Should Ireland Leave the EU?

McDave

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??

It seems you equate true sovereignty with autarky or isolation.

IMHO autarky doesn't really work. Certainly not if one aspires to material comfort and a firm relationship with a rapidly 'globalising' world. Even countries like Switzerland have to compromise - witness the recent negotiations with Germany on taxing offshore accounts there.

In reality, there's no such thing as pure fully autonomous sovereignty in action. That's not to say sovereignty can't be defined. It can be. The German constitutional court made a very good stab at it in its Lisbon judgment of two years ago.

On the one hand the court recognised the reality of Germany's commerce with the rest of the world and the right of the parliament to negotiate arrangements like the EU on behalf of its citizens. That I suppose is the pragmatic deployment of sovereignty in the context of a legal agreement on issues of material benefit to its citizens.

On the other hand, the court identified issues of justice, security, education and culture which the state has no right to dispose of in international negotiations. These matters are intrinsic to the identity of the people and nation, and only the people may pronounce on their negotiation - by referendum to change the constitution.

It very much seems to me like a lot of Irish people assert sovereignty as if every aspect of what we do in this country is best done by us by ourselves in isolation from our neighbours/partners/competitors. As a ground rule, I think it's right to have a sense of sovereignty. It helps define a nation, region or society. I personally stand right behind identities of these kinds. They are IMO the essence of Europe's richness. But I think it's a mistake to put all aspects of our activities on the same plane.

For instance, our strengths in literature and the performing arts give us a very strong sense of our identity, and we should protect our ability to express ourselves in our own way and in our own time at practically any cost. Similarly we should protect our right to determine our justice system. And how we educate our children.

When it comes to economics and finance, to be frank we haven't got a clue. Other countries have been doing it better for decades, if not centuries. We're better off 'hiring in' help on matters like this, and signing up to technical arrangements like the EU and the EZ. I'm not saying we can't run our own budgets. But I am saying that, apart from reading up on what others do, we don't have a realistic theory/conception of our own nor a track record in delivering economic stability. We have to get our best practice from elsewhere.

IMO, Ireland has to be pragmatic on many of the realities of international commerce and security. But we also have to have a keen sense of what precisely is not negotiable. Regrettably the Crotty decision didn't go into this in any meaningful depth, so we have a limited frame of reference to make judgements as citizens based on the thinking of our own institutions.

Regardless of this, we should not make the mistake of putting everything to do with our relations with others on the same plane. IMO neither should we make general pronouncements on sovereignty without doing some really honest thinking about what it means. And that doesn't mean reading just the Easter Proclamation and resorting to rhetorical sloganeering.

RandomName2

stringed theory wrote: »

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.

Er.. not quite.

We can now constitutionally leave the EU but would require a government to support such a motion (conceivably a party could always campaign on such grounds... interestingly one is yet to do so).

Luckily I believe this hypothetical process to be separate from the governmental bodies of the EU (so it really is up to a member state to decide this matter). So in this regard it would be different from Ireland's attempts to gain Home Rule where it required a majority in Westminster.

However, I assume that you are alluding somewhat to the Easter rising in your last sentence. If such an event were to happen again, an army sent from EU member states would be a very possible scenario; certainly if so requested by the Irish government.

RandomName2

McDave wrote: »

In reality, there's no such thing as pure fully autonomous sovereignty in action. That's not to say sovereignty can't be defined. It can be. The German constitutional court made a very good stab at it in its Lisbon judgment of two years ago.

On the one hand the court recognised the reality of Germany's commerce with the rest of the world and the right of the parliament to negotiate arrangements like the EU on behalf of its citizens. That I suppose is the pragmatic deployment of sovereignty in the context of a legal agreement on issues of material benefit to its citizens.

On the other hand, the court identified issues of justice, security, education and culture which the state has no right to dispose of in international negotiations. These matters are intrinsic to the identity of the people and nation, and only the people may pronounce on their negotiation - by referendum to change the constitution.

Germany has never once, to my knowledge had a referendum. Well, when I say Germany, I mean the country which has been a member state of the EU.

The Corinthian

RandomName2 wrote: »

We can now constitutionally leave the EU but would require a government to support such a motion (conceivably a party could always campaign on such grounds...interestingly one is yet to do so).

Interestingly, one is yet to campaign on rejoining the UK either. Or joining NATO.

Luckily I believe this hypothetical process to be separate from the governmental bodies of the EU (so it really is up to a member state to decide this matter). So in this regard it would be different from Ireland's attempts to gain Home Rule where it required a majority in Westminster.

So the analogy is not very accurate then.

However, I assume that you are alluding somewhat to the Easter rising in your last sentence. If such an event were to happen again, an army sent from EU member states would be a very possible scenario; certainly if so requested by the Irish government.

To begin with, EU member states is not the same thing as the EU. Secondly, the Irish government could just as easily (if not more so given the political fallout of inviting the obvious EU member state next to us) invite the US. Thirdly, would require an insurrection that would overwhelm the Irish Defence Forces, which is questionable (although, mainly on the strength of the former and not the competence of the latter). And finally, would our government not have a sovereign right to seek such assistance and do we have to be in the EU to ask anyway?

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well, when I say Germany, I mean the country which has been a member state of the EU.

Now, now. Austria has not been a part of Germany in a long time.

WillieFlynn

davekel wrote: »

Is it not obvious to you that the more immigrants that arrive in Ireland the more competition there is for jobs , therefore the more competition there is for jobs the less jobs there will be , therefore it will be harder for native irish people to gain employment.

Just hope other countries don't think the same, or we in Ireland are in big trouble...... Where can we escape to, every time the economy is messed up here.

BlitzKrieg

RandomName2 wrote: »

However, I assume that you are alluding somewhat to the Easter rising in your last sentence. If such an event were to happen again, an army sent from EU member states would be a very possible scenario; certainly if so requested by the Irish government.

He is alluding to the easter rising but I do not think he means an actual rebellion against the irish government, just if Ireland announced it's departure from the EU they would not retaliate with violence. a better comparison might have been the 1921 treaty where the EU cannot put a price tag/restriction to our withdrawal like the British did.

As for EU member states sending support to the Irish government to put down a rebellion well I think such a hypothetical situation comes with a tonne of 'what if' baggage. I mean a big problem with 1916 is that the event itself is a tragic f*ck up with many questionable parts to it but its place in history and the events that followed is what's important.

Going by what many would say was the true turning point of the rising...the executions of the rebel leaders (which swung public opinion to their favour), then no troops from other EU member states would not be able to commit such acts, firstly because I'm fairly sure that all EU states signed the geneva conventions and secondly I'm pretty sure they would also be in violation of the European charter of human rights as well which covers fair trial and I think very strict circumstances where one can enforce a death penalty at war time (in fact I think recently even that has been changed). Finally that decision would be ultimately put to the irish government themselves and we dont have a death penalty. Not even for Treason.

So yeah lots of baggage.

WillieFlynn

Ireland is a willing member of the EU. So this talk of us giving away our freedom is rubbish as we are free to leave if we wish under EU law.

However as the majority of people in Ireland support being in the EU, it is a moot point.

WillieFlynn

RandomName2 wrote: »

Germany has never once, to my knowledge had a referendum. Well, when I say Germany, I mean the country which has been a member state of the EU.

Germany has had bad experiences with referenda in 1934.... So if we respect democracy we have to allow each country carry it out in their own way.

Anyway the joke about referendums is that they answer every question except for the one asked.

Skopzz

If I may, I'd like to recommend you print out WillieFlynn's declaration of naivete, carry it with you day and night wherever you go and at any unfortunate moment whereby one (or more) of god's little savages confronts you with malice on steroids; whip out your "thoughtful" post and recite it to them. (Chances are they couldn't read it themselves). And then bend over and kiss your derriere goodbye. Let's be glad we're the only democratic country in the Euro Zone by holding a referendum.

View

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.

"Ireland" didn't have its own parliament as part of the UK. The UK of GB&I was a centralised unitary state - the individual states/kingdoms that formed it had no representation as states whatsoever within it (i.e. the individual states were essentially abolished when it was being created).

By way of contrast the Council of Ministers of the EU is the permanent representation chamber of the member states and the member states are masters of the EU in that they decide the constitutional law (i.e. the treaties) of the EU.

An analogy which fails on this basic point really falls down badly.

McDave

RandomName2 wrote: »

Germany has never once, to my knowledge had a referendum. Well, when I say Germany, I mean the country which has been a member state of the EU.

I think your recollection is correct.

However, the constitutional court laid down an explicit marker on putative future transfers of sovereign competences. It's an interesting judgment. And it's translated into English. I'll root out the link if you're interested.

WillieFlynn

Skopzz wrote: »

If I may, I'd like to recommend you print out WillieFlynn's declaration of naivete, carry it with you day and night wherever you go and at any unfortunate moment whereby one (or more) of god's little savages confronts you with malice on steroids; whip out your "thoughtful" post and recite it to them. (Chances are they couldn't read it themselves). And then bend over and kiss your derriere goodbye. Let's be glad we're the only democratic country in the Euro Zone by holding a referendum.

Insults isn't an argument.....

Having a referendum isn't a requirement for democracy..... although I am glad Ireland voted to join the euro.

meglome

The Corinthian wrote: »

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.

Sure I entirely agree that many people believe the EU is controlled by "small wealthy unrepresentative elite". I've also come across people who believe the earth is flat. Randmonname2 may not like us sharing things with the EU but I don't really think he believes either of those things.

RandomName2

View wrote: »

"Ireland" didn't have its own parliament as part of the UK. The UK of GB&I was a centralised unitary state - the individual states/kingdoms that formed it had no representation as states whatsoever within it (i.e. the individual states were essentially abolished when it was being created).

By way of contrast the Council of Ministers of the EU is the permanent representation chamber of the member states and the member states are masters of the EU in that they decide the constitutional law (i.e. the treaties) of the EU.

An analogy which fails on this basic point really falls down badly.

Well before 1798 Ireland did have its own parliament, but you are right: states within the EU are sovereign states (albeit subject to international laws and restrictions set down by the EU institutions as a whole).

It is in this respect that it is difficult to find a suitable historical analogy for the EU (as a means of providing a simple summing up of the pros and cons of membership among other things).

I mean, one could use any empire as an analogy (insofar that empires tend to be big and filled with disparate peoples), but empires fall down when looking at the mechanisms of government (namely the centralisation of power and the absolute nature of this central power).

One could point to the USSR or the USA. However, we all know that the sovereignty of the soviet socialist republics was largely a pretense within the CCCP, and the centralised power in Moscow makes it synonymous with other imperial analogies.

The USA (prior to the Civil War) is probably the best objective analogy that one can find; indeed the Civil War hinged on whether the country was a confederacy of independent states, or whether it was a centralised union. The latter judgement won out.

And, you see, the EU is a bit of an anomaly simply because states don't tend to share this much power and money and infrastructure and remain as independent states. Indeed, the whole issue of the euro crisis highlights how... odd... this relationship is. Even the EU members recognise the short-comings that a lack of centralised authority has in terms of fiscal stability: hence the upcoming fiscal treaty to take the first step to place this authority upon the structure of the EU, as opposed to member states.

But it is simply bull**** to say that because there is representation, that it makes no difference what level decisions are made. The level of where decisions are made; be it exclusively in national parliament or predominantly at the level of Consilium, is of utmost importance. In this regard, the Westminster analogy is perfectly pertinent.

Eggy Baby!

Ireland is in an obvious catch-22 here. We stay in the Euro and the EU we lose our economic sovereignty as we already have (because the EU have to manage our interest rates and inflation to correlate it with the other members for ease of trade) and we have to elect/pay MEPs as well as TDs but if we leave, we forsake a massive market for our products, we forsake the many grants that the EU has given us and will continue to give as well as potential loans that they may gift to us in order to keep us stable. We are, effectively, on our own if we do so.

The EU has its advantages and its disadvantages but personally I'd prefer the status quo.

Skopzz

We could easily leave the EU and artificially undervalue our new currency. Iceland is a model example - growing 3% so far this year, credit rating restored in February and no bankrupt slave unlike Ireland. For that reason, I will be voting no to the fiscal treaty. I'm tired of flipping the bill.

meglome

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Ireland is in an obvious catch-22 here. We stay in the Euro and the EU we lose our economic sovereignty as we already have (because the EU have to manage our interest rates and inflation to correlate it with the other members for ease of trade) and we have to elect/pay MEPs as well as TDs but if we leave, we forsake a massive market for our products, we forsake the many grants that the EU has given us and will continue to give as well as potential loans that they may gift to us in order to keep us stable. We are, effectively, on our own if we do so.

The EU has its advantages and its disadvantages but personally I'd prefer the status quo.

I think you'll find that interest rates are not the only way to manage inflation etc. And many economists would argue it's not even the best way.

Skopzz wrote: »

We could easily leave the EU and artificially undervalue our new currency. Iceland is a model example - growing 3% so far this year, credit rating restored in February and no bankrupt slave unlike Ireland. For that reason, I will be voting no to the fiscal treaty. I'm tired of flipping the bill.

Really can people please stop using Iceland as an example to follow. Their own finance minster said that Iceland should not us be used as an example of what to do.

People should be careful when it comes to drawing comparisons between Iceland on the one hand, and Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland on the other,” Sigfusson told Bloomberg during an interview in the country’s capital of Reykjavik.

“Iceland didn’t have the ability to save the banks. Trying to rewrite the events that led to that eventuality as some sort of an export product is irresponsible.

http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/icelands-finance-minister-ireland-shouldnt-copy-our-formula-for-default-156940-Jun2011/

They have 8 times the unemployment they had before their bust, yeah let's all follow that.

FreudianSlippers

Why does this kind of B.S. crop up all the time that democracy requires referenda? I presume then that the US is not democratic then as well?

The Corinthian

RandomName2 wrote: »

It is in this respect that it is difficult to find a suitable historical analogy for the EU (as a means of providing a simple summing up of the pros and cons of membership among other things).

Actually it's not; the Old Swiss Confederacy. This was essentially a loose confederation of independent sovereign states in a supernational union, as a result of treaties, each with their own fiscal, foreign and (in most cases) monetary policy - it was Napoleon who in the end both highlighted their foreign policy disunity (some cantons supported his intervention, some opposed and some remained 'neutral'), as well as the first to introduce the Swiss Franc.

The EU is in many respects identical in set-up and while we've not had any Napoleon to expose our lack of unity the balkanized nature of sovereignty, there's been plenty of less extreme examples that have, such as the Iraq war in 2003 (some member states supported the invasion, some opposed and some remained 'neutral').

Now, if the EU is ultimately following a long term model like the Swiss, in terms of union, then TBH, there are worse things in life to fear.

Eggy Baby!

I think you'll find that interest rates are not the only way to manage inflation etc. And many economists would argue it's not even the best way.

I know that. But the ECB does use interest rates to control EU inflation. I was just using it as an example. An example of how they exercise control over our economy to put it in line with other EU economies. Something which is completely understandable.

Why does this kind of B.S. crop up all the time that democracy requires referenda? I presume then that the US is not democratic then as well?

Number 1: Off-topic.
Number 2: It's a plutocracy/oligarchy.

FreudianSlippers

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Number 1: Off-topic.

Quite on topic to anyone who has read the last number of posts.

Number 2: It's a plutocracy/oligarchy.

It's a constitutional republic democracy. To call it a "plutarchy" is nonsense.

Skopzz

meglome wrote: »

Really can people please stop using Iceland as an example to follow. Their own finance minster said that Iceland should not us be used as an example of what to do.


http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/icelands-finance-minister-ireland-shouldnt-copy-our-formula-for-default-156940-Jun2011/

They have 8 times the unemployment they had before their bust, yeah let's all follow that.

Their own finance minister knows they were successful and that Ireland will soon follow their example - that's why we need to reject this treaty as a prerequisite. Ireland did not have a fiscal problem until the government decided to bailout its private banks. The country was sacrificed to save investors. They should have gone the way of Iceland or Sweden, let the banks fail, then pick up the pieces and recapitalize them. We can still do this.

The Corinthian

Skopzz wrote: »

Their own finance minister knows they were successful and that Ireland will soon follow their example - that's why we need to reject this treaty as a prerequisite.

Your statement is complete odds with the facts that were presented in meglome's post. Is there a reason you ignored these?

Ireland did not have a fiscal problem until the government decided to bailout its private banks.

Ireland did not have a fiscal problem until the government decided to bailout its private banks or not; that it we were on the precipice of a 'fiscal problem' and either way there was going to be fall out. Not bailing out private banks would have resulted in their disorderly bankruptcy, which in turn would have impacted upon the retail banking sector - they too would have quickly collapsed as they had too much money tied up with the same bad debtors. Bye bye all your savings.

Now, one may argue on whether the right choice was made, or that it was well or badly executed, however to suggest that the bailout was the cause of Ireland's fiscal problems or imply that without it we'd be hunky dory, betrays a frightening level of ignorance.

WillieFlynn

Iceland, isn't a good example, simply because we a not a scandinavian country with some rich countries to save us because of cultural links.

For a few day, it was not possible exchange the Icelandic kroner for any other currency or to even send money to or from Iceland. until then central banks and governments of other Scandinavian countries stepped in, with out their help Iceland would have not being able to import any oil, food or anything else for that matter. In short they would have starved. (BTW don't say they could have fished, as boats require fuel).

Skopzz

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ireland did not have a fiscal problem until the government decided to bailout its private banks or not; that it we were on the precipice of a 'fiscal problem' and either way there was going to be fall out. Not bailing out private banks would have resulted in their disorderly bankruptcy, which in turn would have impacted upon the retail banking sector - they too would have quickly collapsed as they had too much money tied up with the same bad debtors. Bye bye all your savings.

No it wouldn't - you simply withdraw your savings (empty your bank account) in that scenario. It's amazing how some people think withdrawing your money from a bank entails rocket science. And for that matter, Iceland's retail banking sector had this experience but is on the mend again - better than Ireland's.

Bailing out banks was a mistake because it forced us into a bankrupt slave to the EU. Study the cause, not the symptoms.

Skopzz

Kenny is a joke as a leader. He has not guts whatsoever and doesn't know how to lead. It is painfully obvious that he is in way over his head. He just doesn't have what it takes to lead this country.

This is way beyond someone trained as a community organizer. The economy is a lot more complicated and requires a tremendous amount of decisive decision - aka Anglo Irish Bank

Kenny had the clout and popularity to get things done when he was first elected. Sinn Fein would not have dared crossed him. Now, he is more of a lame duck flailing away and try to salvage what's left of his non-legacy.

People are hurt, angry and dissappointed because while FG - LAB has promised everything, they have delivered nothing. But, what do you expect from someone who doesn't know how to lead or how to get the job done? And, he is too arrogant and too stupid to call in the people who do know how to get the job done.

Even Joseph Stiglitz thought that Kenny was basically a negative obstructionist full of excuses as to why things can't get done. There is no reason why he couldn't have called in guys like Gerry Adams and Richard Boyd Barrett or other financial experts early in his Taoiseach days and got their advice and expertise.

As taoiseach, Enda Kenny can command the attention of the finest minds in the world and get the finest advice on how to fix the economy. Unfortunately, it has never been that important for him to do so.

And, now, he will suffer the consequences during the early elections.

WillieFlynn

Skopzz wrote: »

Their own finance minister knows they were successful and that Ireland will soon follow their example - that's why we need to reject this treaty as a prerequisite.

I cannot see how rejecting the treaty can do what you want, because of previous treaties, we are still bound by law to follow most of the same rules as contained in the new one.

Skopzz wrote: »

Ireland did not have a fiscal problem until the government decided to bailout its private banks. The country was sacrificed to save investors. They should have gone the way of Iceland or Sweden, let the banks fail, then pick up the pieces and recapitalize them. We can still do this.

Just as big or possibly bigger issue is the budget deficit, the banking problem just helped Ireland reach the end of the road a little quicker.

Once a blanket guarantee was put in place the bank debts became sovereign debts and the game was up.

In the case of Anglo the bond holders have been already paid back, so I can't see how we can burn them now.

The Corinthian

Skopzz wrote: »

No it wouldn't - you simply withdraw your savings (empty your bank account) in that scenario. It's amazing how some people think withdrawing your money from a bank entails rocket science. And for that matter, Iceland's retail banking sector had this experience but is on the mend again - better than Ireland's.

It amazes me how some people don't even seem to know how banking works.

What do you think happens when a bank becomes insolvent? You turn up to withdraw your money (all but a small fraction of which incidentally turned out to be loaned out to those aforementioned private banks and could not be repaid) and get it all out, safe and sound?

Such was the exposure to, in particular AIB, that it is quite likely that a bank run would have taken place leaving peoples savings wiped out - certainly, "withdrawing your money from a bank" would not have been possible.

Bailing out banks was a mistake because it forced us into a bankrupt slave to the EU. Study the cause, not the symptoms.

I suggest you study some basic economics before you try either.

Eggy Baby!

It's a constitutional republic democracy. To call it a "plutarchy" is nonsense.

I think we'll settle on the fact that they are the least liberal and democratic of the liberal democracies.

Quite on topic to anyone who has read the last number of posts.

Democracy does require referenda. Hence why a direct democracy country such as Switzerland is regarded as being particularly democratic. Decisions in the USA are more centred around pleasing vested interest lobbying groups. Power there has always been top-down rather than bottom-up. Bottom-up being a sign of a good democracy (like Scandinavian countries). Plus, a country where only 60% of the electorate turn out to vote in elections at their peak can hardly be regarded as a democracy.

And we all know George W. Bush cheated his way into the presidency.

Kenny is a joke as a leader. He has not guts whatsoever and doesn't know how to lead. It is painfully obvious that he is in way over his head. He just doesn't have what it takes to lead this country.

Agreed.

And, now, he will suffer the consequences during the early elections.

The question is to whom?

Skopzz

The Corinthian wrote: »

It amazes me how some people don't even seem to know how banking works.

What do you think happens when a bank becomes insolvent? You turn up to withdraw your money (all but a small fraction of which incidentally turned out to be loaned out to those aforementioned private banks and could not be repaid) and get it all out, safe and sound?

Such was the exposure to, in particular AIB, that it is quite likely that a bank run would have taken place leaving peoples savings wiped out - certainly, "withdrawing your money from a bank" would not have been possible.

You don't wait until disaster strikes - you withdraw your money before it hits the fan. If everyone did the simple thing of emptying their bank accounts (as I did) you would have your cash safe at home or hidden in a safe spot and there would be no need of worrying.

It's amazing how most people cannot check how healthy their banks are by a simple means of checking the stock chart and news. Honestly, this is child's stuff... Keep your money at home - don't save with a Bank if you feel uncertain.