Ireland to leave EU should Britain exit ?

KingBrian2

Jim2007 wrote: »

They cannot negotiate with individual EU members end of story - it's a single market remember? And one of the criteria for joining is that you no longer are entitled to negotiate your own trade deals.

18 countries in the € we share this currency but we pick who we trade with, the Germans have huge investments in Russia, the French put off selling battleships to them. Spain continues to do tourism, transport and banking with Latin America and our good selves we have good trade relations with UK US, Australia, New Zealand and so on. Plenty of the stuff I buy comes from the UK. Likewise Estonia has a booming IT sector.

Considering all this I don't see the big deal if Britain break away or not. Over there it could be a massive deal but for us, hey you guys already decided not to join the €. Didn't the Tories go mad when Brown gave away the Gold bullion while the Italians still have theirs in their vaults.

I don't want to appear to be downgrading the decision for the UK to leave. Personally I think they should stay but if they want to go let them go I do see the Scots playing an important role and as potential partners. The SNP seem genuinely interested in regaining citizens rights.

Jim2007

MarkAnthony wrote: »

The UK has the bargaining power to pick and choose (to a degree, of course) what treaties it will enter into. The 'In/Out' Referendum will simply allow for the spin doctors to say 'we're out' when really all they will do is negotiate some watering down of the law flowing from the EU. They will remain within the single market as far as is possible.

There is no such mechanism, the treaties are very clear on this - you inform the council of ministers and you are gone. It will then be up to the EU minsters to decide if and when negotiations might begin and the nature of those negotiations. But is is worth noting that over past three to four years the EU has refused to neonate on any terms be full membership, primarily because the agreements with Norway and Switzerland are very cumbersome to work with.

Given that the UK has almost aways been at odds with its EU partners, I would not expect that there will be much motivation for early negotiations because in truth the UK as very little to offer. Their 11b net contribution is really not very much when you see all the EU has pumped in Greece, the stability fund and so on. Hell, even Switzerland contributed almost a billion to EU enlargement projects last year alone!

Jim2007

KingBrian2 wrote: »

18 countries in the € we share this currency but we pick who we trade with, the Germans have huge investments in Russia, the French put off selling battleships to them. Spain continues to do tourism, transport and banking with Latin America and our good selves we have good trade relations with UK US, Australia, New Zealand and so on. Plenty of the stuff I buy comes from the UK. Likewise Estonia has a booming IT sector.

And if you take the time to read through the treaties, trade agreements and you will realise that it is covered by EU agreements! Also note that most of it is outwards and not inwards in the common market. And until such time as the UK would reach a trade agreement with the EU, it would stand behind all those countries!

That is what makes it all so crazy from my point of view, they failed to take advantage of what was on offer in the EU from a trade point of view and no somehow they are going to better by getting to the back of the queue....

The Corinthian

Jim2007 wrote: »

Not really, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland are all members of EFTA as is the EU, so you will not get anything from them unless the EU agrees it as well!

Well actually the EU is not is not a member of EFTA. Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein are members of the EEA, along with the EU, which I suspect is what you were getting at. Switzerland, on the other hand is tied up with countless bilateral treaties with the EU instead.


(Note that the above diagram appears to be a bit dated as, for example, Latvia is in the Eurozone)

The UK, were it to leave the EU, would still need to also leave the EEA and EU Customs Union to get free reign over it's own affairs. Then it would have to negotiate a simelar arrangement as the Swiss.

Even if it managed it would at best look like the Swiss; basically implementing pretty much all EU laws and regulations, paying twoards the honour and lacking any actual representation.

end of the road

fundjanitor wrote: »

Personally i would like to see Ireland leave the EU if Britain do so.

and we end up a 1950s backwater again?

fundjanitor wrote: »

an OZ/Canada similar type controlled immigration policy

doesn't stop immigration. such policies operate in a way that it looks like they are a great success meaning guaranteed votes, but really they have the same problems as ourselves.

fundjanitor wrote: »

Our main trading partners are the UK and the US so i don't think we would suffer in the long term at all

we would. there is the fact the EU keeps us afloat also.

KingBrian2

end of the road wrote: »

there is the fact the EU keeps us afloat also.

It goes both ways. Besides aside from not wanting to leave the EU we should compose our own strategies as contingency plans just like the Germans have theirs when deciding what to do about Greece we should calculate budgets based on whether or not Britain leaves, Scotland becomes separate or a new member joins. It could impact greatly our budget and taxation figures.

NJto.IE

fundjanitor wrote: »

Do you think it will happen if the English get their way and exit the EU ??


Personally i would like to see Ireland leave the EU if Britain do so.

Reasons:

1.Most multinationals do not care about our EU membership but if the UK leave they could become a much more attractive business location than Eire.

2. It seems like our vote does not count in Europe compared to the big boys( Germany,France etc)

3. We need to control our borders (someparts of the country are starting to resemble Eastern Europe/Middle East where the Irish are rapidly becoming an minority ) an OZ/Canada similar type controlled immigration policy is needed

4. We are becoming yes men to Europe

5. Our main trading partners are the UK and the US so i don't think we would suffer in the long term at all


Discuss

Don't think so.

dlouth15

I think in terms of trading relations, the UK referendum is only about leaving the EU. If they voted out, they would still retain membership of the EEA which impliments a sizable minority of the EU's legislation. So in the immediate aftermath of an out vote, there would be little change in the area of trade.

Of course, given that a lot of the issues that people complain about would still be there under the EEA, this makes it more likely that they would vote to stay in the EU-proper. Yes, they have to then implement all the EU legislation, but in return they get representation that is lacking under the EEA alone.

The question they have to decide is whether the reduction in applicable EU laws under the EEA is worth the lack of representation. Iceland, an EEA member, still has to implement 6% of EU legislation but has no say in that 6%.

gallag

dlouth15 wrote: »

I think in terms of trading relations, the UK referendum is only about leaving the EU. If they voted out, they would still retain membership of the EEA which impliments a sizable minority of the EU's legislation. So in the immediate aftermath of an out vote, there would be little change in the area of trade.

Of course, given that a lot of the issues that people complain about would still be there under the EEA, this makes it more likely that they would vote to stay in the EU-proper. Yes, they have to then implement all the EU legislation, but in return they get representation that is lacking under the EEA alone.

The question they have to decide is whether the reduction in applicable EU laws under the EEA is worth the lack of representation. Iceland, an EEA member, still has to implement 6% of EU legislation but has no say in that 6%.

Or we could just push for free trade deals without political trappings, like we signed up for originally, we have a very strong case for this, for example if Germany decided against a simple free trade arrangement they would lose one of their biggest markets for exporting Mercedes, BMW and VW group cars plunging them into recession and causing a lot of unemployment.

Also, if the EU decided to cut of its nose, the UK would overnight be able to negotiate trade arrangements with the large emerging economy's and China, USA etc which would be very valuable.

Other benefits would be a boom in the fishing industry, less unemployment in the host workforce and a direct saving of over £50 million sterling per day.

Am not saying it will be a cake walk but there is no point pretending the EU holds all the cards, another thing would be the EU would lose half it's military might overnight forcing all EU countries to up their military budgets.

whatstherush

gallag wrote: »

Or we could just push for free trade deals without political trappings,

Gallag can I ask you what exactly you think would make up a free trade deal, say given your BMW example, of cars between the Exited UK and the EU?

gallag

whatstherush wrote: »

Gallag can I ask you what exactly you think would make up a free trade deal, say given your BMW example, of cars between the Exited UK and the EU?

No trade tariffs or taxes. Just a simple common market that was the original idea and promise of the EU.

The Corinthian

gallag wrote: »

No trade tariffs or taxes.

Why would the EU want to offer that to the UK?

Honestly, there's been a common wisdom for years that it's been better to have the UK inside of the tent, pissing out, than outside pissing in. But at this stage it's beginning to be asked whether Europe would not be better off, with the UK outside of the tent, and the tent door zipped up.

Just a simple common market that was the original idea and promise of the EU.

Actually that was never the original idea and promise of the EU. Perhaps this is the idea and promise that the Conservatives sold to the British public when they joined, but the EU, which was previously the EC, and EEC prior to that, grew out of the European Coal and Steel Community, which was launched in 1952, with the Schuman Declaration, that included the specifically with the following aim:

"The pooling of coal and steel production should immediately provide for the setting up of common foundations for economic development as a first step in the federation of Europe"

So, it has never been purely a 'no trade tariffs or taxes' association. That story is just a fairy tale that Eurosceptics, particularly Brisih ones, have been telling each other for years - 'we were tricked! The EU was never suppose to be this!"

Well tough. The British didn't like the Schuman Declaration and the ideals of the EEC and so didn't join. They still liked the idea of a common market so they set up EFTA. And when this turned out to be a failure, joined the EEC, presumably with the idea of changing this ideal from within. Now that they've gotten nowhere on this plan, they're making one last ditch attempt to force the bloc to follow their ideals, not those original ideas that were there before the British decided to join up.

So to suggest that these were not the case to begin with is either deluded or simply dishonest revisionism.

whatstherush

gallag wrote: »

No trade tariffs or taxes. Just a simple common market that was the original idea and promise of the EU.

But how can you have a 'simple' common market, if there is no common rules across that market.

Back to the cars example, say Jaguar started producing cars in Exited UK without having to comply with rules(Common Worktime Directive) that BMW have to comply with, and can subsequently undercut BMW in EU markets. Do you think BMW\Germany are going to sit on their arses, say Ya Jaguar\UK, you can have tariff free access to a market of 450m, but you don't need to comply with every rule that are own native car makers do?

You can apply that across every sector, i.e. Agriculture: anyone for bit of cheep tariff free UK offal fed beef? yum yum

gallag

The Corinthian wrote: »

Why would the EU want to offer that to the UK

Because it's in their intrest? How many EU countries would plummet into recession if they stopped trading with the UK? Germany's third biggest market that accounts for €90 billion of their gdp, to create barriers with the UK would be suicide for many EU countries, most of all Ireland, and for what? To make a point?

timetogo

whatstherush wrote: »

But how can you have a 'simple' common market, if there is no common rules across that market.

Back to the cars example, say Jaguar started producing cars in Exited UK without having to comply with rules(Common Worktime Directive) that BMW have to comply with, and can subsequently undercut BMW in EU markets. Do you think BMW\Germany are going to sit on their arses, say Ya Jaguar\UK, you can have tariff free access to a market of 450m, but you don't need to comply with every rule that are own native car makers do?

Couldn't the EU just put up taxes on the Jaguars made in the UK to make BMW more attractive than Jags? If they're not in the same market that's a possibility. Isn't it? Or am I wrong?
Presumably they'd have to buy a lot of their raw materials outside of the UK too. If they were coming from the EU there's another tax.

gallag

whatstherush wrote: »

But how can you have a 'simple' common market, if there is no common rules across that market.

Back to the cars example, say Jaguar started producing cars in Exited UK without having to comply with rules(Common Worktime Directive) that BMW have to comply with, and can subsequently undercut BMW in EU markets. Do you think BMW\Germany are going to sit on their arses, say Ya Jaguar\UK, you can have tariff free access to a market of 450m, but you don't need to comply with every rule that are own native car makers do?

That's a silly example, if they started making cars not fit for purpose they would not pass first inspection and not be fit for road use, obviously things like engineering standards would be applicable but there is no need to have a political union and free movement of people etc to sell cars?!?!

whatstherush

gallag wrote: »

That's a silly example, if they started making cars not fit for purpose they would not pass first inspection and not be fit for road use, obviously things like engineering standards would be applicable.

I didn't say they weren't fit for purpose, or mention anything about engineering or safety standards, I said they could produce them cheaper by not having to comply with a current EU directive such as the worktime directive.

gallag wrote: »

but there is no need to have a political union and free movement of people etc to sell cars?!?!

Did I said it had, I asked you what a free trade agreement would look like?

whatstherush

timetogo wrote: »

Couldn't the EU just put up taxes on the Jaguars made in the UK to make BMW more attractive than Jags? If they're not in the same market that's a possibility. Isn't it? Or am I wrong?
Presumably they'd have to buy a lot of their raw materials outside of the UK too. If they were coming from the EU there's another tax.

That would be tariff and the total opposite of what a free trade agreement is meant to achieve.

timetogo

whatstherush wrote: »

That would be tariff and the total opposite of what a free trade agreement is meant to achieve.

Yep. I thought that is what would happen if the UK left the EU. i.e. lose their free trade agreements. They could hardly exit and say "we'll keep all the beneficial agreements we've agreed to as part of the EU"

whatstherush

timetogo wrote: »

Yep. I thought that is what would happen if the UK left the EU. i.e. lose their free trade agreement.

If they do leave new deals will be negotiated, but gallag and co are in cloud cookoo land if they think EU directives wont be applied to every single item produced, that will be sold in to the EU market tariff free.

The Corinthian

gallag wrote: »

Because it's in their intrest? How many EU countries would plummet into recession if they stopped trading with the UK?

None? After all, think of the gap in the market when UK imports, to the rest of the EU, are too expensive, due to tariffs and quotas?

City of London out of the EU financial markets? Wonder what that would mean for Frankfurt...

Germany's third biggest market that accounts for €90 billion of their gdp, to create barriers with the UK would be suicide for many EU countries, most of all Ireland, and for what? To make a point?

I think you're overestimating the damage, especially when you consider the large UK sized opening in the market that would form once the UK is out in the cold. Or were you assuming that we'd ignore that opportunity?

But at least you're not trying to peddle that fantasy about the original idea of the EU being just a common market anymore.

dlouth15

gallag wrote: »

Or we could just push for free trade deals without political trappings, like we signed up for originally, we have a very strong case for this, for example if Germany decided against a simple free trade arrangement they would lose one of their biggest markets for exporting Mercedes, BMW and VW group cars plunging them into recession and causing a lot of unemployment.

Also, if the EU decided to cut of its nose, the UK would overnight be able to negotiate trade arrangements with the large emerging economy's and China, USA etc which would be very valuable.

I think the ability to negotiate deals independent of the EU would be the main advantage to what you would propose but this is also possible under the EEA, which is the default option for Britain in the event of an exit vote. Free trade with the EU, independent deals with the US, China etc, reduced (but not eliminated) burden of EU legislation. Control over agriculture, fisheries, justice etc.

The downside would be lack of representation over the remaining legislation and the requirement to pay into the system.

I would see the UK staying with the default option for quite some time to be honest. There is not a huge amount of interest in leaving the EU. Hard-line anti-EU types are very much a minority. UKIP have one MP. Cameron himself does not want to leave the EU.

gallag

whatstherush wrote: »

I didn't say they weren't fit for purpose, or mention anything about engineering or safety standards, I said they could produce them cheaper by not having to comply with a current EU directive such as the worktime directive.


Did I said it had, I asked you what a free trade agreement would look like?

You are correct sir, I would imagine without all the red tape we would have a price advantage, that's also part of the reason we need to modernise the EU and our relationship with it, we need to compete with the outside world, not just trade within the EU, being able to sell into Brazil, India and China etc will take the sting off any EU loss.

DoYouEvenLift

I'd like to keep my free travel between European countries and use of the same currency tyvm

whatstherush

gallag wrote: »

You are correct sir, I would imagine without all the red tape we would have a price advantage, that's also part of the reason we need to modernise the EU and our relationship with it, we need to compete with the outside world, not just trade within the EU, being able to sell into Brazil, India and China etc will take the sting off any EU loss.

So you idea of a of free trade agreement being "No trade tariffs or taxes", was incorrect. Glad we cleared that up.

Peter Anthony

We should leave the EU now before it disintegrates into rubble in the coming years. The fact we now are bowing our head like the good little Irish dogs we are and taking in the Mediterranean migrants in their thousands is just the beginning.

I've no wish to be part of Europes "progressive" version of the Soviet Union and feel its about time a political party offered the Irish electorate a Eurosceptic option. The citizens of the EU have no power in the direction its going, and the fat cats in Brussels are completely unaccountable for their decisions and actions.

The day I let some Swedish feminist "progressive" muppet speak for me and this country, will be my last.

MathDebater

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

I'd like to keep my free travel between European countries and use of the same currency tyvm

Have you ever travelled outside of the EU? Queuing up for a few minutes or applying for a tourist visa online is a small price to pay to regain control of our borders.

OttoPilot

My biggest gripe with the EU is lack of fiscal transfers and consolidated economic policies, while at the same time having to share monetary policy.

Right now, we are one of the fastest growing economies in EU while the rest stave off deflation. If loose monetary policy continues for the medium term in Europe, which I think it will, what's to stop foreign banks coming in to the Irish market and overheating it again with cheap credit, because they're searching for better returns than what's available in the rest of Europe right now?

IMO it's the mid 2000s waiting to happen all over again. Our economy is out of sync with the majority of Europe's and it isn't in our best interest to share a currency if we aren't going to act like one economic entity, such as the US. Low interest rates will come back to bite us in the a** at the end of this decade.

KingBrian2

One of the failures of the Eurosceptics here in Ireland is their failure to distinguish German creditors investing in this country during the boom with Europe as a whole. Their tendency to lump all Europeans together instead of seeing the differences between the different countries. In Greece for example the good times were characterised as organisations passing themselves off as banks.

djpbarry

Peter Anthony wrote: »

The fact we now are bowing our head like the good little Irish dogs we are and taking in the Mediterranean migrants in their thousands is just the beginning.

The fact is, that's not a fact at all.