Should Ireland Leave the EU?

FreudianSlippers

View wrote: »

I presume you meant citizen of Ireland here? Sovereigns are Monarchs, I believe.

(Ok - And old coins as well)

In Ireland the Sovereign are its people.

FreudianSlippers

easychair wrote: »

Just listening to the radio this morning, I am reminded that another person who predicted this was Bernard Connolly, who wrote a book "The Rotten Heart of Europe", in which he predicted just this crisis for the Euro.

He argued that the single currency project would be used to generate an irresistible momentum for fullscale political union in Europe, dominated by an implicit power-sharing agreement between the German and French political elites. Further, he argued it was a political project which had to be pursued by stealth because neither the peoples, nor the parliaments, of major European nations had ever been willing to support it when it was presented openly as an explicit aim.

He was promptly sacked by the Commission from his job as head of the European Commission's monetary affairs department.

It's an interesting book and I'd recommend anyone to read it to understand how the EU works, from the inside. His book was written in 1995, and its curious how much of what he predicted has come to pass.

Naturally, I expect some here to want to rush to rubbish him, as former head of the European Commission's monetary affairs department, because they don't like what he says. However, I'd ask that we can look beyond the personality, and look at what he said, rather than try to avoid that and throw muck at the person.

Interesting.... the "Connolly" PR machine always uses that line: "... was promptly sacked by the Commission."

Every single time that Bernard Connolly is brought up: "Mr Connolly was promptly sacked by the Commission."

I suspect your anti-European viewpoint is heavily influenced by the propaganda machine or else you're a large part of it.

In any event, Connolly was sacked because he published a book specifically criticising his co-workers and the commission he worked for at the time. You think your employer would like to keep you on if you were publishing a bunch of negative things about them while you were still an employee? Also, he was only advising Britain, he was not the head of the EFA department.

easychair

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Interesting.... the "Connolly" PR machine always uses that line: "... was promptly sacked by the Commission."

Every single time that Bernard Connolly is brought up: "Mr Connolly was promptly sacked by the Commission."

I suspect your anti-European viewpoint is heavily influenced by the propaganda machine or else you're a large part of it.

In any event, Connolly was sacked because he published a book specifically criticising his co-workers and the commission he worked for at the time. You think your employer would like to keep you on if you were publishing a bunch of negative things about them while you were still an employee? Also, he was only advising Britain, he was not the head of the EFA department.

it's curious how many of the "negative" things Bernard Connolly predicted have come to pass.

I myself predicted that you would attack the man and not what he said, and that seems to have come to pass also.

It's a shame you can't argue the points, rather than avoid them and attack the individual.

In answer to your question, my employer would welcome anyone who was able to point out that his business was on a path to failing, and he was able to take action to prevent it.

FreudianSlippers

easychair wrote: »

it's curious how many of the "negative" things Bernard Connolly predicted have come to pass.

I myself predicted that you would attack the man and not what he said, and that seems to have come to pass also.

It's a shame you can't argue the points, rather than avoid them and attack the individual.

In answer to your question, my employer would welcome anyone who was able to point out that his business was on a path to failing, and he was able to take action to prevent it.

Many of the predictions of Nostradamus have come to pass too... it just depends on what spin you want to put on it.

I don't agree that Connolly was at all right and I see the Euro up to the current crisis as being a phenomenal success.

easychair

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Many of the predictions of Nostradamus have come to pass too... it just depends on what spin you want to put on it.

I don't agree that Connolly was at all right and I see the Euro up to the current crisis as being a phenomenal success.

I am not asking anyone to agree with the facts outlined earlier, as facts are facts and don't require anyone to agree with them. What Bernard Connolly said in his book is there for all to see, and whether or not you agree that he predicted, for example, that the single currency project would be used to generate an irresistible momentum for fullscale political union in Europe is a fact, as it's in his book in black and white. Your opinion may well be that he didn't predict that, but its there in black and white is his book for others to judge that for themselves.

Again, if you judge the Euro as being a "phenomenal success" up to some point in the past, that implies that you think latterly it's not been a success, whether phenomenal or otherwise.

Again, its a fact the Ireland lost control of the ability to control the interest rate of its currency, as a result of signing up to the Euro. This was a factor which played its not inconsiderable part in the Irish property boom which has in turn helped to create the losses at Anglo Irish Bank (and other banks), which in turn has plunged the country into the biggest debt spiral in its history. This presumably happened during at least some of the time you considered the Euro as being a "phenomenal success".

I don't consider that a phenomenal success, or even a non-phenomenal success, so on that point our opinions will have to differ.

I don't put much faith in either of our opinions, and would rather the facts speak for themselves, which show that much of what Bernard Connolly predicted in his book has come to pass. No amount of opinions can change those facts.

meglome

easychair wrote: »

I am not asking anyone to agree with the facts outlined earlier, as facts are facts and don't require anyone to agree with them. What Bernard Connolly said in his book is there for all to see, and whether or not you agree that he predicted, for example, that the single currency project would be used to generate an irresistible momentum for fullscale political union in Europe is a fact, as it's in his book in black and white. Your opinion may well be that he didn't predict that, but its there in black and white is his book for others to judge that for themselves.

But what he says in the book hasn't happened, and certainly getting countries to be more financially prudent is not a bad thing. Hundreds of predictions are made every day, some will turn out to be so, it doesn't mean there was any great foreknowledge of events. I'll wait and see if he even guessed right.

easychair wrote: »

Again, its a fact the Ireland lost control of the ability to control the interest rate of its currency, as a result of signing up to the Euro. This was a factor which played its not inconsiderable part in the Irish property boom which has in turn helped to create the losses at Anglo Irish Bank (and other banks), which in turn has plunged the country into the biggest debt spiral in its history. This presumably happened during at least some of the time you considered the Euro as being a "phenomenal success".

The world was awash with cheap credit. Nothing about the Euro made us borrow way too much with little regulation about who got the money and how much they got. We did that.

djpbarry

easychair wrote: »

It's a shame you can't argue the points...

Just about every point you’ve made on this thread has been argued against and, more often than not, shown to be claptrap. It’s a shame you can’t argue the points raised against your own.

easychair wrote: »

What Bernard Connolly said in his book is there for all to see, and whether or not you agree that he predicted, for example, that the single currency project would be used to generate an irresistible momentum for fullscale political union in Europe is a fact, as it's in his book in black and white.

So the politically unionist agenda of the European Union was a big secret before Bernard came along with his book, was it?

easychair wrote: »

Again, its a fact the Ireland lost control of the ability to control the interest rate of its currency, as a result of signing up to the Euro. This was a factor which played its not inconsiderable part in the Irish property boom...

Irish government policy was a far bigger factor. The UK had a property boom, but the UK’s not in the Eurozone. Germany is in the Eurozone, but they didn’t have a property boom.

easychair wrote: »

I don't put much faith in either of our opinions, and would rather the facts speak for themselves, which show that much of what Bernard Connolly predicted in his book has come to pass.

Right. So what?

View

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

In Ireland the Sovereign are its people.

That isn't what the constitution says. It says the Ireland is a sovereign state and the (less clearly defined) "Irish nation" has a right to make sovereign decisions. That is not to say though that a citizen is sovereign - were that the case, we could all claim that - being sovereign - the laws on taxes didn't apply to us as individuals.

View

easychair wrote: »

it's curious how many of the "negative" things Bernard Connolly predicted have come to pass.

I myself predicted that you would attack the man and not what he said, and that seems to have come to pass also.

It's a shame you can't argue the points, rather than avoid them and attack the individual.

How exactly did FreudianSlippers attack Mr Connolly in his post?

Mr Connolly broke the staff regulations that he was bound by as an employee and was sacked for doing so. He can hardly have been unaware that he was breaking the regulations when he did so. A clear breech of three separate regulations in hardly a "Oops, I didn't know" slip.

easychair

View wrote: »

How exactly did FreudianSlippers attack Mr Connolly in his post?

Mr Connolly broke the staff regulations that he was bound by as an employee and was sacked for doing so. He can hardly have been unaware that he was breaking the regulations when he did so. A clear breech of three separate regulations in hardly a "Oops, I didn't know" slip.

Mr Connolly claims that everything he said and did was consistent with his contract of employment, since he revealed no confidential information connected with his duties and wrote the book entirely in his spare time. I have no details myself about his contract of employment, and I have no view about whether he was correctly, or not, sacked. I am guessing you also have no details of it either. Have you?

That he was sacked was not the issue in any case.

meglome wrote: »

But what he says in the book hasn't happened, and certainly getting countries to be more financially prudent is not a bad thing. Hundreds of predictions are made every day, some will turn out to be so, it doesn't mean there was any great foreknowledge of events. I'll wait and see if he even guessed right.



The world was awash with cheap credit. Nothing about the Euro made us borrow way too much with little regulation about who got the money and how much they got. We did that.

Of course, you are right that it hasn’t happened yet that, as he argued, argued that the single currency project would be used to generate an irresistible momentum for full political union in Europe, dominated by an implicit power-sharing agreement between the German and French political elites. However, if you think that that’s not what is coming very soon down the pipes, the we’ll have to disagree for now, and wait and see.

The world was awash with cheap credit, and it was the inability of, for example, the Irish Government to increase the price of that credit by controlling interest rates in Ireland, which has greatly exacerbated the problem. By joining the Euro, Ireland gave up the ability to control its rate of interest, and has had to live with rates of interest which have been far too low and helped to create the problem.

It was cheap credit, as well as availability of credit, which cause the problem, and had the Irish government been able to increase interest rates it would have helped take some of the heat out of the property market, which would have reduced the banks exposure to what became completely unsustainable property prices. Thats not to say it would have solved or reduced the problem to zero, but it would have helped scale down the problem, and stopped it becoming the issue which has crippled the Irish nation financially.

djpbarry

easychair wrote: »

Of course, you are right that it hasn’t happened yet that, as he argued, argued that the single currency project would be used to generate an irresistible momentum for full political union in Europe, dominated by an implicit power-sharing agreement between the German and French political elites.

Once again, so what? Any political union in Europe is going to be “dominated” by the likes of France and Germany, as they are two of the biggest nations on the continent.

easychair wrote: »

The world was awash with cheap credit, and it was the inability of, for example, the Irish Government to increase the price of that credit by controlling interest rates in Ireland, which has greatly exacerbated the problem.

The Irish government had plenty of other tools at their disposal, such as the raising of taxes, which could have been used to temper the property boom. Given that the government chose to do precisely the opposite, there is absolutely no reason to believe that things would have unfolded differently had Ireland still been using the punt. The problem was poor governance (and poor choices by the electorate), not the currency.

FreudianSlippers

View wrote: »

That isn't what the constitution says. It says the Ireland is a sovereign state and the (less clearly defined) "Irish nation" has a right to make sovereign decisions. That is not to say though that a citizen is sovereign - were that the case, we could all claim that - being sovereign - the laws on taxes didn't apply to us as individuals.

I was taught (doing constitutional law) and always understood it as the "nation" aspect are the people of Ireland. That is not to say that each individual is (for lack of a better word) individually sovereign, but that the people as a whole (as described in Art.1 as "Irish Nation" are the sovereign.

It's probably just semantics in any event.

Lockstep

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I was taught (doing constitutional law) and always understood it as the "nation" aspect are the people of Ireland. That is not to say that each individual is (for lack of a better word) individually sovereign, but that the people as a whole (as described in Art.1 as "Irish Nation" are the sovereign.

It's probably just semantics in any event.

Yes, that's how I was taught as well.

K-9

djpbarry wrote: »

Once again, so what? Any political union in Europe is going to be “dominated” by the likes of France and Germany, as they are two of the biggest nations on the continent.
The Irish government had plenty of other tools at their disposal, such as the raising of taxes, which could have been used to temper the property boom. Given that the government chose to do precisely the opposite, there is absolutely no reason to believe that things would have unfolded differently had Ireland still been using the punt. The problem was poor governance (and poor choices by the electorate), not the currency.

Indeed, when the property market initially stalled, all the parties clamoured to reform stamp duty to reignite in. People were giving out about Europe raising interest rates in 06.

The Government chose to double interest rate relief, giving a tax credit of €10/20,000 to single and married first time buyers, basically subsidising mortgages by €2/4,000 cash.

I suppose we could have had higher interest rates if outside the Euro but that actually caused other problems in Iceland!

easychair

The economy which Ireland is more akin to is Japan. In fact, Ireland now has the distinction of being the most bankrupt country in the world, and is even more bankrupt now than is Japan.

The level of debt Ireland now has is crippling, and it should be noted that Japan, which in much further down the road with debt levels not as great as Ireland, has taken years with little improvement in its position.

As I noted elsewhere, Japan exports vastly more of its manufactured goods that Ireland, and there has been no sign there that an export led recovery has made much dent in the countries debts. Why should Ireland's much hailed export led recovery prove different?

djpbarry

easychair wrote: »

The economy which Ireland is more akin to is Japan.

Is it? Japan’s public debt dwarfs Ireland’s. And while Japan has an aging population (one of the principal economic challenges facing the country), Japan also has a strong manufacturing base and vast capital reserves. I’m failing to see the similarities with Ireland.

FreudianSlippers

easychair wrote: »

In fact, Ireland now has the distinction of being the most bankrupt country in the world, and is even more bankrupt now than is Japan.

I thought it was earlier in this thread I already covered this?

Oh well... how can someone be the "most" bankrupt? I don't think you know what bankruptcy is for some reason.
Not being snarky, perhaps you meant something else, but it isn't bankruptcy.

easychair

Irelands debt ratio of debt to GDP is 400, and to GNP it's 494, which makes Ireland debt the highest in the developed world. It's not a competition, and the point is that Irelands debts are crippling, and and we have seen what thhose sorts of levels of debt have done to Japan.

Bankruptcy means you can't pay your liabilities. Ireland currently has no hope of repaying the capital, and little hope of paying the interest on the enormous amount of capital the country has borrowed, and as those borrowings continue to increase every year.

We can disagree with the term, but the substantive point is more serious than semantics.

djpbarry

easychair wrote: »

Irelands debt ratio of debt to GDP is 400...

The most recent figures from Eurostat (2010) puts Ireland's debt:GDP ratio at about 0.96. You’re only off by a factor of 400 or so.

easychair wrote: »

...which makes Ireland debt the highest in the developed world.

Belgium, Italy and Greece all have higher debt:GDP ratios than Ireland. I imagine Japan does too.

easychair wrote: »

...the point is that Irelands debts are crippling, and and we have seen what thhose sorts of levels of debt have done to Japan.

Have we? What’s that then?

Scofflaw

easychair wrote: »

Irelands debt ratio of debt to GDP is 400, and to GNP it's 494, which makes Ireland debt the highest in the developed world. It's not a competition, and the point is that Irelands debts are crippling, and and we have seen what thhose sorts of levels of debt have done to Japan.

Bankruptcy means you can't pay your liabilities. Ireland currently has no hope of repaying the capital, and little hope of paying the interest on the enormous amount of capital the country has borrowed, and as those borrowings continue to increase every year.

We can disagree with the term, but the substantive point is more serious than semantics.

I assume you're using total debt figures there, which are almost entirely meaningless on their own. Worse, you appear to be conflating them with public debt.

What is the net debt position, and why are private debts relevant to whether Ireland can support its public debt?

regards,
Scofflaw

Lockstep

djpbarry wrote: »

The most recent figures from Eurostat (2010) puts Ireland's debt:GDP ratio at about 0.96. You’re only off by a factor of 400 or so.
Belgium, Italy and Greece all have higher debt:GDP ratios than Ireland. I imagine Japan does too.

Yeah, the CIA say the same thing.

Link

We have a high public debt but we're not the worst in the world. I'd be very interested in seeing this 400% source.

Amberman

djpbarry wrote: »

Have we? What’s that then?

Short answer....two lost decades as productive private capital is crowded out by the State via artificially low interest rates and Keynesian stimulus programs to preserve zombie banks.

TWO lost decades.

The ISEQ is back to 1995 levels, so all gains from the last 16 years are gone and we are actually facing huge inflation adjusted losses.

The destruction pensions is almost unprecedented.

Sadly, its not over.

djpbarry

Amberman wrote: »

Short answer...

I was actually referring to Japan.

Amberman

Scofflaw wrote: »

What is the net debt position, and why are private debts relevant to whether Ireland can support its public debt?

What is the net debt position, and why are private debts relevant to whether Ireland Europe can support Ireland's public debt?

Fixed your post.

[MOD]Don't do FYP.[/MOD]

Amberman

djpbarry wrote: »

I was actually referring to Japan.

Me too.

Short answer....two lost decades as productive private capital is crowded out by the State via artificially low interest rates and Keynesian stimulus programs to preserve zombie banks.

TWO lost decades.

View

easychair wrote: »

Mr Connolly claims that everything he said and did was consistent with his contract of employment, since he revealed no confidential information connected with his duties and wrote the book entirely in his spare time. I have no details myself about his contract of employment, and I have no view about whether he was correctly, or not, sacked. I am guessing you also have no details of it either. Have you?

Yes.

Mr Connolly appealed the decision to dismiss him and lost on all points. In other words, in the opinion of the courts, Mr Connolly's dismissal for breech of staff regulations was completely valid.

The link to the judgment is here.

easychair

Amberman wrote: »

What is the net debt position, and why are private debts relevant to whether Ireland Europe can support Ireland's public debt?

Fixed your post.

The net debt position is interesting, and frightening at the same time. A recent study argues that when debt ratios rise beyond a certain level, financial crises become both more likely and more severe.

Further, Government debt is only one part of the picture, and private corporate and household debt have an obvious adverse effect on an economy, as cash must be diverted to service the debts making it not available to purchase goods and services in the economy, and also making the economies goods more expensive to produce, with the added costs of corporate debt and higher wage demands.

The following table shows Ireland's Governmet, private corporate and household debt.




If we then look at a comparison with 18 other countries, we can see Irelands relative position.



We can see Ireland has the highest debt to GNP ratio, the second highest debt to GDP ratio, and the biggest increases across the board.

djpbarry

easychair wrote: »

The following table shows Ireland's Governmet, private corporate and household debt.

What is the source of that table?

easychair

djpbarry wrote: »

What is the source of that table?

Sorry to take so long in replying. Those are the figures supplied in a written answer by the Minister of Finance in answer to a Dail question number 122 on September 14th 2011.

djpbarry

easychair wrote: »

Those are the figures supplied in a written answer by the Minister of Finance in answer to a Dail question number 122 on September 14th 2011.

Are they?

Michael Noonan wrote:

The Central Bank’s Quarterly Financial Accounts data show that households had outstanding loans amounting to €184.9 billion in the first quarter of the year, representing 147 per cent of forecast GNP for 2011. The stock of household loans has declined by €18 billion or 9 per cent since peaking in the final quarter of 2008. The same data source reveals that non financial corporations had outstanding loans of €264 billion in the first quarter of the year, or 210 per cent of forecast GNP. The stock of such loans has contracted by €62.5 billion or 19 per cent since peaking in the final months of 2009.
Of course the data also show that households and non financial corporations have significant assets as well as liabilities. In the case of households, for example, net financial wealth — the difference between assets and liabilities — was a positive €105 billion (this figure does not include housing assets). This figure has increased by 80 per cent since the first quarter of 2009.
Finally, my Department has forecast General government debt of €173 billion in 2011, which would represent 111 per cent of forecast GDP (137 per cent of GNP). This is up from debt of €148.1 billion in 2010. General government debt as a percentage of GDP is forecast to peak at 118 per cent in 2013 before moderating in the following years.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2011/09/14/00105.asp

You’ve got a whole lot of figures in the above tables that are not mentioned by the Minister?