What has Ireland contributed to Europe?

telecaster

Correct me where I'm wrong please....

Ireland has been a net beneficiary to being a part of the European project in its various guises since the latter part of the last century. Ireland has received enormous amounts of grants and aid through EU funding.

When EU asks Ireland to play by its rules, there is a hue and cry.

When EU members query how Ireland has such low Corporation Tax rates they are pretty much told these are sacrosanct for Ireland and they will not budge.

Does Ireland just bleed the EU for everything it can get without offering anything in return?

Tefral

What about all our fishing rights? Worth Billions to Europe

Worth having a look on this link at the REAL MAP OF IRELAND from Marine.ie

http://www.marine.ie/NR/rdonlyres/5960CD91-B5D9-4788-B57E-247634A3013A/0/TheRealMapofIreland_Nov09.pdf

Worth looking at Scofflaw's post

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73266389&postcount=7

snubbleste

Our immense fisheries stock since the 1970s..worth billions.

PopeBuckfastXVI

cronin_j wrote: »

What about all our fishing rights? Worth Billions to Europe

snubbleste wrote: »

Our immense fisheries stock since the 1970s..worth billions.

How many billions?

golden lane

which countries gave the most to ireland.....and which countries gained the most from ireland..?????

Tefral

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

How many billions?

No point re-inventing the wheel: have a look here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73266389&postcount=7

PopeBuckfastXVI

cronin_j wrote: »

No point re-inventing the wheel: have a look here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73266389&postcount=7

Thanks, exact figures are important when weighing up net gain/loss.

Tefral

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Thanks, exact figures are important when weighing up net gain/loss.

I agree...

The two websites can verify too

http://www.sfpa.ie/
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/refreshTableAction.do?tab=table&plugin=1&pcode=tag00076&language=en

I have no doubt we are a net benefactor, however we havent just been bleeding Europe for money

snubbleste

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

How many billions?

According to this Dáil entry:
Eurostat statistics place the accumulated processed value of fish taken in Irish waters between 1974 and 2004 at around €200 billion. That is five times the value of the total transfer funds we received from the EU, mainly in CAP and structural funding, over the same period.

PopeBuckfastXVI

snubbleste wrote: »

According to this Dáil entry:
Eurostat statistics place the accumulated processed value of fish taken in Irish waters between 1974 and 2004 at around €200 billion. That is five times the value of the total transfer funds we received from the EU, mainly in CAP and structural funding, over the same period.

This figure disagrees with the one given above:

In total, other EU countries fished a total of $11.25bn from Irish waters between 1973 and 2006. Ireland fished $3.76bn from Irish waters in the same period. However, we also fished $3.73bn from UK waters under the CFP during the same period, so our total fishing under the CFP rules 1973-2006 is about $7.5bn, compared to the $11.25bn extracted by other EU countries from Irish waters.

Which puts the figure at approx $15bn, 11 of which went to other EU members. The source for those figures is here: http://www.seaaroundus.org/eez/372/14.aspx

Do you know what the original source is for the figure you quoted?

Edit: Just spotted we may be comparing processed with unprocessed, but there's still quite a big gap to close?

later12

There is another considerable value that Ireland brings to the table: deadweight.

We, along with the other peripheral states, are the drag on the Euro that prevents it becoming the Swiss Franc or the Deutschmark 2. Exact figures are difficult to arrive at, but it has been argued that the Euro is seriously undervalued relative to the German economy. This puts Germany, as well as the rest of the core, in a very enviable position for trade.

It isn't all about fishing rights. We extend some more implicit benefits to the Euro than that.

Not only would the euro soar to an unappealing level if it were to be without this deadweight, the matter would be compounded by the peripherals undergoing competitive devaluations, which would further enlarge the Euro's position as a safe haven whilst at the same time making core European trade less competitive relative to the European periphery. That could lead to serious economic instability. This is a major reason why a break up of the Eurozone could be so detrimental to the core European economy.

BeeDI

We sent the all our saints and monks, to teach the heathens, how to read and write, and the catechism:cool: If it weren't for St Kieran, St Killian, St Columcille and a few more of the lads, Europe would be a differnt place today:P

telecaster

snubbleste wrote: »

According to this Dáil entry:
Eurostat statistics place the accumulated processed value of fish taken in Irish waters between 1974 and 2004 at around €200 billion. That is five times the value of the total transfer funds we received from the EU, mainly in CAP and structural funding, over the same period.

From the same source, 15% of the catch in 2004 was estimated to be taken by the Irish fleet.
There is no mention there of the value of the fish taken by the Irish fleet from other EU waters, does anyone have that figure?

Thrill

telecaster wrote: »

When EU asks Ireland to play by its rules, there is a hue and cry.

We've signed up to all their treaties. Over the years we've been lauded as one of the most, if not the most, pro EU countries since its founding. We've been pretty much playing by the EU rulebook since it began.

telecaster

Thrill wrote: »

We've signed up to all their treaties. Over the years we've been lauded as one of the most, if not the most, pro EU countries since its founding. We've been pretty much playing by the EU rulebook since it began.

There has been significant opposition to each of the treaties which was eventually passed, my query is fundamentally about why there is such a strong opposition to Europe - in some quarters - when we seem to have done nothing but benefit.

I take on board the fisheries point, I was not aware of the value of it. It would seem that I wasn't alone on that front and some people who should have been more on top of its value dropped the ball bigtime.

_Kaiser_

(Preface: I'm suffering badly with a cold here but hopefully this will make some sort of sense )

telecaster wrote: »

There has been significant opposition to each of the treaties which was eventually passed,

... generally only because we were told - like bold children handing in sloppy homework - to go back and do it again.. but then what would you expect from the bunch of schoolteachers that we call our elected officials.

In my opinion this "project" was doomed to failure from the start as there has been no effort to integrate the various individual societies into the EU whole... think about it: aside from being able to spend your Euros in Spain for your 2 weeks holiday a year, what do we really share with our EU neighbors or indeed they with us (aside from having the political classes telling us we must all endure austerity while they still ride the gravy train at our expense).

Culturally we have a lot more in common with the UK (and willingly I might add - which is kind of ironic I suppose considering the "800 years" nonsense that appears on this board occasionally) and there has been no effort to make us "feel" more European in the last 20 or so years, no more than people who come here to work in the multinationals truly integrate into Irish society. They come and they spend while they're here sure, but I'm sure they still think of themselves as Italian or German or French etc first just as we think of ourselves as Irish first and foremost.

It's not enough to impose a single currency and a set of laws and say "ok, now we're all one big happy family" - and THAT ultimately is why it's all slowly unraveling as each nation batons down the hatches and looks after themselves now that things have gone south in-line with this thinking.

Of course the aforementioned political and financial/business classes have benefited hugely from the Euro through increased status, power and wealth so of course they are going to hang on until the bitter end (and seeing as they also control most of the media outlets they will of course tell us how the world will end and the sky will fall if the EU unravels completely), but for the average Paddy, Joe, Klaus or Pierre life will go on pretty much as normal once the dust settles and many now feel that that option is preferable to the "death by a thousand cuts" farce we've endured for the last 4.5 years.

Ultimately that will be the downfall of the Euro/EU project.. not how many ones and zeros in a computer that someone theoretically owes someone else.

golden lane

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

(Preface: I'm suffering badly with a cold here but hopefully this will make some sort of sense )



... generally only because we were told - like bold children handing in sloppy homework - to go back and do it again.. but then what would you expect from the bunch of schoolteachers that we call our elected officials.

In my opinion this "project" was doomed to failure from the start as there has been no effort to integrate the various individual societies into the EU whole... think about it: aside from being able to spend your Euros in Spain for your 2 weeks holiday a year, what do we really share with our EU neighbors or indeed they with us (aside from having the political classes telling us we must all endure austerity while they still ride the gravy train at our expense).

Culturally we have a lot more in common with the UK (and willingly I might add - which is kind of ironic I suppose considering the "800 years" nonsense that appears on this board occasionally) and there has been no effort to make us "feel" more European in the last 20 or so years, no more than people who come here to work in the multinationals truly integrate into Irish society. They come and they spend while they're here sure, but I'm sure they still think of themselves as Italian or German or French etc first just as we think of ourselves as Irish first and foremost.

It's not enough to impose a single currency and a set of laws and say "ok, now we're all one big happy family" - and THAT ultimately is why it's all slowly unraveling as each nation batons down the hatches and looks after themselves now that things have gone south in-line with this thinking.

Of course the aforementioned political and financial/business classes have benefited hugely from the Euro through increased status, power and wealth so of course they are going to hang on until the bitter end (and seeing as they also control most of the media outlets they will of course tell us how the world will end and the sky will fall if the EU unravels completely), but for the average Paddy, Joe, Klaus or Pierre life will go on pretty much as normal once the dust settles and many now feel that that option is preferable to the "death by a thousand cuts" farce we've endured for the last 4.5 years.

Ultimately that will be the downfall of the Euro/EU project.. not how many ones and zeros in a computer that someone theoretically owes someone else.

great post.....

telecaster

generally @ Kaiser2000:

You make good points.

However, the boundaries and identities of nations have changed significantly througout European history, even since the EEC/EU project began with Germany at that time divided east and west. Nations can unite and divide and people still retain whatever identity best suits them.

Culturally there are differences within each nation. Rural and urban culture within Ireland for example is very different, yet we hold together as a nation. Therefore you CAN take people of different mindsets, values and agendas and live peacefully under one currency and one set of laws.

I suppose the concept of the nation is put under threat as a "United States of Europe" rises on the agenda.

I think its the nature of people to be divisive: Irish, not European.....city, not country.....northside, not southside.....ad infinitum.

As long as life is fair and opportunity equal, with representation for each voice throughout Europe, does it really matter who is setting the policy? Is there not better talent and minds throughout Europe than to have our every political move determined by Irish politicians - look how that has panned out for us so far.

If the playing field was levelled I expect a lot of propped up industries - and even member states - would have to make themselves more viable. Vested interests would have to be conceded. But who among the 'haves' wants wealth and opportunity to flow from them to have parity with the 'have nots'?

meglome

telecaster wrote: »

There has been significant opposition to each of the treaties which was eventually passed, my query is fundamentally about why there is such a strong opposition to Europe - in some quarters - when we seem to have done nothing but benefit.

I take on board the fisheries point, I was not aware of the value of it. It would seem that I wasn't alone on that front and some people who should have been more on top of its value dropped the ball bigtime.

As it stands the EU have given us about 50 billion euro in free money. (Though could be more, the figures are available). We have given EU states around 10 billion is fish. We presumably have also imported more goods from other EU states than we would have otherwise.

And as Later12 says the periphery countries help keep the value of the Euro down so the bigger nations can export goods at a better price. Of course us being an export nation we also get the same advantage.

Genuinely maybe I'm missing something but I can't see anything else the EU gets out of it.

_Kaiser_

telecaster wrote: »

Culturally there are differences within each nation. Rural and urban culture within Ireland for example is very different, yet we hold together as a nation. Therefore you CAN take people of different mindsets, values and agendas and live peacefully under one currency and one set of laws.

Yes but that works at a national level, where there is a shared history, culture, language and even sense of humor - it doesn't translate so well across borders.

As long as life is fair and opportunity equal, with representation for each voice throughout Europe, does it really matter who is setting the policy? Is there not better talent and minds throughout Europe than to have our every political move determined by Irish politicians - look how that has panned out for us so far.

I'll agree that our own lot of politicians are no prizes and that parochial politics at the expense of the national interest - coupled with the mentality that the objective is to get in, stay in, and get as much as you can while you're there - will ultimately get us nowhere as a nation... but that said, at least there is still (some - not much I'll grant you) accountability to the people.

I think one of the biggest problems people throughout Europe generally have with the whole concept is the faceless, unaccountable nature of it and the disconnect the governing body has with the day-to-day lives of the people it supposedly represents - except when it comes to negative impact measures like the insistence on austerity from the German quarter and the apparent subservience of the other nations to it and the representations of the banking sectors/markets alone (true or not, that is the general impression at this point)

If the EU is to survive at all, it needs to spend less time apportioning blame and insisting already disillusioned people suffer more pain and more time winning the "hearts and minds" of those people.
That's not to say corrections shouldn't, and don't need to be made, but they need to start selling WHY this is necessary and what the end-game objective/benefits are in real tangible terms because it's clear that the "do what we say while at the same time we live it up at your expense" strategy isn't working.

If the playing field was levelled I expect a lot of propped up industries - and even member states - would have to make themselves more viable. Vested interests would have to be conceded. But who among the 'haves' wants wealth and opportunity to flow from them to have parity with the 'have nots'?

Indeed, and that also is a fundamental problem in Irish political life too, but it's also another reason why this project will inevitably fail.
Simply put - we're all just not ready yet.

Dan_Solo

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Edit: Just spotted we may be comparing processed with unprocessed, but there's still quite a big gap to close?

It's probably like comparing the cost of spuds to a bag of chips. The £200 billion figure is obviously many multiple of the raw fish cost, and isn't really a very fair figure as so much value was added outside Ireland.

Icepick

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

(Preface: I'm suffering badly with a cold here but hopefully this will make some sort of sense )



... generally only because we were told - like bold children handing in sloppy homework - to go back and do it again.. but then what would you expect from the bunch of schoolteachers that we call our elected officials.

In my opinion this "project" was doomed to failure from the start as there has been no effort to integrate the various individual societies into the EU whole... think about it: aside from being able to spend your Euros in Spain for your 2 weeks holiday a year, what do we really share with our EU neighbors or indeed they with us (aside from having the political classes telling us we must all endure austerity while they still ride the gravy train at our expense).

Culturally we have a lot more in common with the UK (and willingly I might add - which is kind of ironic I suppose considering the "800 years" nonsense that appears on this board occasionally) and there has been no effort to make us "feel" more European in the last 20 or so years, no more than people who come here to work in the multinationals truly integrate into Irish society. They come and they spend while they're here sure, but I'm sure they still think of themselves as Italian or German or French etc first just as we think of ourselves as Irish first and foremost.

It's not enough to impose a single currency and a set of laws and say "ok, now we're all one big happy family" - and THAT ultimately is why it's all slowly unraveling as each nation batons down the hatches and looks after themselves now that things have gone south in-line with this thinking.

Of course the aforementioned political and financial/business classes have benefited hugely from the Euro through increased status, power and wealth so of course they are going to hang on until the bitter end (and seeing as they also control most of the media outlets they will of course tell us how the world will end and the sky will fall if the EU unravels completely), but for the average Paddy, Joe, Klaus or Pierre life will go on pretty much as normal once the dust settles and many now feel that that option is preferable to the "death by a thousand cuts" farce we've endured for the last 4.5 years.

Ultimately that will be the downfall of the Euro/EU project.. not how many ones and zeros in a computer that someone theoretically owes someone else.

What a bitter post.
Young and old Irish are more apart than young Irish and young German, French or Spanish.

meglome

Dan_Solo wrote: »

It's probably like comparing the cost of spuds to a bag of chips. The £200 billion figure is obviously many multiple of the raw fish cost, and isn't really a very fair figure as so much value was added outside Ireland.

It's not remotely fair. The real figures were posted on the previous page. This 200 billion figure has no basis in fact whatsoever.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73266389&postcount=7

This will be usefull to you.

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, they're from Pew Global Research, not the Irish government. Pew produces an internationally comparative set of figures for catches in all national waters, broken down by various factors such as the nation doing the fishing. The Irish government is apparently incapable of producing any such set of figures on an ongoing basis.

Other studies done specifically on Irish waters produce similar figures, but they're point data only available for a year her and there.

As a reality check, take good old Iceland. They have similar waters to ours in terms of latitude - theirs are less productive (492 mgC/m2/day to our 701 mgC/m2/day), but larger (772,218 sq. km to our 410,534 sq km). And we also fish less sustainably, a result of the CFP.

If the €200bn figure were correct for Irish waters, Iceland's catch should be worth about the same over the same period at roughly €5.7bn annually.

In fact, the value of Icelandic catches over the last 20 years has been about €300m annually - about €10.5bn over the last 35 years.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Boskowski

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

...a fairly negative post...no need to clog up disk space, you know the one I'm referring to...

I think you're being very very negative.
I don't think one can assess what the membership in the EU and in the common currency has brought to the table unless someone has a parallel universe handy to compare it against.

My personal view is however that Europe has brought Ireland along quite a bit. Not just from a wealth perspective but also culturally. I mean how many people went on foreign holidays or had a nice car or enjoyed fine foods in nice restaurants 25 years ago in Ireland? Not many I dare say. Also the catholic church still had a fairly firm grip on things and accountability in politics were nonexistent (although still needs a bit of improving).

Now I'm not saying none of these things wouldn't have happened without EU membership - that would be insulting Ireland - but I do recall Ireland being called 'the poor man of Europe' (along with Portugal). And I'd like to believe the boom that was created with multinationals and that brought full employment and unprecedented wealth for maybe not all but a lot of people at least had its catalyst in the EU membership.

Last but not least, is it really all about tid for tad? Is a partnership really only worth whatever monetary advantage I can get out of it for myself, is it not more than that? Are we not saying a common cultural space and even if its as mundane as cheering on our team in the European Championships or voting for Jedward in the Eurovision?
Maybe some needs to go to faraway places before one can appreciate what we really have in common at the end of the day.

I'm living in Ireland now for ten years and I feel a little insulted if someone suggests I'm not integrating. When I arrived ten years ago I couldn't get a decent cup of coffee, now half of my colleagues can't live without it. For gods sake I'm saying 'bollix' and 'in me hole' and when I went home only the other week I was told I don't really look like a German anymore. Now thats scary What I'm saying its easy to overlook how much we share and how much we take from each other because a lot of it has become so normal, so every day life. Look around your own life and think about it for a moment and think wouldn't the world be a duller place without all that?

Scofflaw

Dan_Solo wrote: »

It's probably like comparing the cost of spuds to a bag of chips. The £200 billion figure is obviously many multiple of the raw fish cost, and isn't really a very fair figure as so much value was added outside Ireland.

It's a completely made up figure, in fact - made up by a journalist. How you get it is:

1. you take the claim that the catch taken from Irish waters by other EU nations is "€2 billion a year", which is a figure with no basis in fact - the claim that these are "Eurostat figures" is entirely bogus, because Eurostat doesn't even publish national EEZ statistics

2. then you multiply that by 35 years (ignoring the fact that fish prices have been steadily rising for the last couple of decades)

3. then add twice it again for 'processing', ignoring the fact that Iceland adds about half that through the same methods

Ta-da! Large figure with virtually no relationship to reality. Same guy did the "trillions in gas and oil" article.

Real figures are as stated several times now - about €8bn went to other EU countries over the 35 years, and we took about €3.5bn from the waters of other EU countries (primarily the UK). Note that we didn't bother processing or adding value in any way to what we did catch.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Climber

Personally I think that we had a great opportunity when joining the EU to become "more European" as in appreciating the European schools of thought on Liberté, égalité, Fraternité, the role of the civilian, personal rights and responsibilities. Also, it was the greatest opportunity we had to move out behind the shadow of our (sometimes troublesome) neighbour.

Unfortunately we completely pissed that opportunity up against the wall.

Wibbs

Boskowski wrote: »

I mean how many people went on foreign holidays or had a nice car or enjoyed fine foods in nice restaurants 25 years ago in Ireland? Not many I dare say.

Actually quite a few, even in the economic woes of the mid 80's. We weren't all wearing sackcloth.

Also the catholic church still had a fairly firm grip on things

Not by the mid 80's. The pope's visit was the high watermark in many ways, after that it went downhill pretty rapidly. The population with one of the youngest demographics in the western world helped there.

and accountability in politics were nonexistent (although still needs a bit of improving).

I would argue it may even be worse in some ways today. Today we know which politicians were corrupt and still very little if anything happens to them.

Now I'm not saying none of these things wouldn't have happened without EU membership - that would be insulting Ireland - but I do recall Ireland being called 'the poor man of Europe' (along with Portugal). And I'd like to believe the boom that was created with multinationals and that brought full employment and unprecedented wealth for maybe not all but a lot of people at least had its catalyst in the EU membership.

Maybe. One could argue the bigger catalyst was the aforementioned young demographic. Young and cheap(at the time) English speaking workers and low rates of "doing business" tax. This group also drove the boom as they required goods and services(they really drove the housing boom). Chances are without the EU something similar would have happened.

That said I agree with you, we have benefited from Europe. It was far better we were in than out. I'm not so sure how we'd fare in a federal US of E though.

Scofflaw

Wibbs wrote: »

I would argue it may even be worse in some ways today. Today we know which politicians were corrupt and still very little if anything happens to them.

Whereas back then we all knew but there wasn't even the suggestion that anything should happen to them - I'd say the improvement, though slight, is real.

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe. One could argue the bigger catalyst was the aforementioned young demographic. Young and cheap(at the time) English speaking workers and low rates of "doing business" tax. This group also drove the boom as they required goods and services(they really drove the housing boom). Chances are without the EU something similar would have happened.

Maybe, although I don't think one can really set aside the fact that EU membership means Ireland is an entry point to the EU market, or that the EU was contributing about 3% of our GDP annually in aid when things began to take off. A lot of what was done to improve things was domestic, but within that context.

cordially,
Scofflaw

28064212

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe. One could argue the bigger catalyst was the aforementioned young demographic. Young and cheap(at the time) English speaking workers and low rates of "doing business" tax. This group also drove the boom as they required goods and services(they really drove the housing boom). Chances are without the EU something similar would have happened.

There's 3 scenarios, not two:

1. The EU as it existed
2. No EU at all
3. An EU without Ireland

In scenario 1, the fact that we were an entry point to the EU was a huge advantage. It meant that the catalysts you listed were only in competition with other EU countries. In scenario 2, those catalysts were in competition with a much, much wider base. Scenario 3 would have been disastrous for us, and only marginally affected the EU. And scenario 3 would have been much more likely than scenario 2.

Wibbs

28064212 wrote: »

In scenario 1, the fact that we were an entry point to the EU was a huge advantage. It meant that the catalysts you listed were only in competition with other EU countries
. In scenario 2, those catalysts were in competition with a much, much wider base. Scenario 3 would have been disastrous for us, and only marginally affected the EU. And scenario 3 would have been much more likely than scenario 2.

I disagree, in the case of scenario 3 the demographics would be the same and said workers would likely be even cheaper, if not close to the cheapest in Europe. Also English speaking with huge cultural and trade links with both the US and UK. Even as members of the EU the EU our biggest export market by far is the UK and Ireland in the mid noughties was the world's most profitable country for US companies and is still up there. We're far more entwined in cultural and practical terms with Boston and Birmingham than Bonn or Barcelona, even if personally(as I would) we would prefer the latter.

There's another scenario. If the EEC existed and Ireland was a part of that, but the EEC didn't start adding/removing letters to get to the EU and the Euro. For me we gained great advantage from being in the EEC, but that advantage went tits up when we bought into the Euro. Now the usual europhiles will likely say(in essence) that it was all our fault and nothing to do with the euro. Of course it's nothing to do with the euro, blah blah ad nauseum . Sure, we are partly to blame, with successive governments pissing taxes up the walls and too many of our population buying into the madness. However the Euro most certainly added petrol to that fire. Gallons of it. Lakes of it. Forget Ireland, look to Spain.

Some seem to regard Spain as another Greece in the making, another "PIIG", more feckless Latins ahoy, but slight problem with that. Spain was about the most stingy government in the EU, even more so than Germany. Their government debts were half that of Germany's. It also was earning more in tax than it was spending(even with health and other services we could only dream of) and was paying off government debts. On the borrowing front Spain(unlike Germany) stayed within the 3% limit every single year from the euro's creation until the late naughties. Their government did everything or damn close to right. What the Europhiles rightly claim was our fcuked up government spending didn't happen there, so what changed?

The euro comes along with borrowing interest rates tagged to Germany(and to a lesser degree France). So - and it gets real familiar here - People started taking out loans and fueled a big oul property boom to it's all too inevitable bust. Even though the Spanish government tried to calm it down in ways suggested we should have . One of the biggest commonalities of the nations now in trouble is that interest rates fell to their lowest in each nations modern history when they joined the euro. This fueled mad spending, either/or public or private, drove up wages etc and the rest is history.

The EEC was a mutually beneficial entity for all concerned for the most part, the EU and especially the euro much less so.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Wibbs wrote: »

Even as members of the EU the EU our biggest export market by far is the UK

Not true, if you take the UK against the rest of the EU you'll see that we export far more to the rest of the EU, and of course, EU membership, which Britain also has, does nothing to impede our trade with Britain, and in fact helps it by not necessitating another set of trade agreements outside of the EU.

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/externaltrade/2012/trade_jan2012.pdf

Edit: just to note that we export as much to Belgium as we do to the UK, if we want to look at individual countries only.

Scofflaw

Wibbs wrote: »

I disagree, in the case of scenario 3 the demographics would be the same and said workers would likely be even cheaper, if not close to the cheapest in Europe. Also English speaking with huge cultural and trade links with both the US and UK. Even as members of the EU the EU our biggest export market by far is the UK and Ireland in the mid noughties was the world's most profitable country for US companies and is still up there. We're far more entwined in cultural and practical terms with Boston and Birmingham than Bonn or Barcelona, even if personally(as I would) we would prefer the latter.

But we'd still have been outside the EU's tariff wall, not inside.

Wibbs wrote: »

There's another scenario. If the EEC existed and Ireland was a part of that, but the EEC didn't start adding/removing letters to get to the EU and the Euro. For me we gained great advantage from being in the EEC, but that advantage went tits up when we bought into the Euro. Now the usual europhiles will likely say(in essence) that it was all our fault and nothing to do with the euro. Of course it's nothing to do with the euro, blah blah ad nauseum . Sure, we are partly to blame, with successive governments pissing taxes up the walls and too many of our population buying into the madness. However the Euro most certainly added petrol to that fire. Gallons of it. Lakes of it. Forget Ireland, look to Spain.

There is certainly a tendency to point out that the current crisis isn't even slightly confined to euro countries, and not all euro countries have a crisis - which means someone claiming that the euro was the problem has some further explaining to do.

Wibbs wrote: »

Some seem to regard Spain as another Greece in the making, another "PIIG", more feckless Latins ahoy, but slight problem with that. Spain was about the most stingy government in the EU, even more so than Germany. Their government debts were half that of Germany's. It also was earning more in tax than it was spending(even with health and other services we could only dream of) and was paying off government debts. On the borrowing front Spain(unlike Germany) stayed within the 3% limit every single year from the euro's creation until the late naughties. Their government did everything or damn close to right. What the Europhiles rightly claim was our fcuked up government spending didn't happen there, so what changed?

Our government's spending wasn't what got us into trouble! It was their inappropriate policy responses to globally low interest rates, their inappropriate (OK, frankly insane) policy responses to the property bubble, and their decision to make Ireland a financial services hub that was the problem. You know our Financial Regulator was statutorily tasked with promoting Ireland as a financial services destination?

Wibbs wrote: »

The euro comes along with borrowing interest rates tagged to Germany(and to a lesser degree France). So - and it gets real familiar here - People started taking out loans and fueled a big oul property boom to it's all too inevitable bust. Even though the Spanish government tried to calm it down in ways suggested we should have . One of the biggest commonalities of the nations now in trouble is that interest rates fell to their lowest in each nations modern history when they joined the euro. This fueled mad spending, either/or public or private, drove up wages etc and the rest is history.

The EEC was a mutually beneficial entity for all concerned for the most part, the EU and especially the euro much less so.

Again,the problem is that global interest rates were low, not just euro interest rates - and Irish property saw its biggest rises before we joined the euro, not after.

No offence intended, Wibbs, but this is the very shallowest of analysis you're offering here, which completely fails to explain how non-euro countries like Iceland ended up in exactly the same place as we did, while other small eurozone countries didn't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wibbs

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Edit: just to note that we export as much to Belgium as we do to the UK, if we want to look at individual countries only.

Not according to the overall figures on page 24 of that document. UK and NI amount to 1300000 odd, compared to 1200000 for Belgium and our imports from the UK are quadruple anywhere else in the EU. Our exports to the US are in the order of 1500000 plus.

Scofflaw wrote: »

But we'd still have been outside the EU's tariff wall, not inside.

True enough. That's why I said I would have preferred that the EEC/EC continued on, but not the great one size fits all euro currency experiment(with the aim of an even more federal Europe).

There is certainly a tendency to point out that the current crisis isn't even slightly confined to euro countries, and not all euro countries have a crisis - which means someone claiming that the euro was the problem has some further explaining to do.

Of course it's not confined to the Eurozone. That's not the point. The point is the Euro exacerbated the problem in certain economies. Hence I said "the Euro most certainly added petrol to that fire". You'll note I didn't say it started it. BTW in your scenario how did we get access to low interest rates in the first place? Interest rates were high in the late 90's here(and in Spain and Portugal). Nothing to do with the Euro being backed by the main players in Europe with their own low interest rates and seen as good investments?

Our government's spending wasn't what got us into trouble! It was their inappropriate policy responses to globally low interest rates, their inappropriate (OK, frankly insane) policy responses to the property bubble, and their decision to make Ireland a financial services hub that was the problem. You know our Financial Regulator was statutorily tasked with promoting Ireland as a financial services destination?

My point was that Spain didn't do any of that, yet trace a graph of their property boom(house prices more than tripled in the same period as our boom), rising labour costs et al and it strongly follows the introduction of the Euro.

Again,the problem is that global interest rates were low, not just euro interest rates - and Irish property saw its biggest rises before we joined the euro, not after.

For a couple of reasons and it wasn't the biggest rise BTW or the initial rise is not quite how it seems. Irish property was considered one of the most undervalued in Europe, the initial rise was much more of an adjustment. This also came on the back of one of the youngest populations in Europe(many returning from abroad), with increased prosperity from multinational investment(little of it European in nature). Economic brakes such as high interest rates that fell to the floor in the wake of the Euro's introduction had a huge effect. To deny that is just as daft as those who say "twas all the bankers Joe".

No offence intended, Wibbs, but this is the very shallowest of analysis you're offering here, which completely fails to explain how non-euro countries like Iceland ended up in exactly the same place as we did, while other small eurozone countries didn't.

Show me any EU country that at the time of the Euro's introduction was in economic growth with high employment, whose interest rates fell to the floor that isn't suffering today. Dropping interest rates in a rising economy is beyond daft and that wouldn't have happened to nearly the same degree if we had stuck with the punt(and the Spanish the peseta). To deny that is to deny economics 101

PopeBuckfastXVI

Wibbs wrote: »

Not according to the overall figures on page 24 of that document. UK and NI amount to 1300000 odd, compared to 1200000 for Belgium and our imports from the UK are quadruple anywhere else in the EU. Our exports to the US are in the order of 1500000 plus.

It seems to me that the UK do better out of us than we do out of them then.

Yes Belgium is slightly less, but very much comparable, it gives lie to the myth that our exports to the UK far outweigh our exports to anywhere else. Again I'll point out that overall the rest of the EU account for multiples of our exports to the UK, which you may have overlooked.

Wibbs

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

It seems to me that the UK do better out of us than we do out of them then.

Yes Belgium is slightly less, but very much comparable, it gives lie to the myth that our exports to the UK far outweigh our exports to anywhere else. Again I'll point out that overall the rest of the EU account for multiples of our exports to the UK, which you may have overlooked.

No I didn't. Plus I have no issue at all with the idea of a Europe based on something like the EEC. I did and do have an issue with increasing federalisation. BTW it's little to do with "ze germanz R taking over" BS. It's to do with the economics of a more fiscally allied Europe and the problems that brings. One size can't fit all. It doesn't fit all in a significantly more homogenised nation like the US. They share a language, they share pretty damn similar political and economic ideals, their workers are fully mobile and can go where the work is, they simply trust each other more as "fellow 'Murkins". While the EU is catching up in some respects, it's got a long way to go on these points. On the trust front look how the stronger EU nations tend to look on the weaker. There's a lot of "them and us" going on. Opinion polls in Germany and France show this pretty clearly. People are generally dubious about giving their hard earned to those they feel little or no connection with. Understandably.

You will always have a greater tendency to have losers and winners in such a set up. When one country needs to lower or heighten interest rates or needs to print more or less money because it's advantageous to do so, they can't in such a system and problems are much more likely to accelerated than not. Yes there are other economic tools that can help, but a Euro like currency quite simply reduces the amount of tools a government/national bank have at their disposal. That's quite simply undeniable.

It's equally shíte for the "winners" too as they end up footing the bill of the losers. Look at what Germany's people will quite likely have to do to save the currency(if they can). For something they had feck all to do with causing(except as a side effect, though some German banks needed to cop on). They're facing either pumping more of their money into the pot, printing more money, looking down the barrel of inflation(a cultural rubicon up there with Irish people being evicted).

Trying to shoehorn a single currency across many different nations and cultures(even just on the economic front) was always gonna be a hard sell and an even harder fit. Christ the ineptitude shown from the very start shows this. Why wasn't Greece(among others) spotted for having hooky books? Highly qualified and expensive accountants, economists, bankers and bureaucrats signed off on that, when even a half decent small business bookkeeper would have asked questions. Ditto for Portugal. While the Irish government lost the run of themselves and no mistake, the various EU powers that be weren't exactly sporting egg free faces. If we are going down the road of a more US of E(and this crisis may well help that along) that hardly bodes well for the future.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Scofflaw wrote: »

and their decision to make Ireland a financial services hub that was the problem. You know our Financial Regulator was statutorily tasked with promoting Ireland as a financial services destination?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Just curious as to why this was a bad thing?

swampgas

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Just curious as to why this was a bad thing?

It could be a serious conflict of interest - regulation and promotion are not always compatible.

Stupid example: a regulated company starts making noises about making a big investment, more jobs, more tax revenues etc, but not until some of the regulatory "red tape" is removed.

When the Irish regulator has - by law - two conflicting responsibilities, what do you think the result is going to be?

p1akuw47h5r3it

swampgas wrote: »

It could be a serious conflict of interest - regulation and promotion are not always compatible.

Stupid example: a regulated company starts making noises about making a big investment, more jobs, more tax revenues etc, but not until some of the regulatory "red tape" is removed.

When the Irish regulator has - by law - two conflicting responsibilities, what do you think the result is going to be?

A bit of a disaster I'm guessing! Thanks for answering.

View

Wibbs wrote: »

No I didn't. Plus I have no issue at all with the idea of a Europe based on something like the EEC. I did and do have an issue with increasing federalisation.

Well, the EEC - like the EU - was based on the idea of "an ever closer union". Hence, you can hardly object to the idea behind the EU if the idea behind the EEC was okay - unless that it is an objection to the method of achieving that idea that is the problem?

Wibbs

The practice behind the EEC was OK. A looser commonwealth of independent countries, not a more single entity like the EU.