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.
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.
gallag wrote: » What say does ireland have in Brussels?
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.
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.
djpbarry wrote: » Maybe you could "prove" that the EU forced Ireland to mismanage it's economy in the first place?
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.
djpbarry wrote: » All the more perplexing when one considers the history of the British Royal Family - plenty of "European unions" in there.
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.
getz wrote: » 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 wrote: » I always thought there was a factory in Bavaria that made them all, or is that BMWs? I get confused between the two.
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.
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.
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.
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.
NAP123 wrote: » What they seem to ignore is that the EU is more about a federal europe
NAP123 wrote: » and less about a common trade market, these days.
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.
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.
Ford to NYC - "Drop Dead"
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
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.
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).
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...
djpbarry wrote: » Who has said that European monetary union is perfect?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
