h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It seems that Ireland is to be pressured into having another referendum seeing as how the Irish rather inconveniently didn't vote the way the EU intended. Of course, to the EU it was a travesty that Ireland ever had a referendum after all their careful work to make sure democracy was silenced elsewhere in Europe.

However, there are no guarantees that the Irish will vote yes in a 2nd referendum, so it now appears that Ireland may well be kicked out of the EU. This in itself of course may well be a heavy handed threat to try to force a "Yes" result.

There are of course consequences to Ireland being kicked out. See http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6afc0772-405a-11dd-bd48-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1 for details.

But is this EU something Britain should be a part of?

"However, there are no guarantees that the Irish will vote yes in a 2nd referendum, so it now appears that Ireland may well be kicked out of the EU. This in itself of course may well be a heavy handed threat to try to force a "Yes" result."

Woa, woa. Has the European Union actually firmly said "Ireland might be forced to leave the EU" if they vote "No" a second time? Why hasn't France been kicked-out for voting "No" on the EU constitution?

"But is this EU something Britain should be a part of?"

I think that's what's referred to amongst pollsters as a "loaded question".

I'm basing this on the link - "So within a couple of weeks, the chances of Ireland ending up outside the EU have turned from zero to a distinct possibility. The same goes for the Czech Republic, another potential non-ratifier. I do not want to get into the legal details of how a country’s departure from the EU could be accomplished. Suffice it to say that it can be done within European law as long as there is political will."

Oh yes let's go back to going to war to sort out our differences..

I'm not for a federated Europe but I am all for a Common European Market which is what I originally was asked to vote for.Countries that trade together are less likely to come to blows but countries that throw away their identities to some centralised corporated Europe is likely to lose what makes them European.

We do have to have some mechanism that stops situations like Croatia and Kosovo from erupting in the first place though.

I think that sounds a bit flippety-floppety (to use a technical term ), SWL. There's a clue in the lack of any evidence and the "I do not want to get into the legal details of how a country’s departure from the EU could be accomplished": for all we know this argument could be based on pure conjecture. If the EU starts making noises suggesting there's a serious chance of Ireland being forced to leave the Union (which would be unprecedented) then there'd be stronger ground but currently it seems to be an argument based on a journalist's say-so.

Incidentally, I can't read the FT article because it needs a signup so I'm relying on you with regards to what it contains.

Now wait, if it was so easy to exclude a country from the EU, wouldn't England have been excluded years ago?

As regards the EU I'm in favour of the following:

1. A Confederal Europe of sovereign states bound by common agreements and treaties
2. A single European currency for those states which wish to adopt it
3. The right of any state to leave the union if it wishes
4. A Confederal government with few powers (mostly relating to trade and a Common Defence Policy (more on this later)) lead by a parliamentary executive with the European Parliament acting as its legislative body
5. A European Confederal Reaction Force consisting of troops provided by member states. The ECRF remains essentially nebulous unless it is mobilised by order of the executive. Outwith these periods forces remain controlled by their state governments. Any state can remove its forces from ECRF control without leaving the union if it wishes.
6. Free movement of labour, goods and capital within the Confederation.

Currently, we have the following problems:

European policy is in the hands of an unelected commission
There is no European Rapid Reaction Force (which I see as a predecessor to the above)
EU law arguably extends into areas it neither needs to nor ought to

Is a United Europe a good idea? Absolutely. We live in an age of superpowers and individual European countries are simply too weak both economically and militarily to have enough clout. There is strength (and influence) in numbers. However, "Europe" is no nation and never will be and so a United Europe is only practical through confederation and compromise.

Strange. I can read the article without the sign-up.

Here it is in full. Grab it before it's yikesed. The guy has written quite a few Euro pieces and seems knowledgeable, but compared to me that wouldn't be difficult

"Ireland is wrong to put its miracle at risk
By Wolfgang Münchau

Published: June 22 2008 19:21 | Last updated: June 22 2008 19:21

After a week of what European leaders call reflection, another Irish referendum beckons, to be held early next year. Without it, there might well be an attempt to oust the Irish from the European Union.

A Yes vote in a second referendum is not certain, even if the Irish government were to succeed in securing another rent-extracting, treaty-amending protocol. At a time when the Irish economy is about to fall off a cliff, enthusiasm for the EU and its treaties will not increase. In other words, holding a referendum would be as risky as not holding a referendum. A fine mess.

So within a couple of weeks, the chances of Ireland ending up outside the EU have turned from zero to a distinct possibility. The same goes for the Czech Republic, another potential non-ratifier. I do not want to get into the legal details of how a country’s departure from the EU could be accomplished. Suffice it to say that it can be done within European law as long as there is political will.

What strikes me the most about this extraordinary turn of events is the perception in Ireland that a break with the EU would be no big deal. I received a large number of letters from Ireland last week from readers who steadfastly maintain that the country’s economic success had nothing to do with the EU and everything to do with domestic policy – in particular with low corporate taxes and skilled labour.

The view expressed by those correspondents is as wrong as it is revealing. If so many people are delusional about their country’s economy, then we should perhaps not be surprised about the outcome of the referendum. It is therefore perhaps worth looking in some detail at the nature of Ireland’s economic success over the last 30 years to gauge what life might be like outside the EU.

There are several interactive factors. The importance of EU subsidies is almost certainly overrated. They played some part, especially in the early phase of the country’s economic renaissance. In any case, Ireland is on the verge of becoming a net contributor to the EU budget. But one would be even more mistaken to conclude the opposite: that the EU matters nothing or little.

Ireland was one of the early and enthusiastic members of the European Monetary System in 1979, which brought much needed macroeconomic stability. Membership of the eurozone in 1999 led to lower interest rates, which have contributed to the economic growth ever since. Low corporate tax rates certainly helped Ireland attract foreign investors. But never forget that Ireland is also the only English-speaking member of the eurozone, the one place where eurozone and Anglosphere meet.

The country naturally benefited from membership of the EU’s internal market. Without it, Ryanair, the Irish low-cost airline, would not be able to offer its popular flights across Europe. The Irish have also proved influential in the management of the internal market, not least through Charlie McCreevy, the Irish commissioner in charge of the EU’s internal market and financial services. As a member of the EU, Ireland has been in a position to veto motions that would have impaired the country’s economic success. Without steadfast opposition from Ireland, the EU would have made more headway in imposing corporate tax harmonisation.

I do not want to play down the importance of domestic policies either. Ireland owes its success to a complex set of policies and circumstances. Perhaps among the most important were the various tripartite social partnership agreements since 1987, through which the government, employers and the trade unions achieved a combination of wage moderation, high employment and low taxes. This form of round-table corporatism works best in tiny open economies if it works at all. It is ironic that this country, whose officials take pleasure in hectoring others on free-market economics, is in fact one of Europe’s most corporatist states. Even France and Germany cannot produce so much social partnership, and I can assure you that this is not for lack of trying.

So what would happen if Ireland were to leave the EU? As an associate member of the single European market, Ireland would probably attract less foreign investment than it does today. Dublin’s financial centre would be demonised as an offshore tax haven and treated on par with Liechtenstein. We would see lots of Ryanair flights between Dublin and Cork and the EU would put even more pressure on Ireland to raise corporate taxes.

Oh, and by the way, Ireland would no longer be a member of the eurozone. The Irish could use the euro if they wanted to but this would be like Panama using the dollar – a little sad, really. There would be no Irish voice in the European Central Bank’s governing council warning that this is not a good time to raise interest rates. Leaving the EU involves a huge loss power and influence.

To put it mildly, the No vote is highly risky. Considering that the country is now on the verge of a severe economic slowdown, brought on by a downturn in the real
estate market and the credit market crisis, it could not have come at a worse time. Not only does the
No vote carry risks, it is a highly asymmetric gamble that brings no material benefit under the best of circumstances. The No vote put Europe’s most impressive economic miracle at stake, and the cards are not looking good."

As I thought, the whole thing seems to be based on conjecture. I get the feeling that the journalist is using the argument I've heard a few times that Ireland's "No" vote was some sort of ungratefulness on the part of the Emerald Isle; that it owes the EU a yes vote. There doesn't seem to be any likelihood the EU being booted-out (a full scale invasion of France by Germany can be done if there is the "political will" but that doesn't mean we should start writing articles about what will happen to France), the author just seems to be fantasising about punishing them by pulling the EU out from under them "there, see how you like that!"

I really object to a Euro army. It would be but a pale shadow of NATO. Without US military support and US political acquiescence, it would be a costly paper tiger. In addition, there is the question of duplication. NATO & a Euro Army - two near identical command structures, lots of jobs for paper shufflers but precious little teeth. Of course BAE, Aerospatiale and Thales would just love big domestic contracts on their doorstep with the US excluded from bidding. That'll keep prices down - not.

No country could make a meaningful contribution to both a Euro army and NATO. That would suit the French, who only played with NATO when it suited them.

So talk of a Euro army is really just manoevring to get out of NATO. If anything kept war out of Europe post WWII, it wasn't the EU - it was NATO. Why ditch something that works? Seems to me it's just an expensive way to thumb noses at the US.

Oh, and I thought the dictum was "Democracies don't go to war with democracies". When did that get changed to "Democracies don't go to war with each other when they are merged together under an unelected elite with sovereign rights stripped away and democracy stifled".

Not so snappy is it?

I didn't have the Financial Times tagged as sensationalist

as the world moves towards complete free trade, what does the EU even mean beyond a single currency? altho the 'one europe' thing LOOKS progressive given the bitter history of the place, it is still 20th century thinking. i have no doubt whatever that within a generation, people who can pay their way will be able to live, move and work wherever they please on the planet, and currency issues will be mere matters of convenience or not.


i can't see that unitary treaty making means much.

"e population of Europe has grown, presenting Europe with entirely new problems in agriculture, the economy, finance, and the military. And the continents, too, have grown closer as a result of new technology. Europeans are more and more realizing that our differences are only family squabbles when measured against the vast problems that the continents must solve.

I am convinced that, just as we look back with some amusement on the narrow-minded conflicts between German provinces in the 1840's and 1850's, our posterity in fifty years will look back with similar amusement on what is going on today in Europe. They will see the "dramatic battles between nations" of small European states as family squabbles. I am convinced that in fifty years we will no longer think in terms of nations, but of continents, and that entirely different, and perhaps much larger, problems will concern Europe."

Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister.

Honestly SWL, people like you give Euroseptics a bad name.

You'll be digging out 'the Hitler was a vegetarian' next.

What is that Internet principle that says that the first one to compare their opponents to a Nazi loses the argument?

You lost in the first post, never mind that last one...

Also, you're wrong on the EU army vs Nato - the whole point of an EU capacity is to intervene where the US (rightly) considers that we should be able to look after our own backyard - the Balkans, in the first place. It's not designed to replace Nato.

sprout

Ah - so two armies then?

Where's the money coming from? For years the US has rightly complained of European nations not contributing enough to NATO. Suddenly they're going to cough double? In fact, more than that as the US provides a helluva lot of NATO logistical support and airpower.

Never mind the money, where are the bodies coming from? The UK has severe manning issues as it is.

The EU increasingly rides roughshod over democracy and is looking more like a totalitarian state every day. You want to give them an army too?

And I don't think you can invoke Godwin's Law when the thread is predicated upon EU actions matching Nazi ambitions.

<>

No, they like our money too much.

I haven't read all of the backlog, I just wanted to correct this:

>>If the EU starts making noises suggesting there's a serious chance of Ireland being forced to leave the Union (which would be unprecedented)<<

It isn't unprecedented - Greenland left the EEC/EU in the 80s (I think, might have been the late 70s) - there is definately a mechanism for a country to withdraw if that's what is wanted.

I think the difference is that the Greenlanders left of their own accord.

RF

>> I really object to a Euro army. It would be but a pale shadow of NATO. Without US military support and US political acquiescence, it would be a costly paper tiger. In addition, there is the question of duplication. NATO & a Euro Army - two near identical command structures, lots of jobs for paper shufflers but precious little teeth. <<

No-one's talking about forming a brand new army to support EU comittments; it's a simple case of existing forces being primed and able to interoperate as and when required. We already do this to an extent with NATO countries, Australia, New Zealand and many other EU countries as a matter of course. There's also no reason to assume that the US would be interested in every issue affecting the EU, and in strategic terms no reason to assume that the UK or EU would automatically support everyting the US chooses to do.

>> Of course BAE, Aerospatiale and Thales would just love big domestic contracts on their doorstep with the US excluded from bidding. That'll keep prices down - not. <<


That's a trade issue, and I don't see how an EU force would make any difference. The big US companies already have offices in the UK and are perfectly entitled to bid for UK contracts. Likewise BAES and Thales in the US.