Where the hell is Ireland and its EU protest? Is Cowen afraid to stand up?

Biggins

Just read the following report (below) about how eleven EU states have formally protested against the EU increase in their budget when at the same time they are demanding that member states cut the hell back and take drastic measures.

As I was reading the list of those willing to stand up and be counted (states by the way from the better off still than us maybe in some ways, to others that are possibly even worse than us) the thought struck me.
Where the hell is Ireland in this protest and why the fcuk isn't Cowen speaking up in unison?

He is over there right now with the rest of them!
Is he afraid to stand up for us? Does he have any courageous spine at all?
(Personally I think not!) :mad:

---

Nations Unite Against EU Budget Boost (except Ireland!)

Eleven members of the European Council - including Britain - have agreed they will not accept any increase in the 2011 EU budget beyond 2.91%.

The members, attending a summit in Brussels, detailed their stance in a letter set to be sent to the President of the Council.
It was to be signed by the leaders of the UK, Germany, France, Netherlands, Sweden, Czech Republic, Denmark, Austria, Finland, Slovenia and Estonia.

The development followed Britain, Germany and France agreeing a proposed 6% increase was unacceptable.

News continues here: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20101028/twl-nations-unite-against-eu-budget-boos-3fd0ae9.html

galwayrush

We obviously respect our new overlords, The Bondholders.:rolleyes:
Now, do as the nice Taoiseach and Finance Minister says, we have to impress them at all costs.:rolleyes:

Sanjuro

Did we not learn about his spinelessness when he capitulated so easily to Europe over Lisbon? We're part of the EU all right. But to think we actually hold any sway over what happens within the EU is a fantasy. Sure, we have a smaller population than other member states, but there's no such thing as democracy within the EU anyway.

Biggins

These are the same people that is demanding we make drastic cuts over 4 years - yet they are demanding more money for themselves!

For gods sake Irish Government, grow a set of balls for once and stand up for us!
And if not for us, for our children. They will paying the continuing price for previous mistakes after all!

OPENROAD

galwayrush wrote: »

We obviously respect our new overlords, The Bondholders.:rolleyes:
Now, do as the nice Taoiseach and Finance Minister says, we have to impress them at all costs.:rolleyes:

Without them we are completely bust, are we not? Just pointing out, as horrible as it sounds

gurramok

They can't, we are owned by the EU via the ECB who are buying Irish bonds and the financial markets. Say thanks for voting yes to Lisbon then

PeterIanStaker

He's over there cap in hand like the hungover gaseous worthless blimp he is.

I wouldn't be suprised if the countrys' actually bankrupt and it hasnt leaked yet.

Bring in the IMF.

Biggins

OPENROAD wrote: »

Without them we are completely bust, are we not? Just pointing out, as horrible as it sounds

There is some truth in that but at the same time as they tell us to be cutting back, we should be at least be telling them to remain at status quo too (at the very least)!

galwayrush

OPENROAD wrote: »

Without them we are completely bust, are we not? Just pointing out, as horrible as it sounds

When we have to impress them so we can insrease our borrowing, we are as good as bust.

Dempsey

Why dont you email/ring his office and ask for the reasons?

PanchoVilla

This country needs a good old-fashioned rebellion. That'll sort the place out. Default on our debts, tell the EU to fúck themselves, and rebuild this country from the bottom up. I'd rather live in a tent that was mine than a house that belonged to someone who wouldn't hesitate to kick me out if the rent was late.

Biggins

Dempsey wrote: »

Why dont you email/ring his office and ask for the reasons?

I will!
By fcuk I will and I will inform ye if there is any reply!

He's afraid his shins might collapse if he stands up.

My name is URL

OPENROAD wrote: »

Without them we are completely bust, are we not? Just pointing out, as horrible as it sounds

Without them.. what a depressing notion that is. So basically we're fcuked either way? The world is.. not just us. Yeah, without what exactly? Without the consolidated threat of any other country going bust? That's all it is really, keep everyone in check so as nobody else has to cover for them. Long may it continue to fail

galwayrush

Biggins wrote: »

I will!
By fcuk I will and I will inform ye if there is any reply!

I couldn't hold my breath that long....:rolleyes:

ItsAWindUp

Somebody stop this country, please. I want off.

Celly Smunt

easily persuaded yes voters

thetonynator

OPENROAD wrote: »

Without them we are completely bust, are we not? Just pointing out, as horrible as it sounds

I dont see how its fair that they get to decide whether or not we get bust and how much tax we have to pay to pay the interest . . .the EU should regulate it, its gone to 7%

But national solidarity bonds and loan the government your money!!!

OPENROAD

Biggins wrote: »

There is some truth in that but at the same time as they tell us to be cutting back, we should be at least be telling them to remain at status quo too (at the very least)!

Well we can't even come close to affording to run the country on a day to day basis :(


I do agree Biggins, but then again, certain groups have been saying it for years and we would have accused them of being Colonial, anti Europe.

OPENROAD

galwayrush wrote: »

When we have to impress them so we can insrease our borrowing, we are as good as bust.

In that case the only other option is to give up and let an outside body come in, if that happens, do you think they will sit down with representative bodies and negotiate what cuts to make?

OPENROAD

thetonynator wrote: »

I dont see how its fair that they get to decide whether or not we get bust and how much tax we have to pay to pay the interest . . .the EU should regulate it, its gone to 7%

But national solidarity bonds and loan the government your money!!!

ArmaniJeanss

The Irish governments position here seems correct - as a net receiver of funds from the EU budget its good for us if the net contributors can be convinced to put oodles more money in.
So why exactly should we allign ourselves with the net contributors?

In fact I humbly suggest that if Ireland had signed this then someone would have started a thread pointing out how stupid it was of the Irish government to do so.

Of the 11 signatures, all the net contributors are included except Italy.
That is, Austria, Germany, France, Holland, Finland, Denmark, Sweden and the UK.
Italy is the only net contributor not to sign.

17 of the other EU 18 countries inc Ireland are net receivers (Cyprus is ~0 either way).
Of those 17 only 3 have signed (Czechs, Estonia, Slovenia).
Irelands position amongst the 14 non-signers seems eminently sensible.

galwayrush

Good grief, Declan Ganley's scaremongering does not look too far off the mark atm.

OPENROAD

galwayrush wrote: »

Good grief, Declan Ganley's scaremongering does not look too far off the mark atm.

And he was slated at the time.

galwayrush

OPENROAD wrote: »

And he was slated at the time.

Probably still is in certain quarters, looks like he was more honest than Cowen and co.:rolleyes:

Biggins

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

...Irelands position amongst the 14 non-signers seems eminently sensible.

So we shut up, do what we are told, cut back at home as per their orders but give in too, pay out to the EU more as they demand also!

In other words "You are to cut back but pay me more money meanwhile!"

thetonynator

OPENROAD wrote: »

National solidarity bonds are where you invest money with a fixed rate of interest over 3, 5.5 and 10 years. They pay and apr of either approx 3.2%, 3.7% or 4.75%, so the government borrows less off the bond market, and you get a better rate of interest than you will anywhere else really.

OPENROAD

thetonynator wrote: »

National solidarity bonds are where you invest money with a fixed rate of interest over 3, 5.5 and 10 years. They pay and apr of either approx 3.2%, 3.7% or 4.75%, so the government borrows less off the bond market, and you get a better rate of interest than you will anywhere else really.

I know that, sorry misread your thread, sadly, these would not even come close to meeting our day to day needs, not that they are a bad idea, we currently have one coming on stream, but the general public only have so much money, which is not very much

R0ot

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

Bring in the IMF.

You wouldn't be saying that if they were here.

OPENROAD

R0ot wrote: »

You wouldn't be saying that if they were here.

+1

ArmaniJeanss

Biggins wrote: »

So we shut up, do what we are told, cut back at home as per their orders but give in too, pay out to the EU more as they demand also!

In other words "You are to cut back but pay me more money meanwhile!"

I don't think you are getting this bit 'We are net receivers of funds from the EU budget'
If the budget increased by say a ludicrous 100%, and the funds continued to be allocated on their current pro-rata basis, then this would double the sum we ultimately receive from the EU. Yes, we would give more, but we would receive more back.
Why should we logically oppose this situation

galwayrush

R0ot wrote: »

You wouldn't be saying that if they were here.

I imagine many of would just depart if the IMF were here. I wonder how much worse things have to get before we no longer have a choice though.:(

PeterIanStaker

R0ot wrote: »

You wouldn't be saying that if they were here.

Why not? They gonna start shooting people?

galwayrush

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

Why not? They gonna start shooting people?

They won't, be we probably will.::rolleyes:

PeterIanStaker

galwayrush wrote: »

They won't, be we probably will.::rolleyes:

Hopefully we'll shoot Cowen, as well as the catholic hierarchy and a good few journalists.

Biggins

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I don't think you are getting this bit 'We are net receivers of funds from the EU budget'
If the budget increased by say a ludicrous 100%, and the funds continued to be allocated on their current pro-rata basis, then this would double the sum we ultimately receive from the EU. Yes, we would give more, but we would receive more back.
Why should we logically oppose this situation

I accept the point and where your coming from, however...
There is a big "IF" there - IF the funds continued be allocated on their current pro-rata basis - and if thats the case anyway, whats the point of shelling it out to them if they are going to give it back to us?

Seems bloody messy and still does not explain how they can ask all to shell out more for this one EU org' when they are telling us all at the same time to cut back!
Its more than a bit hypocritical of them in Brussels is it not!

OPENROAD

Biggins wrote: »

I accept the point and where your coming from, however...
There is a big "IF" there - IF the funds continued be allocated on their current pro-rata basis - and if thats the case anyway, whats the point of shelling it out to them if they are going to give it back to us?

Seems bloody messy and still does not explain how they can ask all to shell out more for this one EU org' when they are telling us all at the same time to cut back!
Its more than a bit hypocritical of them in Brussels is it not!

You can see how some of those net contributors might be a slightly bit peeved about having to contribute to an increased fund when at the same time they are having to make huge cuts

Biggins

OPENROAD wrote: »

You can see how some of those net contributors might be a slightly bit peeved about having to contribute to an increased fund when at the same time they are having to make huge cuts

The whole thing is a ruddy ever growing nightmare.

ArmaniJeanss

Biggins wrote: »

There is a big "IF" there - IF the funds continued be allocated on their current pro-rata basis -

Well it they change the pro-rata then at that stage we could sign a big formal protest along with any other net-receivers Poland, Belgium or whoever else was being done by any change. Not signing this would be a mistake.

Biggins wrote: »

and if thats the case anyway, whats the point of shelling it out to them if they are going to give it back to us?

Its the way budgets work, and it goes some way to indicating the fiscal rectitude of the country in question. Like if say Poland gives €10B yearly and gets €25B yearly, and Poland turned around one year and said 'lets cut to the chase and just give us the €15B instead' it would raise a question of whether Poland actually had that €10B at all or whether there was some underlying crisis they weren't being straight about.

Biggins wrote: »

Its more than a bit hypocritical of them in Brussels is it not!

In fairness thats a different debate - the main premise of this thread was why Cowen/Ireland didn't align themselves with the eleven signaturies. Hypocrisy of anyone aside, I think it was a sensible decision by Cowen.

Biggins

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

...I think it was a sensible decision by Cowen.

Well, we can have differences of opinion then.

recylingbin

From wiki:

It lies to the northwest of continental Europe and is surrounded by hundreds of islands and islets. To the east of Ireland is Great Britain, separated from it by the Irish Sea

Hardly going to protest when alot of the extra money will be loaned to Ireland.

As to whether Cowen is afraid to stand up or not, depends on whether Phillip Walton is around or not.

meglome

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

The Irish governments position here seems correct - as a net receiver of funds from the EU budget its good for us if the net contributors can be convinced to put oodles more money in.
So why exactly should we allign ourselves with the net contributors?

In fact I humbly suggest that if Ireland had signed this then someone would have started a thread pointing out how stupid it was of the Irish government to do so.

Of the 11 signatures, all the net contributors are included except Italy.
That is, Austria, Germany, France, Holland, Finland, Denmark, Sweden and the UK.
Italy is the only net contributor not to sign.

17 of the other EU 18 countries inc Ireland are net receivers (Cyprus is ~0 either way).
Of those 17 only 3 have signed (Czechs, Estonia, Slovenia).
Irelands position amongst the 14 non-signers seems eminently sensible.

You stating facts won't sit well with the Anti-EU rant this thread was meant to be. You'd think the extra money the EU were asking for was to buy gold plated toilet paper. The 'look we told you Lisbon was bad' stuff is really tiresome and utter shíte. We are where we are due to voting for people who couldn't run a sweetie shop. So effectively we did this to ourselves. Let's stop blaming the EU. I can only imagine how much worse off we'd be if we had to totally rely on our own politicians.

jay-me

R0ot wrote: »

You wouldn't be saying that if they were here.

You wouldn't need to.. They'd be already here..:p

arybvtcw0eolkf

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

He's over there cap in hand like the hungover gaseous worthless blimp he is.

I wouldn't be suprised if the countrys' actually bankrupt and it hasnt leaked yet.

For a second there my stomach turned, because I wouldn't put it past the lying, cowardly bastard.

force majeure

We will, won't we, well we, wont we, well we, we well, wont we, well we... stand up some time when the curtain comes down.

Biggins

force majeure wrote: »

We will, won't we, well we, wont we, well we, we well, wont we, well we... stand up some time when the curtain comes down.

Its not over till the fat lady sings...

Cue obvious joke!

View

Cutting the EU budget would inevitably mean cut-backs to the money received by those member states that are net recipients - Ireland being of course a net recipient.

Basically, it would not appear to be smart of the government to advocate cutting a budget that we are net recipients of - unless that is, they are even more stupid than popular opinion would have us believe.

OPENROAD

View wrote: »

Cutting the EU budget would inevitably mean cut-backs to the money received by those member states that are net recipients - Ireland being of course a net recipient.

Basically, it would not appear to be smart of the government to advocate cutting a budget that we are net recipients of - unless that is, they are even more stupid than popular opinion would have us believe.

You can understand why the countries who are net contributers are a bit upset

PeterIanStaker

Leonel Worried Scrap wrote: »

For a second there my stomach turned, because I wouldn't put it past the lying, cowardly bastard.

Sorry if I scared the sh*t out of you.

I hope I'm wrong, I really do.

Biggins

View wrote: »

Cutting the EU budget would inevitably mean cut-backs to the money received by those member states that are net recipients - Ireland being of course a net recipient...

Who says anything about cutting it? Standing up and saying "Hang on, shouldn't the EU itself be looking to make saving internally and/or retaining its current budget be a good start?"
...Instead of telling all states to cough-up while telling them to cut back!
Anyone else see the madness in all of this?

OPENROAD

Biggins wrote: »

Who says anything about cutting it? Standing up and saying "Hang on, shouldn't the EU itself be looking to make saving internally and/or retaining its current budget be a good start?"
...Instead of telling all states to cough-up while telling them to cut back!
Anyone else see the madness in all of this?

I can see why the UK might see it that way, especially with the huge cutbacks they are going through.