Where the hell is Ireland and its EU protest? Is Cowen afraid to stand up?

galwayrush · 28-10-2010 11:03PM

R0ot wrote: »

You wouldn't be saying that if they were here.

I imagine many of would just depart if the IMF were here. I wonder how much worse things have to get before we no longer have a choice though.:(

PeterIanStaker · 28-10-2010 11:07PM

R0ot wrote: »

You wouldn't be saying that if they were here.

Why not? They gonna start shooting people?

galwayrush · 28-10-2010 11:18PM

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

Why not? They gonna start shooting people?

They won't, be we probably will.::rolleyes:

PeterIanStaker · 28-10-2010 11:28PM

galwayrush wrote: »

They won't, be we probably will.::rolleyes:

Hopefully we'll shoot Cowen, as well as the catholic hierarchy and a good few journalists.

Biggins · 28-10-2010 11:39PM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I don't think you are getting this bit 'We are net receivers of funds from the EU budget'
If the budget increased by say a ludicrous 100%, and the funds continued to be allocated on their current pro-rata basis, then this would double the sum we ultimately receive from the EU. Yes, we would give more, but we would receive more back.
Why should we logically oppose this situation

I accept the point and where your coming from, however...
There is a big "IF" there - IF the funds continued be allocated on their current pro-rata basis - and if thats the case anyway, whats the point of shelling it out to them if they are going to give it back to us?

Seems bloody messy and still does not explain how they can ask all to shell out more for this one EU org' when they are telling us all at the same time to cut back!
Its more than a bit hypocritical of them in Brussels is it not!

OPENROAD · 28-10-2010 11:44PM

Biggins wrote: »

I accept the point and where your coming from, however...
There is a big "IF" there - IF the funds continued be allocated on their current pro-rata basis - and if thats the case anyway, whats the point of shelling it out to them if they are going to give it back to us?

Seems bloody messy and still does not explain how they can ask all to shell out more for this one EU org' when they are telling us all at the same time to cut back!
Its more than a bit hypocritical of them in Brussels is it not!

You can see how some of those net contributors might be a slightly bit peeved about having to contribute to an increased fund when at the same time they are having to make huge cuts

Biggins · 28-10-2010 11:47PM

OPENROAD wrote: »

You can see how some of those net contributors might be a slightly bit peeved about having to contribute to an increased fund when at the same time they are having to make huge cuts

The whole thing is a ruddy ever growing nightmare.

ArmaniJeanss · 29-10-2010 12:01AM

Biggins wrote: »

There is a big "IF" there - IF the funds continued be allocated on their current pro-rata basis -

Well it they change the pro-rata then at that stage we could sign a big formal protest along with any other net-receivers Poland, Belgium or whoever else was being done by any change. Not signing this would be a mistake.

Biggins wrote: »

and if thats the case anyway, whats the point of shelling it out to them if they are going to give it back to us?

Its the way budgets work, and it goes some way to indicating the fiscal rectitude of the country in question. Like if say Poland gives €10B yearly and gets €25B yearly, and Poland turned around one year and said 'lets cut to the chase and just give us the €15B instead' it would raise a question of whether Poland actually had that €10B at all or whether there was some underlying crisis they weren't being straight about.

Biggins wrote: »

Its more than a bit hypocritical of them in Brussels is it not!

In fairness thats a different debate - the main premise of this thread was why Cowen/Ireland didn't align themselves with the eleven signaturies. Hypocrisy of anyone aside, I think it was a sensible decision by Cowen.

Biggins · 29-10-2010 12:21AM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

...I think it was a sensible decision by Cowen.

Well, we can have differences of opinion then.

recylingbin · 29-10-2010 12:25AM

From wiki:

It lies to the northwest of continental Europe and is surrounded by hundreds of islands and islets. To the east of Ireland is Great Britain, separated from it by the Irish Sea

Hardly going to protest when alot of the extra money will be loaned to Ireland.

As to whether Cowen is afraid to stand up or not, depends on whether Phillip Walton is around or not.

meglome · 29-10-2010 12:39AM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

The Irish governments position here seems correct - as a net receiver of funds from the EU budget its good for us if the net contributors can be convinced to put oodles more money in.
So why exactly should we allign ourselves with the net contributors?

In fact I humbly suggest that if Ireland had signed this then someone would have started a thread pointing out how stupid it was of the Irish government to do so.

Of the 11 signatures, all the net contributors are included except Italy.
That is, Austria, Germany, France, Holland, Finland, Denmark, Sweden and the UK.
Italy is the only net contributor not to sign.

17 of the other EU 18 countries inc Ireland are net receivers (Cyprus is ~0 either way).
Of those 17 only 3 have signed (Czechs, Estonia, Slovenia).
Irelands position amongst the 14 non-signers seems eminently sensible.

You stating facts won't sit well with the Anti-EU rant this thread was meant to be. You'd think the extra money the EU were asking for was to buy gold plated toilet paper. The 'look we told you Lisbon was bad' stuff is really tiresome and utter shíte. We are where we are due to voting for people who couldn't run a sweetie shop. So effectively we did this to ourselves. Let's stop blaming the EU. I can only imagine how much worse off we'd be if we had to totally rely on our own politicians.

jay-me · 29-10-2010 12:40AM

R0ot wrote: »

You wouldn't be saying that if they were here.

You wouldn't need to.. They'd be already here..:p

arybvtcw0eolkf · 29-10-2010 12:56AM

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

He's over there cap in hand like the hungover gaseous worthless blimp he is.

I wouldn't be suprised if the countrys' actually bankrupt and it hasnt leaked yet.

For a second there my stomach turned, because I wouldn't put it past the lying, cowardly bastard.

force majeure · 29-10-2010 01:07AM

We will, won't we, well we, wont we, well we, we well, wont we, well we... stand up some time when the curtain comes down.

Biggins · 29-10-2010 01:12AM

force majeure wrote: »

We will, won't we, well we, wont we, well we, we well, wont we, well we... stand up some time when the curtain comes down.

Its not over till the fat lady sings...

Cue obvious joke!

View · 29-10-2010 01:13AM

Cutting the EU budget would inevitably mean cut-backs to the money received by those member states that are net recipients - Ireland being of course a net recipient.

Basically, it would not appear to be smart of the government to advocate cutting a budget that we are net recipients of - unless that is, they are even more stupid than popular opinion would have us believe.

OPENROAD · 29-10-2010 01:19AM

View wrote: »

Cutting the EU budget would inevitably mean cut-backs to the money received by those member states that are net recipients - Ireland being of course a net recipient.

Basically, it would not appear to be smart of the government to advocate cutting a budget that we are net recipients of - unless that is, they are even more stupid than popular opinion would have us believe.

You can understand why the countries who are net contributers are a bit upset

PeterIanStaker · 29-10-2010 01:32AM

Leonel Worried Scrap wrote: »

For a second there my stomach turned, because I wouldn't put it past the lying, cowardly bastard.

Sorry if I scared the sh*t out of you.

I hope I'm wrong, I really do.

Biggins · 29-10-2010 01:47AM

View wrote: »

Cutting the EU budget would inevitably mean cut-backs to the money received by those member states that are net recipients - Ireland being of course a net recipient...

Who says anything about cutting it? Standing up and saying "Hang on, shouldn't the EU itself be looking to make saving internally and/or retaining its current budget be a good start?"
...Instead of telling all states to cough-up while telling them to cut back!
Anyone else see the madness in all of this?

OPENROAD · 29-10-2010 01:50AM

Biggins wrote: »

Who says anything about cutting it? Standing up and saying "Hang on, shouldn't the EU itself be looking to make saving internally and/or retaining its current budget be a good start?"
...Instead of telling all states to cough-up while telling them to cut back!
Anyone else see the madness in all of this?

I can see why the UK might see it that way, especially with the huge cutbacks they are going through.

up for anything · 29-10-2010 02:10AM

meglome wrote: »

We are where we are due to voting for people who couldn't run a sweetie shop. So effectively we did this to ourselves.

I hate this we did it to ourselves shite. Yes, we did! But what was the alternative? Everyone to spoil their votes. There wasn't exactly a huge selection in the chocolate box to pick from and I'd think that about 98% of the chocolates were either the ones filled with yucky strawberry cream or double centres. Personally, rather than spoil my vote because there wasn't anyone I really wanted to see elected, because they are all a shower of deal doubling, two-faced twats who once they get elected only seem to want to work for No. 1, I picked the candidates with the pretty faces. It was one way of making a decision.

Next time I'm going to run for office myself, on the no experience, no qualifications ticket because I couldn't do a worse job than any of them and it would get me off the Lone Parents and I only have myself to blame if I screw up the country.

meglome · 29-10-2010 03:25AM

up for anything wrote: »

I hate this we did it to ourselves shite. Yes, we did! But what was the alternative? Everyone to spoil their votes. There wasn't exactly a huge selection in the chocolate box to pick from and I'd think that about 98% of the chocolates were either the ones filled with yucky strawberry cream or double centres. Personally, rather than spoil my vote because there wasn't anyone I really wanted to see elected, because they are all a shower of deal doubling, two-faced twats who once they get elected only seem to want to work for No. 1, I picked the candidates with the pretty faces. It was one way of making a decision.

And I'm personally very sick of the blaming of immigrants and the EU which is very popular right now. All you can do is vote for someone and if they don't do what they promise (within reason) you vote for someone else and actively campaign against the previous person. We don't hold our politicians accountable so they don't improve. Too many people saying 'they're all the same so why bother' but we see how that worked out.

up for anything wrote: »

Next time I'm going to run for office myself, on the no experience, no qualifications ticket because I couldn't do a worse job than any of them and it would get me off the Lone Parents and I only have myself to blame if I screw up the country.

Well you couldn't be worse.

PanchoVilla · 29-10-2010 04:09AM

Biggins wrote: »

Who says anything about cutting it? Standing up and saying "Hang on, shouldn't the EU itself be looking to make saving internally and/or retaining its current budget be a good start?"
...Instead of telling all states to cough-up while telling them to cut back!
Anyone else see the madness in all of this?

What I want to know is why people think it's a good idea to take more loans from the EU/ECB when we're already in debt up to our eyeballs. Who the hell do they think is going to pay back all this money? Oh that's right, our children and grandchildren. You know what they call people who pass their debts on to their children?

This credit based economy is bullshít and the sooner we realize that the better. People in this country need a serious fúcking wakeup call if they think borrowing more money will get us out of debt. It just passes that debt on to future generations who will remember us for being stupid greedy ****. We need to tell the EU/ECB to shove their loans up their fat arses and learn how to run our country efficiently and effectively.

Skip to 3:30 to get to the main point of the video. This guy is pretty smart and really pissed off!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWt86Xxi55Q

AlmightyCushion · 29-10-2010 04:19AM

PanchoVilla wrote: »

What I want to know is why people think it's a good idea to take more loans from the ECB when we're already in debt up to our eyeballs. Who the hell do they think is going to pay back all this money? Oh that's right, our children and grandchildren. You know what they call people who pass their debts on to their children?

This credit based economy is bullshít and the sooner we realize that the better. People in this country need a serious fúcking wakeup call if they think borrowing more money will get us out of debt. It just passes that debt on to future generations who will remember us for being stupid greedy ****. We need to tell the EU and the ECB to shove their loans up their fat arses and learn how to run our country efficiently and effectively.

Skip to 3:30 to get to the main point of the video. This guy is pretty smart and really pissed off!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWt86Xxi55Q

Who is suggesting we take loans from the ECB? This has nothing to do with the topic at all.

PanchoVilla · 29-10-2010 04:53AM

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Who is suggesting we take loans from the ECB? This has nothing to do with the topic at all.

EU/ECB then, happy? It's all the same at the end of the day. The EU loaning money to the government, the ECB loaning money to the banks and buying government bonds. What difference does it make? We're getting billions of euros at huge interest rates and we'll just end up digging ourselves deeper in debt and it's all passed down to the taxpayer. Tell me how that has nothing to do with the topic?

Despite the moves and an announcement about Anglo Irish Bank, the gap or 'spread' between German and Irish borrowing costs was at 3.81pc in afternoon trading, the highest level since Ireland adopted the euro.

Ireland is still facing the second highest borrowing costs (after Greece) in the eurozone, with 10-year debt trading at 5.89pc. This yield dropped by just two basis points following news that Anglo will be split into a savings bank and an asset management company.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/ecb-tries-to-stabilise-the-cost-of-irish-borrowing-2330995.html

AlmightyCushion · 29-10-2010 04:59AM

PanchoVilla wrote: »

EU/ECB then, happy? It's all the same at the end of the day. The EU loaning money to the government, the ECB loaning money to the banks and buying government bonds. What difference does it make? We're getting billions of euros at huge interest rates and we'll just end up digging ourselves deeper in debt and it's all passed down to the taxpayer. Tell me how that has nothing to do with the topic?

You still haven't said where people are talking about borrowing whether it be from the ECB or the EU. I haven't seen anyone talk about borrowing money.

PanchoVilla · 29-10-2010 05:06AM

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

You still haven't said where people are talking about borrowing whether it be from the ECB or the EU. I haven't seen anyone talk about borrowing money.

People saying Cowen was right for not saying anything because we depend on EU funding etc and basically saying we should keep our mouths shut if we want to see more money in the future. I'm saying we don't need their money, what we need is to stand on our own two feet for once. By saying nothing about the increase in the EU budget we'll be seen as nothing more than beggars happy to take what we're given.

Edit: And I'm talking about all money received from the EU/ECB. Grants, loans, whatever. Let them keep their money. It's sink or swim time for Ireland and I'd rather we drown with what little dignity we have left.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

The Irish governments position here seems correct - as a net receiver of funds from the EU budget its good for us if the net contributors can be convinced to put oodles more money in.
So why exactly should we allign ourselves with the net contributors?

In fact I humbly suggest that if Ireland had signed this then someone would have started a thread pointing out how stupid it was of the Irish government to do so.

Of the 11 signatures, all the net contributors are included except Italy.
That is, Austria, Germany, France, Holland, Finland, Denmark, Sweden and the UK.
Italy is the only net contributor not to sign.

17 of the other EU 18 countries inc Ireland are net receivers (Cyprus is ~0 either way).
Of those 17 only 3 have signed (Czechs, Estonia, Slovenia).
Irelands position amongst the 14 non-signers seems eminently sensible.

flash1080 · 29-10-2010 05:19AM

LOL at people complaining about Cowen not protesting. Most of ye wouldn't protest, most of the Irish population wouldn't protest. If Cowen was making headlines about protesting ye'd be complaining about him too.

meglome · 29-10-2010 05:28AM

PanchoVilla wrote: »

Edit: And I'm talking about all money received from the EU/ECB. Grants, loans, whatever. Let them keep their money. It's sink or swim time for Ireland and I'd rather we drown with what little dignity we have left.

So we go back to what? How do we pay for our transport/heating/electricity since we import our fuel and gas? How many thousands will be forced to leave?

While again I agree we need change setting the country back to the 1930's isn't a positive change. We created this mess and the medicine will be bitter but purposely making it worse seems pretty damn stupid to me.

Mister men · 29-10-2010 08:06AM

Cowen does what he's told by the banks. Simple as that.

Where the hell is Ireland and its EU protest? Is Cowen afraid to stand up?

Comments