Current Affairs EU In or Out

In or Out

  • In

    Votes: 688 67.9%
  • Out

    Votes: 325 32.1%

  • Total voters
    1,013
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ironically this kind of thing is exactly what the veto was designed for.

Not really, we do not allow Scotland or Wales or even London (which is as big as Belgium) to have a veto on the UK, so why Belgium allows its regions to do so is somewhat strange, effectively giving Belgium 7 or 8 vetoes on a group of 27 other countries some of whom are many times larger. Is it democracy, well yes it is, does it allow for decision making efficiency, no it doesn't. If each of the other EU countries did something similar then there would literally be hundreds of vetoes that could scupper deals. I wanted out because I thought 28 was too many.....it's the equivalent of Pittsburg having a veto over US trade deals.......this just sums the shambles of the EU up really.......
 
The whole rotten structure is going to come down sooner or later.

Obviously Walloon will be told to vote again, then they will be strong-armed, then finally bribed to come up with the right result. Meanwhile the rest of the World will begin to understand why we chose to leave. Canada of course has already done a piece of work with CETA that they know the UK was willing to sign, so that should take about 5 minutes once we leave.......
 
I'm part Irish, but even I have to concede that Ireland's austerity is a direct consequence of its past fiscal recklessness.

Irish banks didn't go bust and needed bailing out due to 'fiscal recklessness' but due to unsustainable lending that led to a property boom and reckless lending practices that aided that boom. That in turn led to an austerity package demanded by the EU including the UK to bail out the banks.
 
Last edited:
Irish banks didn't go bust and needed bailing out due to 'fiscal recklessness' but due to unsustainable lending that led to a property boom and reckless lending practices that aided that boom. That in turn led to an austerity package demanded by the EU including the UK to bail out the banks.

So point out exactly where did the UK demand austerity as a result of the UK giving a separate loan to Ireland......
 
The pre-referendum economic predictions were based on Cameron doing what he'd said he do i.e. invoking article 50 'the day after' the referendum.

We're not in recession, as we've not done anything yet. We WILL go into recession once article 50 is invoked AND we lose our single market access by choosing the idiots exit route.

Which idiots are you referring to........
 
You brought up that fella specifically as he'd "researched" the referendum, just turns out the person that you brought up was wrong.

People on here claimed we would go into recession when we left the EU. We all know it's over 2 years away so they haven't been proven wrong Pete, you should know that with your involvement in multi billion pound trade deals.


We are in recession however the technical definition is 2 quarters of reduced economic activity measured by GDP. It is a backward looking measure.

The question is how long we will be in recession and how deep will it be, not whether or not there is a recession.

So how would you re-interpret this then........
 
So point out exactly where did the UK demand austerity as a result of the UK giving a separate loan to Ireland......

"When asked whether Britain's contribution to the Irish bailout was worth around £7bn, Osborne said: "It's around that [figure], it's in the order of billions, not tens of billions."

He added: "The details of the entire package, not just the UK contribution but the eurozone and IMF contribution, is all being worked out as we speak and we should, by the end of the month, have the details on that."

The rate of interest and other terms on a UK bilateral loan would be similar to the conditions of the international package, Osborne said". Julia Kollewe Monday 22 November 2010 11.05 GMT.

The 'terms' demanded by international lenders the EU, IMF and ECB were austerity. In Osborne's words 'UK's bilateral loan would be similar to the conditions of the international package', demand Ireland to follow the path of austerity.
 
Not really, we do not allow Scotland or Wales or even London (which is as big as Belgium) to have a veto on the UK, so why Belgium allows its regions to do so is somewhat strange, effectively giving Belgium 7 or 8 vetoes on a group of 27 other countries some of whom are many times larger. Is it democracy, well yes it is, does it allow for decision making efficiency, no it doesn't. If each of the other EU countries did something similar then there would literally be hundreds of vetoes that could scupper deals. I wanted out because I thought 28 was too many.....it's the equivalent of Pittsburg having a veto over US trade deals.......this just sums the shambles of the EU up really.......

As a Belgian, there really isn't anything strange about the veto.

Belgium is a federal state. We have six governments and six parliaments (well in theory 7 parliaments; but in Flanders we've merged two).

The competence to ratify treaties depends on the content of the treaty. This is the result of multiple state reforms. For instance; a treaty concerning national defence: this is a competence of the federal government so this is easy. Or treaties concerning cultural affairs; this is also easy: regional (more specifically the community governments since it's a competence that points to personal competences).

With CETA it's not so easy. It's quite a broad treaty (broad content - competences lie with different parts of the state). This means mixed competence. The result being that you need the approval of multiple governments. So the Belgian federal government still has the competence to sign them; but to do this it needs the approval of the regions involved. If the procedure isn't followed; one can go to the constitutional court.

After the treaties have been signed. The parliaments have to ratify them. So afterwards the treaties have to go through every parliament involved.

You see it's easy.

I'm from the Flemish part. The Walloons (also known as the less rich part) have a point CETA stinks. It's btw not only the Walloons, the Brussels Capital region government also has issues with it.

Tusk is partially right when he says it's a result of internal differences in Belgium. The Walloon parties who make up the Walloon (mainly PS+CDH) government aren't in the Federal government (the only French speaking party is the MR). But in all fairness; the Walloons have a point. I don't like the fact that the treaty makes it possible for big companies to circumvent national legislation (concerning environmental rules ...). Oh and the provided extra declarations aren't binding. The proposed courts are kind of free to interpret them how they please. So they have been given nothing.

At the end of the day I think they will agree with the treaty though.

Also the EU will not disintegrate. Most British people don't have that sense of feeling European but around here it's quite present. Certainly in the founding countries. You look at it mostly from an economical point of view; but here it's a matter of principle.

I have to say though, I don't really see why lots of the Brexit people actively wish bad things to happen to other nations; nobody here wishes bad things to happen to the UK.

I agree btw with people saying when you vote Brexit you have to Brexit. The modalities of the referendum where rubbish, but at the end of the day when you do it like that you have to submit to the will of the people.
 
"When asked whether Britain's contribution to the Irish bailout was worth around £7bn, Osborne said: "It's around that [figure], it's in the order of billions, not tens of billions."

He added: "The details of the entire package, not just the UK contribution but the eurozone and IMF contribution, is all being worked out as we speak and we should, by the end of the month, have the details on that."

The rate of interest and other terms on a UK bilateral loan would be similar to the conditions of the international package, Osborne said". Julia Kollewe Monday 22 November 2010 11.05 GMT.

The 'terms' demanded by international lenders the EU, IMF and ECB were austerity. In Osborne's words 'UK's bilateral loan would be similar to the conditions of the international package', demand Ireland to follow the path of austerity.

You have deliberately adjusted the wording of that article and put across an untrue view....the complete article is here...

George Osborne confirmed this morning that Britain would provide around £7bn to support Ireland as part of the international rescue package requested last night.

His comments came as a British thinktank said UK taxpayers should not "cough up" £7bn to help bail out the Irish economy, and eurosceptic Conservative MPs also voiced their opposition.

To placate eurosceptic critics, the chancellor insisted that Britain would not be part of a permanent bailout mechanism for eurozone countries.

"What we have committed to do is to obviously be partners as shareholders in the IMF in an international rescue of the Irish economy," Osborne told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "But we have also made a commitment to consider a bilateral loan that reflects the fact we are not part of the euro… but Ireland is our very closest economic neighbour."

The Irish government dropped its resistance to a bailout yesterday, confirming it was seeking rescue funds. Talks are under way to work out details of the package – which could be worth €90bn (£77bn) – with the EU and the International Monetary Fund. Ireland's finance minister, Brian Lenihan, insisted last night that the country's low 12.5% corporation tax rate, which he previously described as an "absolute red line," was "off the agenda now".

"Everyone realises that the Irish economy has to grow to get out of its difficulties," he said this morning.

There is concern that Portugal will be the next country to feel the heat. It is bracing itself for the biggest ever strike on Wednesday.

When asked whether Britain's contribution to the Irish bailout was worth around £7bn, Osborne said: "It's around that [figure], it's in the order of billions, not tens of billions."

He added: "The details of the entire package, not just the UK contribution but the eurozone and IMF contribution, is all being worked out as we speak and we should, by the end of the month, have the details on that."

The rate of interest and other terms on a UK bilateral loan would be similar to the conditions of the international package, Osborne said.

He defended the decision to support a member of the eurozone, saying: "'I told you so' is not much of an economic policy", adding: "It's in everyone's interest that we make the euro work." He also argued that Britain could afford to ride to Ireland's rescue now, having "moved out of the danger zone" thanks to drastic spending cuts designed to reduce Britain's own record deficit.

At the same time, Osborne reiterated that Britain should not have to provide further help to Ireland or any other eurozone countries that got into difficulties. He stressed that Britain's consideration of a bilateral loan for Ireland reflects the fact that "we don't want to be part of a permanent bailout mechanism for the euro".

The Adam Smith Institute strongly opposed the UK's commitment. Sam Bowman, head of research at the thinktank, said: "The proposed bailout for Ireland is a bad deal for the UK. It puts the interests of the European Union and the eurozone before the interests of Ireland and the British government should have no part in paying for it.

"Asking the British taxpayer to cough up £7bn shows just how audacious the European Union has become in its desperation to keep the eurozone project afloat. The UK successfully avoided entering the eurozone. Ireland was not so lucky, but it entered in full knowledge of the risks involved.

"Bailing out Ireland now would undo much of the benefits that Britain has yielded from keeping the pound and would make a mockery of the spending cuts announced by the coalition last month. In the end, Ireland will have to choose its own path out of this crisis. But the British taxpayer should not be held responsible for past mistakes by Irish politicians."

Eurosceptic Tories were also angered by Britain's participation in the bailout. The Conservative MP for Clacton, Douglas Carswell, told the BBC: "We shouldn't be paying to help keep Ireland in the euro. If we are going to pay to solve this crisis we should be helping to pay Ireland to quit the euro. Ireland's misery is only going to end when it has its own currency again. At a time of austerity, again we are paying vast sums to the European Union."


You may well have an agenda either against Brexit, Osborne, or the UK in general, but don't twist the words to suit the chip on your shoulder. If you have anything that shows that the UK demanded austerity from Ireland then show it, otherwise an apology wouldn't go amiss........
 
Irish banks didn't go bust and needed bailing out due to 'fiscal recklessness' but due to unsustainable lending that led to a property boom and reckless lending practices that aided that boom. That in turn led to an austerity package demanded by the EU including the UK to bail out the banks.
The fact that they got told by the EU over a treaty we will starve you till your public vote our war hence two referendum s seems a similar trust by the bully boys from the EU!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top