrived we basically had no goods to sell, indigenous industry was crippled by market regulation and all we got were handouts. No surprise then that we were poor with high unemployment.
Along came American FDI and we had finally had some goods to sell into the market and the Celtic Tiger roared.
However FDI will migrate eastwards in the coming years and we will return to the situation where there is no point in being in the single market.
The euro is irrelevant as only a tiny portion of their sales are in Ireland. If anything the euro is a handicap as they have to pay wages and utilities in hard currency.

Henry McConville

DidierMc wrote: »

Are you one of these trendy liberal types who support the EU because you think the EU is good for women, gay marriage etc?

Are you a business type who supports the EU because of free trade benifits which allow you access to new markets and the opportunity to exploit cheap labour in the east?

Do you oppose the EU because you feel it is part of the race to the bottom and is turning the workers of europe against eachother?

Or are you one of these eurosceptic types who believe the EU is a communist conspiracy to impose abortion on us?

Ireland has benefited perhaps more than any other country from EU handouts – a net gain of £32 billion at the last count – which have helped transform it from one of the poorest countries in the EEC in 1973, when it joined, to the second richest per capita. I have posted that already but it seemed of relevance here too, as no matter what other aspects there are, that is the one outstanding arguement for me. I believe in the end, the EU will come good...

BetterLisbon

Henry McConville wrote: »

Ireland has benefited perhaps more than any other country from EU handouts – a net gain of £32 billion at the last count – which have helped transform it from one of the poorest countries in the EEC in 1973, when it joined, to the second richest per capita. I have posted that already but it seemed of relevance here too, as no matter what other aspects there are, that is the one outstanding arguement for me. I believe in the end, the EU will come good...

Henry you fail to note that the overwhelming majority of those funds went to a small section of society and those funds were bona fide compensation for the handicap of market regulation. We also had to give up our fisheries too.
You say we were one of the poorest when we joined, well that wouldnt be too difficult as there were only 9 members including all the european members of the G7. We reached 2nd richest per capita, exactly per capita and built on personal debt.

DidierMc

Henry McConville wrote: »

Ireland has benefited perhaps more than any other country from EU handouts – a net gain of £32 billion at the last count – which have helped transform it from one of the poorest countries in the EEC in 1973, when it joined, to the second richest per capita. I have posted that already but it seemed of relevance here too, as no matter what other aspects there are, that is the one outstanding arguement for me. I believe in the end, the EU will come good...

Where are you getting that figure from? Does it include what was given away in fishing rights? There was strict guidelines on how that money could be spent too. We weren't allowed use it for hospitals or schools. The EU said it was only to be used for infrastructure that might benifit big business.

And once again I ask you, where was the wonderful EU in the 80s when we were piss poor? I thought we were members then

who the fug

My whole problem with Europe is

A) What is the rush? (In 50 years to a 100 years time I can see a functioning European state, but not in the next 20


Who is to blame (They have these buggins turn appointees and failed at home Commissioners that I have never voted for in control.) EU parliament elects the commissioners is what I want

C) If the people say no, then have the good grace to wait a while before selling them the same repackage BS again