National Independent Party?

KyussBishop

This party seems to have just launched, this is their website:
http://www.nationalindependentparty.ie/

There are a lot of specific policies laid out there, and while I don't know if I agree with all of them, they seem to have a few critical/key ones in mind, that (to me) seem to be some of the only remaining ways Ireland can try to regain control, and move towards recovery:
Take a tougher negotiating stance with Europe (pushing for recovery policies), or look at reconsidering our position within the Euro: http://www.nationalindependentparty.ie/?page_id=129

Create a public bank, for regaining democratic control over money creation: http://www.nationalindependentparty.ie/?page_id=147


Since it's so new, and I don't know much about the party or its participants, I don't know how to judge their overall credibility - but this is really pushing towards a more progressive line of policies, that could actually do something about the crisis - probably the only party to have a platform on anything like this.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Their positional statements appear to be nothing other than highly ambigious platitudes couched in corporate speak.
My namesake would be proud of that level of obfuscation, a document that has endless words but actually says nothing meaningful.

Cody Pomeray

I agree with the above.

Politicians are supposed to be engaged in practical work; there is nothing practical or tangible in what they're trying to say. It's all very vague.

It's the work of an individual who is trying to imitate a party, based on how he thinks they communicate.

Fair play for trying to get something off the ground. The website's not helping though.

I am pie

Support a levy on imported goods yet support the concept of a European trade bloc?

Hard ball with Europe? Attempts a representing the turd which is rejecting the euro and relaunching our own currency. Not even brave enough to say it out loud.

Strong whiff of populism and protectionism off the economic stimulus. "Homeland Commerce"

Tax inequalities. A worthless paragraph, would it not be possible to actually state what changes to the current tax structure they will make.

A cowardly manifesto, not brave enough to state what they will do, merely hinting at a few broad ideas. Devoid of facts and figures.

I imagine they will disappear unless they can significantly up their game.

KyussBishop

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Their positional statements appear to be nothing other than highly ambigious platitudes couched in corporate speak.
My namesake would be proud of that level of obfuscation, a document that has endless words but actually says nothing meaningful.

This is itself a rather platitudinous/trite criticism really, as the party has stated areas where it supports specific actions, such as engaging more with Europe (and looking at disengaging from the Euro if that doesn't work out), and putting the monetary system back under public control - pretty damn specific, that.

The criticism seems more aimed to sneer, than to provide an actual substantive criticism of what they advocate.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I agree with the above.

Politicians are supposed to be engaged in practical work; there is nothing practical or tangible in what they're trying to say. It's all very vague.

It's the work of an individual who is trying to imitate a party, based on how he thinks they communicate.

Fair play for trying to get something off the ground. The website's not helping though.

Likewise, a pretty trite criticism, saying they are 'vague', when they are laying out specific areas where they would like to enact reforms.

It seems to me, more a manner of criticism by demanding pedantic attention to detail in their proposals (where no amount will ever be good enough), for the sake of dismissing them with sneers.

Your criticism also of them trying to 'imitate a party' (???) itself is rather vague - how exactly are they supposed to communicate?

KyussBishop

I am pie wrote: »

Support a levy on imported goods yet support the concept of a European trade bloc?

I don't know if I support that, but they are mutually exclusive why?

I am pie wrote: »

Hard ball with Europe? Attempts a representing the turd which is rejecting the euro and relaunching our own currency. Not even brave enough to say it out loud.

"Separate the sovereign from bank debt, or else there's little alternative but consider our position in the Euro, for a controlled withdrawal"
It's stated right there, plain as day - posters making stuff up to sneer now.

Given 5 years in to the crisis with there appearing to be no appetite for proper recovery policies, and 5-10 (potentially 15) years more of unemployment and economic stagnation to go (with plenty of opportunity for other EU countries to torpedo the Euro), we may not even need to make that choice before another country does.

An exit now (which I view as far less preferable to a European recovery - which may never come), at least lets us take the hit now, sharing the burden equally, and getting on with actual recovery (which is defined as full economic-output/employment, and a gradual return to previous levels of quality of life - something Europe may take far longer to get us to).

I am pie wrote: »

Strong whiff of populism and protectionism off the economic stimulus. "Homeland Commerce"

Tax inequalities. A worthless paragraph, would it not be possible to actually state what changes to the current tax structure they will make.

A cowardly manifesto, not brave enough to state what they will do, merely hinting at a few broad ideas. Devoid of facts and figures.

I imagine they will disappear unless they can significantly up their game.

It seems most of peoples problem is the general nature of the policies put forward, even feeling free to make up nonsense that they are 'cowardly' or afraid to state specific policies (as opposed to say...being a brand new political party, trying to get a general statement of their views across, not bombard people with policy after policy - which can come later).

Looking to take a harder position with Europe, with openness to considering leaving the Euro if need be, as well as the concept of a public bank - that's more balls than any other party has to be honest; the established parties likely wouldn't even look at these issues, because of how it would upset the powerful/monied interests that have significant influence in the country (and politics).

_Kaiser_

Just read about this on the Journal and as expected the naysayers are out already both on their Comments feed and here on Boards.

Regardless of whether they succeed or fail, or whether you agree with their aims, they should be applauded for trying to do SOMETHING DIFFERENT rather than:

(a) whinging about how "politicians are all the same" or "nothing changes in this country"

(b) flipping back n forth between FF and FG in the hope that maybe this time it'll be different!

Alas though, well-intentioned as they might be, the Irish electorate fears change or difference so I'd be genuinely surprised if this becomes more than a fringe party.

Guyanachronism

How do they figure with Sli Nios Fearr?

Are they a splinter group? they describe themselves as an initative by members of Sli Nios Fearr, the sites are basically identitical.

In the Journal.ie article it says at the press conference they compared the EU to the USSR, that was really sensationalist. What's their position on flouride? I saw that mentioned on numerous Sli Nios Fearr posters.

KyussBishop

Guyanachronism wrote: »

How do they figure with Sli Nios Fearr?

Are they a splinter group? they describe themselves as an initative by members of Sli Nios Fearr, the sites are basically identitical.

In the Journal.ie article it says at the press conference they compared the EU to the USSR was really sensationalist. What's their position on flouride? I saw that mentioned on numerous Sli Nios Fearr posters.

I actually linked to Sli Nios Fearr, then edited my post when I found the new party site. The new site is indeed, identical to Sli Nios Fearr, so they could be considered a rebranding/one-and-the-same.

Would be interested to know more about the background of Sli Nios Fearr, to see just how credible (or not) they are.

Cody Pomeray

KyussBishop wrote: »

Likewise, a pretty trite criticism, saying they are 'vague', when they are laying out specific areas where they would like to enact reforms.

They certainly identify areas for reform, but the substantive issue - the practical reforms - elude the reader.

It seems to me, more a manner of criticism by demanding pedantic attention to detail in their proposals (where no amount will ever be good enough), for the sake of dismissing them with sneers.

Your criticism also of them trying to 'imitate a party' (???) itself is rather vague - how exactly are they supposed to communicate?

Let me be clear.

It reads like a website of someone trying to imitate a political party. That is, they use all this nonsense political-speak about steering committees, to use one example, and completely neglect to provide any meaningful detail on the practical aspirations of the party. It's all talk and no substance.

Again, I already wished them well for doing something. Nobody owes them a compliment though. that website is awful vague.

KyussBishop

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

They certainly identify areas for reform, but the substantive issue - the practical reforms - elude the reader.

I have already pointed out two very major practical reforms in all of my posts in this thread (starting with the OP) - I'll agree that a lot of the policies they point out warrant expansion, but you're suggesting they are not offering any substantive solutions, when that is false, due to the two major/massive ones I've pointed out, that no other party would be willing to touch.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Let me be clear.

It reads like a website of someone trying to imitate a political party. That is, they use all this nonsense political-speak about steering committees, to use one example, and completely neglect to provide any meaningful detail on the practical aspirations of the party. It's all talk and no substance.

Again, I already wished them well for doing something. Nobody owes them a compliment though. that website is awful vague.

Your own criticism seems to bear no substance, it's just a general "they don't provide any solutions, they are not 'serious' people", even though you don't go into any specifics of this, you just make a general claim which is easily disproved by pointing out some of the solutions they present, like the two that have been present in every one of my posts thus far (taking a more assertive stance with Europe, and having a Euro exit in consideration if that doesn't work out - and setting up of a public bank, for democratic control over the money supply).

In my view, they are well worth complimenting and giving an open look, sheerly just for having the confidence to state support for the two issues I mentioned - which shows at least some appreciable understanding of the real fundamental issues within the economic crisis (something no other party has, by the looks of it).

They could do with expanding on policies in more detail, that's fine, but the sneering thus far just is totally unwarranted - if there are no reputational or other issues with people involved with this party, then it might just be the first party in Ireland with an actual intelligent understanding of the major issues/problems in economics and the Euro.

Zubeneschamali

That website is an embarrassment, it reads like a bad transition year project:

In contrast when multi facilitated referendum is introduced often the overall ‘group vision’ or national perspective becomes in danger of becoming blurred and rudderless. Such methods Add a cliff hanger, ‘roll a coaster’ of uncertainly into the mix; and there-in. any notion of structure becomes instantly the weaker for it. And a kind of high stakes game of Russian Roulette gets played out on everyone’s liberties

F. See me after class.

Cody Pomeray

KyussBishop wrote: »

I have already pointed out two very major practical reforms in all of my posts in this thread (starting with the OP)

Yes, these are reasonably 'practical' suggestions in the sense that they are not abstract. It's a pity the site's authors saw fit to raise these (pretty major) ideas and then completely refrain from going into detail in their "positional statements", which are verging on contradiction

Our commitment to our membership of the European Union remains presently steadfast. And as a party we will work resolutely to secure Ireland’s interests in the protection and development of its natural and economic resources, it’s freedoms and culture. We are conscious of our need to pursue and develop best practices in relation to our trading with our European counterparts and to share in common goals. To that end we will work conscientiously and constructively for whatever implementations are deemed beneficial, with an additional emphasis of continually pressing for improved levels of transparency and democracy within the core E.U. structure. Nevertheless, any such E.U. implementations must not be to the detriment of our population’s well-being, its ability to govern itself, nor be detrimental to its ability to prosper in what-ever sector. Should this relationship waiver, then we remain sufficiently independent in our thinking and will energetically pursue other more meaningful avenues.

As a partner in the current Monetary Union, we will endeavor to uphold best practice and to work with our European Colleagues for the betterment of this project. Until such courses of action prove detrimental or indeed impair this country’s ability to protect and develop its inherent resources. If it occurs that any further elements of sovereignty are brought into question, or are to be passed over to the central European System the party will work to bring such decisions before the people in the interests of maintaining democracy and its independence to govern itself.

Your own criticism seems to bear no substance, it's just a general "they don't provide any solutions, they are not 'serious' people", even though you don't go into any specifics of this

Look, that's a pretty inaccurate and naive summing up of my opinion.

I'm saying they don't tend to provide practical solutions.
When any tangible ideas are (rarely) provided, they are inexplicably brief. The section which goes into more detailed discussion tends to avoid them.

I have no problem with new political parties.

We need new political parties.

But nobody should expect a pat on the back simply for being new.
No party should be given the benefit of the doubt simply for being new.

Tell me 5 things that party would implement if it got into power tomorrow morning. I can't make it out. I don't think any reasonable reader could.

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

Create a public bank, for regaining democratic control over money creation: http://www.nationalindependentparty.ie/?page_id=147

Good Lord no. We can all look forward to rampant inflation every election year.

KyussBishop

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Yes, these are reasonably 'practical' suggestions in the sense that they are not abstract. It's a pity the site's authors saw fit to raise these (pretty major) ideas and then completely refrain from going into detail in their "positional statements", which are verging on contradiction

Our commitment to our membership of the European Union remains presently steadfast. And as a party we will work resolutely to secure Ireland’s interests in the protection and development of its natural and economic resources, it’s freedoms and culture. We are conscious of our need to pursue and develop best practices in relation to our trading with our European counterparts and to share in common goals. To that end we will work conscientiously and constructively for whatever implementations are deemed beneficial, with an additional emphasis of continually pressing for improved levels of transparency and democracy within the core E.U. structure. Nevertheless, any such E.U. implementations must not be to the detriment of our population’s well-being, its ability to govern itself, nor be detrimental to its ability to prosper in what-ever sector. Should this relationship waiver, then we remain sufficiently independent in our thinking and will energetically pursue other more meaningful avenues.

As a partner in the current Monetary Union, we will endeavor to uphold best practice and to work with our European Colleagues for the betterment of this project. Until such courses of action prove detrimental or indeed impair this country’s ability to protect and develop its inherent resources. If it occurs that any further elements of sovereignty are brought into question, or are to be passed over to the central European System the party will work to bring such decisions before the people in the interests of maintaining democracy and its independence to govern itself.

Right so you agree then that they present practical reforms.

What you quote is also not mutually exclusive: They are talking about staying in Europe, not the Euro.

What you quote even contradicts you:
"s a partner in the current Monetary Union, we will endeavor to uphold best practice and to work with our European Colleagues for the betterment of this project. Until such courses of action prove detrimental or indeed impair this country’s ability to protect and develop its inherent resources"

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Look, that's a pretty inaccurate and naive summing up of my opinion.

I'm saying they don't tend to provide practical solutions.

You've already just contradicted this statement.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

When any tangible ideas are (rarely) provided, they are inexplicably brief. The section which goes into more detailed discussion tends to avoid them.

I have no problem with new political parties.

We need new political parties.

But nobody should expect a pat on the back simply for being new.
No party should be given the benefit of the doubt simply for being new.

Tell me 5 things that party would implement if it got into power tomorrow morning. I can't make it out. I don't think any reasonable reader could.

Sure they could do with expanding, but the practical solutions/policies are there, presented on the website.

I'm not going to pick 5 things out for you, when you are already misrepresenting the site and contradicting yourself, and giving the impression you are likely remain 'unconvinced' no matter what is shown (especially seeing as picking 5 things out, is already marked as 'unreasonable').

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Good Lord no. We can all look forward to rampant inflation every election year.

We already have rampant inflation from the private banks - they inflated the most massive housing bubble the country has ever seen, and left us in the fallout, while they walk off with their already-obtained salaries/bonuses.

The public bank in North Dakota is running perfectly fine, proving false this inflation catastrophizing/scaremongering nonsense.

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

We already have rampant inflation from the private banks - they inflated the most massive housing bubble the country has ever seen, and left us in the fallout, while they walk off with their already-obtained salaries/bonuses.

The public bank in North Dakota is running perfectly fine, proving false this inflation catastrophizing/scaremongering nonsense.

Absolute nonsense, a bubble is a once off thing. Generally one happens once every generation. Though the dot com bubble in 2000 was only 7 years before the housing bubble in 2007 but that was unprecedented.

A once off asset bubble is not comparable to systematic government corruption every election year.

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Absolute nonsense, a bubble is a once off thing. Generally one happens once every generation. Though the dot com bubble in 2000 was only 7 years before the housing bubble in 2007 but that was unprecedented.

A once off asset bubble is not comparable to systematic government corruption every election year.

If you want to claim constant government abuse of a public bank like that, you'll have a tall order proving that will happen, especially given precedent like North Dakota, where it works fine.

carpejugulum

We already have parties that promise to magically fix everything - FF, SF...

Another party?


YAY!

oscarBravo

KyussBishop wrote: »

Create a public bank, for regaining democratic control over money creation: http://www.nationalindependentparty.ie/?page_id=147

KyussBishop wrote: »

If you want to claim constant government abuse of a public bank like that, you'll have a tall order proving that will happen, especially given precedent like North Dakota, where it works fine.

I may be missing something, but I'm not seeing the role of the Bank of North Dakota in money creation.

Nodin

KyussBishop wrote: »

I actually linked to Sli Nios Fearr, then edited my post when I found the new party site. The new site is indeed, identical to Sli Nios Fearr, so they could be considered a rebranding/one-and-the-same.

Would be interested to know more about the background of Sli Nios Fearr, to see just how credible (or not) they are.

...that would explain the strange sense of Deja vu I had when I saw they wanted to bring back the sugar beet industry.

View

KyussBishop wrote: »

What you quote is also not mutually exclusive: They are talking about staying in Europe, not the Euro.

There is no mechanism under either EU law or Irish law for Ireland to stay in Europe while leaving the Euro.

The fastest legal way to do this is to leave the EU, change currency and re-apply for EU membership - at which point the issue of our re-adoption of the Euro would be a pre-requisite for the short or medium term.

You'd have more chance of persuading the other member states to allow protectionist tariffs on all trade to and from Ireland to the rest of the EU.

KyussBishop

oscarBravo wrote: »

I may be missing something, but I'm not seeing the role of the Bank of North Dakota in money creation.

Bank loans lead to money creation, whether private or public (aka endogenous money).

That fact alone, renders almost all standard textbook macroeconomics, as fundamentally wrong in subtle key ways.

That said, there is more than one way of doing a public bank:
It can function through the same system as private banks do (I think the North Dakota one does), or it can just utilize money creation direct when issuing loans - I don't know which this new party supports.

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

Bank loans lead to money creation, whether private or public (aka endogenous money).

That fact alone, renders almost all standard textbook macroeconomics, as fundamentally wrong in subtle key ways.

That said, there is more than one way of doing a public bank:
It can function through the same system as private banks do (I think the North Dakota one does), or it can just utilize money creation direct when issuing loans - I don't know which this new party supports.

... except they teach you that in standard textbooks.

I wish you'd stop with the pursedo intellectual superiority. Claiming the entire school of standard macroeconomic thought is wrong is baffling in it's arrogance. I ask you this what formal qualifications do you have in economics to back this up?

KyussBishop wrote:

If you want to claim constant government abuse of a public bank like that, you'll have a tall order proving that will happen, especially given precedent like North Dakota, where it works fine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank#Independence

KyussBishop

View wrote: »

There is no mechanism under either EU law or Irish law for Ireland to stay in Europe while leaving the Euro.

The fastest legal way to do this is to leave the EU, change currency and re-apply for EU membership - at which point the issue of our re-adoption of the Euro would be a pre-requisite for the short or medium term.

You'd have more chance of persuading the other member states to allow protectionist tariffs on all trade to and from Ireland to the rest of the EU.

True, I wasn't aware of this exact restriction before.

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

... except they teach you that in standard textbooks.

Which textbooks? Almost all of them use the false money multiplier concept, which (since you agree it's wrong apparently) immediately puts a massive hole in standard neoclassical macroeconomic thinking.

Anyway, while public banks is part of the discussion related to the party, this is moving further away, so will leave that there.

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

Which textbooks? Almost all of them use the false money multiplier concept, which (since you agree it's wrong apparently) immediately puts a massive hole in standard neoclassical macroeconomic thinking.

Anyway, while public banks is part of the discussion related to the party, this is moving further away, so will leave that there.

So what you're saying is the banks create money by crediting consumers accounts instead of waiting for deposits to accumulate under the money multiplier concept? Well that may be true but banks can legally only give out loans equal to a multiple of their reserves. And since the central bank can indirectly control a banks reserves through the bond market that puts interest rates and by extension inflation through monetary policy in the hands of the central bank.

It's important the central bank remains independent so the government is not tempted to print money and/or lower interest rates there by raising inflation for their own political ends.

nesf

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Just read about this on the Journal and as expected the naysayers are out already both on their Comments feed and here on Boards.

Regardless of whether they succeed or fail, or whether you agree with their aims, they should be applauded for trying to do SOMETHING DIFFERENT rather than:

(a) whinging about how "politicians are all the same" or "nothing changes in this country"

(b) flipping back n forth between FF and FG in the hope that maybe this time it'll be different!

Alas though, well-intentioned as they might be, the Irish electorate fears change or difference so I'd be genuinely surprised if this becomes more than a fringe party.

You do realise that if someone set up the Irish version of Stalin's Communist party with the accompanying policy of the gulags and executions of dissidents that your post above could be used to criticise anyone saying that maybe this isn't a good idea for a party in this country?

Sir Humphrey Appleby

KyussBishop wrote: »

Bank loans lead to money creation, whether private or public (aka endogenous money).

That fact alone, renders almost all standard textbook macroeconomics, as fundamentally wrong in subtle key ways.

That said, there is more than one way of doing a public bank:
It can function through the same system as private banks do (I think the North Dakota one does), or it can just utilize money creation direct when issuing loans - I don't know which this new party supports.

Thanks to their catch all populist corporate speak, nobody actually knows what they support.

alastair

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Thanks to their catch all populist corporate speak, nobody actually knows what they support.

They're strong on sugar beets.

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So what you're saying is the banks create money by crediting consumers accounts instead of waiting for deposits to accumulate under the money multiplier concept? Well that may be true but banks can legally only give out loans equal to a multiple of their reserves. And since the central bank can indirectly control a banks reserves through the bond market that puts interest rates and by extension inflation through monetary policy in the hands of the central bank.

It's important the central bank remains independent so the government is not tempted to print money and/or lower interest rates there by raising inflation for their own political ends.

That is wrong, banks aren't reserve constrained (they are capital constrained), and banks extend loans first and fix up reserves later (and central banks won't refuse to help them fix up reserves); read the second article in my post, from Steve Keen.

There is no direct 'exogenous' (external to the economy, from the central bank) control over the money supply, money is 'endogenous' (the supply is controlled from within the economy, through demand for loans) - there is however, control over interest rates.


Central banks are not independent, they are staffed with ex-banking/financial industry staff for the most part, and suffer extreme regulatory capture - working more in favour of the banking/financial industry, than the public they are supposed to serve.

We need protection from the bankers/financiers who will inflate asset bubbles and destroy a large part of our economy where it makes them a profit, not from our own government (the only entity capable of taking over their role and ending their abuse - one which is actually accountable to the public) - private actors have no business, having such a socially/politically/economically powerful tool, as the ability to create money and demand interest for it.

KyussBishop

nesf wrote: »

You do realise that if someone set up the Irish version of Stalin's Communist party with the accompanying policy of the gulags and executions of dissidents that your post above could be used to criticise anyone saying that maybe this isn't a good idea for a party in this country?

The difference is, the lack of specific disagreements with any presented policies, with there just being a claim of a lack of specific policies (which is incorrect - and means people being critical are attacking from the safety of avoiding substantive arguments, by pretending there are no policies presented).

KyussBishop

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Thanks to their catch all populist corporate speak, nobody actually knows what they support.

Again, a very trite criticism, which is just a pedantic demand for more details. If you can't figure out a substantive argument to make in response to the idea of a public bank, other than "oh that's not specific enough", then that's a very poor level of argument.

I'm actually interested in real substantive arguments, because I don't yet take this party seriously myself (even if I think some of their specific policies are quite promising) - but this kind of silly cynicism (which has already been debunked by showing specific policies) adds little.

Zubeneschamali

KyussBishop wrote: »

people being critical are attacking from the safety of avoiding substantive arguments, by pretending there are no policies presented.

Maybe they are presenting policies, maybe not: until they learn to write, no-one will ever know.

nesf

KyussBishop wrote: »

The difference is, the lack of specific disagreements with any presented policies, with there just being a claim of a lack of specific policies (which is incorrect - and means people being critical are attacking from the safety of avoiding substantive arguments, by pretending there are no policies presented).

Maybe when they have substantive policies you'll see substantive and specific disagreements no? I mean, "have our own currency" is about as much a specific policy as "eliminate world hunger."

_Kaiser_

nesf wrote: »

You do realise that if someone set up the Irish version of Stalin's Communist party with the accompanying policy of the gulags and executions of dissidents that your post above could be used to criticise anyone saying that maybe this isn't a good idea for a party in this country?

Well extreme examples aside, I'd personally welcome any party that offers an alternative to the current status quo offered by FF, FG and their hangers-on.

It's up to the voter to decide whose policies are best - and a few gulags mightn't be a bad thing for some of our political, banking and anti-social elements that our current system seems woefully ill-equipped to deal with effectively

nesf

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Well extreme examples aside, I'd personally welcome any party that offers an alternative to the current status quo offered by FF, FG and their hangers-on.

It's up to the voter to decide whose policies are best - and a few gulags mightn't be a bad thing for some of our political, banking and anti-social elements that our current system seems woefully ill-equipped to deal with effectively

Sure, my point is saying we shouldn't criticise a new party merely because they're saying something different to the mainstream is an extremely weak argument.

Cody Pomeray

View wrote: »

There is no mechanism under either EU law or Irish law for Ireland to stay in Europe while leaving the Euro.

Correction - there is no such enumerated mechanism. And so what? There is already a right to exit the Euro.

"it is widely accepted that the lack of an exit clause does not preclude the possibility of withdrawal from an international organisation. This is also possible according to art.56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties 19697 as well as by the principle of rebus sic stantibus" - "Withdrawal from the European Union and alternatives to membership". Adam Lazowski. European Law Review, 2012.

The fastest legal way to do this is to leave the EU

What do you mean the fastest legal way to do this? Why should it be faster to leave the European Union than to simply undertake domestic measures along the lines of Cyprus in 2013? What legal authority are you basing your statement on?

OCorcrainn

KyussBishop wrote: »

Right so you agree then that they present practical reforms.

What you quote is also not mutually exclusive: They are talking about staying in Europe, not the Euro.

What you quote even contradicts you:
"s a partner in the current Monetary Union, we will endeavor to uphold best practice and to work with our European Colleagues for the betterment of this project. Until such courses of action prove detrimental or indeed impair this country’s ability to protect and develop its inherent resources"


You've already just contradicted this statement.


Sure they could do with expanding, but the practical solutions/policies are there, presented on the website.

I'm not going to pick 5 things out for you, when you are already misrepresenting the site and contradicting yourself, and giving the impression you are likely remain 'unconvinced' no matter what is shown (especially seeing as picking 5 things out, is already marked as 'unreasonable').

Pretty obvious to me that you are supporter if not a member of this so called "political party" judging by this reply. By reading their website it is safe for me to say that these guys will be going nowhere.

View

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Correction - there is no such enumerated mechanism. And so what? There is already a right to exit the Euro.

"it is widely accepted that the lack of an exit clause does not preclude the possibility of withdrawal from an international organisation. This is also possible according to art.56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties 19697 as well as by the principle of rebus sic stantibus" - "Withdrawal from the European Union and alternatives to membership". Adam Lazowski. European Law Review, 2012.

Re-read your quotation. It refers to "an international organistation".

There is no "international organisation" called "The Euro", hence the above quotation doesn't apply.

The "international organisation" in this case is "The European Union" which has an exit clause which we are free to invoke as I touched on in my previous post.

Cody Pomeray

View wrote: »

Re-read your quotation. It refers to "an international organistation".

There is no "international organisation" called "The Euro", hence the above quotation doesn't apply.

Re-read my quotation.

The international organization" is merely incidental to the topic of the paper.

The customary right of a sovereign to withdraw from a Treaty under Articles 56, 57, 58 or 61 or 62 (citing the clausula rebus sic stantibus), in public international law, as they could conceivably apply, and as affirmed by the Court of Justice of the European Union, is the key point.

I'm still waiting on your explanation for your claim that "the fastest legal way to do this is leave the EU".

What do you mean "the fastest"?

Sir Humphrey Appleby

KyussBishop wrote: »

The difference is, the lack of specific disagreements with any presented policies, with there just being a claim of a lack of specific policies (which is incorrect - and means people being critical are attacking from the safety of avoiding substantive arguments, by pretending there are no policies presented).

There are no real policies presented at all, just a lot of populist sounding rhetoric , dressed in corporate speak.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

nesf wrote: »

Maybe when they have substantive policies you'll see substantive and specific disagreements no? I mean, "have our own currency" is about as much a specific policy as "eliminate world hunger."

Except a lot more economically dangerous for the only english speaking member of the eurozone abnd a country so dpendent of on inward investment from the U.S.

KyussBishop

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Pretty obvious to me that you are supporter if not a member of this so called "political party" judging by this reply. By reading their website it is safe for me to say that these guys will be going nowhere.

Heh - read any of my posts over the last year or so - my views expressed in this thread are pretty consistent with what I've been posting for a long time (even if they've been slowly evolving over that time).

I'd say I'm a potential supporter of this party - if their credibility into the future checks out, and if they elaborate on their policies with more clarity - not a supporter now mind, but certainly optimistic due to some of the issues they raise.

nesf

KyussBishop wrote: »

Heh - read any of my posts over the last year or so - my views expressed in this thread are pretty consistent with what I've been posting for a long time (even if they've been slowly evolving over that time).

I'd say I'm a potential supporter of this party - if their credibility into the future checks out, and if they elaborate on their policies with more clarity - not a supporter now mind, but certainly optimistic due to some of the issues they raise.

This I would credit, I scanned that list of currency policies and thought "well, there's Kyuss' vote sorted anyway." :P

Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Re-read my quotation.

The international organization" is merely incidental to the topic of the paper.

The customary right of a sovereign to withdraw from a Treaty under Articles 56, 57, 58 or 61 or 62 (citing the clausula rebus sic stantibus), in public international law, as they could conceivably apply, and as affirmed by the Court of Justice of the European Union, is the key point.

I'm still waiting on your explanation for your claim that "the fastest legal way to do this is leave the EU".

What do you mean "the fastest"?

There is no separate Euro treaty, though, as View said - you're talking about withdrawing from part of the EU treaties - that is, withdrawing from one obligation of membership, while still claiming membership. That's very definitely not the same as exercising the right to withdraw from the treaty in full.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That website is an embarrassment, it reads like a bad transition year project:

In contrast when multi facilitated referendum is introduced often the overall ‘group vision’ or national perspective becomes in danger of becoming blurred and rudderless. Such methods Add a cliff hanger, ‘roll a coaster’ of uncertainly into the mix; and there-in. any notion of structure becomes instantly the weaker for it. And a kind of high stakes game of Russian Roulette gets played out on everyone’s liberties

F. See me after class.

Yes, alas:

We loose (sic) 17% of state contracts overseas, that's 2.3 billion spent in the last 5 years. We loose (sic) this business due to the way our contracts are structured. We want to change that so Irish tax money will be supporting more Irish jobs. Indeed, looked at in terms of current cash aid, it would support 300k jobs

This is not quite green ink stuff, but it's badly researched (and spelled) bee-in-a-bonnet stuff better suited to politics.ie than a party manifesto. A quick look at the balance of cross-border public procurement shows that by value as opposed to number of contracts, the figure for what we award abroad is more like 9.3%, although the real figure of €2.4bn is close.

More to the point, we award three quarters of that to UK companies, and, surprise surprise, we also win a share of the UK's business - about 30% of what they procure abroad, which perhaps unsurprisingly is worth a lot more than the 75% of what we procure abroad that they win. The balance of cross-border procurement between here and the UK looks like this:

1. Irish contracts awarded to UK companies, 75% of €2.4bn: €1.8bn.

2. UK contracts awarded to Irish companies, 30% of €46.5bn: €13.95bn.

So this is another case where what someone is portraying as an easy and obvious policy win is actually an opportunity to shoot ourselves in the foot. Were we to tighten our procurement rules to advantage Irish companies, the UK, who would be the main loser, would presumably do the same, and we would lose much more heavily than them.

Plus, of course, the fact that, again, we can't do so in any case because part of being in the EU is common EU procurement rules which allow any EU company an equal chance to bid on any public procurement contract in an EU country.

What is the good of policies which are quite so badly researched?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Executive Steve

What does this little gem of a sentence even mean?

Evoking such passions as equality, self-determination, freedom of expression, and that nice cosy warm group hug feeling you get having achieving a consensus “Kumby-ya” and all that.

dsmythy

http://www.poloughlin.ie/

You could always ask their MEP candidate.

Scofflaw

dsmythy wrote: »

http://www.poloughlin.ie/

You could always ask their MEP candidate.

Sigh.

Peter O'Loughlin wrote:

I have made these pledges to assure you that firstly I am in this for the long haul and I have no intention of giving up my seat until such time as Ireland is once again a sovereign nation within a Europe of co-operating sovereign states.

Ireland is a sovereign nation within a Europe of co-operating sovereign states. The form that co-operation takes is the EU, as agreed between those co-operating sovereign states.

wearily,
Scofflaw