EU Crisis deepens

The darkest “wow” analysis of the impact of the Irish “No” vote comes today from Anatole Kaletsky of the Times. Bullying won’t work and the vote robs the future development of the EU of ” all democratic legitimacy” he claims. Kaletsky is a leading moderate, intellectual Euro-sceptic, much respected in the wider commentariat.
By contrast, here is a delicious example of the sort of Euro arrogance from the former Constitution’s principle begetter, Valery Giscard d’Estaing that will drive even fanatical Irish pro-Europeans to distraction

Finally the ripple effect of the No vote extends to the Czech republic and Poland, as reported in the Euroactiv website. I recommend it as a great source of wider EU opinion and information, for those who don’t know it.

  • Rory

    In the current edition of Private Eye(No.1213) their EU-phemisms cartoon shows a Eurocrat reading a bulletin:

    “Of all the E.U. member states, only Ireland voted “NO”.

    and underneath the translation:

    “Of all the EU member states, only Ireland voted.”

  • Dave

    [i]”Ireland is 1 per cent of the EU. You’re not going to have your own commissioner. It isn’t reasonable. There will be Irish commissioners, but by rotation.” Asked if the EU was not founded on the basis of unanimity, he responded: “Was founded on the basis of unanimity. We are evolving towards majority voting, because if we stay with unanimity, we will do nothing.

    “It is impossible to function by unanimity with 27 members. This time it’s Ireland, the next time it will be somebody else.”[/i]

    Valéry Giscard d’Estaing regards nation states on the continent of Europe as having as much right to national self-determination as the colonies of France’s colonial Africa. He is remarkably self-important for a corrupt politician, and his explanation for his EU conspiracy comments are as convincing as the explanation he proffered for the diamonds he received from Jean-Bédel Bokassa in return for the financial, political, and military support of the French government for his brutal regime in France’s colonial Africa: “They were not big stones – only something that could be used as a decoration or as jewellery.” He claimed that he sold them and gave the money to various charities in Africa when in actuality he used the money to finance his unsuccessful re-election campaign for the French presidency in 1981. When Jean-Bédel Bokassa plundered the wealth of his country and fled it after personally taking part in the murder of 100 schoolchildren for refusing to wear uniforms, it was because Valéry Giscard d’Estaing turned on his old friend (who he shared hunting trips with and frequent stays in the self-styled emperor places) after revelations of his bribery of the French president appeared in the French press and overthrew the colonial puppet, replacing him with another colonial puppet, and gave the Bokassa a safe haven in France.

    It again raises the question: why would the Irish people want to transfer legislative matters that they have 100% control over in their own sovereign parliament to a parliament that is comprised of people who are not elected by them and who do not seek to promote their national interests and wherein they will have 0.8% control over legislative matters instead of 100%? This is not democracy – unless you are brainwashed into believing that the national state and citizens that the democracy serves is the state and citizens of Europe (Europe is not a country and it doesn’t have any citizens). EU-conspirators and propagandists deliberately obfuscate a cooperative of nation states on the continent of Europe with an emergent country of Europe in order to stealthily engineer the latter form the former.

    Anatole Kaletsky’s article, on the other hand, is spot-on in its analysis.

    Interestingly, the Irish and English nations oppose Euro-Federalism because of imperialism. The Irish oppose the EU’s brand of neo-imperialism because they understand, as a former colony, why it is detrimental to the nation when it is separated from the state; and the English oppose it because they, as a former coloniser, have no intention of finding out. The British people are absolutely correct to be wary of what will happen to them when they are no longer in control of their own affairs. For a vision of their future as a nation devoid of control of its own state, they only need to look across the water and into Ireland’s history (or look at contemporary examples of the Aborigines and the Palestinians to see how well they fared as a nation without a state).

  • Wilde Rover

    Mr. Giscard,

    “[The government] wanted to tell them ‘it’s not the same’ when, in reality, the content was the same. So [my] argumentation was for the French. It had no meaning for people who had not voted on the text, like the Irish.”

    So the quote was in relation to a French electorate who were under the impression they would have the opportunity to reject the constitution for a second time but were told that it was going to get a parliamentary pass instead and not in relation to the Irish electorate, who do have the opportunity to reject the constitution for a second time but face expulsion by European parliamentarians if they vote the wrong way on what was meant to be a unanimous decision.

    Well, that’s OK then.

    You know, people don’t stop to think about the consequences of not including someone’s entire quotation and now a descendant of Charlemagne has had to suffer the indignity of having to explain himself to the rabble.

    One can only hope that all those harboring doubts about the glorious future of our noble experiment in continental democracy are suitably chastened.

  • Dave

    [i]”Ireland is 1 per cent of the EU.”[/i]

    Just to point out (what would be obvious if it not for devious obfuscation by Europhiles in the media): nations join the EU, not citizens. Ergo, it is a wholly bogus presentation to divide the power between the citizens rather than dividing it between the member states. This is done to further the EU integration agenda by creating the false impression that the citizens of the respective member states are citizens of (the non-existent) country of Europe, and to justify the shift in the balance of power from equal partners to unequal partners wherein the bigger states gain more power than the smaller states.

  • There was another grenade lobbed by Wolfgang Münchau in the Financial Times weekend edition. Then it appeared under the title:

    Ireland is wrong to put its miracle at risk

    What looks to me the same piece (and I have not done a word-by-word comparison), now under the stronger title:

    Another No to Lisbon and Ireland could be shown the door

    appears on the “Opinion and analysis” page of today’s Irish Times.

  • Damian O’Loan

    Malcolm Redfellow,

    The stronger title would surely be explained by the different papers having different sub-editors?

    While I appreciate the concerns around the issue of national soveriegnty, I think the No camp now needs to put forward a strong case for how Ireland could function outside the EU to dampen the negotiation threat of exclusion, and to distance itself from the US connections. This won’t be easy.

    My own objections are more founded on certain military, immigration and economic aspects of the Treaty, but these aren’t up for discussion it would seem. Quite the opposite, if M Sarkozy’s military plans come to fruition. In any case, how can the 27 accept what would clearly be preferential treatment as regards Commissioners? If even admitting the possibility would exclude or severely damage the possibility of further ratifications, then surely these statements should be taken with a pinch of salt.

  • Damian O’Loan @ 10:54 PM:

    “Well,” eye-lashes batting, he sweetly said, “what could be the different agenda of the sub-editors of the FT and the Irish Times, do you think, now?”

    Any belief that the RoI can “distance itself from the US connections” is an intriguing thought:

    As of year-end 2006, the stock of U.S. foreign direct investment in Ireland stood at $84 billion, more than double the U.S. total for China and India combined ($31.2 billion). Currently, there are approximately 620 U.S. subsidiaries in Ireland, employing roughly 100,000 people and spanning activities from manufacturing of high-tech electronics, computer products, medical supplies, and pharmaceuticals to retailing, banking, finance, and other services.

    That’s the horse’s mouth, the US State Department. No sub-editing involved. Abso-bloody-lutely frightening.

    Apart from that, all in all, I feel a curious affinity with Damian O’Loan and his argument.

  • Damian O’Loan

    Mr Redfellow,

    Thank you – that’s kind to call it an argument. I think the loss of sovereignty approach is somewhat overdue, and your figures show why. Supported perhaps by those unchecked (on the orders of the Attorney General) CIA flights passing through. Won’t comment on the sub-editing, nor what level it may have taken place at.

    The question I’m being asked here in France is, what the hell do they want? My answer of ‘a Commissioner and no abortion’ is met with incredulity. ‘Straight talk’ is met with with a wistful sigh. Several times I’ve been thanked sincerely; I didn’t take the credit btw.

  • Dave

    The best quote from Valéry Giscard d’Estaing in that article – in terms of being another of his infamous but revealing gaffs – is his acknowledgement that the Unanimity Rule that the Irish government touted as being the basis of its national veto is to be removed as part of the Euro-federalist conspiracy to engineer a united Europe. EU integrationists have consistently argued that the requirement within the Treaty of Rome for member states to seek “ever closer union” mandates the erosion of the right of those member states to veto legislation, otherwise power cannot be transferred to the bueurocrats, and all progress toward integration may be blocked by any member state. While the argument is old, the person making it this time is the former President of the Convention on the Future of Europe. It is significant that the mandarins within the EU turned to a vocal proponent of the United States of Europe to engineer the constitution for its new Superstate and further the recommendations for reform in the Laeken Declaration (which he ignored in favour of his – and the mandarins – federalist agenda). Valéry Giscard d’Estaing’s comment carries significant weight.

    “Asked if the EU was not founded on the basis of unanimity, he responded: “[b]Was[/b] [Giscard d’Estaing emphasis] founded on the basis of unanimity. [b]We are evolving towards majority voting[/b], because if we stay with unanimity, we will do nothing.”

    If there is no Unanimity Rule, then there is no veto; and if there is no national veto, then there is no longer any Irish sovereignty. It is that simple.

    Either Valéry Giscard d’Estaing is wrong in his analysis (and as the architect of the EU constitution which was rehashed as the Lisbon Treaty after it was rejected by the democratic will of the citizens of two states, he is unlikely to be out of the loop) or the Irish government is ignorant of how the EU is evolving (and Brian Cowen admits he hasn’t read the Lisbon Treaty so that is possible) or the Irish government is part of the Euro-federalist conspiracy and is blatantly lying to the people when they claim that Ireland will retain its veto over the dwindling number of areas covered by the Unanimity Rule wherein it can still claim to have sovereignty.

    The Irish government must now explain why they told the Irish people that they have a veto over tax sovereignty without telling them that this veto was based on a rule that was to be eradicated by secret agreement.

    “I think the No camp now needs to put forward a strong case for how Ireland could function outside the EU to dampen the negotiation threat of exclusion, and to distance itself from the US connections.”

    There is no mechanism to expel Ireland from the EU, so kindly acquaint yourself with the facts before issuing directives to others. Trade is a two way traffic, kid: according to the American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland, Irish-owned companies directly employ 74,600 people in the US and Irish-owned companies invested $21 billion FDI in the US in 2005. So don’t be afraid of being independent – you only need your Nannystate mentality if you lack confidence.

  • 0b101010

    My opinion is that membership of the EEA is more important than membership of the EU. The EFTA countries do just fine.

  • Dave

    0b101010, if it was up to me, I would exit the EU and stand well clear of it as it advances towards full integration, sinking into fascism and anarchy, followed by separatist violence and inevitable de-merger it parts or of the whole lunatic project. Anyway!

    In regard to Ireland keeping up with the rest of Europe, how exactly do you keep-up with countries that are lagging behind you? Ireland is the richest country in Europe, the second richest per capita in the world, and also has greater diversity of wealth in that it has more millionaires per capita than any other country other than Japan (the calculation excludes the value of the family home). The Bank of Ireland’s Wealth of the Nation Report showed that the household balance sheet remains very robust with assets outnumbering liabilities by a multiple of six, with gross assets of €964 billion compared to household liabilities of €161 billion. Irish people are also save more of their disposal income than any other country in Europe, equating to 40% more than the Germans and almost three times the amount of the British. These people didn’t become rich by counting free EU money, since the amount of money that they made in 2006 alone (126 billion) is in excess of four times the total amount that Ireland received from the EU during its entire 35 years of membership, nor by reading Socialist Weekly and watching the world go by. They made their money by taking risks – and it is this brand of successful risk takers who now have the money to make more money and take even bigger risks.

    Irish people also have demographics such as the youngest population in the EU and its highest number per capita of people with third level qualifications. This dynamic, young and eructated class of risk taker is perfectly suited to Ireland’s free market economic environment. Indeed, Ireland is ranked as the second freest country in the world in the Liberty Index of free market economies. Ireland’s embrace of the free market explains its success, not the paltry amount of funds received from the EU (never more than a fraction of its GDP). EU bureaucracy is a drawback in the deregulated free market, not an advantage. Indeed, since we will be giving Irish taxpayers’ money to the EU as net contributors – reducing the amount of funds that are available for reinvestment in the Irish economy – it is detrimental to our economic interest to continue as members. It is far better to exit now and embrace the free market rather than stay in and become ever more integrated, making the inevitable process of de-colonisation all the more difficult. Seeking to cap our potential as a nation as a mean average of the EU (a poorer region than Ireland) cannot mean anything other than a crippling limitation on our potential. And who would ever argue that we should be limited like that other than quislings and Europhiles?

    You don’t need to be a member of the EU to sell goods to it, and you certainly don’t need to sell-out democracy and self-determination for some curious delusion that we are all citizens of Europe and we better get used to it because if we don’t then the Germans and the French will start another world war, yada, etc. If these folks will sell their country for an imaginary fractional percentage of GDP, how much will they sell their sister for… oh, forget that one. I don’t regard that as a serious argument, and I don’t see those making it as being other than brainwashed by the propaganda that supports the EU federal project or else seeing it as another way to undermine the Irish nationalism and the Irish nation state (and it’s not like we don’t have a raft of propagandists within the Irish media proffering that particular agenda, is it?).

  • Oilifear

    “The EFTA countries do just fine.” You mean those who didn’t join the EU for very specific reasons of national interest – Norway’s oil, Switzerland’s banks, Iceland’s fisheries and Liechtenstein’s tax exiles. All other members have now left and joined the EU.

    “Ireland is the richest country in Europe, the second richest per capita in the world …” And let us thank our lucky EU stars for that!

    “There is no mechanism to expel Ireland from the EU, so kindly acquaint yourself with the facts before issuing directives to others.” Yet there are mechanisms to alienate Ireland within the EU, a far more worrying prospect that being outside of the EU. Personally, I would say to either get in or get out gracefully, and that it is up to the ‘No’ camp to put forward a strong case for how Ireland could function outside the EU, as Damian O’Loan wrote.

    As regards the subject of the blog (that “the vote robs the future development of the EU of ‘all democratic legitimacy'”), this is sadly true. The US must be very happy that it did not have to trouble itself with referenda in 1788.

  • Dreft

    @Dave

    Interestingly, the Irish and English nations oppose Euro-Federalism because of imperialism. The Irish oppose the EU’s brand of neo-imperialism because they understand, as a former colony, why it is detrimental to the nation when it is separated from the state; and the English oppose it because they, as a former coloniser, have no intention of finding out.

    The Irish were very big colonialists relative to most of Europe. I doubt that the average Tasmanian being hunted by a white man with a gun drew much distinction whether the white man was from Wexford, Wrexham or West Lothian and therefore a Celtic “colonial victim” at most suffering from false consciousness by the invented concept of “Britishness” as opposed to the much more evil Anglo-Saxon scum from Walsall. Nor do I think that the Zulus differentiated amongst the soldiers they faced between the Irish with their racial innocence and the English squaddies with their racial guilt when it came to imperialism.

    Also the English Empire was a very short lived and relatively small affair. I think that what you must be thinking of is the British Empire. Even if you attempt to exonerate the Irish of any guilt of what it did (impossible but still) you can hardly pin everything on the English and exonerate the Scots and Welsh (Cornish?). That would not bear much relation to what actually happened.

  • Oilifear

    Dreft, you don’t need to think so deeply to overturn that argument.

    “The Irish oppose the EU’s brand of neo-imperialism …” – ??

    With an 89% approval rating – 98% among ‘yes’ voters, 80% among ‘no’ voters – the Irish certainly do not oppose the EU’s brand or anything.

    See: Eurobarometer’s ‘Post-referendum survey in Ireland’

  • 0b101010

    All other members have now left and joined the EU.

    …and?

  • Oilifear

    …. and those who remain only do so for very specific reasons of national interest (e.g. Norway’s oil, Switzerland’s banks, Iceland’s fisheries and Liechtenstein’s tax exiles). Ireland does not share any like interest.

  • Greenflag

    Dave ,

    ‘You don’t need to be a member of the EU to sell goods to it’

    Tell this one to Irish farmers . If you get out the front gate without havng your head rammed up your arse you’ll be lucky 🙂

    ‘and you certainly don’t need to sell-out democracy and self-determination for some curious delusion that we are all citizens of Europe and we better get used to it because if we don’t then the Germans and the French will start another world war’

    In case you haven’t noticed the EU is about more than the Germans and French or as one historian called them the West and East Franks .Your ‘bete-noir’ Mr Giscard D’estaing is no longer in politics . Spain , the UK, Italy , Holland , Belgium , Sweden , Denmark , Ireland , Czechia , Portugal etc etc together have populations which exceed that of a combined France &Germany;by 3 to 1 . So your angst of a Franco German EU military empire is a load of oul fear mongering shite .

    As an ‘advocate ‘ of Free Trade and free markets it’s interesting to note your complete hypocritical reversal from your view on India under the Raj in an earlier thread as compared to your view on the EU.
    You argue against the inefficent CAP in the EU and at the same time fail to praise the FREE MARKET in food which sent 27 million Indians and 1 million Irish to death by famine ? It’s okay for the USA and Japan to have protected agricultural sectors but not the EU countries ?

    Ireland will not be leaving the EU at least not willingly. Your notions of national sovereignty are out of date in a world where no nation and no state is or can be completely independent.

    Your comment on the Irish being able to thumb our nose at the USA is at best hilarious and at worst farcical . Yes we have done better than most of our EU competitors but that has been due to local advantageous factors here in Ireland added to some tax advantages and as you say a ‘freer’ economy . But as with the EU we need the USA more than the latter needs us . Ireland within the EU has been able to use it’s english speaking and favourable reputation to advantage . Outside the EU we have little or no bargaining power vis a vis the trading giants of China , India , Russia , Brazil etc etc .

    Please remember that Ireland has a population of 4 million not 40 or 400 million . We have no oil . Bananas don’t grow here . We have high transport costs and an offshore location which is why we have to offer tax benefits to attract investment . And to see how that can make a difference to the private sector one only has to look North to see how that absence has made NI a public sector dependent regional economy with if the truth was acknowledged no way out of it’s economic ‘predicament’ except through eventual political dissolution.

    No EU country alone will be able to survive economically longer term without being a member of the EU . When Norwegian oil runs out the Norse will be knocking on the door . The Swiss banking system is their ‘national ‘ insurance policy for now but even that longer term will diminish as economic and financial power moves further east .The EU is an assurance that in the coming re ordered world economy Europe will not be divided up into 30 little pieces for the Chinese , the USA , Russia , India and other major economices to digest or exploit at their leisure on terms which they dictate .

  • 0b101010

    Ireland does not share any like interest.

    I believe the vote has shown that Ireland does have specific national interests it wants to protect.

    My point is only that sitting outside of the other pillars of the EU wouldn’t harm the economy because it doesn’t change the economic arrangement.

  • 0b101010

    …with an eye on the fact that Ireland is being threatened with the boot, not that it is threatening to leave.

  • The elites will not herd us like sheeple into that abattoir of democracy and sovereignty that is the Lisbon treaty.

  • Brian Boru @ 08:21 PM:

    OK, it’s been a hard day, drinking pints and watching the tide in the Thames change.

    So: help me, please.

    Explain that posting, in detail.

  • BfB

    A TIDBIT of what you’re in for so far. Look for your Irish EU rep in there threatening action against these reporters…..
    HMMMMMM

  • Well Malcolm what I mean is that the handling of Lisbon is the essence of the anti-democratic tendencies of the Euroelites. This blueprint has been rejected now by the people of 3 countries (France, Holland and Ireland). It was an attack on democracy in the first place to refuse to accept the former 2 No’s and come back with a document that Bertie, Cowen, Giscard etc. admit is 95% the same as the rejected EU Constitution. It also marks the crossing of the Rubicon for the EU, because at least up to now when a country said no, they were asked again until they gave the ‘right answer’. This time though, the French and Dutch peoples are not being asked again. We are thus in a new situation in which for the first time, nations that have expressly said no to an EU treaty can have it forced on them against their wishes. This differs from the old situation whereby such treaties handng more power to the bureaucrats of Brussels could either get through without electorates expressing an opinion one way or the other or else after changing their minds having said no beforehand. This is an odious precedent and if Lisbon succeeds, it will essentially reward indifference and contempt for public opinion among the political elites in Europe. That should disturb all true democrats.

  • Dave

    Greenflag, there is too much twaddle there to reply line-by-line, but either your comprehension skills are deficient or you deliberately misrepresent simple statements because of a lamentable lack of personal integrity. Examples of devious misrepresentation above include:

    “So your angst of a Franco German EU military empire is a load of oul fear mongering shite .”

    Never stated by me or even implied. In fact I specifically stated that was a “curious delusion” that is proffered by Europhiles, i.e. that the EU project prevents war between the countries on the continent of Europe.

    “As an ‘advocate ‘ of Free Trade and free markets it’s interesting to note your complete hypocritical reversal from your view on India under the Raj in an earlier thread as compared to your view on the EU.”

    The quotation from Noam Chomsky referred to a claim by imperialists that the free market was the reason they did not provide famine relief when, as Chomsky pointed out, England was “able to forcefully impose on India what was now called the neo-liberal program of free-market, tariffs, etc. etc. Meanwhile England itself, which was a powerful state, raised high protectionist barriers to protect itself from superior Indian goods…textiles, ships, and others. There was massive state intervention in the economy, the United States later did the same thing – stole Indian technology.” The hypocrisy, idiot, was from those who falsely attributed their inaction to free market principles when they were unrestrained by those same free market principles when it came to serving selfish interests. Try reading it again with your Coke-bottle spectacles on the right way around this time.

    “Your comment on the Irish being able to thumb our nose at the USA is at best hilarious and at worst farcical .”

    I pointed out that “Irish-owned companies directly employ 74,600 people in the US and Irish-owned companies invested $21 billion FDI in the US in 2005.” Quite how your deranged noggin translated that simple statement of fact into your interpretation of it is, I suspect, a riddle that is best solved by a psychiatrist or a drug-addiction counsellor.

    Now, having corrected your deceptions, I’ll correct some of your other egregious errors:

    “You don’t need to be a member of the EU to sell goods to it…” – Dave

    “Tell this one to Irish farmers . If you get out the front gate without havng your head rammed up your arse you’ll be lucky :)”

    The main benefits of the EU are free trade. However, the Ireland could retain these benefits, even if it exited. The farmers love the EU because they are its main beneficiaries. In Ireland’s case, that group received the majority of the funds that Ireland received from the EU. These funds didn’t serve to make the farming industry more efficient: the problems that made that industry inefficient are still there, stuck in a time-warp due to the EU’s intervention in the free market. Once the funding stops, the problems in that industry will be evident again, so this ‘gain’ to Ireland is entirely bogus. EU grants hindered the development of that industry rather than advanced it. So who benefits from this classic EU scam? The consumer doesn’t benefit because the EU’s price-fixing forces them to pay higher prices for their food. The farming industry doesn’t benefit because it remains inefficient. The only people who benefit are backward farmers (sans industry) who drive around in new Mercedes (paid for by the price-fixing imposed by the EU on the taxpayer/consumer) and the political class who gain the support of the farmers.

    The farming industry in Ireland was the main reason Ireland joined the EU. However, that industry has declined in importance to the economy to the point of utter irrelevance. We should review our membership as our reliance on the agrarian sector has waned. CAP accounts for almost 50% of total EU budget. CAP is the system that pays suppliers of food not to produce food, despite a global shortage of food. It is the system that forces the EU consumer to pay higher prices for their foods, reducing the amount of disposable income that would generate wealth elsewhere. It is the system that the EU believes can make it competitive in the global marketplace, when in actuality it makes the EU uncompetitive and means that EU countries can’t produce food for export to meet the burgeoning global demand because they are paid not to and were made too inefficient by dependency on EU grants to produce the food on a cost-effective basis anyway. CAP is the core of the EU. It is a symbol of everything that is wrong with the EU and its bureaucracy. In the UK’s case, CAP costs it £14 billion per year.

  • Dave

    [b]Continued:[/b]

    Indeed, the Irish government, just like the British government, has never produced a cost-benefit analysis of EU membership – one of the likely reasons being that they rely on the farming community for their support in the country and they’ll keep us in just to keep the farmers in free EU money (at the direct expense of everyone else). The Bruges Group did some basic calculations on this and came up with figures that showed that membership of the EU cost the British people £52.4 billion a year. That means that EU membership costs each British person £837 each, compared to just 66p a year for their Royal Family. 😉

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1527744/EU-membership-to-cost-us-andpound837-each-next-year.html

    “We have high transport costs and an offshore location which is why we have to offer tax benefits to attract investment .”

    Oddly enough, the British chain stores proffer this argument to explain why their prices are 33% higher in Irish stores than they are in their UK stores, when the actual explanation is profiteering at the expense of customers who are not price-conscious. It costs to distribute goods nationally within Ireland than it costs to distribute them nationally within the UK – and the cost of a container from China will cost you about the same as the cost of a container to the UK (also an island) and elsewhere in Europe. And besides, child, when you are exporting a 500k work of latex dildoes (or whatever), then you divide your shipping cost by total value to get the per item cost (and it isn’t anywhere close to 0.5% on average, so the price differential due to geography is negligible).

    “No EU country alone will be able to survive economically longer term without being a member of the EU .”

    Try supporting that claim with the conspicuously absent evidence. The UK will be £52.4 billion a year better off outside of the EU, according to The Bruges Group.

    The duties and tariffs that Ireland collects and passes to the EU represent a burden on trade and on the businesses and individuals who pay them at no benefit to the Irish taxpayer or to Ireland. There would be an immediate economic improvement by no longer being compelled to impose this burden on business. Hundreds of millions worth of fishing stock is removed from Irish territorial waters by other EU member states free of charge, decimating the Irish fishing industry and giving away vale natural resources that we should be exporting for profit. There would be an immediate economic improvement here by no longer being a member of the EU. Ireland will be giving direct subsidies to the EU amounting to billions of Irish taxpayers’ money – money that would be reinvested in the Irish economy if it were not squandered on the EU. Indeed, all countries would be much stronger without the EU – even those countries that are now joining for grants – such as the CAP grants – that will only serve to freeze their farming industries in time, creating a grant-dependent culture that rewards inefficiency.

    If you imagine that the EU – which accounts for less than 10% of the world’s population, can impose a closed internal market, then you are badly mistaken. The EU cannot block other countries from selling goods within its borders because, rather obviously, other countries will block EU exports and impose tariffs if the EU blocks their imports and imposes tariffs. There are 195 nations states in the world, and even 27 of them merge into a fully-integrated country of Europe, it will just be one small country out of many. All that the EU does is impose regulation which represents a direct burden on business within the EU, and furthers its own integrationist agenda at the expense of everything else. Indeed, the overregulation has the ulterior purpose of imposing the homogeneity that the EU project requires to further its aim, stipulated in the Treaty of Rome as seeking “ever close unity”, to become a unified nation state (unless you’re Turkish and thereby Muslim – in, which case, you’re not wanted even though you are European). 😉

    To misquote Bill Clinton, “It’s the free market, stupid.” Now I know that socialists love their Nannystate, believing that they can’t make it without a Big Brother to watch over them and guide them through life. Ergo, as their lack of confidence creates within them this sorry need to an all-controlling Superstate, they understand that their agenda can only be progressed if others share their lack of confidence of their ability to function as independent entities – be in as humans who seek successful lives through the free market or as states. While I have no problem with their dysfunction manifesting itself in their personal politics, it is a form of treason when it is just to undermine faith in sovereignty, independence, self-determination and the right of a people to a nation state.

  • Dave

    [i]Dreft, you don’t need to think so deeply to overturn that argument.

    “The Irish oppose the EU’s brand of neo-imperialism …” – ??

    With an 89% approval rating – 98% among ‘yes’ voters, 80% among ‘no’ voters – the Irish certainly do not oppose the EU’s brand or anything.

    See: Eurobarometer’s ‘Post-referendum survey in Ireland’

    Posted by Oilifear[/i]

    Yes, well done, you link to a survey produced by the EU which says, unsurprisingly, everybody loves the EU. You don’t quite grasp the concept of independent research, do you?

    Now, contrary to your entirely imaginary perception of the event, the EU’s neo-imperialist Lisbon Treaty was rejected by a resounding majority of the Irish electorate. See, that’s how democracy operates in Ireland, unlike in the EU. People decide the issue by plebiscite, not by EU-funded polls.

    Democracy is an unfamiliar word to Europhiles, I know, but why pop over to dictionary.com and learn a new word for the day, eh?

  • Greenflag

    Dave ,

    ”Greenflag, there is too much twaddle there to reply line-by-line’

    A good start which in Davese means I’ll choose to answer the ones I can and the one’s I won’t I’ll avoid .

    ‘ but either your comprehension skills are deficient or you deliberately misrepresent simple statements because of a lamentable lack of personal integrity. Examples of devious misrepresentation above include:’

    My comprehension skills are fine as is my ability to see through your Europhobia writ large . You started off in this debate and in earlier threads stating that Ireland should ‘renegotiate’ better terms . Now you have advanced to a position of Ireland being better off by leaving the EU because we could do so much better in what you call a Free Market . Then it turns out that the free Market you support is not Noam Chomsky’s hypocritical ‘free market’ of Britain’s imperial past but a newer upgraded version in which the largest countries who formerly imposed harsh terms on small country -colonial or otherwise competitors will now somehow reverse centuries of predatorial self interest by being ‘nice ‘ to small countries ? Well you may wish to believe in the fairy tale of happy free market endings but I would take a longer view of history . NOne of the major world trading blocs are going to allow their ‘food supply ‘ be determined or priced by emerging countries .Americans have seen how the ‘free market’ has worked with oil . I can see them choosing to have the same happen with ‘food ‘ EU countries , Russia , Japan and China will be no different .

    Outside the EU it would be back to the economics of the 1950’s for Ireland with massive emigration but with a new addition of political instability on a scale which we have never seen before ,with the nutty extremists on the left formerly joined at the hip with the ultra right nut jobs of Libertas in their mutual anti EU collaboration, now at each other’s throats as it suddenly dawns on each side that having a completely Free Market and a Socialist Neo Marxist Republic at one and the same time within the Republic ,is not going to work . Meanwhile any ‘brains ‘ left in Ireland will head for the airports and ferries.

    tbc

  • Greenflag

    ‘The farming industry in Ireland was the main reason Ireland joined the EU. However, that industry has declined in importance to the economy to the point of utter irrelevance.’

    Farming or food production will never be an ‘utter irrelevance’ in Ireland given our exposure to the ‘free market’ in food supply which we ‘enjoyed’ in the mid 19th century to the tune of 1 million deaths and massive emigration. No thanks Dave -we’ve been there and as the Yanks say done that . Not good .

    I’ll not argue that the CAP is in need of major reform -it does. Even French President Sarkozy has admitted as much . But that was not the ‘issue’ in the Lisbon Treaty Referendum.The NO voters were focused instead on abortion, sovereignty and Franco German led imperial warmongers.

    ‘It is the system(CAP) that forces the EU consumer to pay higher prices for their foods, reducing the amount of disposable income that would generate wealth elsewhere.’

    The Irish experience over the past 35 years of membership of the EU has been to see consumer expenditure on food sigificantly decrease as a percentage of income . This has been achieved through rising incomes and productivity across the economy which have resulted from Ireland’s membership of the EU and which would not have been achieved had we remained outside .

    ‘ the British chain stores proffer this argument (higehr transportation costs ) to explain why their prices are 33% higher in Irish stores than they are in their UK stores, when the actual explanation is profiteering at the expense of customers who are not price-conscious.’

    We know that the British Chain stores have been screwing the high street shoppers of the Uk for decades . The margins (profit) which these ‘stores’ make are the highest in the EU . Which is one reason the average British is ‘screwed ‘ by not having the Euro as his /her currency so that they can compare prices in London with those in Paris , Madrid , Rome or Berlin without the currency exchange ‘cover’. If you are stating that prices in ‘high street ‘ NI are 33% higher than in ‘high street’ England then one has to deduce that the English chain stores are taking advantage of their ‘monopoly ‘ position within NI to full effect and making use of the Republic’s euro consumers easy access to NI shopping malls and markets .

    ‘ The UK will be £52.4 billion a year better off outside of the EU, according to The Bruges Group.’

    Ask the Bruges Group how much the British consumer would be better off if the UK’s currency was the Euro?. Listen for the sound of one hand clapping for a response ! Apart from high street prices they’d probably save 52 billion alone from not having to charge currency exchange fees !

    ‘The duties and tariffs that Ireland collects and passes to the EU represent a burden on trade and on the businesses and individuals who pay them at no benefit to the Irish taxpayer or to Ireland.’

    True . But also true of France,Germany , UK, Spain , Holland etc etc etc . Ireland may be an island but we live in the real world along with other trading nations . Now you may think that Ireland is a mini super economic power in the making alongside the oil rich Norwegians or the banking rich Swiss Membership but you are backing the wrong horse if you seriously believe that Ireland would fare better outside the EU than within .

    GF :“No EU country alone will be able to survive economically longer term without being a member of the EU .”

    Dave :Try supporting that claim with the conspicuously absent evidence.

    The last time I checked there were NO member countries lining up to leave the EU . In fact the reverse is the case with Croatia , Ukraine ,among others wanting to join . These countries having only recently won their political independence are proof of the white ‘lie’ which was used by the NO camp in the recent referendum re ‘sovereignty ‘ issues.

    tbc

  • Greenflag

    Dave,

    ‘To misquote Bill Clinton, “It’s the free market, stupid.”’

    Which ‘free market’ was Clinton referring to ? Was it Noam Chomsky’s ‘hypocritical ‘ fore runner of the present ‘global market ‘ or some free for all trading agreement which transfers manufacturing and service jobs to emerging countries in return for higher returns for western investors and increasing emisseration for western middle and working classes ? Perhaps we are now seeing that there will not be much to choose between both ‘free markets’ in the end. So whether it’s the British Imperialist one sided ‘free market ‘ of the 18th and 19th centuries or the American -Sino projected ‘free market’ of the 21st the facts of economic life will be the same for all small countries .

    ‘Now I know that socialists love their Nannystate, believing that they can’t make it without a Big Brother to watch over them and guide them through life.’

    Problem being I’m no socialist. The last time I checked the Germans and French had right of centre non socialist Presidents /Kanzelers also the Italians and if I’m not mistaken even the Spanish and the Swedes and Poles and also here in Ireland (Republic). The only major ‘socialists’ country in the EU is the UK ?

    ‘Ergo their lack of confidence creates within them this sorry need to an all-controlling Superstate’

    Ergo your reasoning is utter shite as the Brits being ‘socialists ‘ are the most Euro sceptic whereas the other non socialist EU countries are the most pro EU .

    ‘be in as humans who seek successful lives through the free market or as states. While I have no problem with their dysfunction manifesting itself in their personal politics,’ it is a form of treason when it is just to undermine faith in sovereignty, independence, self-determination and the right of a people to a nation state.’

    Here we go again the old fallacy of composition . The ultimate neo con lie and the reaon why the USA is now arresting and jailing many of the it’s ultra ‘free marketeers’ in Wall Street .

    Just because one kid from the ghetto become’s a millionaire basketball player and a success then all can . Just because one drop out nerd from college name of Bill Gates can become a billionaire everybody can .Just because one kid from Ballyfermot or Ballymun gets to graduate from university means that all can do so ! Just because Ireland became an ‘independent ‘ State and be a relative success so too can Scotland , Wales , Northern Ireland , Anatolia , Aragon , Provence , Yorkshire , Cork , California , Alaska , Greenland etc etc . The neo con logic is unbeatable eh ? I had thought you were a little brighter than the average dobermann of the right wing nut jobs but obviously I’m dealing here with the little Irelander syndrome as well 🙁

    ‘ it is a form of treason when it is just to undermine faith in sovereignty, independence, self-determination and the right of a people to a nation state.’

    The ‘nation state’ is not the be all and end all of political evolution . Just as tribal societies evolved into small kingdoms and small kingdoms into larger kingdoms and later into empires , totalitarian states etc . The ‘nation state’ is not the end of history . Many of the ‘nation states’ of the EU are in themselves already multi national. The UK has Scots , Welsh and Northern Irish some might include Yorkshire as well 🙂 France has Bretons , Provencals and Basques . Spain has Castillians , Aragonese , Galicians , Andalusians . Italy has Tuscans , Sicilians . Belgium has French , Flemings and Germans and so on .

    The ‘nation state’ has already been well watered down . Look around you at present day Ireland with it’s multi ethnic new immigrants . They too and their children will be contributing to the Euro debate of the future .

    If 53% of the people of the Republic voted to join a Federal Europe presumably would that be ‘treason’ given your ‘little Ireland uber alles ‘ mentality .

    On the other hand if the electoral turnout was only 53% would you accept the verdict of a ‘minority ‘ of the people ?

  • Greenflag

    Dave ,

    ‘Now, contrary to your entirely imaginary perception of the event, the EU’s neo-imperialist Lisbon Treaty was rejected by a resounding majority of the Irish electorate.’

    It was’nt . Only 53% of the total electorate voted – resulting in approx 28% of Irish voters rejecting the Lisbon Treaty . The other 72% either voted Yes or stayed home . In the Irish Dail (Parliament ) only 6 or 7 of 168 TD ‘s supported the NO’s .

    ‘ Yes, well done, you link to a survey produced by the EU which says, unsurprisingly, everybody loves the EU. You don’t quite grasp the concept of independent research, do you? ‘

    Neither do you Dave . After all you ‘quote ‘ from ultra EU sceptic Telegraph/Torygraph right wing British newspapers for your so called ‘ independent ‘ research ? Pull the other one gobshite !

  • 0b101010

    It was’nt . Only 53% of the total electorate voted – resulting in approx 28% of Irish voters rejecting the Lisbon Treaty . The other 72% either voted Yes or stayed home . In the Irish Dail (Parliament ) only 6 or 7 of 168 TD ‘s supported the NO’s .

    So it was a “Yes” after all then? Where are you going with this?

  • Greenflag

    0b101010,

    ‘So it was a “Yes” after all then?’

    A minority of the electorate 28% – voted NO was the point I was making

    ‘Where are you going with this’

    Where are you coming from? Yes ? No ? Maybe ? or more likely the ‘haven’t a clue ‘ mob .

  • 0b101010

    Oh and why would you say that now?

  • “With an 89% approval rating – 98% among ‘yes’ voters, 80% among ‘no’ voters – the Irish certainly do not oppose the EU’s brand or anything.”

    When will some people realise that you an be in favour of an organisation without supporting proposed rule changes governing it.

  • Greenflag

    0b101010Oh ,

    ‘and why would you say that now?’

    Let’s face it binomial man you haven’t been prominent in this debate to date now have you ? Why not show your cards assuming you have some ?>

    brian boru,

    ‘When will some people realise that you an be in favour of an organisation without supporting proposed rule changes governing it.’

    A while back the GAA had a similar problem but IIRC they overcame it by coming down on the side of ‘money’ now rather than pristine uber nationalistic/religious principles for the future.

    Organisations or individuals that don’t change or adapt their ‘rules’ in light of a changing environment are in most cases left behind as society moves on .

    I assume you’ve heard of the Orange Order , the RC Church , the UUP , etc etc . You must be impressed at the latter organisations ability to hold on to their members in ever diminishing numbers over the past few decades .

    Ever wonder why ?

  • 0b101010

    Let’s face it binomial man you haven’t been prominent in this debate to date now have you ? Why not show your cards assuming you have some ?

    I have already, although to call much of the chatter here “debate” is a conceit.

    Trying to claim No-Shows for the side of shifting the status quo is disingenuous at best. How about we refactor what you said in this manner:

    “Only 53% of the total electorate voted – resulting in approx 25% of Irish voters accepting the Lisbon Treaty . The other 75% either voted No or stayed home .”

    Now how about we extend these statistics to the whole of EU? What proportion of the electorate at large voted? How many voted “Yes”?

  • Greenflag

    0b101010,

    How about we refactor what you said in this manner:

    “Only 53% of the total electorate voted – resulting in approx 25% of Irish voters accepting the Lisbon Treaty . The other 75% either voted No or stayed home .”

    How about it ? I’ve no problem with it unless you have ?

    ‘Now how about we extend these statistics to the whole of EU?’

    The EU is made up of 26 or so countries /States which are ‘representative democracies’ . Some of these States have written constitutions which require them to have ‘referendums’ on certain issues reflecting their governance but most choose to leave the decision making to their elected representatives . Ireland unlike the majority of the EU states is required to have a referendum . If Ireland were like the majority then the YES vote would have been passed in the Dail by a margin of 160 to 6 approx.

    I’m not against the use of referendums as an aid to protect citizens against the accumulation of excessive power by elected representatives. Referendums are usually held on matters which impact on a countries ‘identity’ ‘values’ etc and can have both positive and negative impacts short and long.

    In cases like the Lisbon and Nice Treaties the issues were/are complex and often far removed from most people’s daily lives and thus subject to manipulation and spin by all sides .

    I believe a minimum turn out threshold of 70 to 75% should be required for any referendum to be either passed or rejected . This would put pressure on all sides in a referendum debate to explain their case to the public in a manner in which the latter can understand the issues and make an informed choice and not one based on fear and/or ignorance .

  • Oh come now Greenflag. The EU has changed its rules tonnes of times. SEA 1987, Maastricht 1992, Amsterdam 1998, and Nice 2002. Lisbon is patently unnecessary and a trojan-horse for Big State domination of small states and the increased centralisation of power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats very few of which will be Irish if this goes through.