Why Does Ireland Like Being Told How to Live - Ireland & the EU

gdkaufmann

This question is part of a larger discuss in my latest blog post about Ireland's desire to be told what to do and how it should live (and its slavish devotion to authority figures), rather than lead itself.

I'd genuinely like some input om this question about Ireland an the EU.

If you are interested in reading the full tet of the post, I've included a link at the bottom of this entry.

Thanks.

QUESTION (and context):
Rather than take the time to figure out what’s best for Ireland, time and again we hear, “well that’s how it’s always been done”, or worse, “that will put us in lockstep with other countries”, seemingly with no understanding that Ireland has completely different resources and long-term concerns than those countries. While entry into the EEC (now the EU/European Community) offered Ireland a host of economic benefits, I’m still somewhat baffled that a country which fought so hard for self-governance, chose, in its first hundred years, to wed itself to a coalition of nations amongst which it will probably always be counted as one of the least powerful. Do the Irish believe that much in the idea of a unified Europe?


Perhaps I’m still ruled by the American cowboy attitude of “Nobody is going to tell us what to do”, but I am genuinely mystified by the way the Irish seem to be so willing to let others tell them what to do and how to do it. I suspect that much of this is a result of Ireland being a very young republic, still learning to govern itself.


To be fair, membership in the EU may have given Ireland access to more experienced legislative and fiscal counsel. But surely there were (and are) benefits to joining the EU that go beyond the purely economic and governmental. As someone new to Ireland, I don’t know what those are, and would genuinely like to know. Whether I am right or wrong about that, I genuinely want guidance on this point.


Original Blog Post:
http://anamericanindublin.com/2013/07/09/why-do-the-irish-like-being-told-how-to-live-immigrants-expectations-and-real-life-are-often-quite-different/

oscarBravo

gdkaufmann wrote: »

While entry into the EEC (now the EU/European Community) offered Ireland a host of economic benefits, I’m still somewhat baffled that a country which fought so hard for self-governance, chose, in its first hundred years, to wed itself to a coalition of nations amongst which it will probably always be counted as one of the least powerful. Do the Irish believe that much in the idea of a unified Europe?

The question is predicated on the assumption that Ireland has more to lose from EU membership than it has to gain, and that assumption is entirely centred on the idea of "self-governance".

So it seems that your puzzlement is, ultimately, based on the belief that Ireland doesn't have self-governance as a result of its EU membership. That belief is unfounded; Ireland governs itself.

There are limits on that governance as a result of international treaties to which we have committed, but I don't think there's a country on Earth to which that doesn't apply.

gdkaufmann

Oscar Bravo,

Thanks. You raise a fair point.

Yes, Ireland "governs itself". But hasn't Ireland also saddled itself with a raft of EU enforced environmental policies like peat farming controls, beekeeping regulations (and others) that are determined by the will of the larger group and enforced on the whole, regardless of conditions on the ground in each individual country? Sounds like a loss of practical control to me. And I'm sure there are other arenas of governance where this is also the case. Those were just a couple off the top of my head.

As I said in my original post, I know there are good solid economic reasons for joining the EU. But is that the sole basis? Were there social and ethical reasons for it as well? And, if so, what? That's what I'm after.
Seriously, thanks for discussing it with me.

oscarBravo

gdkaufmann wrote: »

Yes, Ireland "governs itself". But hasn't Ireland also saddled itself with a raft of EU enforced environmental policies like peat farming controls, beekeeping regulations (and others) that are determined by the will of the larger group and enforced on the whole, regardless of conditions on the ground in each individual country?

Yes, but a point you may be missing is that Ireland is a member of that larger group, and is a contributor to the decision to implement those policies.

The other important point is that the regulations you're describing are good things. In the same way as the USA has "saddled itself" with the Chemical Weapons Convention, we agree to the preservation of rare natural habitats, as well as directives on food safety, workers' rights, and so on.

Sounds like a loss of practical control to me. And I'm sure there are other arenas of governance where this is also the case.

Sure - just like the USA has lost its practical ability to stockpile chemical weapons. The question is never simply one of diluted sovereignty, but of what the costs and benefits of that dilution may be.

As I said in my original post, I know there are good solid economic reasons for joining the EU. But is that the sole basis? Were there social and ethical reasons for it as well? And, if so, what? That's what I'm after.

The EU has since its inception promoted the goal of ever closer union between the peoples of Europe. That's a worthy goal in its own right.

gdkaufmann

Oscar Bravo,

1. Yes, Ireland is a contributor to the group, but it is among the weakest - with precious little leverage (as seen by the constant "pay them no mind" attitude towards renegotiating the banking bailout.

2. A "good thing"? Seriously?

I bet you'd get a far different reaction from the peat farmers, and beekeepers. The beekeepers I can speak to from personal experience.

3. Other than it makes us all feel warm and cozy at night (let's all join hands and celebrate our brotherhood), why is it a 'worthy goal"?, particularly when you fought so long and hard for independence?

oscarBravo

gdkaufmann wrote: »

1. Yes, Ireland is a contributor to the group, but it is among the weakest - with precious little leverage...

As opposed to the world-dominating role we would be able to play were we not EU members?

2. A "good thing"? Seriously?

I bet you'd get a far different reaction from the peat farmers...

Yes, the people who want to destroy an irreplaceable habitat are unhappy that there is an EU directive to prevent them from doing so. You'll find that the manufacturers of chemical weapons are none too please about the CWC, but that doesn't make it a bad thing.

...and beekeepers. The beekeepers I can speak to from personal experience.

I'm not familiar with beekeepers' issues with the EU in particular.

3. Other than it makes us all feel warm and cozy at night (let's all join hands and celebrate our brotherhood), why is it a 'worthy goal"?, particularly when you fought so long and hard for independence?

Because "ever closer union" is a better thing than "let's all do our own thing and bugger the consequences for everyone else" - in my humble opinion, of course.

You seem content to value independence without having to have its benefits enumerated; what's wrong with valuing union?

gdkaufmann

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not familiar with beekeepers' issues with the EU in particular.

The European high court (being totally aligned with corporatist interests recently ruled that beekeepers had no claim for damages against Monsanto because there wasn't enough GMO material in the honey to warrant reparations. In the same breath, the EU legislative body ( I forget what its calle) ruled that all honey containing any level of GMO material must be labeled as such. In one convenient swipe they denied beekeepers the opportunity to compensation for crop damage, and crippled the rest of their business by insisting they be labeled as tainted with GMOs (virtually killing their marketability)

And as for the harmful effects of peat farming. Perhaps. But it represents the end of a centuries old livelihood in Ireland, and as such is a decision that should be made here at home, and not in Brussels. Don't tell me about saving the environment through some ill-considered broad strokes EU policy, and then act baffled that everyone is moving to Sydney.

Because "ever closer union" is a better thing than "let's all do our own thing and bugger the consequences for everyone else" - in my humble opinion, of course.

You can't possibly imagine that if push comes to shove Germany and France wouldn't screw over Irleand (and the rest of the union) if they thought it would lower the price of schnitzel and baguettes by a Euro or two.

You seem content to value independence without having to have its benefits enumerated; what's wrong with valuing union?

I clearly and repeatedly acknowledge the economic merits of joining the EU.
On the other hand, beyond a bizarre fascination with chemical weapons, you still haven't really listed any concrete social benefits other than the joy of living together like happy cartoon characters.

Nothing is the matter with valuing union. I just want to understand why Ireland seems so quick to leap to it after struggling so long for independence.

Sorry, but I got the quotes all screwed up.

KyussBishop

Ireland has lost a pretty enormous amount of self-governance/sovereignty, in adopting the Euro and making itself subject to collective mismanagement of Europe's monetary system.

We (foolishly, without realizing the current consequences) chose to adopt the Euro, and as a result of the restrictions that places on us, have opened ourselves up to being dictated to, by market participants who control the terms of our debts (which would not be nearly so harsh, as if we had a sovereign currency - we might not have had such a corrupt financial/banking industry either, thus we may have put people to work in more useful areas other than a construction bubble, and have ameliorated that aspect of the crisis).

That's the biggest loss of sovereignty I think we've suffered thus far, within Europe; it's not one caused by Irish obsequiousness though, more EU-wide incompetence, since most of Europe has ended up stuck within this system too.

Ziphius

You seem to imply that this is something peculiar to Ireland.

Remember Ireland isn't the only country to, upon gaining independence, join the Union. Think of Poland; Estonia; Slovenia; and, only this month; Croatia. There is a queue of countries eager to get into the EU.

The common market is a huge incentive, particularly for smaller countries. Prior to joining the EC (as it was then) Ireland was heavily dependent on trade with UK, joining the common marked allowed Ireland to become economically independent of Britain (inasmuch as one can be).

The_Valeyard

We like been told up to a point...

then we just go mad and ignore it, and them blame the other person who suggested it and told us what to do in the first place.

clairefontaine

From an outsiders point of view, I agree with OP and it does look like the Irish are subjects and its genetic. I don't know what will shake them out of it.

caff

clairefontaine wrote: »

From an outsiders point of view, I agree with OP and it does look like the Irish are subjects and its genetic. I don't know what will shake them out of it.

How is this different from say Texas or any other US state allowing itself to be told what to do by the US Federal government?

clairefontaine

caff wrote: »

How is this different from say Texas or any other US state allowing itself to be told what to do by the US Federal government?

I think Texas might have signed up to secede. Federal government works for the states. It has no business getting too big for its boots.

caff

clairefontaine wrote: »

I think Texas might have signed up to secede. Federal government works for the states. It has no business getting too big for its boots.

As the EU works for its citizens.

http://europa.eu/abc/12lessons/lesson_4/

clairefontaine

caff wrote: »

As the EU works for its citizens.

http://europa.eu/abc/12lessons/lesson_4/

Uh huh. If you say so :rolleyes:

Ireland is never ever going to change because of its cycles of emmigration. It's going to stay the way it is because every few generations it flushes outfits young population to the rest of the anglophone nations.

oscarBravo

gdkaufmann wrote: »

The European high court (being totally aligned with corporatist interests recently ruled that beekeepers had no claim for damages against Monsanto because there wasn't enough GMO material in the honey to warrant reparations. In the same breath, the EU legislative body ( I forget what its calle) ruled that all honey containing any level of GMO material must be labeled as such. In one convenient swipe they denied beekeepers the opportunity to compensation for crop damage, and crippled the rest of their business by insisting they be labeled as tainted with GMOs (virtually killing their marketability)

I'm a bit reluctant to get into a debate on specifics with someone who talks about the "European high court" (the what now?), uses emotive language like "totally aligned with corporatist interests", and doesn't know what the European Parliament is called.

And as for the harmful effects of peat farming. Perhaps. But it represents the end of a centuries old livelihood in Ireland, and as such is a decision that should be made here at home, and not in Brussels.

It doesn't represent the end of a centuries-old livelihood; it represents the end of the destruction of a tiny percentage of Ireland's bogland, which the democratically-elected Irish government agreed to protect as a unique and irreplaceable habitat.

Don't tell me about saving the environment through some ill-considered broad strokes EU policy, and then act baffled that everyone is moving to Sydney.

Again, emotive and inaccurate language. You describe the policy as ill-considered, while clearly not actually understanding what's at stake, and then claim that everyone is moving to Sydney, which everyone isn't.

You can't possibly imagine that if push comes to shove Germany and France wouldn't screw over Irleand (and the rest of the union) if they thought it would lower the price of schnitzel and baguettes by a Euro or two.

I can't possibly imagine that, can I? I suppose I couldn't possibly imagine that if I was starting from the premise that those dastardly foreigners are out to get us in any way they can, but if that's the direction this discussion is headed, you can have it to yourself.

I clearly and repeatedly acknowledge the economic merits of joining the EU.
On the other hand, beyond a bizarre fascination with chemical weapons, you still haven't really listed any concrete social benefits other than the joy of living together like happy cartoon characters.

I would list the concrete social benefit of environmental protection, except you've already made it clear that protecting the environment is something that the nasty foreigners are forcing us to do.

Nothing is the matter with valuing union. I just want to understand why Ireland seems so quick to leap to it after struggling so long for independence.

I thought at first that you wanted a genuine conversation on the topic, but you've descended into boilerplate Euroskeptic rhetoric and strawmanning with your third post on the thread, so I'll leave you to it.

caff

clairefontaine wrote: »

Uh huh. If you say so :rolleyes:

Ireland is never ever going to change because of its cycles of emmigration. It's going to stay the way it is because every few generations it flushes outfits young population to the rest of the anglophone nations.

I would agree that the pace of any change for Ireland is at risk due to the cycles of emmigration. Emmigration that at the moment lies at the hands of our own insitutions ( our banks and elected politicans )
I fail to see how this relates to the topic though?

clairefontaine

caff wrote: »

I would agree that the pace of any change for Ireland is at risk due to the cycles of emmigration. Emmigration that at the moment lies at the hands of our own insitutions ( our banks and elected politicans )
I fail to see how this relates to the topic though?

Well, I see a lot of outrage on these boards about various policies and there is a lot of understandable anger from the Irish people about current injustices, anywhere from family law to the banking crisis, but that is all I see. The people who can change things with political will, tend to emigrate. Because its easier than breaking down ans changing the status quo. So nothing will change and Ireland is left with a passive citizenry. And the cycle continues.

There are theories about post colonial nations liking to be dominated, hence their propensity for dictatorships, ala South America. Maybe theremin something to that.

caff

clairefontaine wrote: »

Well, I see a lot of outrage on these boards about various policies and there is a lot of understandable anger from the Irish people about current injustices, anywhere from family law to the banking crisis, but that is all I see. The people who can change things with political will, tend to emigrate. Because its easier than breaking down ans changing the status quo. So nothing will change and Ireland is left with a passive citizenry. And the cycle continues.

There are theories about post colonial nations liking to be dominated, hence their propensity for dictatorships, ala South America. Maybe theremin something to that.

I am still not sure what you are trying to say? Are you suggesting that the EU is a cause of such injustices boarding on a dictatorship that people should be up in arms and trying to change it but instead the people who would achive such change are choosing to emigrate?

clairefontaine

caff wrote: »

I am still not sure what you are trying to say? Are you suggesting that the EU is a cause of such injustices boarding on a dictatorship that people should be up in arms and trying to change it but instead the people who would achive such change are choosing to emigrate?

I think the EU is partially responsible but the Irish political passivity, arguably sycophancy, is also responsible. Yes, I think that the emmigration of the young very few cycles makes changes very very difficult.

Things might be very different too if they allowed their emigrants to vote for example.

I'm not saying its bordering dictatorship, just want to be clear on that. Citizens still have freedom to travel and emigrate.

gdkaufmann

caff wrote: »

How is this different from say Texas or any other US state allowing itself to be told what to do by the US Federal government?

Claire,

The U.S. states (except Texas freeing itself from Mexico) never fought for independence and then said, "hey lets let someone else rule us".

No state was ever a soveriegn nation. The U.S. is a collection of states with a common history of independence, and within to a large degree a common culture. The EU is a collection of sovereign nations with (in some cases) centuries of self-rule, and sovereign governance that ha now been only partially subsumed to the EU. Structurally and emotionally it's a very different thing from the U.S.

There's a reason that The European Common Bank is trying to be more like the U.S. Federal Reserve - a comon currency across states with a common culture and history is far easier to adopt and manage than doing it across national/cultural boundaries.

Pro Hoc Vice

In relation to the honey issue, I have been looking for the decision have not found it yet, but a newspaper report f the decision is here http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/07/europe-honey-gm

From that report,

"Bavarian beekeepers, some 500m from a test field for a modified maize crop developed by Monsanto - one of only two GM crops authorised as safe to be cultivated in Europe - claimed their honey had been "contaminated" by pollen from the plant.

The European court of justice found in their favour, a ruling that should offer grounds for the beekeepers to claim compensation in a German court."

The actual decision, as you can see the ECJ was asked to rule on a number of preliminary points for the German Court, in other words to interpret EU law for the national court they did that, but any decisions on the case was actually made at the national court level.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62009CJ0442&lang1=en&type=NOT&ancre=

gdkaufmann

infosys wrote: »

In relation to the honey issue, I have been looking for the decision have not found it yet, but a newspaper report f the decision is here http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/07/europe-honey-gm

From that report,

"Bavarian beekeepers, some 500m from a test field for a modified maize crop developed by Monsanto - one of only two GM crops authorised as safe to be cultivated in Europe - claimed their honey had been "contaminated" by pollen from the plant.

The European court of justice found in their favour, a ruling that should offer grounds for the beekeepers to claim compensation in a German court."

NOtice it said "should offer"
Let me do some digging. I think Monsanto appealed, and the "should offer" became a pipe dream and waas voided on appeal.

Pro Hoc Vice

gdkaufmann wrote: »

NOtice it said "should offer"
Let me do some digging. I think Monsanto appealed, and the "should offer" became a pipe dream and waas voided on appeal.

By the National Court, not the ECJ, the ECJ only has certain limited powers in relation to National Courts, on an issue of national competence the ECJ has no power. It only has power on EU legal matters like this case but after if interprets the EU law then the national court implements the decision. That can lead to say Germany ruling under its law bee keepers don't get compensation, while say on the same facts the Irish courts may award compensation. You see if you understood the EU and its institutions and how they work you would see your theories are largely incorrect.

gdkaufmann

Infosys,

I heard about the implications of the ruling from a group of Irish beekeepers, do clearly there are implications here as well. So, as I said, let me do a bit of sleuthing to try and find out what they are.

As for understanding " the EU and its institutions and how they work", if you weren't so dead set on being condescending, you might realize that my asking for help in understanding the social and cultural reasons for Ireland's entry into the EU, is nothing but an attempt to understand "the EU and its institutions and how they work" a bit better.

Pro Hoc Vice

gdkaufmann wrote: »

Infosys,

I heard about the implications of the ruling from a group of Irish beekeepers, do clearly there are implications here as well. So, as I said, let me do a bit of sleuthing to try and find out what they are.

As for understanding " the EU and its institutions and how they work", if you weren't so dead set on being condescending, you might realize that my asking for help in understanding the social and cultural reasons for Ireland's entry into the EU, is nothing but an attempt to understand "the EU and its institutions and how they work" a bit better.

It is not condescending it is fact EU law is very very complex based on treaties, regulations directives the whole of EU law would be contained in thousands and thousands of volumes. One serious problem is that people get their information from newspapers with an obvious agenda. I assume you got your information from a google search and went to the first hit as I did because that report described the ECJ as the European High Court.

This issue will only have effect if GM crops are grown near a bee keeper. We are at the start of the GM experiment and Europe are taking a strict view of labelling or allowing GM product into the market, for obvious reasons. But no one can tell for certain that if a Irish Bee Keeper made a loss due to GM contamination he would not be compensated. I would say that due to the jurispudence in Ireland compensation would be paid.

If I wanted to be condescending I would not have linked a good report of the case and a link to the actual decision.

whatstherush

@gdKaufmann, you talk about other people being condescending and than come out with ****e like this

gdkaufmann wrote: »

The U.S. states (except Texas freeing itself from Mexico) never fought for independence and then said, "hey lets let someone else rule us".

Please don't equate fight against forced colonization by a another country to the democratic decisions of a populace to join a political union. The essential difference is choice, to enter and if we so please, to leave. The same choice Texas made, but sure they prob had the same "hey lets let someone else rule us" mentality as the stupid micks.

whatstherush

Also re bees, the EU recently introduced a ban on a pesticide suspected in harming bees. So if we follow your reasoning on the peat cutting, more EU bureaucracy getting in the way of the poor crop farmers going about their daily lives. Wonder what your bee keeper mates think of this piece of EU bureaucracy. You might find the answer here.

gdkaufmann

whatstherush wrote: »

Also re bees, the EU recently introduced a ban on a pesticide suspected in harming bees. So if we follow your reasoning on the peat cutting, more EU bureaucracy getting in the way of the poor crop farmers going about their daily lives. Wonder what your bee keeper mates think of this piece of EU bureaucracy. You might find the answer here.

No, it really doesn't. Frankly, it's such a horrendously bad piece of writing that I don't know that anything the author writes on the subject can be credibly believed. He doesn't seem to know what he's saying.

For example, the author writes: "Ireland, Greece, Lithuania, and Finland were among the four nations to abstain with Britain among eight nations which voted against the ban."

Does that mean there are actually five countries that abstained (those four and Britain)? Were they among the four, or are they the four? Is Britain part of the abstainers, or part of the eight who voted against it? The author is all over the place in this one, fairly crucial, sentence.

As a professional writer, I would be embarrassed to have that sentence out there under my name. And, no, I didn't read the rest of the article. Why bother?

But to address your point:
If there were four or five abstentions, and eight no votes, that's a fairly significant chunk of votes. I'm guessing there might be reason to think it's just a bad bill. Or it could be pro-framing (which is not necessarily anti-beekeeping).

Pro Hoc Vice

gdkaufmann wrote: »

No, it really doesn't. Frankly, it's such a horrendously bad piece of writing that I don't know that anything the author writes on the subject can be credibly believed. He doesn't seem to know what he's saying.

For example, the author writes: "Ireland, Greece, Lithuania, and Finland were among the four nations to abstain with Britain among eight nations which voted against the ban."

Does that mean there are actually five countries that abstained (those four and Britain)? Were they among the four, or are they the four? Is Britain part of the abstainers, or part of the eight who voted against it? The author is all over the place in this one, fairly crucial, sentence.

As a professional writer, I would be embarrassed to have that sentence out there under my name. And, no, I didn't read the rest of the article. Why bother?

But to address your point:
If there were four or five abstentions, and eight no votes, that's a fairly significant chunk of votes. I'm guessing there might be reason to think it's just a bad bill. Or it could be pro-framing (which is not necessarily anti-beekeeping).

I wondered why you considered my post condescending, but I now have my answer projection maybe just maybe.

Again your post shows no understanding of the EU systems. (The following is condescending BTW) maybe as a writer a bit of research may help you form a informed opinion.

Black Swan

gdkaufmann wrote: »

No state was ever a soveriegn nation. The U.S. is a collection of states with a common history of independence, and within to a large degree a common culture.

The 50th State of Hawaii, the state where the current US President Obama was born: King Kamehameha I ruled and united the islands in the early 1800's as the Kingdom of Hawaii.

gdkaufmann

Black Swan wrote: »

The 50th State of Hawaii, the state where the current US President Obama was born: King Kamehameha I ruled and united the islands in the early 1800's as the Kingdom of Hawaii.

I stand corrected, but you take my point.

clairefontaine

gdkaufmann wrote: »

Claire,

The U.S. states (except Texas freeing itself from Mexico) never fought for independence and then said, "hey lets let someone else rule us".

No state was ever a soveriegn nation. The U.S. is a collection of states with a common history of independence, and within to a large degree a common culture. The EU is a collection of sovereign nations with (in some cases) centuries of self-rule, and sovereign governance that ha now been only partially subsumed to the EU. Structurally and emotionally it's a very different thing from the U.S.

There's a reason that The European Common Bank is trying to be more like the U.S. Federal Reserve - a comon currency across states with a common culture and history is far easier to adopt and manage than doing it across national/cultural boundaries.

The ECB is quite different from the Fed. It just keeps deluding itself. It can't work without adopting the more philosophical aspects of e pluribus unum.

Cool Mo D

gdkaufmann wrote: »

I stand corrected, but you take my point.

Texas was also an independent country (The Republic of Texas) between 1836 and 1846, before joining the USA.

After independence, the original 13 colonies were joined by the articles of confederation from 1781, which was a very weak central government, and the states were de facto independent. It wasn't until the current US constitution was ratified in 1789 that the federal government had the power to overrule the states, a power voluntarily given by each state, but not without controversy.

View

The member states of the EU as sovereign nations are perfectly free to do whatever we want with our sovereignty.

That includes choosing to exercise our sovereignty on a mutually agreeable joint basis within the EU (or other international bodies).

We choose to do this because our mutual belief is that by acting collectively as a Union we will benefit far more on a medium to long term basis than we would by acting individually in the short term.

We "exercise our sovereignty" when we choose to do so as is our sovereign right.

gdkaufmann

clairefontaine wrote: »

The ECB is quite different from the Fed. It just keeps deluding itself. It can't work without adopting the more philosophical aspects of e pluribus unum.

Yes, the ECB is quite different from the Fed. But, despite being structurally and philosphically incapable of acting like the Fed, it still seeks to implement many of the same fiscal controls as the Fed. Sadly, IMO it'll never work because , while they work tenuously at times in a federation of united states (with 200+ years of ironing out the wrinkles), it would be too cumbersome in a federation of nation states.

gdkaufmann

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Texas was also an independent country (The Republic of Texas) between 1836 and 1846, before joining the USA.

Cool Mo,

That's why I conceded Texas winning its independence from Mexico in my original comment on this subtopic.

clairefontaine

gdkaufmann wrote: »

Yes, the ECB is quite different from the Fed. But, despite being structurally and philosphically incapable of acting like the Fed, it still seeks to implement many of the same fiscal controls as the Fed. Sadly, IMO it'll never work because , while they work tenuously at times in a federation of united states (with 200+ years of making ironing out the wrinkles), it would be too cumbersome in a federation of nation states.

It will never work because Germans don't want to pay for Greeks. NY state has far more tax output than it does input into and from the Feds. Other states are the inverse. And that is why it will never ever work in Europe because deep down, or not that deep down, national kinship is alive in Europe, and they haven't really formed a European identity the way Americans have.

The USnhas its own currency, whereas these nation states do not. They use the Euro and therefore have lost a lot of sovereignty by having no control over their currency. What's that famous quote from Rothschild?

gdkaufmann

Claire, Yes. That's exactly what I was trying to say. You were far more elequent about it than I.

Pro Hoc Vice

clairefontaine wrote: »

It will never work because Germans don't want to pay for Greeks. NY state has far more tax output than it does input into and from the Feds. Other states are the inverse. And that is why it will never ever work in Europe because deep down, or not that deep down, national kinship is alive in Europe, and they haven't really formed a European identity the way Americans have.

The USnhas its own currency, whereas these nation states do not. They use the Euro and therefore have lost a lot of sovereignty by having no control over their currency. What's that famous quote from Rothschild?

The Germans don't want to pay for the Greeks because they believe it will be a huge money pit and the Greeks will not change. Germany, France the UK have been happily paying for the poorer neighbours for years, the deal with Europe is the richer nations pay but the poorer nations promise to do their best to improve. For something that will never work, its heading to 60 plus years, it has increased European wealth from a destroyed continent, it is the longest period of peace in Europe ever and more and more countries want to join how is that equal to it will never work, it is working.

Also comparing the US to the EU is comparing apples with oranges, for one the EU has not gone the federal route, the EU encourages nations to retain nation status, in the EU a Roe v Wade decision is not possible for example. The US is by and large a country of immigrants most people in the EU can trace their ancestry back generations in the same area, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/theres-no-place-like-home-says-son-of-cheddar-man-1271817.html in the US any person who could possibly trace DNA back 9000 years has been forcefully removed from their lands.

BTW if someone thinks the EU is a nut job, look at Federal decisions like probation, the war on drugs, huge military spending and on and on.

The EU is complex, but which has vastly improved the lives of millions of people in the EU. It is also worth remembering that the US was born out of revolution, while the EU was born out of the worst war in European history. Has the EU issues yes, but has it been a success in my opinion yes.

KyussBishop

clairefontaine wrote: »

The USnhas its own currency, whereas these nation states do not. They use the Euro and therefore have lost a lot of sovereignty by having no control over their currency. What's that famous quote from Rothschild?

I think that quote was: "Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws." ~ Mayer Amschel Rothschild
http://www.themoneymasters.com/the-money-masters/famous-quotations-on-banking/

That's effectively the power the banking/financial industry has over government/politics/society, since it is private banks that create money, and (with powerful players in finance) who get to set the terms on countries sovereign debts.

View

clairefontaine wrote: »

It will never work because Germans don't want to pay for Greeks. NY state has far more tax output than it does input into and from the Feds. Other states are the inverse.

Texans don't send money to fund the shortfall in the Californian budget.

Why therefore should the Germans be expected to send money to fund the shortfall in ours?

It is the responsibility of each state in the USA to fund its own state budget just as it is the responsibility of each member state of the EU to fund their respective budget.

clairefontaine wrote: »

The USnhas its own currency, whereas these nation states do not. They use the Euro and therefore have lost a lot of sovereignty by having no control over their currency. What's that famous quote from Rothschild?

Ammh, no. The member states of the EU choose to exercise their sovereignty through a common set of institutions and in pursuit of a common set of agreed policies. This is entirely voluntary on the part of each member state. You obviously don't agree with them doing so but it remains their perogative to exercise their sovereignty on a joint basis.

KyussBishop

View wrote: »

Texans don't send money to fund the shortfall in the Californian budget.

Why therefore should the Germans be expected to send money to fund the shortfall in ours?

Indeed, the Texans don't fund shortfalls in California's budget - the federal government uses national debt to fund deficit spending throughout the whole of the US, including California, instead.

Precisely the same way that with centralized EU debt, used to fund stimulus spending throughout Europe, the Germans would not be paying for Irelands shortfalls.

DarkDusk

Recently, I've looked at fluoride being one of the reasons the Irish people have not rebelled against its government to the extent Greece, Spain and Portugal have.

Most people know by now that fluoride is not good for your teeth. Quebec passed a law a few years ago banning fluoridation because the children there actually had MORE cavities than children in Ontario, who didn't have fluoridated water supplies. Fluoride being good for your teeth is a myth. If it was actually good, why doesn't Ireland not have the best teeth in Europe? Ireland is the ONLY country in europe with widespread fluoridation of water supplies. Why does it say on the side of toothpaste tubes to go to the emergency room if you only ingest a pea-sized amount?

Many health professionals have said that fluoride is harmful to human health, especially to the nervous system. http://www.fluoridealert.org/researchers/professionals-statement/

I have read that the Nazis first used fluoride in water supplies as a method of mass mind control and to make the population more docile. I have no sources for this but I think there is too many coincidences with Ireland that suggest fluoride is harmful to our health. Also, there is plenty of evidence that proves that Ireland suffers from certain diseases more so than other countries, down-syndrome being one of them I think.

I know that's a bit off topic for politics, but still, if fluoride actually makes people more docile (not directly, but as a knock on effect from IQ degradation), then could it be the reason why Irish people have been so non-resistant to austerity and control?

EoghanIRL

DarkDusk wrote: »

Recently, I've looked at fluoride being one of the reasons the Irish people have not rebelled against its government to the extent Greece, Spain and Portugal have.

Most people know by now that fluoride is not good for your teeth. Quebec passed a law a few years ago banning fluoridation because the children there actually had MORE cavities than children in Ontario, who didn't have fluoridated water supplies. Fluoride being good for your teeth is a myth. If it was actually good, why doesn't Ireland not have the best teeth in Europe? Ireland is the ONLY country in europe with widespread fluoridation of water supplies. Why does it say on the side of toothpaste tubes to go to the emergency room if you only ingest a pea-sized amount?

Many health professionals have said that fluoride is harmful to human health, especially to the nervous system. http://www.fluoridealert.org/researchers/professionals-statement/

I have read that the Nazis first used fluoride in water supplies as a method of mass mind control and to make the population more docile. I have no sources for this but I think there is too many coincidences with Ireland that suggest fluoride is harmful to our health. Also, there is plenty of evidence that proves that Ireland suffers from certain diseases more so than other countries, down-syndrome being one of them I think.

I know that's a bit off topic for politics, but still, if fluoride actually makes people more docile (not directly, but as a knock on effect from IQ degradation), then could it be the reason why Irish people have been so non-resistant to austerity and control?

There are plenty of threads about fluoride in the conspiracy theory forum .

clairefontaine

View wrote: »

Texans don't send money to fund the shortfall in the Californian budget.

Why therefore should the Germans be expected to send money to fund the shortfall in ours?

It is the responsibility of each state in the USA to fund its own state budget just as it is the responsibility of each member state of the EU to fund their respective budget.



Ammh, no. The member states of the EU choose to exercise their sovereignty through a common set of institutions and in pursuit of a common set of agreed policies. This is entirely voluntary on the part of each member state. You obviously don't agree with them doing so but it remains their perogative to exercise their sovereignty on a joint basis.

I haven't seen the spreadsheets to know specifically who funds what. The fed collects taxes and redistributes them to the other states. Some take more than Others, some give more than others. But it's federal money and they do what they want with it. States don't owe each other money.

View

KyussBishop wrote: »

Indeed, the Texans don't fund shortfalls in California's budget - the federal government uses national debt to fund deficit spending throughout the whole of the US, including California, instead.

Precisely the same way that with centralized EU debt, used to fund stimulus spending throughout Europe, the Germans would not be paying for Irelands shortfalls.

There is the small matter of their being no democratic majority in favour of such stimulus spending in the EU.

I appreciate you don't agree with that but such is democracy.

View

clairefontaine wrote: »

I haven't seen the spreadsheets to know specifically who funds what. The fed collects taxes and redistributes them to the other states. Some take more than Others, some give more than others. But it's federal money and they do what they want with it.

And the EU does precisely that also although on a much smaller scale as it is set up to do less (It is also a reflection on how much the US Federal government has massively expanded over the years particularly in the last century).

clairefontaine wrote: »

States don't owe each other money.

Apart from a small amount of bilateral loans that is also the case in the EU (e.g. the UK and Swedish loans to us). The EU does however do EU level emergency loan funds such as the ESM. To the best of my knowledge that isn't the case in the US which for a state in a budgetary crisis means the state is left totally without such outside funding options - meaning the choice for the state is absolutely massive austerity or outright bankruptcy.

KyussBishop

View wrote: »

There is the small matter of their being no democratic majority in favour of such stimulus spending in the EU.

I appreciate you don't agree with that but such is democracy.

Even though we were never given any such vote regarding stimulus, I see you agree that with centralized EU debt, Germany would not be paying for Irish shortfalls - exactly the way states in the US do not.

oscarBravo

clairefontaine wrote: »

The fed collects taxes...

No, it doesn't. The IRS collects taxes.

micosoft

gdkaufmann wrote: »

No, it really doesn't. Frankly, it's such a horrendously bad piece of writing that I don't know that anything the author writes on the subject can be credibly believed. He doesn't seem to know what he's saying.

For example, the author writes: "Ireland, Greece, Lithuania, and Finland were among the four nations to abstain with Britain among eight nations which voted against the ban."

Does that mean there are actually five countries that abstained (those four and Britain)? Were they among the four, or are they the four? Is Britain part of the abstainers, or part of the eight who voted against it? The author is all over the place in this one, fairly crucial, sentence.

As a professional writer, I would be embarrassed to have that sentence out there under my name. And, no, I didn't read the rest of the article. Why bother?

"Ireland, Greece, Lithuania, and Finland were among the four nations to abstain with Britain among eight nations which voted against the ban."

Really? Can you explain grammatically where the writer has erred? It seems very clear to me.

I do see you don't like reading articles that disagree with your worldview.