Should Ireland Leave the EU?

The Corinthian

Skopzz wrote: »

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.

Actually disaster had already effectively struck the moment that the private banks were at the point of insolvency because of the exposure that the retail banks had to them. Even if it had not, if everyone did the simple thing of emptying their bank accounts (as you did) you would have what is called a bank run, thus making such insolvency a self-fulfilling prophecy, which would mean that only a small fraction of deposit holders would actually get their money due to the way that banks keep it.

The vast majority would have ended up losing everything as a result, with only those lucky or fast enough to withdraw quickly getting anything, not to mention the damage it would have done to the financial system to literally have lost at least one, if not both, of the two major Irish retail banks.

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.

What you suggest may have helped a small number of people who could have done this before a collapse, but it certainly does not help the majority, which is ultimately what we're talking about. In short, from a limited individual viewpoint this may make sense to you, but from a macroeconomic viewpoint it would have potentially been disastrous.

Again, I suggest you actually read up on how banks actually work and think through the actual implications of such policies before coming out with such nonsense.

Skopzz

It still wasn't worth bailing out the banks. Iceland experienced that doomsday scenario you just painted and did the sky fall in? No. I will admit that if people LOVE wild risks with a low ROI during a SOVEREIGN DEBT CRISIS that might yet lose you 100% of your savings that be my guest. I certainly won't be parking my funds with any of our Banks. The readers here should accept your views as superior to nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz

The Corinthian

Skopzz wrote: »

No. I will admit that if people LOVE wild risks with a low ROI during a SOVEREIGN DEBT CRISIS that might yet lose you 100% of your savings that be my guest. I certainly won't be parking my funds with any of our Banks.

You still haven't grasped my earlier point about macroeconomics, have you?

The readers here should accept your views as superior to nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz

Certainly they probably should accept my views as superior to the ill informed nonsense you've been coming out.

K-9

Skopzz wrote: »

It still wasn't worth bailing out the banks. Iceland experienced that doomsday scenario you just painted and did the sky fall in? No. I will admit that if people LOVE wild risks with a low ROI during a SOVEREIGN DEBT CRISIS that might yet lose you 100% of your savings that be my guest. I certainly won't be parking my funds with any of our Banks. The readers here should accept your views as superior to nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz

Yet for all that things aren't that bad here for most people, the IMF coming in hasn't meant that much that we wouldn't have had to do anyway, just on a longer time frame than if we'd been reliant on the markets.

Iceland has big unemployment for its history, we're not far of usual levels, they have big Government debt despite what they did, big mortgages etc. Its far from as idyllic as some would like to portray.

Skopzz

The Corinthian wrote: »

You still haven't grasped my earlier point about macroeconomics, have you?

Certainly they probably should accept my views as superior to the ill informed nonsense you've been coming out.

I have no loyalty to banks because I do NOT listen to people like you. You are shilling this stuff and talking your book. I am glad you admit you are flogging this propaganda from the co-conspirators who are paid to dump this stuff. Certainly no one should have kept their savings in these banks but you are rating them ABOVE people of this country, that is very interesting.

Next week you plan to park your cash in Anglo Irish Bank?

Look around you where you are, want to throw it away - be my guest.

Skopzz

K-9 wrote: »

Yet for all that things aren't that bad here for most people, the IMF coming in hasn't meant that much that we wouldn't have had to do anyway, just on a longer time frame than if we'd been reliant on the markets.

Iceland has big unemployment for its history, we're not far of usual levels, they have big Government debt despite what they did, big mortgages etc. Its far from as idyllic as some would like to portray.

Well guess what? capital flight from our toxic banks has been holding steady:





And the winner is.... Iceland. And what are Ireland's prospects for future growth? Tied to the Euro, we need Germany and France's support to order in lunch for a staff meeting. If we ever start to grow, any wealth we accumulate will be quickly siphoned off.

Iceland took the pain once, and now has their economy heading back in the right direction. Iceland had its investment-grade rating restored in February, has stabilized net debt at 65% of gross domestic product and returned to financial markets. Ireland insists on dragging the pain out forever as a means for the pols in charge to accumulate ever-more power. We are far from heading in the right direction.

Ireland is a financial vassal of the bank debt holders. If our GDP only grows at 1--3% annually this will never, ever change. The Irish Government will just have to take more and more money from the populace. Can anyone who is actually buying Irish bonds explain how this situation is sustainable?

The Corinthian

Skopzz wrote: »

I have no loyalty to banks because I do NOT listen to people like you. You are shilling this stuff and talking your book. I am glad you admit you are flogging this propaganda from the co-conspirators who are paid to dump this stuff.

What on Earth are you drivelling on about? Where have I shown loyalty to any banks? All I've done is shown loyalty to the Irish people who's deposits would have been lost, while your strategy would have benefited only yourself (if you were quick enough to withdraw your money early) at the expense of the Irish people.

You've only shown loyalty to yourself, from what I can see.

Certainly no one should have kept their savings in these banks but you are rating them ABOVE people of this country, that is very interesting.

If you actually managed to grasp what I was saying you would realize that I am not. Indeed, your entire argument has been nonsensical; "no one should have kept their savings in these banks" - you do know that 'these banks' are ultimately AIB and Bank of Ireland? You do realize that bailing out the private banks ultimately stopped a collapse of these? Of course your response is that everyone in Ireland should have simply withdrawn their money from AIB and Bank of Ireland and put it in a mattress, which betrays you complete lack of understanding of how banking works.

I've repeatedly pointed out that inaction would have almost certainly resulted in a catastrophic bank run. I have repeatedly pointed out that everyone cannot take their money out, because it was not actually in the bank. What you have proposed would simply not work but you keep on repeating it as if by doing so invalidates the facts and makes it true. It doesn't, no matter how strongly you feel about it.

Why do you continue to cling to your own ignorant lack of understanding of what happened?

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

The comments on this page have gotten WAY too personal. Please dial it down.

RandomName2

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

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?

Myanmar has elections. Thus it is democratic.

Come to think of it Saddam Hussein of Iraq was elected multiple times. Unopposed.

You, of all people, should realise that a term such as "democracy" is not absolute, nor is there a strict criteria of what constitutes a democracy. Is a monarchy less democratic than a republic? Is a multi-party system more demorcatic than a single-party system? Yes to both (with provisos), but neither can be used as sole criteria for the presence, or indeed absence, of democracy.

So yeah: referenda do make a country more democratic, but a country doesn't have to have them to be a democracy. :P

RandomName2

Skopzz wrote: »

Well guess what? capital flight from our toxic banks has been holding steady:





And the winner is.... Iceland.

I don't actually see Iceland in that graph; and sorry, I wouldn't put a huge amount of stock on a graph that roughly combined disparate countries across the eurozone anyway.

The sky didn't fall in in Iceland; but as K9 said, neither did it here. Where Iceland will have to cope in future years for the penalty of it not honouring its debt or providing institutional fiscal stabilithy, so will Ireland have to suffer the consequences of bailing out massive defunct organisations and having to provide austerity measures to balance the books.

Again, while not being in the Euro has certain advantages, being outside of it has others. I don't think it is terribly wise to say that either Iceland or Ireland is the paradigm of correct reaction to such a debt crisis.

RandomName2

The Corinthian wrote: »

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.

Okay.

I'm not entirely sure how power was shared within that confederacy. Was there a central parliament? A single head of state for Switzerland? An upper house which had a veto on the legislation of the states? Could a central authority initialise legislation? Was there a single foreign representative for Switzerland as well as for the individual states?

Whilst Switzerland does have the merit of being inherently multicultural (German, French and a bit of Itialian; with Catholicism and Protestantism divisions) it is a remarkably small area for a federal system and its relative strength was largely untested due to its unique physical protection and relatively unimportant location.

The fact that Switzerland has remained multi-denominational and multi-linguistic may be symbolic of all that was good (or bad from another point of view) of such a system.

FreudianSlippers

RandomName2 wrote: »

Myanmar has elections. Thus it is democratic.

Come to think of it Saddam Hussein of Iraq was elected multiple times. Unopposed.

You, of all people, should realise that a term such as "democracy" is not absolute, nor is there a strict criteria of what constitutes a democracy. Is a monarchy less democratic than a republic? Is a multi-party system more demorcatic than a single-party system? Yes to both (with provisos), but neither can be used as sole criteria for the presence, or indeed absence, of democracy.

So yeah: referenda do make a country more democratic, but a country doesn't have to have them to be a democracy. :P

Yep, that was exactly my point actually. It is nonsense to say that Ireland is the only true democratic country in the EU due to referenda.

The Corinthian

RandomName2 wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure how power was shared within that confederacy. Was there a central parliament? A single head of state for Switzerland? An upper house which had a veto on the legislation of the states? Could a central authority initialise legislation? Was there a single foreign representative for Switzerland as well as for the individual states?

As I said it was "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 eventually developed a few common bodies such as the Tagsatzung, which met several times a year, but it was ultimately held together by treaties, with acutal executive power in the hands of the member cantons - much the same as the EU.

Whilst Switzerland does have the merit of being inherently multicultural (German, French and a bit of Itialian; with Catholicism and Protestantism divisions) it is a remarkably small area for a federal system and its relative strength was largely untested due to its unique physical protection and relatively unimportant location.

So the Gotthard pass, amongst other parts of Switzerland were or are "relatively unimportant locations"? LOL.

The EU is not the Old Swiss Confederacy, but you were looking for examples that come close and this comes very, very close. Whether the EU becomes another Switzerland in the long term or not is another debate - it does show that such a union can work in the long term in theory, however.

View

RandomName2 wrote: »

Myanmar has elections. Thus it is democratic.

Come to think of it Saddam Hussein of Iraq was elected multiple times. Unopposed.

You, of all people, should realise that a term such as "democracy" is not absolute, nor is there a strict criteria of what constitutes a democracy. Is a monarchy less democratic than a republic? Is a multi-party system more demorcatic than a single-party system? Yes to both (with provisos), but neither can be used as sole criteria for the presence, or indeed absence, of democracy.

So yeah: referenda do make a country more democratic, but a country doesn't have to have them to be a democracy. :P

You are making an an assumption that holding referenda make a country "more democratic" on the one hand, while pointing out an example - Myanamar - where holding elections doesn't, which seems a bit of a strange assumption.

Referenda have been used to undermine the "normal" democratic political process in states.

Indeed, if we confine ourselves to a mild domestic example - the Lisbon Treaty was finalized in the latter half of 2007 (and signed in December '07) not long after we had held an election in late May of that year. During that election the proposed Treaty wasn't mentioned (or barely if at all).

Why therefore didn't the objectors to it raise this as a serious political issue during the election if they found it so objectionable?

After all, it is the elected government of Ireland that has the sole right to negotiate on behalf of us, so if people wanted the government to agree to X rather than Y (or neither), the time to raise this in a political debate was during the election where popular support for the various options could have been ascertained at the ballot box and before the government agreed a final position on behalf of us.

Instead though many of the objecting groups made no effort to advance their views through the normal democratic process and just by-passed getting support for their views from the electorate completely.

Such actions do undermine the political process and have led to claims that the unelected (and, in some cases, unelectable) are more "representative" of the electorate than those actually chosen by the people to be their representatives - a claim which essentially amounts to an attack on the validity of our democratic elections.

RandomName2

View wrote: »

You are making an an assumption that holding referenda make a country "more democratic" on the one hand, while pointing out an example - Myanamar - where holding elections doesn't, which seems a bit of a strange assumption.

I was saying that there isn't an absolute definition. The fact that there are elections in Myanmar does not make it democratic, because such elections are gerrymandered to ensure that democratically elected parties are always in a minority. Same thing with Saddam - as there was only one name on the presidential ballot paper means that voting in Iraq as an indicator of democracy is null and void.

Equally, if there are referenda in a country where the results of which are essentially ignored ...

View wrote: »

Referenda have been used to undermine the "normal" democratic political process in states.

Yes.. I suppose they have. They have been used to this effect less often than elections have been used to undermine the normal democratic process, which in turn have been used less often than simple putsches or coups.

View wrote: »

Indeed, if we confine ourselves to a mild domestic example - the Lisbon Treaty was finalized in the latter half of 2007 (and signed in December '07) not long after we had held an election in late May of that year. During that election the proposed Treaty wasn't mentioned (or barely if at all).

Why therefore didn't the objectors to it raise this as a serious political issue during the election if they found it so objectionable?

Did you mention it? Did I? I accept that any party that I vote for in Ireland will roll over in terms of European legislation and that parties I don't vote for will object. Irish parties mention Europe as infrequently as is possible.

Why would I jeopardise domestic policy for years for the sake of one-off international legislation; particularly when the electorate had a veto?

Besides which I really did think that after Nice that FF really couldn't.. really wouldn't just rerun a referendum. Mea culpa.

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote:

Besides which I really did think that after Nice that FF really couldn't.. really wouldn't just rerun a referendum. Mea culpa.

Oddly enough, I voted No in the expectation that they would. I could never see any reason why they wouldn't, and I know there were a lot of No votes on the same basis - "sure, if it's important, they'll ask again".

cordially,
Scofflaw

RandomName2

The Corinthian wrote: »

As I said it was "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 eventually developed a few common bodies such as the Tagsatzung, which met several times a year, but it was ultimately held together by treaties, with acutal executive power in the hands of the member cantons - much the same as the EU.

So I take it that there wasn't a central legislative body, either in terms of an upper or lower house, foreign representative for the entire confederacy, or figurehead that represented the governing bodies of the states of the confederacy?

Unlike the EU.



In terms of Switzerland being strategically important? Well Switzerland as a whole has traditionally been of less strategic importance than northern Italy, southern, western or northern France, the areas consisting of the Benelux countries, northern or southern Spain, all of Denmark or Poland-Lithuania, etc. etc. - as far as I can recall only the Hapsburgs gave it any time (on the grounds that it was literally slap bang in the middle of their domains).

Skopzz

RandomName2 wrote: »

I don't actually see Iceland in that graph; and sorry, I wouldn't put a huge amount of stock on a graph that roughly combined disparate countries across the eurozone anyway.

The sky didn't fall in in Iceland; but as K9 said, neither did it here. Where Iceland will have to cope in future years for the penalty of it not honouring its debt or providing institutional fiscal stabilithy, so will Ireland have to suffer the consequences of bailing out massive defunct organisations and having to provide austerity measures to balance the books.

Again, while not being in the Euro has certain advantages, being outside of it has others. I don't think it is terribly wise to say that either Iceland or Ireland is the paradigm of correct reaction to such a debt crisis.

Well that's a subjective opinion and you're entitled to it. But Ireland is a bankrupt slave to the E.U right now. Two countries have chosen to opt out of this treaty (Britain and Czech Republic) and the sky hasn't fallen in there. Why would we want to enslave ourself through debt to the E.U.? Do as Iceland did when they found out that all this debt payment is going to the Bankers, and so they refused to pay. Tell the E.U to get lost. Ireland has already made contingencies to slide out of the European Union. Remember also, what you vote for isn't always what you get. The Irish government are liars and soft. They should demand a halving of the debt like the Greeks have got without having to go to the trouble of rioting and striking.

The Corinthian

RandomName2 wrote: »

So I take it that there wasn't a central legislative body, either in terms of an upper or lower house, foreign representative for the entire confederacy, or figurehead that represented the governing bodies of the states of the confederacy?

Unlike the EU.

You've missed the point. No problem.

In terms of Switzerland being strategically important? Well Switzerland as a whole has traditionally been of less strategic importance than northern Italy, southern, western or northern France, the areas consisting of the Benelux countries, northern or southern Spain, all of Denmark or Poland-Lithuania, etc. etc. - as far as I can recall only the Hapsburgs gave it any time (on the grounds that it was literally slap bang in the middle of their domains).

Read more books.

SEEMagazine

Stark wrote: »

So does population increase through having children. But I'm sure you can see that how fallacious it would be to view children as a burden on society?

To add some levity (to begin with): children are inferior goods...

I don't want to target specific posters, but rather add my tuppence to some of the points being made.

Oil & Gas: Yes we have lots. No, it's not ours. We could Nationalise it yes, but first we'd have to alienate every business partner we could sell to. Sure, they could choose to buy our junta-oil and gas but then they, in turn, would find themselves being ostracised.

Leaving the EU in general: Why? As has been pointed out we live in a country which experienced the Tiger years BECAUSE if the EEC, the EC, and the EU money building our roads. Now that things are tough we just bail? That would be fine if there were no repercussions but anyone who knew children were an inferior good also understands the prisoners dilemma. If we left there WOULD be a comeback... and it would destitute us all. The amount of butter we ship to Germany alone ffs!



Ze Euro: The reason the Euro didn't fall apart last year was because Germany's economy would be mullered by such a thing. Inflation/recession would make their economy woefully uncompetitive.

Now, with Short-kozy looking like he might well be ousted from power we should be looking to find out what sort of leader Hollande might be instead.

We, as a country, have EVERYTHING to lose from a failed EU, and EVERYTHING to gain from a resurgent EU. Even if our economy took off again we can't maintain that without a guaranteed market. We're an island... Switzerland is landlocked. Roads are cheaper than seas to ship goods across. And tend not to be shut during January when the Irish Sea is going through a blender.

I live in a country (Hrvatska) soon to be in the EU. None of the anti-EU arguments here made much sense either.

McDave

Scofflaw wrote: »

Oddly enough, I voted No in the expectation that they would. I could never see any reason why they wouldn't, and I know there were a lot of No votes on the same basis - "sure, if it's important, they'll ask again".

Likewise I voted No to Nice 1. McCreevy & Co made such fools of themselves with their have-your-cake-and-eat-it cod Euroscepticism. I just had to stick it to them.

I didn't think they'd necessarily lose. But of course they had to run it again when the result went against them.

questiontime2

SEEMagazine wrote: »

We, as a country, have EVERYTHING to lose from a failed EU, and EVERYTHING to gain from a resurgent EU. Even if our economy took off again we can't maintain that without a guaranteed market. We're an island... Switzerland is landlocked. Roads are cheaper than seas to ship goods across. And tend not to be shut during January when the Irish Sea is going through a blender.

Do you just sprout this from opinion, or have you substantiated this argument with any sort of objective findings? Why not just maintain strong links with the UK and forget Europe for everything bar trade? Ireland has very little in common with mainland Europe. Ireland is first and foremost a common law jurisdiction, not napoleonic France.

Scofflaw

questiontime2 wrote:

I can't WAIT for the European Union and their ilk to collapse. The whole organisation was a fraud and a sham from the outset. You can only hide the truth for so long before it comes out.

What...50 years?

amused,
Scofflaw

McDave

questiontime2 wrote: »

Ireland is first and foremost a common law jurisdiction, not napoleonic France.

Only since Cromwell really. We had our own type of laws before then (starting with Brehon law): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Irish_law

questiontime2

Scofflaw wrote: »

What...50 years?

amused,
Scofflaw

In the next year to two years. Their accouts haven't been signed off for 17 years. That is well known. The whole thing is sham. The IMF indirectly suggested that. Even it's president can see the writing on the wall.

http://www.euractiv.com/future-eu/schulz-eu-collapse-realistic-scenario-news-512370

questiontime2

McDave wrote: »

Only since Cromwell really. We had our own type of laws before then (starting with Brehon law): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Irish_law

I am aware if this, but it's an important point. Still, modern day Ireland has a lot more in common with Britain than anywhere else in Europe. You can't drink a pint of beer on the continent. I am tired of the imposters in the EU forcing their customs on an island which has nothing in common with mainland Europe. That is my own opinion.

beeftotheheels

questiontime2 wrote: »

I am tired of the imposters in the EU forcing their customs on an island which has nothing in common with mainland Europe.

I am tired of people who don't even try to educate themselves about the details or consequences of referenda having a vote in them, yet such is life.

To quote House..."And as the philosopher Jagger once said "You can't always get what you want""

FreudianSlippers

You can't get a pint of beer on the continent? What on earth was I drinking last night that gave me this hangover then?!?

McDave

questiontime2 wrote: »

I am aware if this, but it's an important point. Still, modern day Ireland has a lot more in common with Britain than anywhere else in Europe. You can't drink a pint of beer on the continent. I am tired of the imposters in the EU forcing their customs on an island which has nothing in common with mainland Europe. That is my own opinion.

Our legal system is very like Britain's. But it also differs in many important respects. For instance, we have a written constitution, and a system of judicial review similar to that of the US. Also as time progresses and we implement EU laws through the Oireachtas, our structure of law slowly takes on many of the characteristics of continental legal systems.

EU law in turn is influenced by continental structures and the judge-made law features of US common law. Nothing is really as simple and straightforward as it seems.

You can still get beer in pints here. Though if you buy continental beers they tend to come in metric sizes.

stringed theory

questiontime2 wrote: »

Still, modern day Ireland has a lot more in common with Britain than anywhere else in Europe....... an island which has nothing in common with mainland Europe.

An island with a strong rural/agricultural bias, a republican tradition, a general dislike of militarism, with its culture heavily influenced by catholicism, even today, and an Irish way of doing things, for better or worse.
It doesn't sound like the UK to me, just somewhere unique in Europe that doesn't want to be swallowed up by its big neighbour. The European Union is ideal, for this purpose. It provides the perfect balance of independence and the freedom that comes from being part of a larger community.

Why not just maintain strong links with the UK and forget Europe for everything bar trade?

That really says it all!