Positives and Negatives of Being in EU

RoryMc23

Hey, with all this talk of the EU I've been thinking....and I apologise if this is incredibly simplistic but what are the positives of being in the EU, what benefits do we receive? Also what are the negatives of being in the EU?

I'd be interested in reading everyones lists

FreudianSlippers

Governance is one thing... basically all of the contents of Article 13 of the Treaty of the European Union is fantastic.
I would say regulations really have raised standards of human rights, environmental cleanliness, etc.
The European Court of Justice, Court of Auditors and Europol all under Art 13 (IIRC)

I think it's been great for European foreign relations, for competitiveness and economy.
I think the internal market of the EU is very good... free movement of goods and workers.

I would also be a fan of the EU legislating that members should be a part of the Eurozone.


If you asked what are the positives and negatives of the Eurozone, I'm sure you'd have slightly different answers. The European Union (other than the ECB and implementation of single currency) is wholly separate from the "euro" currency.

thommacmanus

The 'free movement' of workers, far from being a good thing, has resulted in the commodification of workers, the deterioration of wages and conditions, etc - all at the expense of our communities, inside and outside Ireland, and to the benefit of amoral market forces.
The free movement of goods is a good thing, but the privatisation agenda that accompanies it certainly is not when it includes core services like the health service ( our HSE disaster is the result of a partial deconstruction of our helath service to level the pleying field for increased private operators), postal services (a disaster in every EU country that has privatised theirs), and doubtless education is next.

The argument that certain EU laws are good doesn't hold - we can emulate with a free will (our own) those laws operative elsewhere that have proved good and effective.
Sacrificing our right and ablity to influence our own laws simply is not a sensible solution to any existing deficiencies in those laws, or deficiencies in our politicians.

The european union is fully tied to a common currency - all roads lead to it, as it were -and would be a different institution if it jettisoned it or the ideology of ever (re)instating it.

FreudianSlippers

thommacmanus wrote: »

The 'free movement' of workers, far from being a good thing, has resulted in the commodification of workers, the deterioration of wages and conditions, etc - all at the expense of our communities, inside and outside Ireland, and to the benefit of amoral market forces.
The free movement of goods is a good thing, but the privatisation agenda that accompanies it certainly is not when it includes core services like the health service ( our HSE disaster is the result of a partial deconstruction of our helath service to level the pleying field for increased private operators), postal services (a disaster in every EU country that has privatised theirs), and doubtless education is next.

Well, that's just an anti-capitalistic viewpoint, to which I wholeheartedly disagree. It's not the EU's fault that our government agencies are mismanaged and cannot compete against private enterprise.

If the HSE and post office cannot compete they deserve to go bust.

The argument that certain EU laws are good doesn't hold - we can emulate with a free will (our own) those laws operative elsewhere that have proved good and effective.
Sacrificing our right and ablity to influence our own laws simply is not a sensible solution to any existing deficiencies in those laws, or deficiencies in our politicians.

We don't sacrifice any such power. All laws are made in Ireland, full stop.
There are some directives we are bound to follow, and some recommendations that we are obliged to implement; but all of these are legislated at a national level.

The european union is fully tied to a common currency - all roads lead to it, as it were -and would be a different institution if it jettisoned it or the ideology of ever (re)instating it.

The EU existed prior to a common currency and could exist without it. Of course the currency is "tied" to the EU now; the EU has legislated its use for all members (with 2 or 3 exceptions).

meglome

thommacmanus wrote: »

The 'free movement' of workers, far from being a good thing, has resulted in the commodification of workers, the deterioration of wages and conditions, etc - all at the expense of our communities, inside and outside Ireland, and to the benefit of amoral market forces

I'm confused... we had large wage inflation while all these workers were coming here. That would appear to show the opposite of what you're saying.

View

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

We don't sacrifice any such power. All laws are made in Ireland, full stop.
There are some directives we are bound to follow, and some recommendations that we are obliged to implement; but all of these are legislated at a national level.

This isn't strictly true as some EU laws (Regulations) are immediately binding on the member states much like "Ministerial Orders" are binding here. Those tend to be in limited areas as the member states are rather ambivalent about their use.

A quick overview of the various types of EU laws is available here.

That said the previous poster's complaint about us "sacrificing our right and ablity to influence our own laws" is a bit irrelevant as:
a) EU law is our law,
b) EU law is made with direct Irish participation in the decision making process (so the complaint is nonsensical),
c) We accepted the principle of EU law back in the 1972 referendum on joining the then European Communities.

A flowchart on the ordinary legislative/co-decision process is here. Those of you who have ever "looked down" on MEPs might find it interesting.

FreudianSlippers

View wrote: »

This isn't strictly true as some EU laws (Regulations) are immediately binding on the member states much like "Ministerial Orders" are binding here. Those tend to be in limited areas as the member states are rather ambivalent about their use.

A quick overview of the various types of EU laws is available here.

That said the previous poster's complaint about us "sacrificing our right and ablity to influence our own laws" is a bit irrelevant as:
a) EU law is our law,
b) EU law is made with direct Irish participation in the decision making process (so the complaint is nonsensical),
c) We accepted the principle of EU law back in the 1972 referendum on joining the then European Communities.

A flowchart on the ordinary legislative/co-decision process is here. Those of you who have ever "looked down" on MEPs might find it interesting.

I didn't mention Regulations simply for the fact that they are binding immediately throughout the EU. But good point.

Edit: although, legally... there are nuances with Regulations which make them a different case; as well as your points a, b and c being perfectly legitimate and reasonable

Amberman

meglome wrote: »

I'm confused... we had large wage inflation while all these workers were coming here. That would appear to show the opposite of what you're saying.

Yes, you are confused. The boom-time wage inflation was caused by credit expansion...as were most of the, now crushing, mis-allocations of capital.

Supply increases generally push prices down...not up.

oscarBravo

Amberman wrote: »

Supply increases generally push prices down...not up.

And yet the price increased. Therefore demand outstripped supply.

Do you believe the price of labour should be exempt from the laws of supply and demand? If so, is that exemption one-way only (in other words, should demand for labour be prevented from pushing wages up)?

Amberman

oscarBravo wrote: »

And yet the price increased. Therefore demand outstripped supply.

Not necessarily...but possibly. You are failing to account for the credit boom.

Do you believe the price of labour should be exempt from the laws of supply and demand? If so, is that exemption one-way only (in other words, should demand for labour be prevented from pushing wages up)?

No.

Scofflaw

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I didn't mention Regulations simply for the fact that they are binding immediately throughout the EU. But good point.

Edit: although, legally... there are nuances with Regulations which make them a different case; as well as your points a, b and c being perfectly legitimate and reasonable

Also, Regulations are primarily trade regulations - one could equally well complain about the WTO, or indeed the existence of trade, since foreign trade by its nature tends to involve complying with other people's regulations.

cordially,
Scofflaw