Why are the British so anti Europe?

gallag · 03-01-2013 01:16PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Prior to our joining the EEC, and for some time after (until our export market adjusted), Ireland was ridiculously dependant on the UK economically.

By 1971, 63% of Irish exports were to the UK, our currency was pegged to the British Pound, at a 1-to-1 rate - yes, we didn't have monetary policy back then either, but this was in the days before we had 'media economists', so we didn't care.

For those who feel that breaking with Brussels and realigning ourselves economically with London is a good idea, you should remember that we have a say in Brussels, we don't in London. This is an important point, as being over-reliant on any single foreign market, with no representation, for your trade is a dangerous business, as we discovered in the economic war with the UK, the consequences of which crippled the Irish economy for decades after.

Finally, in 1973 we joined the EEC and in 1978 the European Monetary System (EMS), finally breaking our fixed rate with the British Pound by 1979. Today 16% of our exports are to the UK and our currency is no less free than it was in 1971 - actually, at least now we have a say in it.

We're a lot better off - strategically and relatively - than we used to be, even with the current recession. You don't have to read for long about the economic history of Ireland to realize this.

What say does ireland have in Brussels? Saying "yes please" to bail out the bond holders? Or "yes sir" to ze germans. Awating a long winded post full of facts and figures proving this never happend.

McDave · 03-01-2013 01:34PM

gallag wrote: »

What say does ireland have in Brussels? Saying "yes please" to bail out the bond holders? Or "yes sir" to ze germans. Awating a long winded post full of facts and figures proving this never happend.

I think you're well out of touch with how Ireland wishes to orientate itself in the world as we find it today. Successive electorates have endorsed our participation in defined EU integration steps along the way. Most recently we gave a resounding endorsement to the fiscal compact treaty. I'd be taking that as a positive leading indicator for a future treaty on fiscal and banking union, if and when we get a deal on our banking debt.

Which will incidentally demonstrate that your average Irish voter has a better handle on how the Eurozone crisis is playing out than you do with your trite characterisations of European nationalities. "Ze Germans" - for God's sake!!!

djpbarry · 03-01-2013 01:34PM

gallag wrote: »

What say does ireland have in Brussels?

Far more than it has in London?

gallag wrote: »

Saying "yes please" to bail out the bond holders? Or "yes sir" to ze germans. Awating a long winded post full of facts and figures proving this never happend.

You'll be waiting a very long time for anyone to prove a negative.

Maybe you could "prove" that the EU forced Ireland to mismanage it's economy in the first place?

The Corinthian · 03-01-2013 02:59PM

gallag wrote: »

What say does ireland have in Brussels?

Ireland has representation at every level of the EU; from the Commission, through to the Parliament and the ECB. In bilateral trade with the UK, Ireland had nothing. Zip. Nada. We were the junior partner, by far, in an arrangement that the UK could, and did, apply economic pressure upon us when they wanted to get their way.

This is the point I was making. It wasn't really that complicated - or so I thought. Can't you see how idiotic your follow up question was?

Saying "yes please" to bail out the bond holders? Or "yes sir" to ze germans. Awating a long winded post full of facts and figures proving this never happend.

God forbid we introduce facts where hysterical clichés are sought.

The only honesty in your post was the re-introduction of the Allo Allo school of linguistics; once more betraying the underlying xenophobia of such irrational positions.

Do you not actually question your need to resort to national stereotypes? Do you think it rational, and if so, why? Why do you repeatedly reject "facts and figures"? What's wrong with assessing the facts? Can you not supply some yourself, and if not should that not cause you to question your position?

This is the thing that perplexes me: I can be critical of the EU, and often am. I don't think the EU has handled the crisis very well and believe the present austerity strategy is flawed. But I can also recognise that the EU has been, and continues to be, positive for Ireland, and the UK, on balance.

And the impression I get is that posters like you and getz don't really do the 'on balance' thing. It's all black and white and "facts and figures" are just distractions to your articles of faith, which once you look at deep enough are simply based upon a dislike and/or distrust of foreigners. And it perplexes me that you don't seem to question this.

djpbarry wrote: »

Maybe you could "prove" that the EU forced Ireland to mismanage it's economy in the first place?

Sure, didn't low, Eurozone-fuelled, interest rates force us to go out and buy overpriced property? God bless us Paddy's, lovable rogues but can't be trusted with a bit of money in our pockets.

K-9 · 03-01-2013 04:54PM

Off topic and personal posts removed. Post something that adds to the discussion or bans will be handed out.

djpbarry · 04-01-2013 03:18PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

And the impression I get is that posters like you and getz don't really do the 'on balance' thing. It's all black and white and "facts and figures" are just distractions to your articles of faith, which once you look at deep enough are simply based upon a dislike and/or distrust of foreigners. And it perplexes me that you don't seem to question this.

All the more perplexing when one considers the history of the British Royal Family - plenty of "European unions" in there.

The Corinthian · 04-01-2013 03:52PM

djpbarry wrote: »

All the more perplexing when one considers the history of the British Royal Family - plenty of "European unions" in there.

Not really that strange, or limited to the British. While it is true that England has not technically had an English Dynasty on the throne since 1066, they're not exactly the only example of this and the British have tended to manage this 'foreignness' better than most it in terms of PR.

Aristocratic families are a funny thing, especially when at princips level, as they don't really have a nationality, in many respects. They're the ultimate mishmash of European bloodlines, and so more aware than most that their dynastic loyalty to any nation is only temporary.

getz · 04-01-2013 04:20PM

most of queen victoria,s nine children married into royal or noble families through out europe,even this queen married a greek,the problem with the EU and the UKs hate of it is political,they were happy with the old system EEC,but the political[as seen by a large number of citizens] of interference on the demestic front is a big no no,

Fratton Fred · 04-01-2013 04:21PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not really that strange, or limited to the British. While it is true that England has not technically had an English Dynasty on the throne since 1066, they're not exactly the only example of this and the British have tended to manage this 'foreignness' better than most it in terms of PR.

Aristocratic families are a funny thing, especially when at princips level, as they don't really have a nationality, in many respects. They're the ultimate mishmash of European bloodlines, and so more aware than most that their dynastic loyalty to any nation is only temporary.

I always thought there was a factory in Bavaria that made them all, or is that BMWs? I get confused between the two.

The Corinthian · 04-01-2013 05:14PM

getz wrote: »

most of queen victoria,s nine children married into royal or noble families through out europe

And she married a German (House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha), and was in fact of German blood (House of Hanover) herself.

even this queen married a greek

Of Danish (House of Oldenburg) blood.

the problem with the EU and the UKs hate of it is political,they were happy with the old system EEC,but the political[as seen by a large number of citizens] of interference on the demestic front is a big no no

The UK tried the whole 'single market only' model, it was called EFTA, of whom the UK was a founding member, and it ultimately didn't work out.

Instead, the UK went to join the EEC and then attempted to block the 'European project' (which was never a secret, btw), so as to turn the EEC into what they had wanted EFTA to be; and that too didn't work out, judging by British unhappiness in "interference on the domestic front".

You can't have your cake and eat it, I'm afraid.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I always thought there was a factory in Bavaria that made them all, or is that BMWs? I get confused between the two.

That would be further north, in Saxony; the aforementioned House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, who seemed to be a very popular source of monarchs in the nineteenth century. The House of Habsburg used to fill that role in Europe, but they kind of lost it over time, once they started producing monarchs like Charles II of Spain.

NAP123 · 08-01-2013 04:00PM

Reading through the posts I have noticed that a lot of the pro europe posters have preponderance for highlighting the positive affect of the common market.

What they seem to ignore is that the EU is more about a federal europe and less about a common trade market, these days.

Highlighting the fact that Ireland has voted yes to all EU treaties is a blatant nonsense as we have not been allowed to say No and have a couple of treaties rammed down our necks.

We have had austerity forced upon us by EU institutions and were railroaded into an extension of the ridiculous bank guarantee by the ECB/EU, which in turn forced us out of the sovereign bondmarkets and further austerity.

Hardly the behaviour of a proper Union.

Scofflaw · 08-01-2013 04:20PM

NAP123 wrote: »

Reading through the posts I have noticed that a lot of the pro europe posters have preponderance for highlighting the positive affect of the common market.

What they seem to ignore is that the EU is more about a federal europe and less about a common trade market, these days.

Not really - the current actions are all aimed at stabilising and strengthening the single market as opposed to anything else.

NAP123 wrote: »

Highlighting the fact that Ireland has voted yes to all EU treaties is a blatant nonsense as we have not been allowed to say No and have a couple of treaties rammed down our necks.

Heh. People need to get over the fact that the public changed its mind.

NAP123 wrote: »

We have had austerity forced upon us by EU institutions and were railroaded into an extension of the ridiculous bank guarantee by the ECB/EU, which in turn forced us out of the sovereign bondmarkets and further austerity.

Hardly the behaviour of a proper Union.

Eh, austerity has been forced on us by our massive deficit and our decision to bail out our banks. The troika are buying us breathing space to sort it out, as well as hugely cushioning the impact of our disastrous policies during the Tiger years by providing us necessary funding at rates lower than we've ever had from the markets.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Corinthian · 08-01-2013 04:21PM

NAP123 wrote: »

What they seem to ignore is that the EU is more about a federal europe and less about a common trade market, these days.

No one's ignored anything; most of the discussion has been on the economic implications of leaving the EU, versus staying, so naturally the common trade market will have been widely discussed. Also you seem to have missed out on the topic of democracy that additionally has been discussed, which addresses the political nature of the EU. Oh, and austerity has been discussed by both sides too.

Maybe you should read the thread again.

View · 08-01-2013 05:08PM

NAP123 wrote: »

What they seem to ignore is that the EU is more about a federal europe

Perhaps you'd provide us with some example of this? Referenced with respect to the (text of the) EU Treaties please rather than so-and-so says the EU will become a federal europe.

NAP123 wrote: »

and less about a common trade market, these days.

Well the "common trade market" still accounts for 80%+ of EU Directives and Regulations. It doesn't account for the balance because we approved it pursuing objectives in 3 other areas so no one should be surprised at that.

KyussBishop · 08-01-2013 05:18PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Eh, austerity has been forced on us by our massive deficit and our decision to bail out our banks. The troika are buying us breathing space to sort it out, as well as hugely cushioning the impact of our disastrous policies during the Tiger years by providing us necessary funding at rates lower than we've ever had from the markets.

With control for the Euro being centralized in Europe, the troika aren't doing us a favour by lending us money though; the EU is capable of centralizing bond issuance at much lower interest rates, and providing that to countries (which should be their responsibility, as there's no reason not to do it, and not doing it puts a lot of countries in a punitive state), and they are significantly failing to leverage that ability (their recent efforts at putting together a program for doing that, has to my understanding, been implemented in a somewhat crippled fashion).

A lot of things that are treated as the responsibility of individual member states, really (in economic terms, not, unfortunately, how it was written legally/politically) became the responsibility of the EU when control over the money supply was centralized, and the EU is quite significantly failing to fulfill those responsibilities.

Beyond debt issuance as well, the EU is the only place where money creation itself can be pursued, without having to simultaneously issue and equal amount of bonds as well; one of the biggest tools that can help Europe out of the current economic trouble.

Scofflaw · 08-01-2013 05:37PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

With control for the Euro being centralized in Europe, the troika aren't doing us a favour by lending us money though; the EU is capable of centralizing bond issuance at much lower interest rates, and providing that to countries (which should be their responsibility, as there's no reason not to do it, and not doing it puts a lot of countries in a punitive state), and they are significantly failing to leverage that ability (their recent efforts at putting together a program for doing that, has to my understanding, been implemented in a somewhat crippled fashion).

A lot of things that are treated as the responsibility of individual member states, really (in economic terms, not, unfortunately, how it was written legally/politically) became the responsibility of the EU when control over the money supply was centralized, and the EU is quite significantly failing to fulfill those responsibilities.

Beyond debt issuance as well, the EU is the only place where money creation itself can be pursued, without having to simultaneously issue and equal amount of bonds as well; one of the biggest tools that can help Europe out of the current economic trouble.

The problem there is that the EU isn't a federal system, but a hybrid of various bits and pieces that have been handed to it by the Member States, some of which is run in a confederal way, some of it intergovernmentally, and in some cases with sensible bits missing from the package that's handed over.

In the case of something as radical (in comparison to a system which has obtained for centuries) as joint issuance, it's up to the Member States. Some of the Member States are resolutely opposed to joint issuance, and because the EU is not a federal system that simply puts a stop to it happening. Those states don't regard there as being "no reason not to do it", whatever other views might say, and they have the last word.

Unfortunately, as is often the case, what we have is a conflict between what is "constitutional" and what is "obviously necessary", or at least potentially useful, and the correct side to take is the constitutional one, because the capacities of the EU are those and only those that the Member States governments want to give them, and have been given the democratic mandate to give them. It's always dangerous to wave aside constitutional considerations out of 'necessity' - in politics, necessity is often the mother of misgovernment.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry · 08-01-2013 05:50PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

With control for the Euro being centralized in Europe, the troika aren't doing us a favour by lending us money though; the EU is capable of centralizing bond issuance at much lower interest rates, and providing that to countries (which should be their responsibility, as there's no reason not to do it, and not doing it puts a lot of countries in a punitive state), and they are significantly failing to leverage that ability (their recent efforts at putting together a program for doing that, has to my understanding, been implemented in a somewhat crippled fashion).

A lot of things that are treated as the responsibility of individual member states, really (in economic terms, not, unfortunately, how it was written legally/politically) became the responsibility of the EU when control over the money supply was centralized, and the EU is quite significantly failing to fulfill those responsibilities.

Beyond debt issuance as well, the EU is the only place where money creation itself can be pursued, without having to simultaneously issue and equal amount of bonds as well; one of the biggest tools that can help Europe out of the current economic trouble.

None of which changes the fact that Ireland created its own mess.

View · 08-01-2013 06:14PM

It should be pointed out that Federal states issues Federal debt to fund Federal spending - NOT State spending.

It is the responsibility of the States of a Federation to issue State debt for State spending - not of the Federation.

As one NY newspaper put it in the '70's the response of President Ford to a request from NY city for money to stave off imminent bankruptcy:

Ford to NYC - "Drop Dead"

NAP123 · 08-01-2013 06:52PM

Still nobody acknowledgeing the mistakes and flaws in the EU.

The euro for instance is widely acknowledged, now, to have been fundamentally flawed and evolved as a political decision made to appease France after the re unification of Germany.

The fact that every decision regarding the euro and communal interest rates thereafter was made to appease Germanies coffers and ease the financial burden undertaken to facilitate re unification.

The fact that these economic decisions led directly to the easing of financial and banking regulation across the EU.

Ireland was indeed unfortunate to have been governed by a crooked bunch of eejits during the decade after the introduction of the euro, but that does not assuage the fact that the EU is stuffed full of a similar bunch of eejits, most of whom are making decisions directly related to the governing of this country.

An EU can only work if the right type of people are running it and personally I don,t think such people exist.

Which is why I would prefer it was an EEC and not an EU.

KyussBishop · 08-01-2013 07:11PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

The problem there is that the EU isn't a federal system, but a hybrid of various bits and pieces that have been handed to it by the Member States, some of which is run in a confederal way, some of it intergovernmentally, and in some cases with sensible bits missing from the package that's handed over.

In the case of something as radical (in comparison to a system which has obtained for centuries) as joint issuance, it's up to the Member States. Some of the Member States are resolutely opposed to joint issuance, and because the EU is not a federal system that simply puts a stop to it happening. Those states don't regard there as being "no reason not to do it", whatever other views might say, and they have the last word.

Unfortunately, as is often the case, what we have is a conflict between what is "constitutional" and what is "obviously necessary", or at least potentially useful, and the correct side to take is the constitutional one, because the capacities of the EU are those and only those that the Member States governments want to give them, and have been given the democratic mandate to give them. It's always dangerous to wave aside constitutional considerations out of 'necessity' - in politics, necessity is often the mother of misgovernment.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The problem though, is with accepting the current constitutional status quo, and limiting political debate within those limits; the general debate should be about what the constitutional setup should be, and how best to change it to that, but the entire EU discussion is always discussed within the limits of the current constitutional setup (meaning the policies that would most help resolve the crisis, are ruled out of debate).

Giving centralized EU control over the money supply means the EU already has de-facto federal and fiscal control over countries, because budget cuts can and are being dictated; so the debate surrounding the EU needs to already be treating it as the (monetarily) federal entity it basically already is.

So with the EU having this incredibly important sovereign power, control over the money supply, it means they need to be held to account regardless of what the constitutional setup says about their responsibilities (and because the EU constitution is a democratic issue); the messed up political setup of the EU shouldn't override the de-facto reality of the EU's real responsibilities.

With the serious human cost of the EU's current policies, leading to deaths, widescale unemployment, negative effects on physical and mental health for enormous numbers of people, and destroyed futures for many of those people etc., that can only itself be judged as monumental misgovernment.

Scofflaw · 09-01-2013 01:36AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

The problem though, is with accepting the current constitutional status quo, and limiting political debate within those limits; the general debate should be about what the constitutional setup should be, and how best to change it to that, but the entire EU discussion is always discussed within the limits of the current constitutional setup (meaning the policies that would most help resolve the crisis, are ruled out of debate).

Giving centralized EU control over the money supply means the EU already has de-facto federal and fiscal control over countries, because budget cuts can and are being dictated; so the debate surrounding the EU needs to already be treating it as the (monetarily) federal entity it basically already is.

So with the EU having this incredibly important sovereign power, control over the money supply, it means they need to be held to account regardless of what the constitutional setup says about their responsibilities (and because the EU constitution is a democratic issue); the messed up political setup of the EU shouldn't override the de-facto reality of the EU's real responsibilities.

With the serious human cost of the EU's current policies, leading to deaths, widescale unemployment, negative effects on physical and mental health for enormous numbers of people, and destroyed futures for many of those people etc., that can only itself be judged as monumental misgovernment.

That's an fair point, that the discussions regarding what to do seem mostly to be limited to what can be done with the existing constitutional arrangements. However, not all of them have been - solutions have been suggested (forms of joint issuance amongst them) that would require treaty changes.

Treaty changes, though, must be first negotiated and then ratified, which means that pretty much any state can block the process, either by refusing to accept the necessary amendments in the first place, or by some kind of failure to ratify, whether in a parliament or through a referendum. And the general assumption is that neither parliaments nor people in Europe have much appetite for further treaty changes so soon after Lisbon (and the Fiscal Treaty).

Nor is the suggestion that we should simply go ahead, ignoring the constitutional legalities, really a runner - if the legalities are not observed, what is done is illegal, and will be judged so by any court, which means it can only be maintained illegally. And once one has made the rule of law an à la carte thing, where does that stop exactly?

While the EU may be Heath Robinsonesque, it is both legal and democratically created - the proposed de facto powers would be neither, and are therefore unacceptable. Better dissolution than illegal government, I'm afraid.

cordially,
Scofflaw

KyussBishop · 09-01-2013 02:17AM

I don't think joint issuance really would require any treaty changes though; Yanis Varoufakis and the 'modest proposal' he has maintained, offers a solution that can be done within the current framework (which includes use of centralized EU bond issuance):
https://varoufakis.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/modest-proposal-3-0-may-2012-without-rebalancing-mechanism.pdf

It doesn't contain anything like the money-creation-backed spending I think would be important, but it certainly seems an excellent step in the right direction; something to keep things ticking over until proper reform of the monetary system can be managed (through treaty if need be).

Scofflaw · 09-01-2013 02:41AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

I don't think joint issuance really would require any treaty changes though; Yanis Varoufakis and the 'modest proposal' he has maintained, offers a solution that can be done within the current framework (which includes use of centralized EU bond issuance):
https://varoufakis.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/modest-proposal-3-0-may-2012-without-rebalancing-mechanism.pdf

It doesn't contain anything like the money-creation-backed spending I think would be important, but it certainly seems an excellent step in the right direction; something to keep things ticking over until proper reform of the monetary system can be managed (through treaty if need be).

Sure - now it just needs unanimous support and I daresay a lot of legal shepherding through the courts.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry · 09-01-2013 10:35AM

NAP123 wrote: »

Still nobody acknowledgeing the mistakes and flaws in the EU.

The euro for instance is widely acknowledged, now, to have been fundamentally flawed...

Who has said that European monetary union is perfect?

NAP123 · 09-01-2013 11:29AM

djpbarry wrote: »

Who has said that European monetary union is perfect?

The flaws go a lot further than just mistakes made in the setting up of the euro.

The flaws are in the make up, geographic positions, economic cycles, political differences, cultural and language differences.

Proper Union is impossible as it will only ever lead to Europe being led by Germany and France.

Our political leaders should be looking at a watered down version rather than more integration.

The current path preferred by those on the EU gravy train will jeopardise the peace in Europe that it was set up maintain. Already we can see the rise of extreme right and left groups in a sizeable chunk of the 27 member states and with the austerity measures being forced upon citizens by the mainstream parties in those countries, it will only lessen the popularity of the mainstream and further add to the popularity of the protest parties.

A small point on how ridiculously badly thought out the EU is.

Why can all member states not have General Elections at the same time, so as to take the political grandstanding out of important and more pressing European decision making?

oscarBravo · 09-01-2013 12:43PM

NAP123 wrote: »

A small point on how ridiculously badly thought out the EU is.

Why can all member states not have General Elections at the same time, so as to take the political grandstanding out of important and more pressing European decision making?

Because dictating the timing of elections in its member states isn't a competence the member states have granted to the EU, and I don't think there are all that many people who think it should be.

I'm completely unclear on where you're coming from: on one hand, you're arguing for a dilution of the political Union, and demanding a return to a free trade area (which it never was); on the other, you're talking like a full-blooded federalist.

NAP123 · 09-01-2013 01:01PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Because dictating the timing of elections in its member states isn't a competence the member states have granted to the EU, and I don't think there are all that many people who think it should be.

I'm completely unclear on where you're coming from: on one hand, you're arguing for a dilution of the political Union, and demanding a return to a free trade area (which it never was); on the other, you're talking like a full-blooded federalist.

No, I am no federalist and as I have already indicated I feel that the old EEC version of Europe served us a lot better.

My point about elections is to point out the absurdity of calling something a Union when it so obviously is not.

My other point on why attempting to forge a Union is futile and even dangerous, is the more serious point and one desrving of serious debate.

Scofflaw · 09-01-2013 01:23PM

NAP123 wrote: »

No, I am no federalist and as I have already indicated I feel that the old EEC version of Europe served us a lot better.

My point about elections is to point out the absurdity of calling something a Union when it so obviously is not.

Why not call itself a union though? I don't think the definition of "union" is tight enough to preclude what the EU is, or to imply that it's something it's not.

NAP123 wrote: »

My other point on why attempting to forge a Union is futile and even dangerous, is the more serious point and one desrving of serious debate.

It's dangerous and futile to forge a union (I'm not sure what that means under your definition, but still) because in times of austerity we see the rise of extreme parties in Europe? Even though that's something that happens in every period of austerity, and has in previous periods given rise to warfare between the nations?

I don't see that that follows.

cordially,
Scofflaw

NAP123 · 09-01-2013 05:14PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Why not call itself a union though? I don't think the definition of "union" is tight enough to preclude what the EU is, or to imply that it's something it's not.

It's dangerous and futile to forge a union (I'm not sure what that means under your definition, but still) because in times of austerity we see the rise of extreme parties in Europe? Even though that's something that happens in every period of austerity, and has in previous periods given rise to warfare between the nations?

I don't see that that follows.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Using the current crisis to browbeat countries into giving up further sovereignty is a recipe for disaster and especially when the crisis is being described wrongly as a Sovereign debt crisis, instead of the Private and Central Banking crisis that it actually is.

The ECB has already used soverign nations to launder money to needy Privately owned EU banks, while leaving ordinary citizens of Europe to pick up the cost.

Monetary policy is key to solving the crisis caused by Banks and regulators and that leaves the key decision making power in Europe with an unelected body.

A body who were at the heart of the causation of the crisis have now been handed the almost free role in solving it.

The lack of objectivity this will allow, will obviously lead to a concentration on the cover up, rather than a solution.

Right at the minute, we have a puppet Govt, run by a Union in name only ( really just a bunch of self interests ) and with the key decision making powers in the hands of those responsible for the crisis in the first place.

Not really a recipe for success.

djpbarry · 09-01-2013 05:31PM

NAP123 wrote: »

Right at the minute, we have a puppet Govt, run by a Union in name only ( really just a bunch of self interests ) and with the key decision making powers in the hands of those responsible for the crisis in the first place.

Do explain how the EU is responsible for the mess that Ireland is in.

Why are the British so anti Europe?

Comments