Should Ireland Leave the EU?

mickthemick

Some politicans say that Ireland is too small to survive economicaly in a Globalized world without the EU. Look at Norway and Switzerland they've gotten on grand without it. Bigger market doesn't necessarily mean a more prosperous nation look at India, they have a common market with over 1 billion people it's not a rich country.
If we left the EU we could control our own economy without the interference of Brussels who didn't see the crash coming and who consistently get things wrong.
The EU is made up of a varied degree of different economies. It's good when things are going well, but when things are bad it's terrible.

Would people support a confederation of European States with a single Finance minister as I heard suggested last night on RTE news. Sounds like we would stop been a country if that happened.

FreudianSlippers

A few points. Are you talking about the EU or the Eurozone?
Secondly, Norway is effectively a non-represented member of the EU, they implemented the first pillar completely by their membership of the EEA.

Norway is also a horrible comparison to almost any European country: they have about 4.9million people with a purchasing GDP per capita of just over $52,000; we have about 4.5-4.6million people with a purchasing GDP per capita of just over $38,000.
That's a massive difference. It's also a massive difference because of oil. Norway is probably the biggest exporter of oil not in OPEC, the 5th biggest exporter of oil in the world and the 3rd biggest exporter of natural gas. Norway is rich.

Switzerland is an equally (or perhaps more) absurd comparison; 11th in the world for purchasing GDP, the most competitive economy in the world, the MEDIAN household income is $100,000 annually, their economy grows at 3% per year, and they are largely in line with EU policy to remain competitive. Switzerland is rich.

Ireland is a small country on Western Europe with no money, no utilised resources, no "business plan" for the future. We NEED the EU, we NEED the Eurozone, we NEED to pull our heads out of our asses and stop blaming the Euro for the ineptitudes of the people running this country and the vast majority of the people in it.

mickthemick

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Ireland is a small country on Western Europe with no money, no utilised resources, no "business plan" for the future. We NEED the EU, we NEED the Eurozone, we NEED to pull our heads out of our asses and stop blaming the Euro for the ineptitudes of the people running this country and the vast majority of the people in it.

No need to insult me for having an opposing opinion from you.

I think we should leave the Eurozone for our economy's sake.

Ireland has a huge supply of natural gas, but we have pratically given it away to corporations, we can nationalise it like they did in Norway. We also have a large agricultual industry, skilled worforce etch... What would stop us from trading with the rest of the EU if we left it. We still can freely trade with countries!

The ECB gives us money by printing it out of thin air, it's not backed by anything. It's similar to what the Germans did at the end of world war two. They kept printing money and it caused a devaluation of their currency and hyperinflation. They have no plan of their own. They want to maintain a Eurozone, because they want a United Europe. They'd prefer us all to be latened with debt than having control over our own futures.

So what your basically saying is that we should trust the EU more, stop complaining and even give Brussels more power to decide our future. That makes no common sense.

Economists David McWilliams, Peter Schiff and Trends Forecaster Gerald Celente predected the financial crash and a double dip global recession. They also say Ireland has a better shot by leaving the Eurozone, defaulting and creating our own currency. I'll think I'll take their advise over the Eurocrats.

Another country doing pretty well in this Globalized world is New Zealand quite similar to Ireland. Israle. Iceland defaulted as we should have done and are now experiencing recovery.

Barroso said that the Eurozone will see growth in the next year, yesterday. The same day that European shares took a hammering on the stock market. He doesn't have a glue what he's talking about.

Also

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

4.9million people with a purchasing GDP per capita of just over $52,000; we have about 4.5-4.6million people with a purchasing GDP per capita of just over $38,000.

That's not really a massive difference. I think your just splitting hairs because you have no arguement.

I also think leaving the EU would be a good because they inforce ridiculous politicaly correct regulations that hamper freedom and economic growth. They inforced a recent regualtion where in certain factories now you have to have two people surpervising you if you change a light bulb. What a waste of resources. Those types of regulation hamper our businesses competiveness with the rest of the world and could for that reason endanger people's jobs by companies leaving Europe to Asia. Why can't our government decide on things like that. They also have a regulation of road hedge heights... That should be left up to local authorities. Central econmic planning doesn't work, look at the USSR and other socialits societies.

FreudianSlippers

I don't have time for a full reply at the moment, but I take issue with some points off the bat.

mickthemick wrote: »

No need to insult me for having an opposing opinion from you.

I didn't "insult" you in that post. I think if you can somehow see that in your post you're being hyper-sensitive and need to re-read what I wrote.

I think we should leave the Eurozone for our economy's sake.

Talking point which really doesn't mean anything. You think we're staying in purposely to have a bad economy, or you think that our economy is going to get magically better if we leave the EU and incur massive costs?

I'm actually being serious, what does this mean? How does having a different currency actually help us?
Do we switch up all of our policies to do the exact opposite of the EU?
Do we change the stuff about the EU/SEC that works?
Do we expect Germany to just forgive all the money they've pumped into this country in the "good times"?

I said it before, those who say "leave the EU/SEC/Eurozone have a gaping hole in their logic, it's underpants gnome logic at it's finest:

Step 1: Leave the Euro
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Profit

I'm not so pro-European that I don't believe that there are benefits to non-membership, but not for Ireland... Ireland benefits net from membership more than it is hurt. That's a fact.

Ireland has a huge supply of natural gas, but we have pratically given it away to corporations, we can nationalise it like they did in Norway. We also have a large agricultual industry, skilled worforce etch... What would stop us from trading with the rest of the EU if we left it. We still can freely trade with countries!

We've already given it away, so... how exactly do we get it back and how exactly does this have anything to do with membership of the EU or Eurozone?

Other than the long debunked theory that the EU forces us to privatise these things.

The ECB gives us money by printing it out of thin air, it's not backed by anything. It's similar to what the Germans did at the end of world war two. They kept printing money and it caused a devaluation of their currency and hyperinflation.

And how do you think the Federal Reserve does it? Are you implying that the Euro is the only currency that prints paper money that is not backed? The "gold standard" is long dead.

They have no plan of their own. They want to maintain a Eurozone, because they want a United Europe. They'd prefer us all to be latened with debt than having control over our own futures.

Complete Euro-phobia nonsense. There is really nothing to support this at all, it screams of appealing to emotions rather than intellectual concepts. Europe wants to do something to Ireland? We're the victim? We have no "control" over our futures? Come on... seriously? ONE scrap of evidence for this would be amusing.

So what your basically saying is that we should trust the EU more, stop complaining and even give Brussels more power to decide our future. That makes no common sense.

Nope, that's actually not at all what I said. What I said was the premise of your argument is intrinsically flawed due to your comparisons being flawed. Norway and Switzerland are simply NOT Ireland and to state otherwise is incorrect... simply incorrect.

Economists David McWilliams, Peter Schiff and Trends Forecaster Gerald Celente predected the financial crash and a double dip global recession. They also say Ireland has a better shot by leaving the Eurozone, defaulting and creating our own currency. I'll think I'll take their advise over the Eurocrats.

I haven't read their work in depth, perhaps if you provided links or quotes I could comment, but I think "predicting" recessions is a different thing than knowing the path forward. Think about it, you can predict anything... someone will always be correct. People "predicted" September 11th, it doesn't mean that they had insider knowledge or some amazing insight.

Another country doing pretty well in this Globalized world is New Zealand quite similar to Ireland. Israle.

I don't follow.

Iceland defaulted as we should have done and are now experiencing recovery.

Iceland is also a VERY different example for numerous reasons.

Barroso said that the Eurozone will see growth in the next year, yesterday. The same day that European shares took a hammering on the stock market. He doesn't have a glue what he's talking about.

Ok, can you not see that this is also an apples and oranges argument?

That's not really a massive difference. I think your just splitting hairs because you have no arguement.

If you actually think that a PPP GDP difference of almost $14,000 is not a massive difference and is simply "splitting hairs" then I'm not exactly sure why you're so worried Mr. Moneybags

I also think leaving the EU would be a good because they inforce ridiculous politicaly correct regulations that hamper freedom and economic growth. They inforced a recent regualtion where in certain factories now you have to have two people surpervising you if you change a light bulb. What a waste of resources.

Any source for this?

Those types of regulation hamper our businesses competiveness with the rest of the world and could for that reason endanger people's jobs by companies leaving Europe to Asia.

...and you think Ireland defaulting on it's debt, creating a currency that is worthless and leaving the EU/Eurozone is either going to stop the emerging markets competitiveness and/or entice multinational corporations to come to Ireland instead of India or China?

Why can't our government decide on things like that. They also have a regulation of road hedge heights... That should be left up to local authorities.

There is legislation in the UK, not mandated by Europe. Unless you can point to this legislation I have to disagree.

Central econmic planning doesn't work, look at the USSR and other socialits societies.

So there is no central economic planning in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.?

BlitzKrieg

Some politicans say that Ireland is too small to survive economicaly in a Globalized world without the EU. Look at Norway and Switzerland they've gotten on grand without it.

The problem with competing in europe when your not Norway or Switzerland and not in the EU is that you are for the most part competing with other EU member states in the same markets. Leave the EU and you give up your vote and the other countries can essentially vote you out of any industry in europe.

meglome

mickthemick wrote: »

No need to insult me for having an opposing opinion from you.

I think we should leave the Eurozone for our economy's sake.

It's all well and good to have any opinion you fancy. That won't change what you're suggesting being a disaster for Ireland.

mickthemick wrote: »

Ireland has a huge supply of natural gas, but we have pratically given it away to corporations, we can nationalise it like they did in Norway. We also have a large agricultual industry, skilled worforce etch... What would stop us from trading with the rest of the EU if we left it. We still can freely trade with countries!

If the vast resources people keep talking about actually turn out to exist, and that's still very doubtful at this point, there is nothing stopping us putting taxes on those resources at any time. It'd be pretty pointless to do that now as they are still a big fantasy.

Why should the rest of the EU let us fully into the club if we revoke our membership?

mickthemick wrote: »

So what your basically saying is that we should trust the EU more, stop complaining and even give Brussels more power to decide our future. That makes no common sense.

Of all the things I disagree with in your post (and there are many) I find this funny. You seem to have not noticed that we as a country utterly fúcked ourselves by going crazy with a property bubble and massively overspending. It's kinda boggles my mind that people are still in lala land trying desperately for this mess to have been caused by someone else. WE caused this mess, trying to blame it on the EU is moronic.

McDave

The main countries that could be in the EU that aren't are Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. There's no reason why, being prepared to accept the consequences, we couldn't opt out and join their ranks. However, in reality before even contemplating leaving the EU we'd need to consider why those countries are not in the EU.

1. Switzerland: has a long tradition of autonomy and a sustained capacity to generate prosperity. They're truly able to stand on their own feet and benefit from their advantageous geography.

2. Norway: stayed out for one reason only. They have huge hydrocarbon resources and, quite reasonably, don't want to be a net contributor to the EU or to be constrained by EU energy policies. Having said that, the original Scandinavian accession referenda were apparently sequenced because it was felt Norway would probably vote yes, and thus encourage the more sceptical Danes to follow them in. In the event, Norway voted No and Denmark Yes.

3. Iceland: I'm less sure about Iceland's reasons for staying out. But I'd hazard that they feel autonomous enough with their natural resources, and possibly fear being overwhelmed both in size and culturally within the EU. Possibly had Norway joined, they might be more predisposed.

What does this mean for Ireland?

Culturally, Norway and Iceland could provide encouraging templates for exiting the EU. Norway for its autonomous exploitation of hydrocarbons, Iceland for its fishing capacity. Of course, to plough those furrows, Ireland would need a close relationship with those countries, which we frankly don't have. We're more disposed towards the English-speaking worlds and have little in common with Scandinavia. If we had our own substantial hydrocarbon resources, we could forge bonds with Norway. But I suppose we could do that inside the EU too.

Culturally, we have nothing in common with Switzerland.

Economically, Ireland needs more than the hydrocarbons that even optimistically are at our disposal and the seafood we could turn into cash. Our population while not huge, is substantial enough, and we can see from our current state just how much dosh we need to function as a state and society. The Norwegian and Icelandic models combined won't satisfy our needs.

Economically, we are nowhere near close to Switzerland's capabilities. There's no point in even going there.

Politically, we are close to the UK and the US. Our national perspective is much more outward looking than Norway or Iceland. Switzerland isn't on our political radar.

* * *

Comparisons with these countries are regularly made by those who might prefer to see Ireland commit to relative autonomy. Personally, I don't think aspirations of this nature are realistic. Leaving the EU at this point would require a capacity to endure a level of relative material discomfort Irish people would not be willing to risk.

It might be a different ball game if over the next decade or two Ireland displayed a sustained ability to convert material, human and financial resources and into hard net exports - e.g. renewable energy, food, services. All the while acting with political and economic prudence. Say, by 2020, Irish people felt it would be worth going it alone outside the EU, that might be a point at which we could seriously entertain an exit.

But in all honesty, not before then.

FreudianSlippers

+1 to McDave's whole post. But just to add to that, we have substantial natural renewable resources but nobody wants to utilise them. There is so much objection to wind, water, tidal, etc. - we should be harnessing this and selling it to the UK.

A lot would need to change in Ireland to even consider being autonomous. We've proven that we're an extremely financially incompetent country as well as a country that is incapable of practising non-partisan politics.

Lockstep

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

A few points. Are you talking about the EU or the Eurozone?
Secondly, Norway is effectively a non-represented member of the EU, they implemented the first pillar completely by their membership of the EEA.

Norway is also a horrible comparison to almost any European country: they have about 4.9million people with a purchasing GDP per capita of just over $52,000; we have about 4.5-4.6million people with a purchasing GDP per capita of just over $38,000.
That's a massive difference. It's also a massive difference because of oil. Norway is probably the biggest exporter of oil not in OPEC, the 5th biggest exporter of oil in the world and the 3rd biggest exporter of natural gas. Norway is rich.

I've tried bringing this point up with Eurosceptics in the past and they inevitably fall back on the "But Ireland has massive oil and gas fields" argument. Every time.


Also OP, how do you propose we stave off the Dutch Disease ?

mickthemick

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't have time for a full reply at the moment, but I take issue with some points off the bat.
I didn't "insult" you in that post. I think if you can somehow see that in your post you're being hyper-sensitive and need to re-read what I wrote.

I'm not been hypersensitive. I'm interested in a discussion but you seem to just personally insult people for having different opinions from you. Like "getting my head out my ass." No need to say that. I totally respect your opinion, I just don't agree with it.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Talking point which really doesn't mean anything. You think we're staying in purposely to have a bad economy, or you think that our economy is going to get magically better if we leave the EU and incur massive costs?

I'm actually being serious, what does this mean? How does having a different currency actually help us?
Do we switch up all of our policies to do the exact opposite of the EU?
Do we change the stuff about the EU/SEC that works?
Do we expect Germany to just forgive all the money they've pumped into this country in the "good times"?

No we're staying in the Euro, because our politicians and Eurocrats want to to maintain a monetary union for political gains. Why have power over 4.5 million people when you can have influence in the governance of half a billion. Quite simply the Eurocrats want a Superstate and turn the EU into a debt union before they let it split up.

Of course our economy isn't going to get magically better when we leave. But it will get a better a lot quicker if we pull out. We need to default, drastically cut the size of government/public expenditure in the first year and have control over our own currency where we can control the interest rates. We have a different type of economy from Germany and Greece. We can't have centrally planned monetary policies coming from Brussels. there needs to be different policies for different regions.

However the way to get around that is to have a culturally and economically homogenous EU superstate. However I don't like the idea of that and that scenario doesn't necessary mean Europe would even be rich.

Those German and French banks that leant us money in "the good times" took a risk while doing it. They made a bad bet. They should take a hit.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Ireland benefits net from membership more than it is hurt. That's a fact.

It's not a fact.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

We've already given it away, so... how exactly do we get it back and how exactly does this have anything to do with membership of the EU or Eurozone?

You're right it doesn't have anything to do with the EU.I suppose I went on a tangent. But our Government and Finna Fail do/did whatever big business wants. The oil/gas companies only have to pay for tax on a licence.

In Norway, where the development of North Sea oil resources has proceeded for decades under direct public control, national ownership has been a great success on every level. The huge profits have been invested wisely, the environmental and safety record in offshore operations has been admirable.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

And how do you think the Federal Reserve does it? Are you implying that the Euro is the only currency that prints paper money that is not backed? The "gold standard" is long dead.

The Federal Reserve does the exact same as Europe and that's why they have a serious deficit problem and their currency could debase with huge inflation in the next few years if they keep up their printing of paper. Gold has universal value. It always had and always will. Every culture on the face of the Earth knew/know that gold has value. Why do you think the value of gold has skyrocketed the last few years. Because there is a lack of confidence with the paper currency.

If you back a currency with gold, this controls government spending. It always prevent inflation. Why do you think there is such thing as inflation. Because the bigger supply of paper currency, the less value each unit of that currency has. Gold is finite and universally recognized as valuable. You can't just press a button on a machine and create more of it.

Paper currency is great for Big Governments and that's why they stopped using gold, because they could print as much cash as they wanted and fix short term budget problems. However their actions lead to inflation and an increased budget deficit. Take it to the extremes and you have Zimbabwe. Greater inflation also causes a widening gap between rich and poor.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I haven't read their work in depth, perhaps if you provided links or quotes I could comment, but I think "predicting" recessions is a different thing than knowing the path forward.

What are you talking about knowing the path foward? Knowing the path forward is knowing how to avoid future problems like recessions or long lasting recessions and depressions. That's how you can live in a more stable and prosperous society.

Here's Peter Schiff predicting the first financial crash and recession (He also supports a return to the gold standard):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Complete Euro-phobia nonsense. There is really nothing to support this at all, it screams of appealing to emotions rather than intellectual concepts. Europe wants to do something to Ireland? We're the victim? We have no "control" over our futures? Come on... seriously? ONE scrap of evidence for this would be amusing.

If you want to see what type of people are running the show look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F1NvIL1jpc

Here is a link to show the ridiculousness of that "working at height" directive:
http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Topics/Work_at_Height/

It actually said not to apply the regulation when sitting on a chair. Talk about no common sense.
Here's another link to show the ridiculousness of this particular directive:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/suffolk/4354584.stm

These sort of directives and regulations really harm businesses and increase prices for consumers. They increase costs and use up resources. Common Sense and the use of more objectivity in our court system would make many of these over the top health and safety regulations pointless.

In all, if we don't start making big decisions soon, our economy will pay for it down the line.

oscarBravo

mickthemick wrote: »

Gold has universal value. It always had and always will.

[...]

If you back a currency with gold, this controls government spending. It always prevent inflation.

In March 2008, an ounce of gold was worth $968. In November of that year, it was worth $761. In other words, the same ounce of gold could buy 21% less in November than it could in March.

I accept that the trend has generally been in the other direction, but doesn't it give the lie to the idea that gold prevents inflation?

oscarBravo

mickthemick wrote: »

If you want to see what type of people are running the show look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F1NvIL1jpc

You think UKIP MEPs are "running the show"?

Here is a link to show the ridiculousness of that "working at height" directive:
http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Topics/Work_at_Height/

It actually said not to apply the regulation when sitting on a chair. Talk about no common sense.

I'm not sure what the problem is. Are you proposing that there should be no health and safety regulations regarding working at a height - that I, as an employer, should be allowed to make my employees work on a roof without proper safeguards, for example - or that the regulations should apply to sitting on a chair?

Here's another link to show the ridiculousness of this particular directive:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/suffolk/4354584.stm

Ah, that clears it up. You don't think that employers should have a legal obligation to ensure that their employees are not putting their lives on the line to do their jobs; and you think that if we left the EU we'd be able to rescind our H&S laws and start putting profit ahead of workplace safety.

Each to their own, I suppose.

BlitzKrieg

mickthemick wrote: »

If you want to see what type of people are running the show look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F1NvIL1jpc

Actually that is as usual from UKIP completely fabricated bullsh*t of the highest order:

THe proposal from the european commision which is currently being developed:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0012:FIN:EN:PDF

If you want an easier read here's the press release listing their suggestion of changes:

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/43&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=fr


You can search all over that proposal and find there is no suggestion by the commission to include the EU flag on national jerseys etc.


BUT



Santiago Fisas Ayxela a spanish MEP put forward a proposal in the European Parliament to amend the above commission proposal with this:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-466.981+01+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN

where one of the suggestions (number 26) was:

26. Proposes that the European flag should be flown at major sports events held on EU
territory and suggests that it should be displayed on the clothing of athletes from Member
States;

Here is the important thing:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/FindByProcnum.do?lang=2&procnum=INI/2011/2087

Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage

This is nowhere near being pushed as a law.

It has been pushed by a single MEP in the parliament to be amended into another proposal by the commission.

The Commission havnt apoproved of it, neither has any body of the EU.

The UKIP hijacked a Parliament meeting to do a television stunt about something that right now has no legal basis.

They are lying and are using this as publicity scam.

FreudianSlippers

mickthemick wrote: »

I'm not been hypersensitive. I'm interested in a discussion but you seem to just personally insult people for having different opinions from you. Like "getting my head out my ass." No need to say that. I totally respect your opinion, I just don't agree with it.

I actually said:

we NEED to pull our heads out of our asses

The whole country has their head so firmly placed up it's collective ass that it's passed the point of being amusing.

No we're staying in the Euro, because our politicians and Eurocrats want to to maintain a monetary union for political gains. Why have power over 4.5 million people when you can have influence in the governance of half a billion. Quite simply the Eurocrats want a Superstate and turn the EU into a debt union before they let it split up.

There is zero proof for this.

Of course our economy isn't going to get magically better when we leave. But it will get a better a lot quicker if we pull out.

I disagree and see no proof of this being the case.

We need to default,

How does that help us? I never understand this argument... how does defaulting actually help this country? Nobody has put forward a common sense plan for how defaulting even would work

drastically cut the size of government/public expenditure

We don't need to leave the Euro for this.

in the first year and have control over our own currency

Our own worthless currency.

where we can control the interest rates.

Worthless currency but low interest rates? pfft.

We have a different type of economy from Germany and Greece. We can't have centrally planned monetary policies coming from Brussels. there needs to be different policies for different regions.

What does this mean. We have a "different type of economy"... not really actually. You also realise Brussels isn't in Germany right? Is our economy different than Belgium?

However the way to get around that is to have a culturally and economically homogenous EU superstate. However I don't like the idea of that and that scenario doesn't necessary mean Europe would even be rich.

Ok. So what?

Those German and French banks that leant us money in "the good times" took a risk while doing it. They made a bad bet. They should take a hit.

So that's what banks do. We're not exactly propping them up.

It's not a fact.

Of course it is, where do you think all of our roads came from? This country was second world garbage before the EU.

You're right it doesn't have anything to do with the EU.I suppose I went on a tangent. But our Government and Finna Fail do/did whatever big business wants. The oil/gas companies only have to pay for tax on a licence.

You think any companies pay tax in Ireland?

In Norway, where the development of North Sea oil resources has proceeded for decades under direct public control, national ownership has been a great success on every level. The huge profits have been invested wisely, the environmental and safety record in offshore operations has been admirable.

They have so much oil that it's ridiculous. I don't see how that helps us at all.

The Federal Reserve does the exact same as Europe and that's why they have a serious deficit problem and their currency could debase with huge inflation in the next few years if they keep up their printing of paper. Gold has universal value. It always had and always will. Every culture on the face of the Earth knew/know that gold has value. Why do you think the value of gold has skyrocketed the last few years. Because there is a lack of confidence with the paper currency.

How many currencies are on a "gold standard"?
How do you propose we buy all this gold to base our new currency on gold?

[/quote]
If you back a currency with gold, this controls government spending.[/quote]
Nope.

It always prevent inflation. Why do you think there is such thing as inflation. Because the bigger supply of paper currency, the less value each unit of that currency has. Gold is finite and universally recognized as valuable. You can't just press a button on a machine and create more of it.

Wow, you're way far off the mark of being even slightly correct. Do you know how volatile the gold market is?

It's absurd to link a currency directly to a volatile commodity, because when gold has shortage, you get deflation and when the market is flooded with gold you get quick and severe inflation.

The government would also never be able to control the value of their currency. Once you link it, you either have to get more gold or you cannot get more currency... plus what happens in the next economic crisis? What does our new gold standard currency do when we have no "money" to pay for a disaster or a need to increase spending.

Paper currency is great for Big Governments and that's why they stopped using gold, because they could print as much cash as they wanted and fix short term budget problems. However their actions lead to inflation and an increased budget deficit. Take it to the extremes and you have Zimbabwe. Greater inflation also causes a widening gap between rich and poor.

So Europe is like Zimbabwe?

What are you talking about knowing the path foward? Knowing the path forward is knowing how to avoid future problems like recessions or long lasting recessions and depressions. That's how you can live in a more stable and prosperous society.

Yeah, and our path forward is not leaving the Euro.

Here's Peter Schiff predicting the first financial crash and recession (He also supports a return to the gold standard):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

I'll watch this later... Schiff is right in a way when you consider the Fed in the US, but they have bigger problems than a return to the gold standard... I disagree with private central banks, which Schiff does not seem to.

If you want to see what type of people are running the show look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F1NvIL1jpc

Here is a link to show the ridiculousness of that "working at height" directive:
http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Topics/Work_at_Height/

It actually said not to apply the regulation when sitting on a chair. Talk about no common sense.
Here's another link to show the ridiculousness of this particular directive:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/suffolk/4354584.stm

These sort of directives and regulations really harm businesses and increase prices for consumers. They increase costs and use up resources. Common Sense and the use of more objectivity in our court system would make many of these over the top health and safety regulations pointless.

I think I can echo the replies to this section above.

In all, if we don't start making big decisions soon, our economy will pay for it down the line.

Yep. It's not leaving the Euro, but we need a full reform of our banking system and practices... we being not only us, but the world. The Euro needs reform, but reform together and stop dangerous banking.

Foghladh

Maybe someone here can throw light on this issue that kinda eludes me, that of Irelands future in the eurozone. I'm not of the opinion that membership of the EU is a bad thing for Ireland and I wouldn't advocate for leaving it. However our membership of the euro I'm not totally sure about. I'm aware that at the moment we're being kept with our noses above water by the huge amounts of money being fed to us by the ECB. But in the future, and it's a future I do see happening, we will be out of the crap... and what happens then? The consensus, as I understand it, is that we like a lot of countries had unregulated access to cheap credit. This cheap credit essentially stemmed from the low interest rates levelled by the ECB in an attempt to service the largest economies in the euro. From what I understand this 'credit bubble' could and should have been deflated by tighter financial regulation by our own financial regulator.

My question is; how does that work in reverse? I can see how it may be possible to impose restrictions to make credit unattractive, but what happens in a scenario where the Irish economy is flat-lining and maybe the German economy is booming? How do you regulate against expensive credit? Or indeed can you? It kind of feels like we're very much tied to how the German economy is performing (which I know makes sense regarding the euro) but what does it mean for future Irish economic growth? Do we fervently hope our economic pattern mirrors the German?

I should point out that I am in no way an armchair economist so if I've made any glaring mistakes in my understanding of things... be kind! I'd genuinely like to receive some education on this matter however

laoch na mona

we are billions of euro in debt
we missed our chance to get out
the eu part funded everything
we cant leave without serious change first

easychair

The Euro can't last, and the EU is under serious pressure.

The euro's predicament was inevitable, and was predicted from before the Euro was formed. The euro-fanatics who were the architects of this fiasco should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for creating this appalling situation, yet now they put themselves forward as our saviours.

The only way forward is that the Euro will be scrapped, in either an orderly manner, or in a disorderly manner.

The real issue is that the Euro was a political project, driven forward by those who were less interested in the economics and more interested in forging an EU superstate. The problem is the people of Europe don't want a European superstate, although the euro-federalists ignore that and don't want to listen to the democratic will of the people of Europe.

The hubris of the euro-fanatics is the lesson we should all learn from what has happened. All the excuses we have been told as to why democracy is not necessary for any steps along the road, for Lisbon and all the rest, should never again be believed or accepted.

Will we learn?

djpbarry

mickthemick wrote: »

Of course our economy isn't going to get magically better when we leave. But it will get a better a lot quicker if we pull out.

How?

mickthemick wrote: »

Gold is finite and universally recognized as valuable.

How valuable? Can you put a time-invariant value on it?

djpbarry

easychair wrote: »

The only way forward is that the Euro will be scrapped...

Or, Greece gets its **** together.

easychair wrote: »

The problem is the people of Europe don't want a European superstate, although the euro-federalists ignore that and don't want to listen to the democratic will of the people of Europe.

So explain the absence of a European super-state. If the “Euro-federalists” want one and they’re not interested in what the people want, why has it not happened?

easychair

djpbarry wrote: »

Or, Greece gets its **** together.
So explain the absence of a European super-state. If the “Euro-federalists” want one and they’re not interested in what the people want, why has it not happened?

If you really judge that its all down to Greece, then thats your judgement. It's not mine, and most commentators I talk to agree that the Euro is finished, and that Greece, while not unimportant, has long since past the point of the only member of the Euro which will help bring it to its end. The other cracks are appearing all the time, and in nearly every country. The end is exactly as was predicted, and warned, by many around the time of its birth.

We can argue about the European Superstate all day, ( lets not as it's too boring), but the only point which is relevant is that the people of Europe don't want it, and don't want much of what has been imposed over the last years.

djpbarry

easychair wrote: »

If you really judge that its all down to Greece...

A great big chunk of it is. Falling confidence in the Euro is due in no small part to Greece’s continued failure to balance its books.

easychair wrote: »

...then thats your judgement. It's not mine, and most commentators I talk to agree that the Euro is finished...

Let’s see one of these commentaries so we can judge it for ourselves.

easychair wrote: »

...and that Greece, while not unimportant, has long since past the point of the only member of the Euro which will help bring it to its end.

In terms of fiscal irresponsibility and likelihood of default, no other country in the Eurozone comes close to Greece. And far more likely (although still unlikely) than the Euro collapsing altogether would be the expulsion of Greece from the Eurozone, for consistently failing to meet its commitments.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0913/1224304027852.html?via=rel

easychair wrote: »

The end is exactly as was predicted, and warned, by many around the time of its birth.

Care to produce one of these “predictions”?

easychair wrote: »

We can argue about the European Superstate all day, ( lets not as it's too boring), but the only point which is relevant is that the people of Europe don't want it...

No, that’s not the only point that’s relevant. You said that the “federalists” are pushing through a European super-state and they don’t care what the people want. If that’s the case, then why aren’t we all living in a European super-state?

easychair

djpbarry wrote: »

A great big chunk of it is. Falling confidence in the Euro is due in no small part to Greece’s continued failure to balance its books.
Let’s see one of these commentaries so we can judge it for ourselves.
In terms of fiscal irresponsibility and likelihood of default, no other country in the Eurozone comes close to Greece. And far more likely (although still unlikely) than the Euro collapsing altogether would be the expulsion of Greece from the Eurozone, for consistently failing to meet its commitments.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0913/1224304027852.html?via=rel
Care to produce one of these “predictions”?
No, that’s not the only point that’s relevant. You said that the “federalists” are pushing through a European super-state and they don’t care what the people want. If that’s the case, then why aren’t we all living in a European super-state?

How can anyone "produce" a commentary which I said i have discussed?

In any case, I am really sorry, but I find your style of discussion here aggressive, hostile and unfriendly, so I'd rather not get into a further discussion with you. I'd appreciate it also if you could respect that and thanks in advance.

meglome

easychair wrote: »

How can anyone "produce" a commentary which I said i have discussed?

In any case, I am really sorry, but I find your style of discussion here aggressive, hostile and unfriendly, so I'd rather not get into a further discussion with you. I'd appreciate it also if you could respect that and thanks in advance.

So you stroll in, make a load of claims, and then get all hurt and sensitive when someone puts you on the spot?

My suggestion would be to stop making claims you can't back up in the first place.

easychair

meglome wrote: »

So you stroll in, make a load of claims, and then get all hurt and sensitive when someone puts you on the spot?

My suggestion would be to stop making claims you can't back up in the first place.

I'm afraid you have let your imagination run away with you. i am neither hurt or sensitive.

I am here to discuss and not to be hectored or lectured. This is not a court of law, and is a discussion forum.

Its ironic indeed that you suggest I stop making claims without evidence, when you yourself claim I am "hurt and senstive", which is simply a figment of your imagination.

I am quite at liberty to not have to respond to someone whom I find aggressive, hostile and unfriendly. So are you. So are we all.

BlitzKrieg

In any case, I am really sorry, but I find your style of discussion here aggressive, hostile and unfriendly, so I'd rather not get into a further discussion with you. I'd appreciate it also if you could respect that and thanks in advance.

Sadly this tends to be necessary on the EU forum because lies and misinformation tends to be rampent here from new posters (see above my post on the sports claim) so posters who post here more regulary tend to be more vigilante in pointing out leaps of logic and assumptions without evidence.

While it means that sadly the discussion on this forum is a lot less active then others, it does also mean that it is probably the most accurate one as well.

meglome

easychair wrote: »

I'm afraid you have let your imagination run away with you. i am neither hurt or sensitive.

I am here to discuss and not to be hectored or lectured. This is not a court of law, and is a discussion forum.

Its ironic indeed that you suggest I stop making claims without evidence, when you yourself claim I am "hurt and senstiive", which is simply a figment of your imagination.

I am quite at liberty to not have to respond to someone whom I find aggressive, hostile and unfriendly. So are you. So are we all.

You made some claims, then were asked very concisely to back each one up. Instead of doing that you said you wouldn't because responses were "aggressive, hostile and unfriendly". Seemed very over-sensitive to me, but what do I know.

Personally I didn't like the anti-EU tone of your posts but I would have engaged in a discussion (this being a discussion forum an' all) to see if you could substantiate your claims.

It seems to me (and yes I'm guessing) that you felt that your opinions stand for something when you can't back them up with logic and evidence, when they don't. I've heard so much over the top anti-EU opinions recently that I'm pretty tired of it. Every time I put the people on the spot they don't back up what they say because unfortunately a pre-disposed bias often lacks logic and evidence.

djpbarry

easychair wrote: »

How can anyone "produce" a commentary which I said i have discussed?

I thought you might come back with something like that.

easychair wrote: »

In any case, I am really sorry, but I find your style of discussion here aggressive, hostile and unfriendly, so I'd rather not get into a further discussion with you. I'd appreciate it also if you could respect that and thanks in advance.

If it’s all the same to you, I’m going to take that to mean your claims are unsubstantiated nonsense.

easychair

meglome wrote: »

You made some claims, then were asked very concisely to back each one up. Instead of doing that you said you wouldn't because responses were "aggressive, hostile and unfriendly". Seemed very over-sensitive to me, but what do I know.

Personally I didn't like the anti-EU tone of your posts but I would have engaged in a discussion (this being a discussion forum an' all) to see if you could substantiate your claims.

It seems to me (and yes I'm guessing) that you felt that your opinions stand for something when you can't back them up with logic and evidence, when they don't. I've heard so much over the top anti-EU opinions recently that I'm pretty tired of it. Every time I put the people on the spot they don't back up what they say because unfortunately a pre-disposed bias often lacks logic and evidence.

Thanks for your nice post.

Most of what I have said is opinion, and if you think it wasn't , for example, predicted by many that the Euro would not survive when it was first proposed, due to the impossibility of a one size fits all working, then our memories differ.

One person I remember making a particularly eloquent speech in the Guildhall saying just that was Nigel (now Lord) Lawson, who pointed out the impossibility of one currency for europe with every country having different tax and fiscal policies. I also remember reading similar articles in the Economist and other publications at the time.

I'm very happy to discuss, and also happy to agree that I am often incorrect.

I have tried before many times to discuss with the other poster, and find he is usually more interested in trying to win points and catch me out, in a style which i find aggressive and hostile, and it usually ends up being pointless and not an enjoyable discussion, hence for his and my sake I think it best to try to avoid that outcome.

As we can all see in his latest post, he continues to be aggressive and hostile and I really don't want to get into discussion with someone who behaves like that.

Bullseye1

The EU is telling us our government is too big and expensive. You cannot blame them for Bertie's idea for 100% employment, ie hire more public servants.

The EU may bring in some laws which we disagree with but it's the Irish attitude of wanting to be the best boy in class which has had the detrimental effect on some businesses. An example of this is traditional producers of food. If you want to bake some cakes and sell them you basically need a second kitchen, same for cheeses milks etc. We should have the best dairy products in the world. Some of the people in the food safety authoriy should really take a look at how the French, Spanish and Italians produce their foods. They are still employing 500 year old stone stoves to bake bread in the open. This is down to Irish politicians not the EU.


We have a poor standard of politician in this country and we continue to vote them back in time and time again.

Black Swan

MOD COMMENT:
There are some posts on this thread that are getting a bit too personal. Please focus on the content of the discussion, and not each other, per our charter.
Thanks,
Black Swan

easychair

Many now think the break up of the Euro is inevitable, and if it breaks up (with the reintroduction of the New mark, the new Franc etc etc), and lets hope they are wrong. I understand UBS has predicted that should this happen, then the EU is unlikely to survive, mainly due to individual countries erecting barriers to trade and national government abandoning eu procurement rules to penalise all but their national companies. Additionally, UBS have predicted recession on a scale never before contemplated in a western style democracy, with the stronger economies contracting by +-25%, and weaker ones by up to 50%. While those numbers seem incredible, what is sure is we are in unchartered territory, and no one knows for sure what is going to happen. All we know is that national government, and supra national ones, seem to be powerless to act or shape events.

oscarBravo

easychair wrote: »

Many now think the break up of the Euro is inevitable...

"Many" think the world is flat.

...and if it breaks up (with the reintroduction of the New mark, the new Franc etc etc), and lets hope they are wrong. I understand UBS has predicted that should this happen, then the EU is unlikely to survive, mainly due to individual countries erecting barriers to trade and national government abandoning eu procurement rules to penalise all but their national companies. Additionally, UBS have predicted recession on a scale never before contemplated in a western style democracy, with the stronger economies contracting by +-25%, and weaker ones by up to 50%. While those numbers seem incredible, what is sure is we are in unchartered territory, and no one knows for sure what is going to happen. All we know is that national government, and supra national ones, seem to be powerless to act or shape events.

What amazes me is the number of people who seem to see that predicted course of events as a good thing.

McDave

easychair wrote: »

The Euro can't last, and the EU is under serious pressure.

The euro's predicament was inevitable, and was predicted from before the Euro was formed. The euro-fanatics who were the architects of this fiasco should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for creating this appalling situation, yet now they put themselves forward as our saviours.

The only way forward is that the Euro will be scrapped, in either an orderly manner, or in a disorderly manner.

The real issue is that the Euro was a political project, driven forward by those who were less interested in the economics and more interested in forging an EU superstate. The problem is the people of Europe don't want a European superstate, although the euro-federalists ignore that and don't want to listen to the democratic will of the people of Europe.

The hubris of the euro-fanatics is the lesson we should all learn from what has happened. All the excuses we have been told as to why democracy is not necessary for any steps along the road, for Lisbon and all the rest, should never again be believed or accepted.

Will we learn?

There is a core of EU states which will ensure the survival of the Euro at practically all costs. If that means letting a couple of current members go, and some kind of a brake on the idea of European integration across all potential members, then that's what's going to happen.

The idea behind the Euro is a sound one. A safe haven in treacherous international waters. Relative independence from the US and its dollar, and probably against China down the road. If Europe stays in a fragmented national state, it can't hope to maintain its position against better organised regions - both existing and emerging. Focussed European cooperation is Europe's best insurance against the risk of increasing international irrelevance. Those who don't see this can take the risk that irrelevance isn't a necessary outcome. But there are states in Europe which take the longer view and are not prepared to leave everything to chance, and to dependence on the power of a US ally.

The Euro isn't just a currency.

McDave

PS: IMO one can rest assured that should the Euro collapse, contingency plans are already in place for a replacement. IMO, there isn't a snowball's chance of a collapse. But that's not to say there aren't blueprints for a post-Maastricht single currency if it's needed.

And IMO, we should do everything in our power to make sure we are in whatever single currency emerges from the current crisis. Because if we're out, we're going to find ourselves slowly drawn back into Britain's orbit. That mightn't be an unattractive option to many Irish people. But, regardless of what many think about the 'surrender' of sovereignty to Brussels/Frankfurt, for me it would constitute the ultimate failure of Irish independence.

Scofflaw

easychair wrote: »

Many now think the break up of the Euro is inevitable, and if it breaks up (with the reintroduction of the New mark, the new Franc etc etc), and lets hope they are wrong. I understand UBS has predicted that should this happen, then the EU is unlikely to survive, mainly due to individual countries erecting barriers to trade and national government abandoning eu procurement rules to penalise all but their national companies. Additionally, UBS have predicted recession on a scale never before contemplated in a western style democracy, with the stronger economies contracting by +-25%, and weaker ones by up to 50%. While those numbers seem incredible, what is sure is we are in unchartered territory, and no one knows for sure what is going to happen. All we know is that national government, and supra national ones, seem to be powerless to act or shape events.

That's an interesting take on what UBS were saying. You may have missed their point that all that is avoidable for a cost of about €1k per German:

If Germany were to leave, we believe the cost to be around EUR6,000 to EUR8,000 for every German adult and child in the first year, and a range of EUR3,500 to EUR4,500 per person per year thereafter. That is the equivalent of 20% to 25% of GDP in the first year. In comparison, the cost of bailing out Greece, Ireland and Portugal entirely in the wake of the default of those countries would be a little over EUR1,000 per person, in a single hit.

So the Germans are faced with a choice between a path that costs them €6-8,000 per person in the first year, and €3.4-4.5k per person each year after - and a path that costs them a maximum of €1k if they took the entire debt burden of three countries on.

Given those options, why is the first one "inevitable"?

cordially,
Scofflaw

thommacmanus

European Parliament plenary session

Strasbourg, 14 September 2011

Mr. President,

Mr. President of the Council,

Honourable members,

I welcome this opportunity to debate the measures that are urgently needed to respond to the turmoil in the euro area and on the global markets.

We are confronted with the most serious challenge of a generation. .....This is a fight for what Europe represents in the world. This is a fight for European integration itself.
....my first concern is implementation – implementation of what we have agreed.That is why it is now imperative that we demonstrate our joint resolve to act upon our decisions without delay.
...We must make the case and persuade our citizens why they should give their support.
So what is needed now, in the short term?
First of all, the implementation of the package agreed on 21 July by all Euro area Heads of State and Government, the President of the European Commission and the President of the European Central Bank, in the presence of the IMF.
... We have to recognise that sometimes there is a real problem between the speed of the markets and the time we take for democratic decisions. Markets are impatient and democracies are usually slower.
...It is now almost one year since the Commission put forward ambitious proposals to strengthen governance of Euro area economies.
...I would now ask the co-legislators to adopt this package as a matter of urgency.
....A system based purely on intergovernmental cooperation has not worked in the past and will not work in the future. After all, this is why the Community method and the European Union institutions were created by the member states in the first place.

The Economic and Monetary Union cannot function properly only on the basis of decisions taken by unanimity.
It is only through the European institutions that we will avoid a fragmentation of the Single Market and a disconnect between the 17 members of the Euro area and the European project of the 27 members that are our European Union. We must keep the Euro united and we must keep the Euro open.

We, the European Commission and the European Parliament, are the community institutions par excellence. And it is our duty to defend the collective European interest jointly.
....
The signal I receive time and time again from our global partners, including in the G20 is that the world expects more integrated Europe. In the age of the globalisation everybody expects Europe to be stronger and united.
...
The conclusion I draw is crystal clear - The only right way to stop the negative cycle and to strengthen the euro is to deepen integration....
....
What we need now is a new, unifying impulse – "un nouveau moment fédérateur", let's not be afraid of the word, moment fédérateur is indispensable.

It has become clear that we need an even greater integration of our economic and budgetary policies.

There has been much debate on the need for Eurobonds. Today I want to confirm that the Commission will soon present options for the introduction of Eurobonds. Some of these options could be implemented within the terms of the current Treaty, and others would require Treaty change.
But we must be honest: this will not bring an immediate solution for all the problems we face and it will come as an element of a comprehensive approach to further economic and political integration.

Let us not confuse these projects of deeper integration with immediate necessities. Ideas that would require substantial Treaty change are not going to be a substitute for Greece doing its homework or for Euro area countries strengthening their fiscal surveillance. We must avoid compounding the dissatisfaction in public opinion by being seen as failing to deliver overnight what we already know takes time.


The Commission will continue to play its role to the full, putting the key proposals on the table that shape both the immediate and the long term response. Proposals that are ambitious and should reflect the interest of all.

What both the citizens and the investors want is political determination and economic discipline. To deliver this, we need more, not less Europe.

Deeper integration is part of the solution. It will happen – not overnight – but in a solid, democratic process with a participation of this Parliament.

I believe that, with courage and wisdom, the European Union will – as was the case in the past – come out of the crisis stronger. It is certainly our duty to work for that.

The above is an excerpted speech made earlier by Barroso.

Obviously, I have chosen selectively from it, and further, I have highlighted the matters that are of most concern.

(the speech, while being a general call-to-arms, was seemingly primarily directed at the wavering contingent in Germany existing between those fully committed to European Federalisation and the increasing voices there who are calling for Germany to be copperfastened against and extricated from liabilities they see as only resulting from the economies of Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal & Italy)



Now, I have highlighted what I did lest there be anybody who still doubts the impetus behind and direction of the EUropean Union.

It is, of course, obvious to anybody who ahd a mind to look, but nonetheless this has never been openly admitted in Ireland by a public figure. All of the promotional campaigns concerning the EU and the treaties that strenghtened it's hold over us has ignored theis, the vital, over-riding principle behind it.

In other words, the EU cause has been advanced through blatant misrepresentation and lies.

More to the point, this federal cause is at absolute odds with the core principle of Nationhood on which our constitution is founded.



As I said, all this is blatantly obvious, but not one politician from the Taoiseach down will own up to it, and there remain probably, i'd guess, quite a large percentage of the population that automatically assume that supporting our independence is inherent in even our poorer politicians and is sacrosanct.





Now, today we have Barroso suggesting Eurobonds; which would virtually create a federalised condition without the necessary legislation and treaties/constitutional changes. Germany are unlikely to support, so, for the moment it is probably a non-runner.



But nevertheless, this 'crisis' has urged the Unifaction agenda out from under it's rock to declare itself in more strdent terms than we usually are privy to from the secretive agencies who promote it.

There are those in Ireland, inside and outside tha political class, who welcome it; whether from twisted ideology, vested interests or sycophancy.

A lot of them are on here, and the other forums.

But you'll find that their level of activity here, as elsewhere, is out of all proportion to their numbers - they congregate in anonymity such as these to make their voice seem like it's typical of general opinion in the country.

Now, I can't and have no intention of trying to provide material evidence of this.

I mention it merely as preamble to the suggestion that people who have doubts about or are opposed to the obliteration of our right to absolute self-governance should bring the subject up 'in real-life' rather than forums if they want ot either find out how the majority of people really feel or inform people who might not fully understand what is afoot.

Talk to your friends, neighbours and colleagues about it.



As for Ireland not surviving outside the European Union, or the other argument that was also repeated ad nauseum before Lisbon II to the effect of 'Look at what a mess our politicians made of Ireland; we'd be better off ruled by Brussels' -

to the first - the principle benefit of EU ( eec as it was ) membership was the ability to export without restriction or tarriff, which of course was and is great for a country that produces more than it consumes, well, since then trade is truly internationalised and countries even outside the EU area are incresingly availing of the same benefits. It's an obsolete advantage in other words.

As the other - Remeber that the only really outstandingly large debt that Ireland accrued was as a result of the Bank Guarantee - and the debt part of this guarantee was made to protect Anglo-Irish's creditors - the banks of France, Austria and Germany.

The public in Germany are for the most part ignorant of this fact.

As for the other debts - they occurred as a result of a building boom which would not have happened if it was not for the 'free-movement' and unsustainable economic enlargement policies that were imposed by the EU.

The number of homes in Ireland DOUBLED in less than ten years; there were not enough jobs for the enlarged population and unscrupulous employers have since taken advantage of the situation, to the detriment of both immigrant and ourselves.

This was the cause of the building boom, and the bank debts - that have since been coercively applied to us by the duress of the European Central Bank to prevent their core banks from suffering the losses that were theirs by right.

That's why I have to laugh when I hear RTE talk about it being good news that the ECB have decided to waive interest applied to us on their own debt. People should stop paying their licence fee for this puppet-media propoganda.



Anyway, without a doubt, the situation is coming to a head very, very quickly.

The European Union will fall apart if the Euro falls.

But for the Euro to survivce will require a hostile takeover of member states by the EU.

Kenny, Gilmore,....almost all our politicians (nor do I trust SF on this either) are first & foremost servants of the EU, above and beyond their false loyalty to us and our country, and any action they will take will merely be the enacting of directives assigned to them by Brussels.



All this can only be fought on the ground.

Express your will on this. It's your right.

Ignore all the snide, smart ass-isms that will doubtless follow this post and any other criticism of the EU and our govt.

I think you'll find that the vast majority of people in this country will similarly hold their right for a self-governing nation - where democracy rises from the populace and is expressed from the people in their government and not rule imposed by vested alien interests - dear & worth fighting for.

Scofflaw

So the commitment of the EU to "ever closer union" is news?

As the other - Remeber that the only really outstandingly large debt that Ireland accrued was as a result of the Bank Guarantee - and the debt part of this guarantee was made to protect Anglo-Irish's creditors - the banks of France, Austria and Germany.

Sorry, I have to pick up on this one. Would you like to present some proof for that claim? Because I've looked everywhere, and here doesn't seem to be any - everything points to minimal eurozone involvement in our banks, and a correspondingly likely heavy involvement by the US and UK.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

Full speech for those that want to read it without subjective editing

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/11/572

thommacmanus

And please do read the full version - I excerpted the pieces that are of concern to the Irish nation with regard to the threat posed to Irish sovereignty as expressed by one of the most vocal proponents of integration.
Nothing was changed or altered to give a fase impression and I challenge to to identify a single such instance.

Here's a link which should answer the question for anyone other than EU agitators, who I wasn't addressing -
http://www.golemxiv.co.uk/2010/10/who-are-the-bond-holders-we-are-bailing-out/
Quote ''Of the 80 listed companies only 7 listed their business as dealing with pensions and being a cooperative savings institution. Of those, only 4 listed churches and unions as their clients, the others could well have been big pension funds. The churches and unions in question were in Germany not Ireland. Those seven companies are amongst the smallest of Anglo Irish’s bond holders. I only have figures for four of the seven. The largest, Union Investments of Germany, has a mere €165 billion in assets under management.
The total assets under management which I was able to compile from publicly available figures is €20,871,150,000,000. That is an underestimate because the bond holders who turn out to be Private and Swiss banks don’t publish any figures. So Anglo Irish’s ‘bond holders’ hold and invest MORE than 20.8 trillion euros. Guido lists those bond holders as holding between them 4 Billion euros in Anglo Irish bonds.
Now, in my opinion both figures are likely to be wrong. Certainly my figure is a large underestimate. But taking them at face value Anglo Irish would account for an one 5000th of the total assets being managed by all the bond holders. So would even a total default by Anglo Irish cause that much, let alone systemic, pain and risk? Why are the ‘Bond holders’ and the Irish government so concerned that the Irish people be forced to take the loss and pay the debts for them?
Now lets look at the other side of the equation, at Ireland itself. Well Ireland’s GDP before the crash, in 2008, was … drum roll please… €207 billion. Or 0.207 trillion.
SO…. on one side we have Ireland whose bond holders, its people, have between them a total GDP wealth of 0.207 trillion euros. Who are being FORCED, against their will, to pay Anglo Irish bank’s debts to its bond holders, who between them hold 20.8 Trillion euros. The people of Ireland are paying to, and protecting the wealth and power of, people who have 100 times more wealth!
So where do these wealthy bond holders live and work?
Germany has the most with 15 of the bond holders. Who between them hold 5.3 trillion euros.
France is next with 10 bond holders. Who have about 4 trillion to keep them warm.
Britain is third with 9 who have around 3 trillion.
The Swiss have 6 but who have about 8.5 trillion.
America has only three and hold only a trillion.
Other nations include, Spain, Belgium, Portugal, Holland Finland, Norway, Sweden, Poland, South Africa and Italy.
All these figures are very rough. The figure for Switzerland is certainly under because Private Swiss Banks just don’t publish figures. What we can say for sure, figures or no figures, is these are not banks investing widow’s pensions or orphan’s pennies.
So who are they? Well many of the bond holders are privately held banks, which list their activities as asset management for off-shore, non-resident and high value individuals. To give you an example, one of the private banks is EFG Bank of Luxembourg. EFG stands for European Financial Group which is the third largest private bank group in Switzerland. It manages over €7.5 trillion in assets. It is ‘mostly’, 40%, owned by Mr Spiro Latsis, son of a Greek shipping magnate. He also owns 30% of Hellenic Petroleum. His personal fortune is estimated to be about $9 Billion.
Now there is absolutely no suggestion that Mr Latsis has ever done anything wrong or illegal. And his holdings are, I am quite sure, perfectly legal and above board. But when we talk of Anglo Irish’s bond holders it is Mr Latsis and those with his sort of wealth who we are talking about NOT widows and orphans or you and me. It is therefore worth remembering, the next time an Irish politician, or any of our politicians for that matter, say that some welfare payment can no longer be afforded, it is because the money that could have paid for it has been given instaed to the bond holders, people not unlike Mr Latsis. The Irish people are paying and protecting the interests of people like Mr Latsis over the interests of their own children. And it is their own politicians who have arranged this.
Other bond holders call themselves ‘asset management’ firms. The fifth largest asset management firm in the world is one of the bond holders. Others are insurance companies. The 6th and 9th largest in the world, to be specific. Others are the largest banks, Deutsche, Soc Gen, Barclay’s, PNB Paribas, UniCredit (who don’t appear on the list but own Pioneer Investments) and Wells Fargo (also not on the list but who own European Credit Management). Then there is Goldman. No show without the squid.
Kleinwort Benson Investors is a bond holder. But Kleinwort is owned by a Belgian holding company, RHJ which is part owned by Mr Timothy Collins. Mr Collins also sits on the board of Citigroup. So he too is one of the bond holders the Irish people are ‘helping’.
Finally, a very large number of the banks who are Anglo Irish’s bond holders, are members of something called the Euro Banking Association. All the large European banks, most of the large US ones, Swiss, Japanese, Nordic and some Chinese, are members. The chairperson is Mr Hansjorg Nymphius of Deutsche Bank. Other board members are from JP Morgan Chase, RBS, Bank of Ireland, West LB(bankrupt), BNP Paribas, ABN Ambro, Dexia and Banco Santander.
Its a list which could double as the list of Anglo Irish’s bond holders. The EBA was set up in Paris in 1985, since when it has been and is, central to promoting European Union financial integration and the area’s banking interests. The EBA has close ties to the ECB.
I will leave you to digest this disgusting bolus of self serving wealth protection.
The only thing left to say is this. The bond holders of Anglo Irish are a very good guide to the identity of the bond holders of ALL OUR BANKS. ''

easychair

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's an interesting take on what UBS were saying. You may have missed their point that all that is avoidable for a cost of about €1k per German:



So the Germans are faced with a choice between a path that costs them €6-8,000 per person in the first year, and €3.4-4.5k per person each year after - and a path that costs them a maximum of €1k if they took the entire debt burden of three countries on.

Given those options, why is the first one "inevitable"?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Lets hope that it correct, and lets hope that the German taxpayer is about to pay €1000 for himself, or herself, and for each member of his or her family who are not taxpayers.

What seems certain is that we are in unchartered territory, with a political class who seem to be reacting to events, rather than framing them.

It would be marvellous if German taxpayers can solve this crises, and end the uncertainty, and take us all back to prosperity.

Scofflaw

And please do read the full version - I excerpted the pieces that are of concern to the Irish nation with regard to the threat posed to Irish sovereignty as expressed by one of the most vocal proponents of integration.
Nothing was changed or altered to give a fase impression and I challenge to to identify a single such instance.

Here's a link which should answer the question for anyone other than EU agitators, who I wasn't addressing -
http://www.golemxiv.co.uk/2010/10/wh...e-bailing-out/

...

The only thing left to say is this. The bond holders of Anglo Irish are a very good guide to the identity of the bond holders of ALL OUR BANKS. ''

Unfortunately, that list is bogus. It contains junior as well as senior bondholders, and doesn't contain any Irish bondholders, even though there are Irish bondholders holding exactly the same bonds as some of the other institutions on the list.

The list was originally leaked to the British blogger Guido Fawkes, evidently along with more detailed information that he didn't publish to allow him to defend it. Someone from Deka GmBh challenged him to name the bond they held, which he did - a junior coupon, exactly the same as the ones held by, for example, the Wexford Credit Union, and one that suffered a haircut of 40%. So even the claim that it's a list of those who were "bailed out" is bogus.

It's a pity people just swallow this stuff. Have you considered looking at the aggregate balance sheets of the bailed-out banks (published by the Central Bank of Ireland) or the published disclosures from the latest round of bank stress tests? Those will give you a more accurate idea of the money that flowed into Irish banks than a conveniently 'leaked' list that mysteriously fails to include known Irish bondholders.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Amberman

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's an interesting take on what UBS were saying. You may have missed their point that all that is avoidable for a cost of about €1k per German:



So the Germans are faced with a choice between a path that costs them €6-8,000 per person in the first year, and €3.4-4.5k per person each year after - and a path that costs them a maximum of €1k if they took the entire debt burden of three countries on.

Given those options, why is the first one "inevitable"?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Theres a bit of selection bias in that article. Include Italy and Spain in that calculation and the numbers chance dramatically for the worse.

Surprised you missed that one. The markets/Chinese/Germans haven't.

View

Amberman wrote: »

Theres a bit of selection bias in that article. Include Italy and Spain in that calculation and the numbers chance dramatically for the worse.

To date, we have 3 member states which have availed of a "bailout" loan facility. Hence, the report deals with that case - not potential cases of what might or might not happen. Reality is not usually classified as a "selection bias"...

Scofflaw

Amberman wrote: »

Theres a bit of selection bias in that article. Include Italy and Spain in that calculation and the numbers chance dramatically for the worse.

Surprised you missed that one. The markets/Chinese/Germans haven't.

Obviously they do - but on the other hand, nobody is expecting even a complete bailout of Ireland, Portugal and Greece (that is, absorbing their entire public debt) to be required, so factoring in a complete bailout of Spain and Italy seems even less required.

If France and Germany absorbed between them, say, a quarter of the total public debt of Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy, it would cost them, as a once-off payment, 17.5% of their GDP for one year. That's a large figure, but not as large as the estimated cost for each of them to leave the euro. And for the eurozone as a whole (excluding those being bailed out, obviously), the cost drops to 13% of GDP.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

To date, we have 3 member states which have availed of a "bailout" loan facility. Hence, the report deals with that case - not potential cases of what might or might not happen. Reality is not usually classified as a "selection bias"...

I would have said it quite often is!

cordially,
Scofflaw

easychair

Scofflaw wrote: »

Obviously they do - but on the other hand, nobody is expecting even a complete bailout of Ireland, Portugal and Greece (that is, absorbing their entire public debt) to be required, so factoring in a complete bailout of Spain and Italy seems even less required.

If France and Germany absorbed between them, say, a quarter of the total public debt of Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy, it would cost them, as a once-off payment, 17.5% of their GDP for one year. That's a large figure, but not as large as the estimated cost for each of them to leave the euro. And for the eurozone as a whole (excluding those being bailed out, obviously), the cost drops to 13% of GDP.

cordially,
Scofflaw

17.5% of the combined GDP of Germany & France is an enormous amount of money, and probably accounts for 100% of the annual tax take of Germany and France combined. Perhaps even more.

Politically, it seems unlikely that either France or Germany would be able to achieve that, as it would be opposed by not only the opposition parties, but even members of the government.

The reward for so doing would be seen in the ballot box, as the French and German peoples would not tolerate such an action undertaken on their behalf by their government.

The only way they might be able to achieve something approaching that would be that, as a quid pro quo, (no pun intended!), the EURO countries would have to enter a financial union under the EU umbrella, effectively creating a United States of Europe. It's not even sure this can be achieved as the EU becomes more and more unpopular across Europe.

Its interesting times, and we are a long way from any resolution.

Scofflaw

easychair wrote: »

17.5% of the combined GDP of Germany & France is an enormous amount of money, and probably accounts for 100% of the annual tax take of Germany and France combined. Perhaps even more.

Politically, it seems unlikely that either France or Germany would be able to achieve that, as it would be opposed by not only the opposition parties, but even members of the government.

The reward for so doing would be seen in the ballot box, as the French and German peoples would not tolerate such an action undertaken on their behalf by their government.

The only way they might be able to achieve something approaching that would be that, as a quid pro quo, (no pun intended!), the EURO countries would have to enter a financial union under the EU umbrella, effectively creating a United States of Europe. It's not even sure this can be achieved as the EU becomes more and more unpopular across Europe.

Its interesting times, and we are a long way from any resolution.

To be honest, I think a strong element of fantasy is needed to make believe that the issue would arise. However, it helps put the crisis in context - a 25% absorption of the PIIGS public debt by the remaining eurozone countries would only have the same effect on their balance sheets as adding NAMA (and only NAMA) to our balance sheet does on ours - and with a similar set of rationales and slightly better expectations of eventually being paid back.

So, while I'd agree that these are interesting times, and that we're a long way from full resolution, I don't think I think I mean by those things anything quite as exciting as you do.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Amberman

Scofflaw wrote: »

Obviously they do - but on the other hand, nobody is expecting even a complete bailout of Ireland, Portugal and Greece (that is, absorbing their entire public debt) to be required, so factoring in a complete bailout of Spain and Italy seems even less required.

Oh, must have missed that. Did someone suggest that?

Edited to say: Haircuts are generally expressed as percentages.

Amberman

View wrote: »

To date, we have 3 member states which have availed of a "bailout" loan facility. Hence, the report deals with that case - not potential cases of what might or might not happen. Reality is not usually classified as a "selection bias"...

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "bailout loan". Does the purchase of Italian govt bonds by the ECB (when there aren't enough other buyers at sustainable interest rates to make the auction a success) count as a bailout?

Most (informed) neutrals would say it was precisely that.

easychair

Scofflaw wrote: »

To be honest, I think a strong element of fantasy is needed to make believe that the issue would arise. However, it helps put the crisis in context - a 25% absorption of the PIIGS public debt by the remaining eurozone countries would only have the same effect on their balance sheets as adding NAMA (and only NAMA) to our balance sheet does on ours - and with a similar set of rationales and slightly better expectations of eventually being paid back.

So, while I'd agree that these are interesting times, and that we're a long way from full resolution, I don't think I think I mean by those things anything quite as exciting as you do.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Of course, we are both speculating and really are just trying to make sense of it all and trying to make judgments about what is likely to happen.

I was listening to Radio 4 this morning and they were very gloomy about the next few years, predicting that we will have no growth at all and more likely negative growth. Who knows what will happen, and lets hope for the best.

View

Amberman wrote: »

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "bailout loan".

I was referring to the IMF/EU "bailout" loan facilities.

Amberman wrote: »

Does the purchase of Italian govt bonds by the ECB (when there aren't enough other buyers at sustainable interest rates to make the auction a success) count as a bailout?

Most (informed) neutrals would say it was precisely that.

An interesting but rather expansive view of the term "bailout". Presumably then the decision of the Swiss National Bank to intervene in the currency markets to prevent the Franc going above 1.20 counts as a bailout also then. If Switzerland needed a bailout, then it really is time to buy baked beans and guns'n'ammo and take to the hills.