Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Irexit Freedom Party

Options
135678

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,157 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I mean technically you're spot on, given the EU didn't exist in even its earliest form for about 42 years after they died.

    Well, the proclamation of 1916 explicitly refers to "gallant allies in Europe". While it might be fanciful to say that they forsaw the EU, it's not unthinkable that they might have hoped for some sort of close relationship with the nations of Europe.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #63
    dulpit
    Registered Users Posts: 10,266 ✭✭✭✭dulpit


    Is this party called Irexit Freedom Party? Irexit is a terrible name, how would you even pronounce it? I saw much better options for a term, Byerland was my favourite. :D

    Realistically if this lot run for elections they'll be lucky to break the 100 vote mark anywhere...


  • Options
    #64
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,660 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Dr Brown wrote: »
    Irexit might be the only way to avoid a hard border.

    the consequences would be far worse than a hard border


  • Options
    #65
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,856 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    maccored wrote: »
    Dr Brown wrote: »
    Irexit might be the only way to avoid a hard border.

    the consequences would be far worse than a hard border
    If we were to leave Europe and become "independent", surely as there would be no trade agreements with Britain, we would under WTO rules need to implement a hard border until such point that we have an agreement (which could be a number of years)?
    As I understand it, by having no Border with the UK (that is NI), then all countries would have open access to the Irish market.


  • Options
    #66
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »

    Anything substantial at all or is it just soundbytes.

    Good news: Dr Brown - Last Activity: Today 13:11

    We might get some proof!




    *Holds breath*


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Dr Brown
    Registered Users Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭Dr Brown


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Good news: Dr Brown - Last Activity: Today 13:11

    We might get some proof!




    *Holds breath*




    Whats your question ?


  • Options
    #68
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,157 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Dr Brown wrote: »
    Whats your question ?

    A few here for you:

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108043158&postcount=55

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #69
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Dr Brown wrote: »
    Whats your question ?
    Is it a PhD or are you a real doctor?


  • Options
    #70
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,856 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Dr Brown wrote: »
    Whats your question ?
    I had a few that you convienently missed...
    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    Dr Brown wrote: »
    Return of our fishing industry which is worth over 100 Billion.
    Let's just start with this little nugget:
    1. Where has it been valued at 100 billion?
    2. 100 billion what? Euro, GBP? IEP? Roubles?
    3. Is this 100 Billion per annum or for the rest of time?
    4. Presumably youre assuming a huge export market in the EU so does the 100 Billion account for any import taxes to EU countries?
    5. Does the 100 Billion account for any import taxes to the UK?
    6. "Return of our fishing industry" - where had it gone?


  • Options
    #71
    gw80
    Registered Users Posts: 1,003 ✭✭✭gw80


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    Let's just start with this little nugget:
    1. Where has it been valued at 100 billion?
    2. 100 billion what? Euro, GBP? IEP? Roubles?
    3. Is this 100 Billion per annum or for the rest of time?
    4. Presumably youre assuming a huge export market in the EU so does the 100 Billion account for any import taxes to EU countries?
    5. Does the 100 Billion account for any import taxes to the UK?
    6. "Return of our fishing industry" - where had it gone?
    Just on this,
    Whatever about how much we would or wouldn't have, does anyone believe that if Spain or France had the rich waters that we have do you think that Ireland or anyone other than France or Spain would be allowed fish them, I just couldn't see it, Spain is a massive food producer, in some places it's greenhouses as far as the eye can see, a natural commoditie you might say. Does Spain allow trucks from Ireland to just rock up and fill up and ship back home for free?.

    And on the oil and gas issue, if it's so difficult and expensive to retrieve as they keep telling us it is, why not just leave it there until maybe in the future technology will have advanced enough that it can be retrieved, and then sell it to the highest bidder. Be kinda nice to leave something for future generations.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,265 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Dr Brown wrote: »
    These lads will definitely be getting my vote.

    The men of 1916 did not die so that Ireland could be ruled by the EU.

    They wanted independence from Britain, an EU exit round pretty much put us back under their reign.


    There is no possible way for us to introduce our own currency without being crucified on the market


  • Options
    #73
    CrabRevolution
    Registered Users Posts: 2,801 ✭✭✭CrabRevolution


    gw80 wrote: »
    Just on this,
    Whatever about how much we would or wouldn't have, does anyone believe that if Spain or France had the rich waters that we have do you think that Ireland or anyone other than France or Spain would be allowed fish them, I just couldn't see it, Spain is a massive food producer, in some places it's greenhouses as far as the eye can see, a natural commoditie you might say. Does Spain allow trucks from Ireland to just rock up and fill up and ship back home for free?.

    And on the oil and gas issue, if it's so difficult and expensive to retrieve as they keep telling us it is, why not just leave it there until maybe in the future technology will have advanced enough that it can be retrieved, and then sell it to the highest bidder. Be kinda nice to leave something for future generations.


    Are you under the impression that our oil deposits are currently being extracted? Otherwise I don't know why you'd make this point. We've yet to produce one barrel of commercial oil, and any oil extracted so far has been small test samples.



    For all intents and purposes, it is being left in the ground.


  • Options
    #74
    gw80
    Registered Users Posts: 1,003 ✭✭✭gw80


    CrabRevolution wrote: »
    Are you under the impression that our oil deposits are currently being extracted? Otherwise I don't know why you'd make this point. We've yet to produce one barrel of commercial oil, and any oil extracted so far has been small test samples.



    For all intents and purposes, it is being left in the ground.
    I'm aware of that,
    But that's not to say it will stay that way,

    Barryroe seems to be the most promising, with the Chinese on the scene it might not be too long until we find out.


  • Options
    #75
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,856 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Haven't heard anything more about this "party". Are they still going ahead with it?


  • Options
    #76
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    Haven't heard anything more about this "party". Are they still going ahead with it?

    It's likely more of a 'slow burn' type group.

    Afterall Irexit won't happen* before the other x5 'more likely' countries (to leave).

    eX4vpKb.png

    Just one big country (such as Italy) leaving will change the eu-dynamics completely. They're about 5-10yrs too premature in even forming this group.

    * Won't happen or be expedited, unless a 'hard-on brexit' causes massive inconvience, beyond all current comprehension.


  • Options
    #77
    Hurrache
    Registered Users Posts: 10,148 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    * Won't happen or be expedited, unless a 'hard-on brexit' causes massive inconvience, beyond all current comprehension.

    Won't happen even if (or when) a hard border happens. We're still not that mad.


  • Options
    #78
    Dr Brown
    Registered Users Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭Dr Brown


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    Source?


    100 billion was a conservative estimate its actually 200 billion according to DCU.




    How do you adjust for the loss of the US multinationals who employ so many people here? Grabbing the pennies that is our EU contribution by comparison will be scant comfort.
    The multinationals are only here for tax reasons. They will start leaving anyway once the EU forces us to put up our corporate tax rate.


    Proof?
    Most economists recognize that the boom of the 1990s was biased on real economic development but the boom in the 2000s was property speculation fueled by cheap interest rates from Europe.



    Proof?
    You need proof that we spent billions on asylum seekers over the past 20 years ?


  • Options
    #79
    Dr Brown
    Registered Users Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭Dr Brown


    ted1 wrote: »
    They wanted independence from Britain, an EU exit round pretty much put us back under their reign.


    There is no possible way for us to introduce our own currency without being crucified on the market


    We did it in 1979.


    In the long term the country would be far better off if we had our own currency.


  • Options
    #80
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,157 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Dr Brown wrote: »
    ...

    You haven't provided anything here. You're just repeating yourself.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #81
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Dr Brown wrote: »
    100 billion was a conservative estimate its actually 200 billion according to DCU.
    Not according to DCU - according to one person from DCU.

    Ruh-roh: https://www.thecollegeview.com/2018/02/21/dcu-professor-criticised-fishery-figures-used-irexit-conference/

    "These are fantasy fish figures. They include fish from areas which are not even in Ireland’s own 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), such as areas off Britain. By applying prices for fish in 2008 to all fish all the way back to 1975 allows for the figure to be inflated beyond understanding,” O’Driscoll said. “Are changes in inflation, production costs, labour costs taken into account? It’s just too simple a means to arrive at such a huge figure.”
    The multinationals are only here for tax reasons. They will start leaving anyway once the EU forces us to put up our corporate tax rate.
    The EU is unable to increase our corporate tax rates. They are also not interested in forcing us to do so.
    Most economists recognize that the boom of the 1990s was biased on real economic development but the boom in the 2000s was property speculation fueled by cheap interest rates from Europe.
    Most economists actually say that the Celtic Tiger (mid-1990s to late-2000s) was fuelled by a multitude of factors including a new low corporation tax rate and various benefits arising from the EU's prosperity including trade.

    In reality, Ireland had an over-reliance on the property market at 12% of GDP. There was as a result inflated property prices, but it certainly wasn't the sole fuel for the fire.

    That being corrected, your point essentially seems to be that the mean old EU purposely pushed low interest rates which were the problem. Except (spoiler alert) turns out that's not the view of economists.
    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/03/did-low-interest-rates-cause-the-financial-crisis/
    You need proof that we spent billions on asylum seekers over the past 20 years ?
    We would still bring in asylum seekers, this isn't some EU thing as you're implying.

    But, turning to the money, I wonder why we spend so much - it's really not that much actually - "in a five year period from 2005 to 2009, the government spent a total of more than €1.27 billion on asylum seekers €424 million was spent on direct provision" http://www.thejournal.ie/asylum-seekers-cost-1670088-Sep2014/


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Dr Brown wrote: »
    We did it in 1979.


    In the long term the country would be far better off if we had our own currency.
    There is very little factual evidence that this is true; furthermore, all economic facts point to the opposite... particularly jumping ship from a stable currency. This isn't even touching on the macroeconomic realities such as currency pinning and devaluation.

    It's just pure, unadulterated, unsupported, non-factual, nonsensical and unrealistic nonsense.


  • Options
    #83
    dulpit
    Registered Users Posts: 10,266 ✭✭✭✭dulpit


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    There is very little factual evidence that this is true; furthermore, all economic facts point to the opposite... particularly jumping ship from a stable currency. This isn't even touching on the macroeconomic realities such as currency pinning and devaluation.

    It's just pure, unadulterated, unsupported, non-factual, nonsensical and unrealistic nonsense.

    But... but... but... Punts!

    If nothing else, I like the freedom of being able to go to most of Europe without changing currency. I like being able to go to most of Europe without needing to queue at customs/passport control.


  • Options
    #84
    martingriff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,685 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    dulpit wrote: »
    But... but... but... Punts!

    If nothing else, I like the freedom of being able to go to most of Europe without changing currency. I like being able to go to most of Europe without needing to queue at customs/passport control.

    Oh god I remember been in France just before the Euro came in and my last night looking for a pint but was dreading breaking the note as I could not turn back the coins


  • Options
    #85
    Dr Brown
    Registered Users Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭Dr Brown


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    There is very little factual evidence that this is true; furthermore, all economic facts point to the opposite... particularly jumping ship from a stable currency. This isn't even touching on the macroeconomic realities such as currency pinning and devaluation.

    It's just pure, unadulterated, unsupported, non-factual, nonsensical and unrealistic nonsense.




    Any economist with half a brain knows that the euro has been bad for Ireland and Southern Europe.


    It will never be in our interests to be in a currency that is run for the benefit of Germany.


    https://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-mcwilliams/ditching-the-euro-could-boost-our-failing-economy-26533917.html


  • Options
    #86
    Dr Brown
    Registered Users Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭Dr Brown


    dulpit wrote: »
    But... but... but... Punts!

    If nothing else, I like the freedom of being able to go to most of Europe without changing currency. I like being able to go to most of Europe without needing to queue at customs/passport control.




    If you like Europe so much then maybe you should move there.


  • Options
    #87
    Dr Brown
    Registered Users Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭Dr Brown


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    We would still bring in asylum seekers, this isn't some EU thing as you're implying.

    But, turning to the money, I wonder why we spend so much - it's really not that much actually - "in a five year period from 2005 to 2009, the government spent a total of more than €1.27 billion on asylum seekers €424 million was spent on direct provision" http://www.thejournal.ie/asylum-seekers-cost-1670088-Sep2014/




    The EU enforces refugee quotas on us and other countries.

    That was the reason many people voted against Lisbon.

    http://www.immigrationcontrol.org/lisbon.html
    Immigration Control Platform opposes the Lisbon Treaty because of its implications for asylum and immigration.

    Most of our worries centre around the Charter of Fundamental Rights which is absolutely sweeping in its scope [“The Charter represents a quantum leap in the formulation of rights...” Prof. Dermot Walsh, School of Law, University of Limerick].

    Unlike any other international rights convention it has no denunciation or “opt-out” clause. Speaking at a seminar on another convention in NUI, Galway, Prof. Schabas of the Human Rights Centre said all conventions have this opt-out clause without which no country would sign them.

    This leaves us open for all time to the interpretations of the European Court of Justice on nearly everything.

    Article 18 of the Charter binds us to asylum in a way which could and surely would be interpreted by the ECJ as removing the right we currently have to opt out of the Geneva Convention on Refugees. This is a right since we signed it in 1954 before the EU even came into existence. The British government, some time ago, suggested it might have to implement that opt-out clause.

    Article 18 might also be interpreted as imposing “burden-sharing” of refugees on us on the basis that if one imposed a right of asylum on a member state the quid pro quo would have to be burden-sharing (cf. the pressures on Malta).

    Catherine Costello, legal expert, has suggested that Article 15 could necessitate the right to work for asylum seekers – a huge pull factor. She has also suggested that Article 35 could undermine even the EU’s own directives on health entitlements for asylum seekers.

    Several articles in the Charter are so broad in scope as to allow for an interpretation that at a certain point (after x years) one could not deport an illegal, thereby necessitating amnesties (e.g. Article 1 on “human dignity” or Article 4 on “inhuman treatment”).

    The 4th Protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty may not protect us. It currently gives us an exemption from rules on asylum and immigration. The ECJ could well argue that the 4th Protocol has been hollowed out because we have chosen to opt in to almost all directives and could declare us now bound by the common asylum policy. The same could eventually apply to immigration. Or it could declare the Charter to be more “fundamental” than anything else such as the 4th Protocol and therefore binding. We are at the mercy of the ECJ for all interpretations and the “European Project” will be its overriding concern.

    Following from the above, we would also be very worried about the move to Qualified Majority Voting (loss of veto) in the area of asylum and immigration because of its potential future inclusion of us.

    In a volatile and speedily changing world we would be mad to sign the blank cheque with no exit clause that is the Charter of Fundamental Rights. That is why Britain has opted out of it.


    The most recent figures show that the asylum scam has cost us over 2.2 Billion Euro.





  • Options
    #88
    dulpit
    Registered Users Posts: 10,266 ✭✭✭✭dulpit


    Dr Brown wrote: »
    If you like Europe so much then maybe you should move there.

    Last time I checked I'm already there.


  • Options
    #89
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,893 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Dr Brown wrote: »
    Any economist with half a brain knows that the euro has been bad for Ireland and Southern Europe.

    I'd rather listen to economists with more than half a brain, thanks.

    What was bad for Ireland, Spain etc. was the incompetent policies of national governments and failure to effectively regulate.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #90
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,157 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    I'd rather listen to economists with more than half a brain, thanks.

    What was bad for Ireland, Spain etc. was the incompetent policies of national governments and failure to effectively regulate.

    Yep.

    I never got this sort of weird Europhobia but true to form there's no evidence for it.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Dr Brown
    Registered Users Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭Dr Brown


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    Yep.

    I never got this sort of weird Europhobia but true to form there's no evidence for it.


    Was Brian Lenihan Europhobic ?

    He said back in 2009 that “cheap credit from the European Central Bank” and “the availability of cheap labour after 2004” that were the key factors in destroying the Irish economy.


Advertisement