Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Seth Brundle

youcantakethat wrote: »

Since joining in the early seventies Ireland got shed loads of money from the EEC / EU, we all know that, but a few years ago things turned and now are are having to pay an ever increasing amount. Our contributions to the EU are set to increase dramatically, according to todays Examiner.

You're deliberately not answering my question and throwing curveballs out there.
Why are our contributions going up?
How does being a member of the EU affect the country economically so much so that our contributions are increasing?
Could it be that our contributions are increasing because as a member of the EU, Ireland is doing well economically? (I'll give you a hint - the answer is Yes!)

Akrasia

Peregrinus wrote: »

It was, um, softened a bit.

The Advocate General's opinion argued that "the principles of good faith and sincere cooperation" (which are a fundamental principle of the Lisbon Treaty) operate as a " limit on the exercise of the right of unilateral revocation".

The judgment of the Court, when given, didn't echo this exact language. Instead, it said that a revocation must be . . .


So they didn't actually use the words "good faith", but they did say that a member state giving notice of revocation has to do so with a certain "purpose".

Which may be a distinction without a difference. If the evidence, circustances, context, etc point to the UK giving a revocation notice not for the purpose of unequivocally ending the whole Brexit project, but rather for the purpose of securing the opportunity to have a second, better-thought-out, better-prepared swing at it, it's at least arguable that the Council can reject the notice on the grounds that it hasn't been given for a valid purpose. If that were to happen, a dispute would follow between the UK and the Council which would almost certainly end up in the Court of Justice.

This is all a bit esoteric but if the UK withdraw A50 via a legislative instrument that also includes provision for a 2nd referendum, this could be interpreted as the withdrawal being consistent with "the purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State" In that a vote to remain would accomplish this while the alternative of a UK crash out is in neither the UK or the EU's interest.

Also, if the referendum was a vote on a deal, if A50 was to be reinstated following a leave vote, it wouldn't require the 2 year negotiation for a WA, it would be also satisfy the "revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end" element as they could proceed immediately to the Agreed transition period.

lawred2

youcantakethat wrote: »

Indeed our (Irelands) net contribution to the EU is forecast to rise 51% from 2017 level by 2021.

you see that as a negative

I see it as a reflection of how successful Ireland has been since EU membership in reinventing and invigorating the Irish economy. EU membership has helped Ireland reduce its direct dependence on the UK.

Maybe you should stop navel gazing.

Kermit.de.frog

Being one of the minority contributer states probably gives us a bit more leverage in the bloc as well.

Also it's a little sickening seeing people complain and make it out as a negative to being in the EU that we would have to contribute at all given the billions and billions of euros given to this country over many years!

Strikes me that a fair few Irish people, along with British, like the solidarity so long as it's in the one direction.

Akrasia

josip wrote: »

Yes, but they probably influence more of the UK population than the Guardian, FT, etc.
A very large percentage of the UK population have been systemically brainwashed for decades by the Uk media.
We can focus on the few percentage points impact of Facebook targeted advertising but it's small in comparison to the tabloids.
At this stage it's best for everybody that the UK leave the EU. Leaving without a deal would be preferable to remaining.
They are a malignant influence that need to be excised.

The UK leaving won't stop the malignant influence. They'll send their brexit 'heroes' to all the right wing isolationist parties around Europe to try to recreate Brexit in other countries.

Brexiteers don't just want the UK to leave, they want the EU to break up.

The best way to curtail them is to head them off at the pass, have a 2nd referendum and an emphatic victory for the Remain side to reinforce the value of the EU and put these fringe sabbateurs back in their boxes.

BonnieSituation

We always complain in here about how "balance" is being abused on UK TV and the likes. But are we not falling prey to similar when we have to expend so much energy dealing with the obvious lies and nonsense from youcantakethat, downcow, solodeogloria etc.?

Dissenting voices are few and far between because Brexit is stupid. But at least the likes of Folkstonian and his ilk know how to construct a chromulent response or post.

This thread has been essential daily (hourly) reading for me for over a year now but I've found that, and I'm sure others have too, that the degradation has lead me to just skipping over pages and pages of stuff while the more patient explain to the wall about the fallacy of selective statistics.

Enzokk, Perigrinus, CelticRambler, Murphaph and the rest, you're doing great work but the ad nauseum repetition of their nonsense won't ever stop.

----

Anyway, rant over!

----

I'm still none the wiser of what yesterday's votes have actually achieved.

As soon as Corbyn's amendment was defeated and then came out and said that they would now back a second referendum you had Caroline Flint straight out of the blocks to complain about it as an option.

Labour is such a sham of a party.

I couldn't possibly take an extension past the summer at all.

Professor Moriarty

Tom Watson intends setting up a Social Democrat/Christian Socialist group within the Labour party. Good. Momentum's stranglehold needs to be loosened.

Zubeneschamali

BonnieSituation wrote: »

We always complain in here about how "balance" is being abused on UK TV and the likes. But are we not falling prey to similar when we have to expend so much energy dealing with the obvious lies and nonsense from youcantakethat, downcow, solodeogloria etc.?

I think the repetitive nature of the thread lately is partly because nothing has really happened since November except Westminster inter and intra Party squabbling.

Quin_Dub

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I couldn't possibly take an extension past the summer at all.

I really don't see how an extension beyond the upcoming EU elections would work.

If the UK don't vote in that Election and ultimately end up staying in the EU then the parliament becomes invalid

If the UK do vote in that Election and go ahead and leave , the parliament becomes invalid.

So , either they get a very short extension that ends before the elections , but allows sufficient time for them to either participate/not participate in the elections based on their final decision or they get no extension and make the decision before March 29th one way or the other.

Unless of course the extension takes them out to close to the end of the next EU parliament which would require the UK to vote in May and take us out to 2024!!!!!!

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Please take thread feedback to a CMod or the Feedback forum. It isn't appropriate here. Please use the report function and be as specific as possible when making reports. There are a lot of posts in this thread and it isn't always as obvious to us as to you when the rules are broken.

Please do not respond to this post here.

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think the repetitive nature of the thread lately is partly because nothing has really happened since November except Westminster inter and intra Party squabbling.

I dunno. Watching the Tory and Labour infighting is my EastEnders and Coronation Street.

Igotadose

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Tom Watson intends setting up a Social Democrat/Christian Socialist group within the Labour party. Good. Momentum's stranglehold needs to be loosened.

Christian Socialist? Urgh.
Not attractive if one were worried about anti-semitism in a party. Don't have a religion in the name of the party, ffs.

murphaph

youcantakethat wrote: »

Remember though the words of Ignazio Corrao, adviser to Luigi Di Maio, the deputy prime minister and leader of the Five Star Movement, who said Italy could still leave the EU. He attacked the arrogance of the European Commission and EU leaders for making no changes since Britain’s vote to leave the bloc.

Do not forget Italian unemployment recently was 10.6 percent, and youth unemployment was 34.7 percent. UK unemployment is 4%, so you could say there is full emploiyment in the UK, plus wages are higher in the UK than Italy. Staggeringly, GDP per capita in Italy is lower now, in real terms, than it was in 1999 on the eve of its entry into the euro.

It is indeed, but Ireland's is much higher than 1999, despite the blip of the financial crisis, which we recovered from but which they did not.

We both use the same currency by the way and Italy has more say over that currency.

Perhaps the Italians, like the British, should look closer to home for their problems. I am sick of blame being shifted to the EU all the time. It's lazy.

Professor Moriarty

Igotadose wrote: »

Christian Socialist? Urgh.
Not attractive if one were worried about anti-semitism in a party. Don't have a religion in the name of the party, ffs.

Indeed. Dunno what he was thinking. But there does need to be a counterweight to Momentum.

Akrasia

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I really don't see how an extension beyond the upcoming EU elections would work.

If the UK don't vote in that Election and ultimately end up staying in the EU then the parliament becomes invalid

If the UK do vote in that Election and go ahead and leave , the parliament becomes invalid.

So , either they get a very short extension that ends before the elections , but allows sufficient time for them to either participate/not participate in the elections based on their final decision or they get no extension and make the decision before March 29th one way or the other.

Unless of course the extension takes them out to close to the end of the next EU parliament which would require the UK to vote in May and take us out to 2024!!!!!!

The EU has agreed that if the UK are still members of the EU at the time of the elections, that the UK should participate as normal, and then those MEPs will step down on the date they leave, and those seats will be re-distributed amongst the EU 27

So the UK taking part in the elections is not a problem. However, if the UK do not participate in the elections, then the EU parliament would be invalid if the UK remain as a member past the 1st of July

This is why I believe TM will refuse to participate in the EU elections if there is an extension that ends before July 1st. If there is a longer extension, then the UK will be forced to participate in the EU Parliament elections

The length of the A50 extension is the next big battle. The EU may refuse a short extension and the UK parliament may refuse to accept a long extension. If either of these things happen, then we're at crunch time. Under TM's timeline, there will only be a few days between the UK voting for an extension, including deciding how long the extension should be, and then getting approval from all 27 member states for the extension. If the UK vote for a short extension and this is rejected by the EU 27, will there be time for another vote in the HOC and time for the EU 27 to approve another request?

We could be in a position where the UK has decided they want an extension but because they decided too late, that it becomes impossible for the EU to agree to an extension before the crash out date. What happens then? Two choices, 'no deal' will have already been rejected by the HOC so either accept May's deal, or cancel A50

youcantakethat

It is great to know that the reason the EU will be getting us to pay billions more to them from our taxes and borrowed money, in the form of dramatically increasing contributions,is because our little country is doing so well...oh wait, what about our housing and homeless crises, the fact we are the third most indebted country in the developed world etc?

But at least we may get something back. As pointed out earlier, last November the European Commission said it was "delighted" that the leaders of France and Germany have backed the creation of a "real" EU army, so at least our membership will buy us that, just give it a few more years.

murphaph

youcantakethat wrote: »

It is great to know that the reason the EU will be getting us to pay billions more to them from our taxes and borrowed money, in the form of dramatically increasing contributions,is because our little country is doing so well...oh wait, what about our housing and homeless crises, the fact we are the third most indebted country in the developed world etc?

But at least we may get something back. As pointed out earlier, last November the European Commission said it was "delighted" that the leaders of France and Germany have backed the creation of a "real" EU army, so at least our membership will buy us that, just give it a few more years.

I can tell you now, things would be a damned sight worse if we were NOT members of the European Union.

How much, in absolute terms will our contributions increase?

What would happen if we were outside the EU?

ancapailldorcha

youcantakethat wrote: »

It is great to know that the reason the EU will be getting us to pay billions more to them from our taxes and borrowed money, in the form of dramatically increasing contributions,is because our little country is doing so well...oh wait, what about our housing and homeless crises, the fact we are the third most indebted country in the developed world etc?

But at least we may get something back. As pointed out earlier, last November the European Commission said it was "delighted" that the leaders of France and Germany have backed the creation of a "real" EU army, so at least our membership will buy us that, just give it a few more years.

Cut out the snide posts.

Calina

youcantakethat wrote: »

It is great to know that the reason the EU will be getting us to pay billions more to them from our taxes and borrowed money, in the form of dramatically increasing contributions,is because our little country is doing so well...oh wait, what about our housing and homeless crises, the fact we are the third most indebted country in the developed world etc?

But at least we may get something back. As pointed out earlier, last November the European Commission said it was "delighted" that the leaders of France and Germany have backed the creation of a "real" EU army, so at least our membership will buy us that, just give it a few more years.

Ireland is a rather interesting case. It for a long time was a recipient country. It is now a contributor. Imagine a EU where all recipients were transformed the way Ireland was. Across the board contributions could be reduced.

Also, EU facilitates a lot of things like Erasmus, transnational transport development, research, common standards, all of which focus on growth.

The army that you mention does not exist.

As for our housing crisis, it is a,local crisis with many contribury factors which are complex but ours.

reslfj

Seth Brundle wrote: »

...
Could it be that our contributions are increasing because as a member of the EU, Ireland is doing well economically? (I'll give you a hint - the answer is Yes!)

Let me add fairly good governance in Ireland now.

Ireland is working to make the best of the opportunities the EU enables e.g

• the Internal/Single Market,
• EU's FTAs - many more than a small country could ever manage to negotiate
• EU's FTA's - much better because negotiating for a market of 500 mill.
• etc.

Lars

youcantakethat

Our national debt has increased to 200 billion euro, and increasing, we have a homelessness and housing crises, we are the third most indebted country in the developed world and you think all of that is due to the EU, and its ok we should pay the EU billions more in net contributions per year? Three billion euro a year net they want our contributions to increase to? As someone said "T'was grand when the money was flowing FROM UK/Europe and our national debt was small."

Do not worry there is no EU army now, just give it a few years, it is coming. The writing is on the wall. Do not forget " the European Commission said it was "delighted" last November when the leaders of France and Germany have backed the creation of a "real" EU army." It will be great value.

BKtje

youcantakethat wrote: »

Indeed our (Irelands) net contribution to the EU is forecast to rise 51% from 2017 level by 2021.

Ok I'm going to take this figure at face value and I did a quick back of the envelope calculation. It's not totally accurate but someone can correct me if I'm very wrong. I'm not an accountant

According to this, Ireland's contribution to the EU in 2017 was 1.777 billion. 51% on top of that would be 2.68327 billion thus an increase of 906 million from 2018 to 2021. A large increase but nothing in compared to our predicted increase in GDP which is expected to increase by about 50 billion* up to 2020 (2021 not available). Seems worth it to me though maybe better to calculate with GNI?

I took 2017's GDP and used this to calculate GDP in 2020.

EDIT: How the Irish government wishes to spend the tax and laws that it makes is up to the Irish government. Can't really blame the EU for irelands homelessness and housing crisis. Personally I'd like an EU army but that's my personal opinion. I think each country should be able to protect itself and a cheap(er)way to do that is to have an EU army for defence to which ireland can contribute.

Cina

youcantakethat wrote: »

Our national debt has increased to 200 billion euro, and increasing, we have a homelessness and housing crises, we are the third most indebted country in the developed world and you think all of that is due to the EU, and its ok we should pay the EU billions more in net contributions per year? Three billion euro a year net they want our contributions to increase to? As someone said "T'was grand when the money was flowing FROM UK/Europe and our national debt was small."

Do not worry there is no EU army now, just give it a few years, it is coming. The writing is on the wall. Do not forget " the European Commission said it was "delighted" last November when the leaders of France and Germany have backed the creation of a "real" EU army." It will be great value.

Firstly, there's no housing/homeless crisis in Ireland, there's an entitlement crisis. These people are not homeless. They are well provided for.

Secondly, our debt is our own doing due to the incompetence and poor budgeting of our sh*tty politicians who are more concerned with short-term brownie points than any long term commitments. We had a budget surplus this year and they just p*ssed it away instead of addressing the date.

Thirdly, we were a net receiver for years and years from the EU, one of the biggest, and it transformed us into one of the world's wealthiest countries. The idea that we should not contribute now to countries who need it, like we did need it, is pure ignorance.

VinLieger

youcantakethat wrote: »

Our national debt has increased to 200 billion euro, and increasing, we have a homelessness and housing crises, we are the third most indebted country in the developed world and you think all of that is due to the EU, and its ok we should pay the EU billions more in net contributions per year? Three billion euro a year net they want our contributions to increase to? As someone said "T'was grand when the money was flowing FROM UK/Europe and our national debt was small."

Leaving the EU will magically fix all of this how? Running away from the 70 odd FTA we are part of and would never have been able to negotiate by ourselves let alone get similar terms for would decimate our economy far more than it would the UK's but you think not paying 2-3 billion per year will fix everything.......

lawred2

youcantakethat wrote: »

Our national debt has increased to 200 billion euro, and increasing, we have a homelessness and housing crises, we are the third most indebted country in the developed world and you think all of that is due to the EU, and its ok we should pay the EU billions more in net contributions per year? Three billion euro a year net they want our contributions to increase to? As someone said "T'was grand when the money was flowing FROM UK/Europe and our national debt was small."

Do not worry there is no EU army now, just give it a few years, it is coming. The writing is on the wall. Do not forget " the European Commission said it was "delighted" last November when the leaders of France and Germany have backed the creation of a "real" EU army." It will be great value.

No doubting you now but by what metric? Can you throw up an old link please?

Laois_Man

Going off topic here, but surely officially contributing to a non-neutral EU army in terms of either finance or personnel , would be unconstitutional for us. Recall, Lisbon referendum II was passed after guarantees about Ireland's continued neutrality were made

In an official capacity - I know we've been non-neutral and have contributed to certain things in the past and tried to stay quiet about it. But this would be a whole different ball game!


We cannot participate in an EU army without a referendum as I understand it.

josip

Akrasia wrote: »

The UK leaving won't stop the malignant influence. They'll send their brexit 'heroes' to all the right wing isolationist parties around Europe to try to recreate Brexit in other countries.

Brexiteers don't just want the UK to leave, they want the EU to break up.

The best way to curtail them is to head them off at the pass, have a 2nd referendum and an emphatic victory for the Remain side to reinforce the value of the EU and put these fringe sabbateurs back in their boxes.

They'll never get an emphatic Remain victory.
The best way to curtail them is to get the UK outside of the EU.

ilovesmybrick

lawred2 wrote: »

No doubting you now but by what metric? Can you throw up an old link please?

I know it's wikipedia, but unsurprisingly this "fact" doesn't appear to be true at all!

External Debt
Public debt

Personally, I'd be in favour of an EU army. What are the main objections?

Tacitus Kilgore

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

I know it's wikipedia, but unsurprisingly this "fact" doesn't appear to be true at all!

External Debt
Public debt

As per Brexit, one does not need facts in order to promote an agenda, just lots of loud shouting, soundbytes & anti-everything stuff.

That's why it's the duty of informed people to put a stop to the spread of such nonsense.