Comments by "Taint ABird" (@taintabird23) on "DW News"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mrpath99 The EU is nothing more than a collection of laws, regulations and treaties. This allows for the smooth running of the EU, though is it up to member states to make the most of laws, regulations and treaties in order to increase the prosperity of the citizens of member states. Member states tend to use the EU as a scape goat for national shortcomings, with the UK and Italy being most guilty in this regard.
The EU was always intended as more than just a trading bloc. Everybody knows this, though the English claim they did not. However, the possibility of the USE ever coming into being is highly unlikely now. Support for the concept has diminished, particularly in the founding states of the Netherlands and Italy. The idea that you could bring 27 different states with their different agendas, economies and aspirations together into one federal unit seems more and more unlikely over the last 10 years. A multi-speed Europe is the most likely outcome now.
The Single Market is the jewel in the crown of the European Union, something Brexiters do not understand. Maintaining that market is the greatest source of prosperity for EU citizens, while the bloc itself will continue to serve as a bulwark against the predatory inclinations of the US, China and, dare I say, it the UK for as long as it lasts, in the century ahead. The bloc will not break up because it runs against the interests of all member states, and it will continue to evolve into the future. There is strength in numbers. Brexit has also demonstrated the benefits of unity against threats from outside the bloc. The EU is made up of countries, half of whom are smaller than Ireland. Membership of bloc brings with it security for its membership and the knowledge that their neighbours will stand with them in times of crisis. The pandemic revealed a gap security which will now be covered by future laws, regulations and treaties going forward.
To sum up, the EU will not cease to exist. It will continue to evolve in a manner that suits the membership, while the UK will slip into a three independent states and federal Ireland (which will probably return to the Commonwealth).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ Charlie
You're half right with the facts and half right with the analysis.
Firstly, the argument for the Scottish opposition to Brexit is an odd one. In 1973 80% of Irish exports went to the UK, joining the EU has reduced that figure to 13.5% over all (granted, the majority of Irish agri-products still go there). One of the arguments for Scotland being independent but a member of the EU is that it would over time allow the Scots a greater measure of economic independence from the England. While some Scots that I know surprised me by voting for Brexit, they did so thinking it would make Scottish independence easier to achieve, while the overwhelming support to remain in the EU in 2016 suggests that they are quite comfortable with EU membership and lack none of the identity issues of the plague the English. You argument for the dependence of Scotland on the UK single market does not take into account the dependence of the Scots for EU funding and subsidies, particularly for the farming sector.
Secondly, your analysis of the Irish 'Celtic Tiger' economy needs work. The Celtic Tiger expired, ceased to be, joined the crowd invisible in 2008 - nobody uses the term for the current economic growth. While it is true that 26% GDP growth rates are a result of the distortion of US FDI companies filtering their profits through Ireland, it remains the case the the Irish economy is in rude good health by any standard: in 2017 GDP grew by 7% - strip out the Corporation tax and the figure is 4%, the highest in the Eurozone, and much higher than that of the UK. Incidentally, the UK is leaving the EU with a debt to GDP ratio that is higher than that of Ireland and with a lower GDP per capita. Indeed, NI has an average household income that is 50% lower than that of the republic as it stands. The economic powerhouse on the island of Ireland has historically been Belfast, but it has been Dublin for the past two decades or more. The Republic must be doing something right, as NI is seeking to lower its Corporate Tax to match that of the Republic in order to benefit from those profits generated elsewhere.
Thirdly, your simplistic view of the level of economic activity in the Republic is as a result of hanging too much on multi-national FDI. For example, Ireland is the 10th biggest economic investor in the US, where Irish multinationals employ over 100,000 people; its the 6th biggest beef exporter in the world; its the world leader in aircraft leasing. Ireland has an open economy.
Finally, your analysis of Irish emigration needs updating - those who left during the crash are returning in large numbers as the economy approaches full employment. The Irish workforce is highly mobile, even during the Celtic Tiger period young people left to broaden their minds by choice, while economic emigrants from the 1980s returned in their tens of thousands at the same time. Most who chose to emigrate today are those who work in the public sector jobs market, particularly health professionals and educators - tight controls on public spending by the current government means more money and experience can be found abroad. They are travelling in smaller numbers to the UK and US than previously, the Middle East and Australia seem to be more alluring these days. And British people emigrate to Ireland too - just over 100,000 according the 2016 census. You will find English accents in every economic sector in the Republic, from retail to company CEOs, from the trades to public services.
There a lot of talk about a united Ireland as the moment - too much talk in my view - and most of it in the media. It leads to insecurity among Unionists in NI and the rehashing of the old comfort blanket that the Republic could not afford unity. However,, this argument seems less plausible now than it did in the past.
1
-
@ Charlie,
Again, you're kind of all over the place here. Allow me to elaborate:
There may be no financial independence when you throw your lot in with the Eurozone but if an independent Scotland was to peg its new currency to Sterling, it would be in an even more dependent position. On balance though, the membership of the Single Market and Customs Union would open up huge opportunities for an independent Scottish economy. But EU membership is not all about economics for the Scots, I suspect. Its also about having an equal voice with its European neighbours as a sovereign nation, something that will enhance their sense of national identity and confidence.
Tax policy remains the competence of member states, and at present ten EU states oppose the harmonisation proposal including at least two of the founder members of the EU. Ireland's policy is to wait until the OECD rules on subject and then all countries will jump together...in the meantime, Ireland has its veto.
Many countries have opt outs on various EU decisions, including the EU army. The UK has availed of more opt-outs than any other member country, as you know, and Ireland secured its opt-out in that renegotiated treaty passed in the second Lisbon referendum - the one which Brexiters like to claim Ireland was 'made' take again by the EU. Personally, I would support Irish participation in an EU Army but I would be in a minority in my country.
Regarding Scotland's debt, it would have to get its act together in order to join the EU, but it would have less to do than other past accession applicants who are now members. Sometimes the desire to be independent trumps the short term pain of austerity and a lower standard of living: it was such in Ireland a century ago following independence and hard-core Brexiters will tell you the same in relation to their ambitions.
There are many differences between Scottish and English nationalism, but my statement was with regard to identity: the English-outside-London are particularly afflicted by it. However, Scottish and English nationalisms are indeed different: English nationalism and identity is binary, it cannot accept the invitation to adopt an EU identity along with its own national identity. The English cannot accept they are nation themselves at all - they cannot view themselves as equal to other nations - they are exceptional because of their history - British history - as Britishness in the United Kingdom was the main conduit of English nationalism in the past.
This is why there is no devolved government for England, the English can't seem to accept they need it and that they are equal to the Scots, Welsh and the Northern Irish. The English reaction to the concept of an EU identity is to invent an oppressor in the EU instead - creating the 'Them and Us' required by any nationalism; Nobody is oppressing the English, certainly not the EU, but Breixters - and most of them are English - think otherwise. 62% of Scots appear to understand that shared EU identity concept and feel no threat by it, alongside 56% of Northern Irish. In response, the English are turning to Empire 2.0 - the Commonwealth - where it will feel more comfortable. Brexit is a English Nationalist Mental Breakdown.
In the event of unification in Ireland, there would be short-term pain but long term gain and several economic studies support this view. Do I take it you think only the English have the stomach to suffer economically in the national cause? of course there would be concern about it, but I can guarantee you it will be a different issue that will dominate discussion in the Republic: reconciliation. The nightmare scenario would be, say, a 52% majority in NI in favour of unification without reconciliation first.
'The UK is a large net contributor to the EU, it receives no net funding from the EU at all. And as I have noted previously, Scotland receives a large fiscal transfer from the UK. Any dependence is with the UK.'
Tell that to the farmers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as they don't feel reassured. EU subsidies kept many if not most UK farmers viable - especially in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - helping to maintain rural communities and provide food security. After Brexit, the UK is intending to pursue a cheap food policy from abroad which will destroy this. Today, Ireland elected a Northern Ireland Unionist farmer, a former member of the Northern Irish Farmers Union, to the Irish Senate, the parliamentary upper house, in order to provide some influence for NI farmers in a parliament that will continue to deal with the EU.
The UK may be a net contributor to Brussels, but there is no evidence that it intends to distribute its largess for the benefit of British farmers - or, famously, the NHS either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1