nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Irish Brexit

Snickers Man

It seems that the Irish Ambassador to Britain has become slightly agitated about an opinion piece in the Daily Telegraph over the weekend written by one Simon Heffer which says that Ireland will want to leave the EU once the consequences of Brexit are felt.

“I expect it won’t be too long before Ireland wants to leave the EU as well," writes Mr Heffer, "not simply because of the importance of its trade with the UK, but because the EU is determined to forbid it to operate the 12.5% corporation tax rate that is just about the only thing keeping it economically viable.”

Hefner also pointed out that any concerns about renewed violence in Northern Ireland as a result of a reinstated "hard border" between the Republic and the North was mere “scaremongering” and that “terrorism in Ireland has never died, and there is no link between it and new Border controls”.

Now this is of course the same Simon Heffer who drafted the notorious opinion piece in the Spectator magazine, then edited by Boris Johnson, which accused Liverpool people of wallowing in self pity and having a victim and compensation culture in the wake of the murder of a Liverpudlian hostage in Iraq. The editorial also repeated now discredited allegations against Liverpool fans at Hillsborough which held them partly responsible for the dozens of deaths that occurred there in 1989.

This is the article which caused Boris Johnson to be ordered to go to Liverpool and apologise for its content. But it was Heffer who had landed him in it.

Mr Heffer clearly has a track record of being contentious, objectionable, obnoxious and one dimensional. He is lucky to have found a job in which he can earn a living doing something that clearly comes very easily to him.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Mehapoy

oscarBravo wrote: »

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

See that's exactly what I mean about defensiveness. In the exchange over the last couple of days, I didn't even blame the EU for anything - I asked for citations, for people to back up their embellished statements regarding the EU - which turned out to nearly all be either false or inconclusive.

Fact checking EU popularity embellishment (which is contradicted by the EU's own stats), apparently equals someone trying to "blame it [the EU] for all the world's ills" - the level of defensiveness coupled with fluffing of the EU's reputation when it's in contradiction with the stats, just gives the impression of a general lack of objectivity in discussion surrounding the EU around here (I mean, the raw stats - as objective as you can get in the circumstances - are contradicting peoples statements, and they are just digging in more and more, and backslapping...).

Calm down, not everything is about you. You can't deny that the EU is a favourite whipping boy of national governments throughout the Union.

The reason many of us are defensive of the EU is because so very, very, very many people attack it at every possible opportunity. The EU's biggest real problem (as opposed to the myriad fictional problems so many people think it has) is that it's an unsexy, functional, somewhat bureaucratic force for good.

We've seen it in the Brexit "debate": the remain side was criticised for not putting forward a positive message about the EU. The problem is, "positive" in this day of nanosecond attention spans means "headline-grabbingly exciting". Nobody wants to hear about all the good things the EU does, because they're fundamentally boring. People want to hear about the bad things the EU does, even when they are works of total fiction.

I'm not even talking about straight bananas, even though that particular bizarre fairy tale still has currency in the UK (and, by extension, here). I'm talking about the idea that our property bubble was the Eurozone's fault, because we couldn't set our own interest rates. The fact that the government of the time had any number of fiscal controls it could have implemented but chose not to doesn't matter: the EU is a convenient scapegoat.

So, frankly, I don't really care whether or not the EU is "popular"; I care whether or not it is good for us. When people learn to think about things, I'll start caring more about how they feel about them.

eta: As for there being a role for criticism of the EU, when the EU's critics start loudly calling out the stupid fictions about the Union for what they are, I'll be more inclined to listen to their genuine grievances, but as long as they are prepared to tolerate the "ban on powerful vacuum cleaners" nonsense as useful idiocy, they don't deserve to have their legitimate concerns heard.

Our interest rates being set totally inappropriately for our economic cycle as well as the large flow of money into Ireland after the euro was a massive cause of the bubble and then the crash, yes the fianna fail gov could have not spent like a drunken sailor but interest rates and credit availability are usually the primary causes of a bubble.

Jim2007

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

We won't be having that debate, in the presence of reflexive defensiveness and embellishment of the EU, as it simply won't be possible.

The debate is going on, the Commission has published proposals, various parties in the parliament have produced papers, the Euro group has produced papers as well. If you are not aware of it then that is your problem.

Jim2007

Mehapoy wrote: »

Our interest rates being set totally inappropriately for our economic cycle as well as the large flow of money into Ireland after the euro was a massive cause of the bubble and then the crash, yes the fianna fail gov could have not spent like a drunken sailor but interest rates and credit availability are usually the primary causes of a bubble.

Nice, but the reality is that the government could have dealt with it and did not. Ant the opposition could have made a real issue of it but did not. Then again it should not be surprising because the voters would not have accepted it either.

Jim2007

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

Positive public opinion towards the EU actually dropped, and negative public opinion rose after the Fiscal Compact referendum...you've got links to the raw stats on the public opinion polls on the thread, you should fact-check your statements....

But for all your nonsense, the fact is that the amendment was easily passed and negative sentiment did not rise to a level remotely close to a situation where people were willing to consider an exit strategy.

Samaris

The Telegraph is being hopeful that someone else will consider a header off the cliff with them. It's not going to happen in the immediate future unless we really lose our marbles. Fortunately, our marbles have survived the chaos in the rest of the Anglophone world thus far so I think they're on a hiding to nothing.

KyussBeeshop

Jim2007 wrote: »

But for all your nonsense, the fact is that the amendment was easily passed and negative sentiment did not rise to a level remotely close to a situation where people were willing to consider an exit strategy.

You're fighting straw-men - I never claimed negative sentiment rose to that level - and I'm pretty sure you know that and are just deliberately misrepresenting my posts.

Fact is, I've used EU based stats to debunk your and others fluffed-up statements about public opinion regarding the EU - but there's such a lack of objectivity surrounding discussion of the EU around here, that you and others can't even acknowledge when the EU's own stats show you're wrong - in fact, people seem to just double/triple-down, by making even more puffy statements about the EU, that yet again are contradicted by the stats...

The silly thing is, people don't even need to be making these inaccurate statements about the EU's popularity, given that it already is very popular, and that it's very easy to show that without exaggerating inaccurately - it makes no sense that posters don't just settle for that, instead of trying to make demonstrably false statements to puff up the EU's image even more...

Jim2007

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

Fact is, I've used EU based stats to debunk your and others fluffed-up statements about public opinion regarding the EU - ...

The fact is that your claim is unsubstantiated by the stats. Even at the lowest point in the financial crises sentiment did not change anywhere near enough to back up your opinion that a hard border in NI will change Irish attitudes towards the EU sufficiently for it to become an issue.

KyussBeeshop

You're trying to shift the goalposts - this is about your Fiscal Compact claim, not anything I said (and your representation of what I said regarding a hard border, is false - you've deliberately hardened the claim into something far stronger than I stated) - you tried to claim that the Fiscal Compact was an endorsement of the EU:

Jim2007 wrote:

In fact the vote on the fiscal compact should be considered an endorsement even in the middle of the crisis.

I proved that the stats show that support for the EU actually went down at this time:

KyussBeeshop wrote:

Positive public opinion towards the EU actually dropped, and negative public opinion rose after the Fiscal Compact referendum...you've got links to the raw stats on the public opinion polls on the thread, you should fact-check your statements...
http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/...riodEnd/052017

Stats compiled by the EU themselves, contradict your statements - and other peoples. The stats are public and readily available - Use. Them. - rather than having other people correct your (and others) embellished statements all the time.

You know you were wrong about this. The stats prove that. Now you're trying to pretend we were talking about something else, so you can avoid acknowledging this.

murphaph

Mehapoy wrote: »

Our interest rates being set totally inappropriately for our economic cycle as well as the large flow of money into Ireland after the euro was a massive cause of the bubble and then the crash, yes the fianna fail gov could have not spent like a drunken sailor but interest rates and credit availability are usually the primary causes of a bubble.

But following the crash the central bank introduced rules to mortgage lending to compel banks to require minimum deposits from people taking out mortgages.

There was no EU rule preventing this sort of regulation which would have prevented the worst of the bubble.

It was our "I wish those cribbing and moaning would just commit suicide" Taoiseach and his government that was to blame, not the EU!!

angiogoir

Firstly lets get real. Ireland is dependent on international trade and military protection from bigger countries. We may not "want" to leave the EU, but may have to leave. At least make more use of opt outs as the EU moves towards a fully federal system.

Wanderer78

murphaph wrote:

It was our "I wish those cribbing and moaning would just commit suicide" Taoiseach and his government that was to blame, not the EU!!

It was good for us all apparently, they even called it 'the great moderation'!

oscarBravo

angiogoir wrote: »

We may not "want" to leave the EU, but may have to leave.

Why?

At least make more use of opt outs as the EU moves towards a fully federal system.

Why?

Sam Russell

Mehapoy wrote: »

Our interest rates being set totally inappropriately for our economic cycle as well as the large flow of money into Ireland after the euro was a massive cause of the bubble and then the crash, yes the fianna fail gov could have not spent like a drunken sailor but interest rates and credit availability are usually the primary causes of a bubble.

The Irish Central Bank have set minimum deposits and minimum earnings for mortgages recently that could have been set in 2004. Bank of Scotland started the rot with cut price mortgages, and First Active offered zero deposit mortgages. If the ICB had stepped in at that time by for example putting the current rules in place, much of the bubble would not have occurred. Also the FF government allowed property developers to defer their tax liabilities and Anglo were allowed to over-lend due to poor supervision by the Irish CB.

So on balance, it is not the EU's fault but the Irish Central Bank, and the FF government. The EU sets the rules, it is the local country's government to supervise and enforce those rules. The ECJ will enforce those rules if the country does not.

That is the way the legal system works.

Mehapoy

Jim2007 wrote: »

Mehapoy wrote: »

Our interest rates being set totally inappropriately for our economic cycle as well as the large flow of money into Ireland after the euro was a massive cause of the bubble and then the crash, yes the fianna fail gov could have not spent like a drunken sailor but interest rates and credit availability are usually the primary causes of a bubble.

Nice, but the reality is that the government could have dealt with it and did not. Ant the opposition could have made a real issue of it but did not. Then again it should not be surprising because the voters would not have accepted it either.

How could they have dealt with it? the main way of adjusting monetary policy, through interest rates, was not available to the central bank, could the gov have stopped the flow of money to Irish banks? ...the EU were all for a pan euro area before the crash, then after it was national governments were responsible for their own banks.

swampgas

Mehapoy wrote: »

How could they have dealt with it? the main way of adjusting monetary policy, through interest rates, was not available to the central bank, could the gov have stopped the flow of money to Irish banks? ...the EU were all for a pan euro area before the crash, then after it was national governments were responsible for their own banks.

Surely it's obvious? With appropriate regulation.

murphaph

Mehapoy wrote: »

How could they have dealt with it?.

The exact same way they did deal with it....after the fact: minimum deposits for mortgage takers.

sanjose1

I recall Nigel Farage recently stating that Irelands net economic gain from the EU is well outweighed by our loss of natural resources to the EU since joining. Seems an incredible statement, anyone know how valid this is? Tks

Cookie_Monster

It's related to the value of the fishing quota isn't it, or at least that's the quoted item.

Nody

In short Nigel is talking out of his behind as usual; for fishing the facts are here and no Ireland did not give away tons of fishing rights or somehow lost out. In fact EU helped modernize the Irish fishing fleet ensuring they could take up a significantly higher share of fish but also provided funding for boats to actually protect the Irish waters.

LeinsterDub

Typical brexit mentally. Now that the EU enforced quotas have ensured stocks have recovered the UK is dying to fish the seas to the edge of collapse again

jm08

Nody wrote: »

In short Nigel is talking out of his behind as usual; for fishing the facts are here and no Ireland did not give away tons of fishing rights or somehow lost out. In fact EU helped modernize the Irish fishing fleet ensuring they could take up a significantly higher share of fish but also provided funding for boats to actually protect the Irish waters.

Ireland had an under developed fishing industry back then, but then pretty much everything was under developed and the quotas were based on the existing fishing fleet. As Brian Lenihan Snr says in that link you have supplied: Fishermen would only have enough votes to elect one FF TD! Fishing was sacrificed for farming.

Nody

jm08 wrote: »

Ireland had an under developed fishing industry back then, but then pretty much everything was under developed and the quotas were based on the existing fishing fleet. As Brian Lenihan Snr says in that link you have supplied: Fishermen would only have enough votes to elect one FF TD! Fishing was sacrificed for farming.

And yet with this "sacrifice" under EU the export of fish has grown as part of total export from 0.7% (before joining) to 2.9% (after joining) on top of modernizing the fleets, providing actual ships to protect the fishing grounds etc. The simple fact is Ireland had not, would not and has never had a better fishing fleet then what it got under EU inc. possibility to protect it's waters. However the story how countless hundreds of billions were either given away or stolen by EU keeps popping up as regularly as the gazillions of gas/oil that the state is "giving away" through licenses and regulation (fanned by a handful of small exploration companies who've failed to find these wast natural resources for decades somehow).

4068ac1elhodqr

It says here under the 'The Real Map of Ireland’ that Ireland’s marine territory extends far beyond our coastline up to 220 million acres (approx. 880,000km2), an area more than 10 times our land mass.'

So in-effect, 90% of it - is underwater! Given the housing crisis what about a few hundred miles of marinas and houseboats way down towards the sunny Goban Spur direction, sure it will be just like the french riviera.

That's he size of Britain and France combined, if someone invented floating farms, there would be a couple of million of acres to harvest out there.

Samaris

If Nigel Farage said it, and it's a suspiciously open-ended comment that supports his notions with no back-up, it's probably a lie.

Red_Wake

sanjose1 wrote: »

I recall Nigel Farage recently stating that Irelands net economic gain from the EU is well outweighed by our loss of natural resources to the EU since joining. Seems an incredible statement, anyone know how valid this is? Tks

Considering the massive deception involved in the Brexit campaign, it's unlikely to be true.

Jim2007

Mehapoy wrote: »

How could they have dealt with it? the main way of adjusting monetary policy, through interest rates, was not available to the central bank, could the gov have stopped the flow of money to Irish banks? ...the EU were all for a pan euro area before the crash, then after it was national governments were responsible for their own banks.

Monetary policy is just one tool. They could have required massive deposits from borrowers, required those deposits to have been from savings, not a give from granny, restricted the mortgage length, dramatically reduced the tax advantage of home ownership, dramatically increase stamp duty etc...

Towards the end of the crisis a property bubble started to develop in Switzerland too, but the government did not use monitory policy, instead:
- They required a minimum balance of 30% from savings
- Mortgages must be fully paid off before retirement
- Assets such as another property or pension funds could not be pledged
- Mortgage period restricted to 20 years
- Restrictions on the ownership of holiday homes
Problem solved.

Jim2007

angiogoir wrote: »

Firstly lets get real. Ireland is dependent on international trade and military protection from bigger countries. We may not "want" to leave the EU, but may have to leave. At least make more use of opt outs as the EU moves towards a fully federal system.

Yes do get real and explain why we would need to make use of opt outs etc....

Tayschren

Nody wrote: »

In short Nigel is talking out of his behind as usual; for fishing the facts are here and no Ireland did not give away tons of fishing rights or somehow lost out. In fact EU helped modernize the Irish fishing fleet ensuring they could take up a significantly higher share of fish but also provided funding for boats to actually protect the Irish waters.

Finfacts is now a source, really? The article disguises facts behind extraneous references to the famine, pre EU "Ireland not giving a **** about our resources" attitude and other jibber jabber blatantly ignoring that the resource is being plundered.
Basically it says we weren't utilising the fish stocks and we dont eat them anyway so someone(eU) else should have it,whether we utilized it correctly is not an issue; It is our resource and is being used by others for gain.

Hennigan will probably be along soon under whatever guise he lurks here to defend the article but basically it ignores the FACT that most of the resources in what are Irish waters are not being used for the benefit of the Irish economy.

blanch152

Tayschren wrote: »

Finfacts is now a source, really? The article disguises facts behind extraneous references to the famine, pre EU "Ireland not giving a **** about our resources" attitude and other jibber jabber blatantly ignoring that the resource is being plundered.
Basically it says we weren't utilising the fish stocks and we dont eat them anyway so someone(eU) else should have it,whether we utilized it correctly is not an issue; It is our resource and is being used by others for gain.

Hennigan will probably be along soon under whatever guise he lurks here to defend the article but basically it ignores the FACT that most of the resources in what are Irish waters are not being used for the benefit of the Irish economy.

What resources are being plundered? If something is a "FACT", you must have an official source to back up what you are saying.

johnnyskeleton

sanjose1 wrote: »

I recall Nigel Farage recently stating that Irelands net economic gain from the EU is well outweighed by our loss of natural resources to the EU since joining. Seems an incredible statement, anyone know how valid this is? Tks

Mod note:

Threads merged (second time lucky

)