Should Ireland Leave the EU?

EUSSR

The Corinthian wrote: »

There was no ambiguity in your claim that "each state is free to direct their own monetary policy", it's simply wrong. Pretending now that monetary is a loose word that somehow also refers to fiscal is simply uninformed nonsense and an attempt by you to cover up another factual error on your part.

Monetary is a context sensitive adjective. Adjectives are not precise words. Monetary is a term open to ambiguity, unless you are willing to prove me wrong.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Fiscal and monetary policy are two completely different things; if you actually knew anything about economics you would recognise this.

I am aware of the differences. I would argue that Fiscal policy is a form of Monetary Policy however, at least when given the Oxford definition, not the Economic definition.

The Corinthian wrote: »

This is false. Countries that have received bailouts from the EU may have had their freedom to implement fiscal policy curtailed, but this is to do with the terms of the bailout, not EU membership. Argentina had the same issue with the IMF.

This is correct, but it's common knowledge that the IMF/EU/ECB operate as triad when it comes to Monetary matters in Europe. I will provide some examples if you like.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Please supply sources on both of the above as all you are doing is making a wild claim without details, let alone proof.

Can't get any closer to the source of those statements than the Texas Policy Foundation. Those claims aren't wild by any stretch of imagination, unless you are willing to point out exactly how.

FreudianSlippers

EUSSR wrote: »

The Corinthian wrote: »

This is false. Countries that have received bailouts from the EU may have had their freedom to implement fiscal policy curtailed, but this is to do with the terms of the bailout, not EU membership. Argentina had the same issue with the IMF.

This is correct, but it's common knowledge that the IMF/EU/ECB operate as triad when it comes to Monetary matters in Europe. I will provide some examples if you like.

Uh... Yes I would like! The IMF has nothing to do with the EU or the ECB or the EFSF!

Your blanket refusal to acknowledge or probably read any of my posts which refute your earlier posts coupled with your moving on to new conspiracy topics rings of not only a troll but a re reg too.

Plus you have zero understanding of the "bailout" or even the simplest of constitutional concepts.

The Corinthian

EUSSR wrote: »

Monetary is a context sensitive adjective. Adjectives are not precise words. Monetary is a term open to ambiguity, unless you are willing to prove me wrong.

You specifically cited monetary policy. There is no ambiguity, so stop trying to bullsh*t us.

I am aware of the differences. I would argue that Fiscal policy is a form of Monetary Policy however, at least when given the Oxford definition, not the Economic definition.

Then don't pretend you are having a discussion on economic matters then. Next you'll be telling us that consumption is about diet.

This is correct, but it's common knowledge that the IMF/EU/ECB operate as triad when it comes to Monetary matters in Europe. I will provide some examples if you like.

Please do, because it simply sounds like conspiracy nonsense to me.

Can't get any closer to the source of those statements than the Texas Policy Foundation. Those claims aren't wild by any stretch of imagination, unless you are willing to point out exactly how.

No, you made the claim and it is for you to back it up, not for others to debunk. If you cannot, I will presume that you have invented it.

RandomName2

EUSSR wrote: »

I think it's time to agree to disagree. I would consider myself a right wing Libertarian, so naturally I am opposed to any form of Socialist practice, most notably, the European Union. This is my opinion, no matter how crazy it may appear to be. I can't shake the similarity between the Soviet Union and the EU.

Time to end this, unless you wish to point out exactly where I have "shown myself up". It is merely my own informed opinion, one of which I am entitled to speak. The European Union is fundamentally derived from Socialist ideals. This is the truth.

Em. You're getting a bit bogged down in semantics (many of which are incorrect, such as declaring the bailout to be illegal).

You do have a point in saying there are similarities between the USSR and EU: but the two big differences are that in the USSR's member states the political system was single-party government (ultimately at least), and also that Russia had a monopoly of political, economic and military strength within the union. Whilst France and Germany have a significant amount of influence within the EU, it would be more akin to having the USA as a member state in the EU in terms of comparative balance.

Lockstep

EUSSR: You clearly have an unlimited amount of time on your hands to simultaneously argue with so many people. Might I suggest you educate yourself on the basics of the EU (especially subsidiarity, the role of directives and the ECB exerting control only over monetary policy and not fiscal) as well as Ireland being a parliamentary democracy and not a direct democracy.

It would be a much more productive use of your time than blindly insisting on things you appear unable to comprehend.
Your ideas are being refuted by others in the thread so I feel no need to pitch in on this, unless there is a breaking of the forum rules.

EUSSR

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Uh... Yes I would like! The IMF has nothing to do with the EU or the ECB or the EFSF!

Your blanket refusal to acknowledge or probably read any of my posts which refute your earlier posts coupled with your moving on to new conspiracy topics rings of not only a troll but a re reg too.

Plus you have zero understanding of the "bailout" or even the simplest of constitutional concepts.

Nonsense. There are undeniable associations between the three bodies. From the horses moth -> http://www.ecb.int/ecb/orga/tasks/html/beyond-the-eu.en.html

You are entitled to your opinion in relation to the following paragraphs. I will agree to disagree, unless you are willing to cite some examples.

EUSSR

Lockstep wrote: »

as well as Ireland being a parliamentary democracy and not a direct democracy.

It's all a show to me. Parliamentary and Direct Democracies may differ, but there is still a fundamental element of citizen representation in both. Not much point in electing members democratically if they aren't accountable to the people.

Either way, the citizens of Ireland weren't allowed vote on these arrangements. A vote should apply in both a Parliamentary and Direct Democracy. I agree with studying the EU a bit more, but I am more concerned about the clout they have over our national affairs, then their structural arrangement.

FreudianSlippers

EUSSR wrote: »

Nonsense. There are undeniable associations between the three bodies. From the horses moth -> http://www.ecb.int/ecb/orga/tasks/html/beyond-the-eu.en.html

You are entitled to your opinion in relation to the following paragraphs. I will agree to disagree, unless you are willing to cite some examples.

The European Central Bank is not a member of the IMF, nor is the EU. All 27 members of the EU are members of the IMF (AFAIK), but lets not blur that line and pretend that it implies EU or ECB membership of the IMF.

The ECB only participates in the IMF in data dissemination and that is a plain fact. It even explains their involvement at the footnote FFS: "The ECB Representative in Washington attends IMF Executive Board meetings that deal with issues of direct relevance to the ECB, for instance, Article IV consultations on euro area policies or discussions on the world economic outlook."

My major problem with you, however, is that you keep moving the goalposts - which I believe should be punished in this forum. You've come on here saying one thing, been proven incorrect; ignored those posts that prove you wrong, moved on to something else with wildly loose correlations and connections, been proven wrong, ignored that; and the cycle continues.

EUSSR

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The European Central Bank is not a member of the IMF, nor is the EU. All 27 members of the EU are members of the IMF (AFAIK), but lets not blur that line and pretend that it implies EU or ECB membership of the IMF.

The ECB only participates in the IMF in data dissemination and that is a plain fact. It even explains their involvement at the footnote FFS: "The ECB Representative in Washington attends IMF Executive Board meetings that deal with issues of direct relevance to the ECB, for instance, Article IV consultations on euro area policies or discussions on the world economic outlook."

My major problem with you, however, is that you keep moving the goalposts - which I believe should be punished in this forum. You've come on here saying one thing, been proven incorrect; ignored those posts that prove you wrong, moved on to something else with wildly loose correlations and connections, been proven wrong, ignored that; and the cycle continues.

I never said they were. There are very close relations between these entities. The part in bold is the salient bit. I give up:pac: I am simply to concerned with basic common sense principles to be bogged down by political mumbo jumbo.

Already I would argue that "euro area policies" is inclusive of dubious Monetary arrangements between the EU/ECB/IMF, deals which are not representative of the people of Ireland. Besides, even with that information, that does not account for the stuff they don't share with the public.

God only knows what decisions get made behind closed doors when an unelected electorate meets in private. Conspiracies never happen. No Never. That is the stuff of crazy people. Privacy should not be allowed in these matters. Every detail should be open to public scrutiny. Anything else is hogwash.

FreudianSlippers

EUSSR wrote: »

I never said they were. There are very close relations between these entities. The part in bold is the salient bit. I give up:pac: I am simply to concerned with basic common sense principles to be bogged down by political mumbo jumbo.

Already I would argue that "euro area policies" is inclusive of dubious Monetary arrangements between the EU/ECB/IMF, deals which are not representative of the people of Ireland. Besides, even with that information, that does not account for the stuff they don't share with the public.

God only knows what decisions get made behind closed doors when an unelected electorate meets in private. Conspiracies never happen. No Never. That is the stuff of crazy people. Privacy should not be allowed in these matters. Every detail should be open to public scrutiny. Anything else is hogwash.

One person attends IMF meetings only as a observer. Nobody is forcing us to take money from the IMF are they?

EUSSR

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

One person attends IMF meetings only as a observer. Nobody is forcing us to take money from the IMF are they?

Sure, but they still aren't the most democratic of people. Especially when you consider the fact they make far reaching decisions in private without any direct representation from member states. Seems slightly Communist to me.

They laugh at our situation, I would imagine -> http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/friction-over-merkels-treaty-change-demands-171705.html

FreudianSlippers

EUSSR wrote: »

Sure, but they still aren't the most democratic of people. Especially when you consider the fact they make far reaching decisions in private without any direct representation from member states. Seems slightly Communist to me.

They laugh at our situation, I would imagine -> http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/friction-over-merkels-treaty-change-demands-171705.html

Who says they need to be democratic? The IMF is an organisation, not a nation.

EUSSR

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Who says they need to be democratic? The IMF is an organisation, not a nation.

The EU/ECB/IMF cooperate with Ireland. They should respect any correspondence in relation to our affairs to be the result of Democratic process. To do otherwise by leaking our budgets to foreign Governments, disregarding our law process, and meeting in private is disrespectful at least, draconian at worst.

The Corinthian

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

My major problem with you, however, is that you keep moving the goalposts - which I believe should be punished in this forum. You've come on here saying one thing, been proven incorrect; ignored those posts that prove you wrong, moved on to something else with wildly loose correlations and connections, been proven wrong, ignored that; and the cycle continues.

It is a common tactic of conspiracy theorists. The theory is formed based upon a combination of loose correlations and flawed understanding of facts. Then this is debunked and the theory is simply expanded to 'explain' such flaws.

In normal argument we have a hypothesis and then we test it to see if it may be proven or otherwise. The problem arises, with conspiracy theorists, that the hypothesis is held to with almost religious ferver, and thus they will never question it's validity, only the validity of the test.

In it's most extreme case, as we're now seeing from EUSSR, you'll see backtracking, side-stepping and even attempts at ridiculous redefinitions of facts and terms to fit the theory and not the other way around.

So ultimately, EUSSR will never accept that his 'theory' is anything other than true. If he cannot convince us it will be down to not having the right argument yet or that we fail to grasp his revealed wisdom.

Batsy

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.

The only reason Ireland is in the mess it's in now is because it joined the Euro. Before you joined the Euro you were booming. You then joined the Euro and now you are a basketcase.

It's time Ireland abandoned the Euro and left the EU.

FreudianSlippers

Batsy wrote: »

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.

The only reason Ireland is in the mess it's in now is because it joined the Euro. Before you joined the Euro you were booming. You then joined the Euro and now you are a basketcase.

It's time Ireland abandoned the Euro and left the EU.

I take it you didn't live in Ireland in the 80s and early 90s. Eurozone membership has had a net positive effect on Ireland - irresponsible banking and a housing bubble caused this mess, not the euro.

The Corinthian

Batsy wrote: »

The only reason Ireland is in the mess it's in now is because it joined the Euro. Before you joined the Euro you were booming. You then joined the Euro and now you are a basketcase.

It might help if you knew something about Irish economic history. Ireland essentially joined the Euro in 1998, when the exchange rates were fixed and monitory policy passed to the EU. Meanwhile, the Celtic Tiger - that period when we were 'booming' - took place between 1995 and 2007. You'll note that almost all of this 'booming' period took place after 1998.

Also, as FreudianSlippers pointed out, Ireland was essentially economically backward prior to that, when it did not have the Euro. All of which correlates to the Euro and EU membership being an economic benefit to Ireland, rather than having caused economic disaster (the causes of which you have ignored, or simply are ignorant of).

And then there is the fact that the Irish business community has repeatedly stated that Euro and EU membership is good for Ireland and that leaving would be an economic disaster. No doubt, you know better than them.

It's time Ireland abandoned the Euro and left the EU.

So somehow, the Euro has been the cause of Ireland's economic woes, by your rather simplistic argument and we should leave. But leave the EU too? Bit of a jump in logic, don't you think?

Jamesyrp007

This video holds my view. I agree with his summation on Ireland.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6M8an_XKL8
"Barely a Provence"

meglome

Jamesyrp007 wrote: »

This video holds my view. I agree with his summation on Ireland.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6M8an_XKL8
"Barely a Provence"

Oh christ can I have those few minutes back?

Utter shíte.

oscarBravo

Jamesyrp007 wrote: »

"Barely a Provence"

If only we got as much sunshine as Provence.

Bagenal

To answer the question in the title of this thread, Ireland should stay in the EU but should start taking a firmer stance and ask tough questions like Vinny B in this clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px43eINU2OM&feature=player_embedded

annieapplez

To be honest I get so upset when the focus is whether or not Ireland can survive the economic aftermath of leaving the EU -- at the end Ireland over the course of many generations one way or another fought and died for a free Ireland only to give it all away. Not to get too pedantic -- at the end I would give up everything to be free and be master my own ship -- if I fail it is my own fault -- if I succeed it is my victory -- either way I win because I am the master of my destiny -- if i fail I can pick myself up -- learn and move on because I am a survivor and want to succeed and be self-sufficient and not rely on the judgement of others to make my decisions for me but to think for myself and learn from my experiences -- Ireland has survived this journey to only hand over its freedom to those that don't know its struggle nor could care less -- are these the people who are to be in charge of your destiny -- decide what you can and cannot do with your land so hard fought for? The end goal is not a booming economy but to retain a freedom of choice of how you want to live your life and how you want your children to live -- a slave to the debt system or to have a life worth living -- the choice is still there -- how will you choose??

meglome

annieapplez wrote: »

To be honest I get so upset when the focus is whether or not Ireland can survive the economic aftermath of leaving the EU -- at the end Ireland over the course of many generations one way or another fought and died for a free Ireland only to give it all away. Not to get too pedantic -- at the end I would give up everything to be free and be master my own ship -- if I fail it is my own fault -- if I succeed it is my victory -- either way I win because I am the master of my destiny -- if i fail I can pick myself up -- learn and move on because I am a survivor and want to succeed and be self-sufficient and not rely on the judgement of others to make my decisions for me but to think for myself and learn from my experiences -- Ireland has survived this journey to only hand over its freedom to those that don't know its struggle nor could care less -- are these the people who are to be in charge of your destiny -- decide what you can and cannot do with your land so hard fought for? The end goal is not a booming economy but to retain a freedom of choice of how you want to live your life and how you want your children to live -- a slave to the debt system or to have a life worth living -- the choice is still there -- how will you choose??

Christ... how I hate this crap. Firstly Ireland is the EU as much as anyone is, so we've handed nothing away. Secondly anyone who thinks a small resource poor country like Ireland can be 'sovereign' (whatever that means to you) in this globalised world is very foolish indeed.

The Corinthian

annieapplez wrote: »

the choice is still there -- how will you choose??

I'd imagine I'd choose using reason and facts and rejecting jingoism.

RandomName2

meglome wrote: »

Christ... how I hate this crap. Firstly Ireland is the EU as much as anyone is, so we've handed nothing away.

Well of course we have. Here's an appropriate analogy: Ireland as part of the UK was as much part of the UK as any other member (indeed had a higher representation in Westminster per head of population than any other part). Ireland, as part of the UK, had even had its own parliament for the majority of this relationship.

E pluribus unam is not a limitless axiom, meglome.

meglome

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well of course we have. Here's an appropriate analogy: Ireland as part of the UK was as much part of the UK as any other member (indeed had a higher representation in Westminster per head of population than any other part). Ireland, as part of the UK, had even had its own parliament for the majority of this relationship.

E pluribus unam is not a limitless axiom, meglome.

Appropriate analogy my ass. Ireland was brought into the UK by a small wealthy unrepresentative elite, many of whom were bribed to make it happen. Every adult in this country has been able to vote on all our EU treaties and we have voted overwhelmingly for what the EU offers us. Are you even serious with that nonsense comparison?

RandomName2

meglome wrote: »

Appropriate analogy my ass. Ireland was brought into the UK by a small wealthy unrepresentative elite, many of whom were bribed to make it happen. Every adult in this country has been able to vote on all our EU treaties and we have voted overwhelmingly for what the EU offers us. Are you even serious with that nonsense comparison?

Well okay, we voted to be made a member of the EC (unlike, let's say, Germany) but you are missing the big picture (and, besides which, the aspects concerning members joining the EU has hardly been an edifying process: where countries are promised riches, and extant member states are willing to turn a blind eye to fiscal instability of potential members for the sake of expediency).

It is also pretty irrelevant to say that EU treaties have been approved. First it is quite an unfortunate choice on your part as a barometer of approval, and second, approval at any particular time is also besides the point.

The point is governance. Indeed, it was quite a clear-cut distinction we had concerning the notion of "power" above. The fact that you are part of something greater than yourself does not necessarily ameliorate your power, or leave it untouched. Indeed it is going to lessen it (at least in the local sense). Duh!

The question is: is this demonstrable decrease in local power and national sovereignty worth it? If economics is the only factor one analyses, then the answer is definitely "yes".

Within the UK, Ireland (during the nineteenth century at least) did not have direct control of national issues; and this was the bug-bear that saw a century of haggling and political machinations. However, it ultimately proved that being in the UK per se was an issue in of itself. All the advantages of being part of a greater unit, in terms of economics, migration, cultural exchange, etc. all played second fiddle to the idea of self-determination, even if such an ideal proved a liability.

The Corinthian

meglome wrote: »

Appropriate analogy my ass. Ireland was brought into the UK by a small wealthy unrepresentative elite, many of whom were bribed to make it happen. Every adult in this country has been able to vote on all our EU treaties and we have voted overwhelmingly for what the EU offers us. Are you even serious with that nonsense comparison?

In fairness, RandomName2's analogy makes a fair point, and your rebuttal now hardly lessens it; one of the most common criticisms of the EU is that it is being driven by a "small wealthy unrepresentative elite".

Of course, that does not mean that Ireland's position in the EU mirrors its past relationship in the UK, let alone that Annieapplez's little rallying of Mná na agus fir na hÉireann is any less... ahem... colourful. However, it is a valid analogy for RandomName2 to introduce unless disproven, which you have not done.

The Corinthian

RandomName2 wrote: »

Within the UK, Ireland (during the nineteenth century at least) did not have direct control of national issues; and this was the bug-bear that saw a century of haggling and political machinations.

Act of Union, which completed the centralization of power in London which began a century earlier with Scotland. There is no doubt that such centralization disenfranchised Ireland, and did much to fuel resentment and insurrection - but prior to that Ireland probably wasn't any more troublesome than England was (with the possible exception of the rebellion of 1798, just 3 years prior to the act of union).

The EU us at 'worst' not threatening any centralization. Indeed, one of the problems is that the national governments will never cede power to a central body, which will leave institutions such as the European Parliament, effectively neutered and an appointed central bureaucracy running the show. So while this is hardly ideal, neither can one claim that there is any 'act of union' on the horizon.

So on that basis I would reject the accuracy of your analogy.

stringed theory

annieapplez wrote: »

at the end I would give up everything to be free freedom of choice of how you want to live your life and how you want your children to live

This is a psychological problem: the over identification of personal freedom with the freedom of the country.
Okay, if we were living in a dictatorship it would be different, but the European Union is as free a place in which to live as anywhere in the world and the op's concerns about "freedom of choice" is a complete non issue and suggests that people in Ireland agree about how things should be run as some kind of block - as opposed to how other Europeans think.
And for me, the EU enhances my sense of personal freedom. I'm not confined to one small island, can travel anywhere in Europe and have have most of the rights of a citizen etc.


As for the argument comparing membership of the EU with the UK in the nineteenth century, the fact is that we can vote to leave the EU. No Army is going to come and stop us this Easter 2012 and that is a huge and fundamental difference.