Who is tempted to move to the UK?

Duke Leonal Felmet

Purely on the basis of their stance to Merkozy and the failing Eurozone project? I look at the two emerging potential 'blocs', and I know which one I would rather be part of...

How about you?

Dannyboy83

We are about to get an EU treaty which means that Fianna Fail can never again go on a spending binge and break our economy.
The UK have opted out of this process.

UK politicians will be free to spend whatever they are capable of borrowing & the Boom/Bust madness will continue in the UK, whereas the EU is taking the slow and sustainable approach - basically looking for a long term solution to the mistakes which got us here in the first place.

This country, like the UK, is currently run as an oligarchy.
This treaty is the first real chance for the Irish citizens have to have a fairer society.
If the treaty didn't pass, then I'd start thinking about moving.

Lockstep

Franco-German way for me please.

Social-market economies, sensible welfare, social liberalism, Christmas markets, fine beer and civic responsibility suit me down to the ground,

Duke Leonal Felmet

You're ok with greater power for unelected bureaucrats?

Sorry, but that bothers me...

MyKeyG

Kudos to Britain. They refuse to pass the buck and let Germany, a country that sunk themselves into bankruptcy twice in the last century, clean up their mess. Seriously guys we're not idiots. We don't need austerity measures to sort ourselves out. We shouldn't need Germany and France to issue threats if we spend too much money. I'm ashamed at our pandering.

It amazes me that we're prepared to pay our TD hundreds of thousands of Euro to let someone else do their job.

joolsveer

If we are incapable of ruling ourselves should we ask the UK to take us back? Would it be preferable if Germany or the USA took us over?

An advantage of being part of the UK or the USA would be that we all speak more or less the same language.

Nodin

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Purely on the basis of their stance to Merkozy and the failing Eurozone project? I look at the two emerging potential 'blocs', and I know which one I would rather be part of...

How about you?

Move for more of the mentality that has us where we are...."nein", I think. I voted for Europe for a different kind of society. Unfortunately it may only be through this crisis that we acheive it.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Nodin wrote: »

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Purely on the basis of their stance to Merkozy and the failing Eurozone project? I look at the two emerging potential 'blocs', and I know which one I would rather be part of...

How about you?

Move for more of the mentality that has us where we are...."nein", I think. I voted for Europe for a different kind of society. Unfortunately it may only be through this crisis that we acheive it.

Again, I feel I must repeat my 'more power for unelected bureaucrats' line. It doesn't sit well with me. Perhaps someone can explain why this is a good thing without glossing over the bad elements?

Lapin

Lockstep wrote: »

Franco-German way for me please.

Social-market economies, sensible welfare, social liberalism, Christmas markets, fine beer and civic responsibility suit me down to the ground,

Britain had all the above before Europe did.

With the possible exception of Christmas markets.

Fratton Fred

I don't have too much of a problem with the treaty itself, I do have a problem with unelected bureaucrats coming up with a plan that suits the largest economy in europe, the second largest agreeing to it and then the rest of europe being forced to sign it.

Althoigh possibly for the wrong reasons, I think Cameron was righ to do what he did.

Manach

Neither: US.

sarumite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I don't have too much of a problem with the treaty itself, I do have a problem with unelected bureaucrats coming up with a plan that suits the largest economy in europe, the second largest agreeing to it and then the rest of europe being forced to sign it.

And if that was what happened, I would totally agree with you

Althoigh possibly for the wrong reasons, I think Cameron was righ to do what he did.

I think the economist had a pretty interesting article about it here
http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2011/12/britain-and-eu-1

Scofflaw

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Again, I feel I must repeat my 'more power for unelected bureaucrats' line. It doesn't sit well with me. Perhaps someone can explain why this is a good thing without glossing over the bad elements?

Let's start with who the "unelected bureaucrats" are supposed to be, please. This treaty is an intergovernmental treaty proposed by the elected leaders of France and Germany, and which will, courtesy of the UK veto, not be allowed to use the EU structures such as the Commission or ECJ.

So first I'd like to know who you're referring to?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dannyboy83

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

You're ok with greater power for unelected bureaucrats?

As opposed to what?

Former Irish teachers who won a local popularity contest and became an elected bureaucrat?
Who has no idea how to run the country but knows that you can win the next popularity contest/election by increasing spending?

It's not like we are faced with many alternatives.....
Doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different outcome etc..........

Batsy

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

We are about to get an EU treaty which means that Fianna Fail can never again go on a spending binge and break our economy.
The UK have opted out of this process.

Ireland is about to have a foreign country, namely Germany, dictate to them how much they can spend in budgets.

The UK, as should be the right with any sovereign nation, will continue to have the government its people elected deciding how much it spends in budgets.

JustinDee

Personally, if I had the choice of choosing an economy where banking is not self-regulated and under the watchful auspices of an independent body, thats what I'd choose.
Britain is not one of these. It is choked under its own banks' yokes.
Similarly to Ireland, it is run by a bureaucratic and bloated civil service of which each government is subserviant.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Scofflaw wrote: »

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Again, I feel I must repeat my 'more power for unelected bureaucrats' line. It doesn't sit well with me. Perhaps someone can explain why this is a good thing without glossing over the bad elements?

Let's start with who the "unelected bureaucrats" are supposed to be, please. This treaty is an intergovernmental treaty proposed by the elected leaders of France and Germany, and which will, courtesy of the UK veto, not be allowed to use the EU structures such as the Commission or ECJ.

So first I'd like to know who you're referring to?

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Commission. Every time these treaties arise, it involves more unelected people, getting more power. I'm glad that the UK vetoed that, and if Europe move on without them, I know where I will be headed.

Batsy

JustinDee wrote: »

Personally, if I had the choice of choosing an economy where banking is not self-regulated and under the watchful auspices of an independent body, thats what I'd choose.
Britain is not one of these. It is choked under its own banks' yokes.
Similarly to Ireland, it is run by a bureaucratic and bloated civil service of which each government is subserviant.

The financial services industry is Britain's biggest industry. It makes up 10% of the British economy. I wouldn't say Britain is "choked" by it. I would say Britain makes a lot of money out of it.

LordSutch

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Purely on the basis of their stance to Merkozy and the failing Eurozone project? I look at the two emerging potential 'blocs', and I know which one I would rather be part of...

How about you?

How about instead of moving next door to the UK we just stay put here in this little old Republic of ours and re-kindle our sterling links (as per pre 1976)? The 'Punt Nua' is born, and interest rates are set in London instead of Brussels?

JustinDee

Batsy wrote: »

The financial services industry is Britain's biggest industry

Thats the problem.

Batsy wrote: »

It makes up 10% of the British economy. I wouldn't say Britain is "choked" by it. I would say Britain makes a lot of money out of it.

So no recession then?
What hole have you been sleeping in for the last two to three years?

Lockstep

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

You're ok with greater power for unelected bureaucrats?

Sorry, but that bothers me...

What unelected bureacrats? Nothing can be done without the European Parliament (which is directly elected) and the Council of Ministers made up of the elected governments of each member state.

I'm guessing you are referring to the Commission which is:
A) Made up of Commissioners appointed by each elected MS government.
Is responsible to the Parliament at all times, cannot get any policy done without it being approved by the EP and CoM and can be removed from power at any time by the EP.

Batsy

JustinDee wrote: »

Thats the problem.


So no recession then?
What hole have you been sleeping in for the last two to three years?

What would have happened if it was the manufacturing sector that had been the cause of the UK and worldwide recession? Would you been proposing that Britain get rid of its manufacturing sector instead?

BlaasForRafa

Lapin wrote: »

Britain had all the above before Europe did.

With the possible exception of Christmas markets.

Britain would love to have the Mittelstand now generating exports instead of having to rely so much on the city of london.

Lockstep

Lapin wrote: »

Britain had all the above before Europe did.

With the possible exception of Christmas markets.

British beer is rotten.
And the Christmas markets are a deal breaker for me;)

Seriously though, I am far more impressed with the European model of welfare, education and healthcare.

JustinDee

Batsy wrote: »

What would have happened if it was the manufacturing sector that had been the cause of the UK and worldwide recession? Would you been proposing that Britain get rid of its manufacturing sector instead?

The equivalent of the manufacturing sector (well, whats left of it anyway) doing what the banks did would be for production by far to exceed demand due to non-regulation of control, then make a loss, go bust then have every taxpayer bail out the sector as if it was their fault and their obligation.

Bullseye1

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

You're ok with greater power for unelected bureaucrats?

Sorry, but that bothers me...

Its not like the elected people in this country have fared any better.

Batsy

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Its not like the elected people in this country have fared any better.

At least you have the chance to kick them out of office, though.

Batsy

JustinDee wrote: »

The equivalent of the manufacturing sector (well, whats left of it anyway) doing what the banks did would be for production by far to exceed demand due to non-regulation of control, then make a loss, go bust then have every taxpayer bail out the sector as if it was their fault and their obligation.

It's still absolutely ludicrous to demand a nation get rid of an entire (very lucrative) sector of its economy.

I also think there wouldn't be the over-reaction there is now had it been the manufacturing sector that plunged us into recession rather than those evil, baby-eating bankers.

JustinDee

Batsy wrote: »

It's still absolutely ludicrous to demand a nation get rid of an entire (very lucrative) sector of its economy

What are you waffling about? I never mentioned removal of a sector. You did and with stupid hypothetical situation.
Regulation is not removal.

Scofflaw

Batsy wrote: »

The financial services industry is Britain's biggest industry. It makes up 10% of the British economy. I wouldn't say Britain is "choked" by it. I would say Britain makes a lot of money out of it.

Or not:

These claims are repeated so often that they rarely get even the briefest patdown from interviewers, let alone backbench MPs or economists. Yet they are largely bogus, as explained in a new book called After the Great Complacence, produced by academics at Manchester University's Centre for Research on Socio-Cultural Change (Cresc). Indeed, on nearly any important measure, finance actually contributes less to Britain than manufacturing.

Take jobs. The finance sector employs 1m people in Britain. Chuck in the lawyers, the PRs and the smaller fry that swim in its wake and you are up to a grand total of 1.5m. And most of these people are not the investment bankers for whom Cameron went to war in Brussels. At the big British banks such as RBS and HBOS, 80% of the staff work in the retail business. Even if Sarkozy were to shroud Canary Wharf in a giant tricolore, those staff would still be needed to staff the branches and man the call centres. Even in its current state of emaciation, manufacturing employs 2m people.

What about taxes? Lobbyists like to point out that banks are usually the biggest payers of corporation tax, but usually omit to mention that corporation tax isn't that big a money-spinner. For their part, even leftwingers will usually assume that the bankers effectively paid for the tax credits, hospitals and schools we enjoyed under Labour.

It's not true. The Cresc team totted up the taxes paid by the finance sector between 2002 and 2008, the six years in which the City was having an almighty boom: at £193bn, it's still only getting on for half the £378bn paid by manufacturing. It would be more accurate to say that the widget-makers of the Midlands paid for Tony Blair's welfarism. But that would be a much less picturesque description.

Even in the best of times, the finance sector hasn't paid anything like as much to the state as the state has had to pay for them since the great crash. According to the IMF, British taxpayers have shelled out £289bn in "direct upfront financing" to prop up the banks since 2008. Add in the various government loans and underwriting, and taxpayers are on the hook for £1.19tn. Seen that way the City looks less like a goose that lays golden eggs, and more like an unruly pigeon that leaves one hell of a mess for others to clear up.

Ah, but what about lending? After all, this is why we have banks in the first place: to channel money to productive industries. The Cresc team looked at Bank of England figures on bank and building society loans and found that at the height of the bubble in 2007, around 40% or more of all bank and building society lending was on residential or commercial property. Another 25% of all bank lending went to financial intermediaries. In other words, about two-thirds of all bank lending in 2007 went to pumping up the bubble.

This doesn't look like a hard-working part of an economy humming along: it's nothing less than epic capitalist onanism.

If the statistics don't support the arguments for the City's pre-eminence, the public don't either. In 1983, 90% of the public agreed that banks in Britain were well run, according to the British Social Attitudes survey. By 2009, that had plunged to 19%.

In other words, both the evidence and the voters are against investment bankers. So why do the politicians cling on to them?

Part of the answer is financial. Bankers used the boom to buy themselves influence – so that, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the City now provides half of all Tory party funds. That is up from just 25% only five years ago.

They appear to cost rather more than they produce - and much of what is claimed for them is done by including the retail banking industry in their statistics. And that's without mentioning that a good few of the biggest "London" banks aren't British at all, but eurozone.

The financial services industry is being protected in the UK at the expense of the UK's real economy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

The Commission. Every time these treaties arise, it involves more unelected people, getting more power. I'm glad that the UK vetoed that, and if Europe move on without them, I know where I will be headed.

The Commission is the servant of the Member States. Its "power" is only the power to do what they have required it to do, according to the rules they've set.

It's like arguing that the referee has "too much power" in a game - and he's not a player (!gasp!). He's there to ensure the rules are followed, not to create the rules or run the game according to his whims. The same is true for the Commission - it's the referee between the Member States when they've decided to do something jointly. It doesn't set the rules of the game.

cordially,
Scofflaw

trendyvicar

I have no real problem with a limited number of Irish moving to The UK providing they respect The UK and it's people. In days gone by The UK had influxes of Irish people who supported Irish unity and even The IRA. Those types aren't welcome and never will be. If they love Ireland and hate England then stay in Ireland please.

karma_

trendyvicar wrote: »

I have no real problem with a limited number of Irish moving to The UK providing they respect The UK and it's people. In days gone by The UK had influxes of Irish people who supported Irish unity and even The IRA. Those types aren't welcome and never will be. If they love Ireland and hate England then stay in Ireland please.

Most Irish people who would like to see a United Ireland would like to see it peaceably achieved, but it's definitely an interesting point of view you have there. I wonder what you propose to do with the Nationalists in the North, or with those English, Scots and Welsh who also would be in favour?

I think your stand on immigration runs parallel to that of those lovely folk in the EDL and BNP.

LordSutch

trendyvicar wrote: »

I have no real problem with a limited number of Irish moving to The UK providing they respect The UK and it's people. In days gone by The UK had influxes of Irish people who supported Irish unity and even The IRA. Those types aren't welcome and never will be. If they love Ireland and hate England then stay in Ireland please.

I think at this point we should highlight the fact that the term UK includes Northern Ireland (which is already full of Irish & British people). Irish people have historically travelled from this island to Britain for work, and to be even more precise, 'England' is and always has been the main destination for Irish people who want to work on the island next door . . .

Boskowski

Batsy wrote: »

Ireland is about to have a foreign country, namely Germany, dictate to them how much they can spend in budgets.

The UK, as should be the right with any sovereign nation, will continue to have the government its people elected deciding how much it spends in budgets.

There is a flaw in your argument. We are not asking Germany to oversee our budget, we are asking the EU to do so of which we are a part of - meaning we will oversee other countries budget in mutual return. Big difference IMHO.

pog it

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

As opposed to what?

Former Irish teachers who won a local popularity contest and became an elected bureaucrat?
Who has no idea how to run the country but knows that you can win the next popularity contest/election by increasing spending?

It's not like we are faced with many alternatives.....
Doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different outcome etc..........

Change is happening. We are electing more independents, more should surface by the next election and hopefully the next government here will be made up of Sinn Féin and independents.

trendyvicar

karma_ wrote: »

Most Irish people who would like to see a United Ireland would like to see it peaceably achieved, but it's definitely an interesting point of view you have there. I wonder what you propose to do with the Nationalists in the North, or with those English, Scots and Welsh who also would be in favour?

I think your stand on immigration runs parallel to that of those lovely folk in the EDL and BNP.

None of those would be hypocrites. I won't say what I'd like to do with them.

I couldn't care less what someone from Ireland thinks about The EDL or The BNP, given how many Irish supported The IRA or justify them in some screwed up Irish manner.

Batsy

Boskowski wrote: »

There is a flaw in your argument. We are not asking Germany to oversee our budget, we are asking the EU to do so of which we are a part of - meaning we will oversee other countries budget in mutual return. Big difference IMHO.

You are asking the EU, an organisation which has failed to have its accounts signed off for 18 consecutive years because the European Court of Auditors (ECA) has refused to give EU spending a clean bill of health, to oversee Ireland's budget?

Are you Irish mad?

Nodin

trendyvicar wrote: »

..........or justify them in some screwed up Irish manner.

Please explain what a "screwed up Irish manner" is, exactly.

Jippohead

Duke, why don't you just move then?

I never understand Irish people who crib about losing "sovereignty" to the "Merkozy"/EUSSR etc but would instead have us revert back 50 years and become a floating, minor addition to the UK, a country that I personally have no particular connection too.

I am Irish first, and a proud European second. I want to be part of that project (you know, the one with 26 OTHER members who have pride in their own sovereignty too?). I don't want to be a riding on the UK's coattails like so many Irish seem to want, its just such a lazy approach.

ilovesleep

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

We are about to get an EU treaty which means that Fianna Fail can never again go on a spending binge and break our economy.
The UK have opted out of this process.

UK politicians will be free to spend whatever they are capable of borrowing & the Boom/Bust madness will continue in the UK, whereas the EU is taking the slow and sustainable approach - basically looking for a long term solution to the mistakes which got us here in the first place.

This country, like the UK, is currently run as an oligarchy.
This treaty is the first real chance for the Irish citizens have to have a fairer society.
If the treaty didn't pass, then I'd start thinking about moving.

You do know the uk isn't anywhere as corrupt as ireland - they jail their cheating lieing thieving politicians whereas ireland allows our thiefs to swan off into the sunset.

JustinDee

ilovesleep wrote: »

You do know the uk isn't anywhere as corrupt as ireland - they jail their cheating lieing thieving politicians whereas ireland allows our thiefs to swan off into the sunset.

This means that it is in fact as corrupt. Just not punitive enough when caught.

LordSutch

Jippohead wrote: »

I never understand Irish people who crib about losing "sovereignty" to the "Merkozy"/EUSSR etc but would instead have us revert back 50 years and become a floating, minor addition to the UK, a country that I personally have no particular connection too.

Either Ireland stays shacked-up to Europe, or it takes its rightful place beside Britain as an equal partner in a new dispensation (if the Euro collapses). You may personally have no connections with Britain, but for many of us Britain is very close in more ways than one.

davekel

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

We are about to get an EU treaty which means that Fianna Fail can never again go on a spending binge and break our economy.

No it will just be someone we don't know playing roulette with our budget.
you know the old saying "better the devil you know"

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

The UK have opted out of this process.
basically looking for a long term solution to the mistakes which got us here in the first place.

so you've seen the Treaty i suppose , you must know some people eh ?

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

This treaty is the first real chance for the Irish citizens have to have a fairer society.
If the treaty didn't pass, then I'd start thinking about moving.

again you must be the only person to have had a sneek preview of the treaty.

davekel

Jippohead wrote: »

Duke, why don't you just move then?

I never understand Irish people who crib about losing "sovereignty" to the "Merkozy"/EUSSR etc but would instead have us revert back 50 years and become a floating, minor addition to the UK, a country that I personally have no particular connection too.

Nobody is talking about going back 50 years or anything else , what they are talking about is going forward 50 years by voting this new treaty down.

there is no reason an Ireland outside the EU or eurozone cannot create its own little tiger economy by developing our own home grown manufacturing industries.

charlemont

LordSutch wrote: »

Either Ireland stays shacked-up to Europe, or it takes its rightful place beside Britain as an equal partner in a new dispensation (if the Euro collapses). You may personally have no connections with Britain, but for many of us Britain is very close in more ways than one.

Yea, It was wonderful the last time..

Scofflaw

Batsy wrote: »

You are asking the EU, an organisation which has failed to have its accounts signed off for 18 consecutive years because the European Court of Auditors (ECA) has refused to give EU spending a clean bill of health, to oversee Ireland's budget?

Are you Irish mad?

Not at all, given that the EU accounts have a far cleaner bill of health than either the UK or Ireland's national accounts - most of the issues with the EU's budget arise in the national accounts themselves, when EU money is handed on through the national civil services. That's what leads to the 'qualification' on the statement of assurance - which, by the way, is not the same as not having your accounts signed off.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JustinDee

davekel wrote: »

there is no reason an Ireland outside the EU or eurozone cannot create its own little tiger economy by developing our own home grown manufacturing industries.

They're large enough to sustain growth in GDP and hack away at the Balance of Trade are they? I think you know the answer to that one.

meglome

davekel wrote: »

there is no reason an Ireland outside the EU or eurozone cannot create its own little tiger economy by developing our own home grown manufacturing industries.

And you're basing this on? And where would all these exports markets come from, when we're not a member of the EU any more.

Fratton Fred

U

Boskowski wrote: »

There is a flaw in your argument. We are not asking Germany to oversee our budget, we are asking the EU to do so of which we are a part of - meaning we will oversee other countries budget in mutual return. Big difference IMHO.

You are obviously a glass half full person.

Where did the term Merkozy come from again?

Scofflaw

Fratton Fred wrote: »

U

You are obviously a glass half full person.

Where did the term Merkozy come from again?

People mindlessly personalising France and Germany as part of blaming everyone else for all our troubles?

amused,
Scofflaw