Foreign speculators exploit Ireland- Irish in EU super state

Sceala Philosopher Location: Dublin

We are all too aware that corrupt native Irish individuals, often in banking or the legal professions, made fortunes from the false economy. To date, not one of the corrupt native Irish bankers has been put in prison for their crimes. Instead of justice, the Irish tax-payers are ordered to cover the costs for these criminals.
The Irish are told to pay up and shut up. It is same medicine given for the uncontrolled immigration disaster, foreign immigrants coming to Ireland in unprecedented numbers, the Irish are told to pay up and shut up.

Foreign speculators target Ireland
If we can not control our own criminals, what chance have we got with foreigners intent on making misery here.
Foreign speculators many of who were working on behalf of American banks, have helped destroy Greece, exacerbating its debt woes by betting on a Greek default. There is now nothing left to steal from Greece.
The same Foreign speculators now have their eyes on other EU targets and Ireland is on their list.
Foreign speculators have effectively won billions out of our economy by speculation, we are already paying for this.
The calls for a united Ireland or for a independent Northern Ireland, are made irrelevant by the new EU super state. The EU is the new nation we are part of, no one has voted for it, but it is here.
Hidden in the news last week was the announcement of the EU super state. The United states of Europe. The nanny state, call it what you want, it is not Ireland anymore.

European Commission budget proposals deeply undemocratic
OPINION: If the proposition succeeds it will mean a substantial
loss of economic sovereignty, writes MARY LOU McDONALD
PROPOSALS FROM the European Commission that would mean draft national budgets submitted to Brussels for scrutiny and peer review by other member states mean the future sovereignty of national budgetary and fiscal decisions now hang in the balance.
The basis of democracy will be corrupted if the Government does not oppose European Commission plans to enforce this draconian policing of national budgets. Commission president José Manuel Barroso and commissioner for economic affairs Olli Rehn are using the economic crisis to force through key changes in EU governance.
Such controversial changes would never command public support in ordinary times. However, the commission and the 27 member-state governments are hoping to rush them through on the back of the threat to the euro.
Importantly, the Lisbon Treaty makes this much easier to achieve and the hypocrisy of Fine Gael, who have been shouting very loudly about this issue in recent days, has been breathtaking.
Fine Gael, and indeed the Labour Party, stood with the Government in pushing the electorate to ratify Lisbon and must now accept responsibility for what the EU intends to do to member states.
Outlining their plans on May 7th, Barroso and the 27 heads of government, including Brian Cowen, said “deeper fiscal consolidation” by member states was required, with “additional measures for this consolidation”. This is EU-speak for more cuts in government expenditure in addition to those already indicated. It could also involve changes in economic policy, including taxation.
They also said that they wanted to “plug the gaps in economic co-ordination” particularly with regard to “budgetary surveillance”. This is EU-speak for giving more power to the commission to inspect and change member states’ budgets, without the support of the government in question.
Five days later the commission produced a detailed communication outlining proposals for this tougher policing of budgets. At the core of the communication were three significant proposals:

* The first is that the EU would have the right to scrutinise member state budgets before their own democratically elected parliaments;
* The second is that on recommendation from the commission, a meeting of European finance ministers could request broad changes to the member state budget. The member state in question would not have the ability to veto these proposed changes, as any decision by the ministers would be taken by qualified majority vote;
* The third is that if the member state ignored the decision of the Council of Ministers they would face penalties in the form of reduced EU payments.
The objective in all of this is to secure the “financial stability of the euro area”. This is Eurospeak for forcing member states to reduce public expenditure and possibly to alter their tax regimes in order to return to a deficit of 3 per cent of GDP in line the Growth and Stability Pact.
Initial reaction to the commission proposals from France, Germany and Sweden has been negative. Closer to home Fine Gael and Labour have decried the loss of economic sovereignty implied by the proposals.
However, this opposition has focused on a single element of the plan – namely the requirement for member-state governments to submit draft budgets to the commission before they present it to their own parliaments.
This proposal is undemocratic and should be opposed. But the more substantive attack on our economic sovereignty contained in the proposals is not being opposed by Fine Gael or Labour, namely the power of the European Council, acting by qualified majority, to impose cuts in public expenditure or changes to our tax regime.
This power would allow finance ministers of other EU member states, on recommendation from the commission, to alter a proposed budget from a democratically elected government, even if that government voted against the proposed changes.
During both Lisbon referendums, Sinn Féin repeatedly said the treaty would give the EU additional powers to police and impose changes to member state budgets.
When we made these claims Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour accused us of telling lies. They were wrong; we were right. If the commission proposal is passed it will mean a substantial loss of economic sovereignty.
Just like their false claim that Lisbon would bring thousands of jobs to Ireland, FF, FG and Labour are finding it difficult to explain how the treaty they called on the public to support is now being used to undermine our democracy.
irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0517/1224270548498.html

Political row on EU budget co-ordination plans
Tánaiste Mary Coughlan has dismissed concerns about European involvement in the Irish budgetary process as 'populism that is inappropriate and incorrect'. She was responding in the Dáil to Opposition demands for more information on the proposal.
The House had to be adjourned for ten minutes after bad-tempered exchanges.
Labour's Joan Burton demanded to know when the Commission proposal would be laid before the Dáil. She also asked if the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance had agreed to the Commission suggestion.
The Tánaiste insisted that Irish sovereignty was 'not at issue'. She said the 16 euro zone members were 'deeply entwined' and had a shared interest in greater co-ordination.
Ms Coughlan said it was inappropriate to have anti-European sentiment at this time.
Meanwhile, Taoiseach Brian Cowen has said Ireland's coporate tax rate is 'not up for negotiation with anybody'. He was responding to questions about proposals for the EU scrutiny of member states' budgets. 'Llet me be clear the proposal coming from the Commission is not , never has been and never will be any threat to our corporate tax rate, he said.
Earlier, the Foreign Affairs Minister Micheál Martin accused Fine Gael of 'recklessly undermining' the national interest and future jobs.
He was responding to claims by Fine Gael Finance Spokesman Richard Bruton that proposals which would give the European Commission a veto over Irish budgets could jeopardise this country's low rate of corporation tax and see the introduction of new taxes.
Speaking on RTE, Minister Martin said that raising the unfounded spectre of losing control over our taxation policies undermined efforts to bring new foreign investment to Ireland.
The European Commission has proposed that euro zone countries submit their national budgets to the EU for 'peer review' before they go to national parliaments.
There are plans to set up a process which would advise eurozone member states on economic policy co-ordination as they prepare their national budgets.
Mr Bruton said there was a danger that other EU countries would have their own agendas and that the role of the Dáil would be diminished.
He said there was the possibility that the Government might lose control over setting the rate of corporation tax.
Earlier, he had said Fine Gael was opposed to any such measure and was astonished that the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance seemed willing to surrender crucial decision-making powers to Brussels.
Last night, the Minister for Finance accused Fine Gael of seeking to whip up anti-European sentiment at a time of serious financial difficulty for the European Union.
In a statement in response to Mr Bruton's comments, Mr Lenihan said it was reprehensible that the main opposition party was advancing such entirely unfounded assertions.
He said the European Commission discussion document, which was issued yesterday, did not even mention tax harmonisation.
Minister Lenihan said Mr Bruton knew there was nothing in the Lisbon Treaty that diminished Irish sovereignty in fiscal matters.
He said Mr Bruton also knew that the Government secured a protocol confirming this position in advance of the second Lisbon referendum.
rte.ie/business/2010/0513/eurozone.html

Staying out of the Second World War was a real declaration of independence
By Ryle Dwyer
The controversy over the European Commission’s efforts to compel the 16 euro states to submit their draft budgets to Brussels before presenting them to their respective parliaments made somewhat confused reading this week. Surely this would be an incursion into Irish sovereignty.

When we decided to adopt the euro, we were surrendering a degree of independence. Whether that was good or bad is a different matter. The controversy is reminiscent of much of the posturing that distorted reality and marred our early years of independence.

Arthur Griffith’s idea of Sinn Féin – Ourselves Alone – had appeal in its day, but from an economic standpoint we have long since learned that it was an unrealistic dream. Since then we have had the introduction of air travel, radio, television, and the internet. Only an idiot would wish to cut us off behind some kind of Celtic Curtain.

This week the country has been remembering the Great Famine. At the time Ireland was incredibly backward, and people had little say on how the country was run. It was effectively run for the benefit of an elite with little or no regard for the vast majority of its 8.5 million people.

About a third of them were dependent on the potato crop, and when it failed, many starved. The greatest killers were the accompanying diseases – typhus, dysentery, and later cholera. Around 1 million died and another million fled the island, mainly to Britain, the United States and Canada.

The ironic thing was that nobody should have starved. Only half the potato crop failed in 1845 while three-quarters failed in 1846, but other crops grew normally and there was meat, foul, and fish, but the people did not have the money to buy those, and the authorities refused to ban their export.

As early as November 1845 Daniel O’Connell led a deputation to the Lord Lieutenant demanding that all exports of food be stopped immediately. Had this country had it own government, O’Connell declared at the height of the famine in January 1947, it would have banned the export of food. It would have been very different, he said, "if we had our own parliament, taking care of our people, from our own resources".

The Great Famine became one the most potent arguments for Irish self-government. The controversy over the 1921 Treaty was really about the extent of our independence. Michael Collins admitted the treaty did not confer the full independence that people desired, but he said it contained the freedom to achieve it. Eamon de Valera disputed this, and helped to rouse the passions that led to the Civil War. That was the greatest blot on his political career.

Members of the government of the day accused him enormous treachery, real and imaginary, while they ignored real treachery on their own side. When de Valera managed to come to power in 1932 by wholly democratic means, his opponents secretly connived with the British to get them to wage the Economic War against this country.

That was as sinister as de Valera’s conduct in 1922. Ironically, de Valera went on to prove that Collins was right about the treaty – it did contain the freedom to achieve full political independence.

De Valera proved it by keeping Ireland out of the Second World War, which could have been as catastrophic as the Great Famine for the people of this country. The so-called Republicans had been inviting the Nazis in "to free Ireland." Can you imagine anything more reckless?

Some years ago I wrote about the chance finding on the internet of the man who was with my father when he was shot and killed in Germany in January 1945. John Ingram was awarded the Bronze Star for staying with my father until he was beyond help. My brother Seán then traced Emory Ornelles, the officer who recommended Ingram for the Bronze Star.

Ornelles – who wrote the book, Both Wind and Tide, about his wartime exploits – asked Seán how my mother could have moved to Ireland in view of the role that Ireland played in the war. Of course, he was a victim of wartime American and British propaganda designed to discredit de Valera for political purposes.

In a victory broadcast in May 1945 Churchill emphasised the different syllables of de Valera’s name to conjure up a subliminal suggestion of him as the personification of the devil and evil in Éire by calling him "D’evil Éire." Churchill said: "Owing to the action of Mr de Valera, so much at variance with the temper and instinct of thousands of southern Irishmen who hastened to the battlefront to prove their ancient valour, the approaches which the southern Irish ports and airfield could so easily have guarded were closed by the hostile aircraft and U-boats. This was indeed a deadly moment in our life, and if it had not been for the loyalty and friendship of the north of Ireland we should have been forced to come to close quarters with Mr de Valera or perish forever from the earth. However, with a restraint and poise to which, I say, history will find few parallels, His Majesty’s Government never laid a violent hand upon them, though at times it would have been quite easy and quite natural, and we left the de Valera government to frolic with German and later with the Japanese representatives to their hearts’ content."

De Valera’s reply, which was delivered 65 years ago tomorrow, was widely regarded as his greatest speech ever. For once, at least, he spoke for the whole nation. He began by thanking God for sparing Ireland from the war, which had left much of Europe in ruins.

He knew what many people were expecting him to say, but the occasion now demanded something else. With an exquisite touch of condescension, he explained that Churchill could be excused for being carried away in the excitement of victory. Speaking calmly de Valera proceeded: "Mr Churchill makes it clear that, in certain circumstances, he would have violated our neutrality and that he would justify his action by Britain’s necessity. It seems strange to me that Mr Churchill does not see that this, if accepted, would mean that Britain’s necessity would become a moral code and that, when this necessity was sufficiently great, other people’s rights were not to count. It is quite true that other great powers believe in this same code – in their own regard – and have behaved in accordance with it. That is precisely why we have the disastrous succession of wars - World War No. I and World War No. 2 – and shall it be World War No. 3?"

In the last analysis, it was not Churchill’s speech, but de Valera’s reply "which bore the stamp of the elder statesman," wrote Sir John Maffey, the British representative.

Of course, Radio Éireann did not have anything like the audience of the BBC World Service, so de Valera’s reply had little impact outside Ireland. Churchill’s remarks – in the course of such an important address – bolstered the distorted perception that de Valera had been at best indifferent towards the plight of the democracies, even though in reality he could hardly have been more helpful.
This story appeared in the printed version of the Irish Examiner Saturday, May 15, 2010
examiner.ie/opinion/columnists/ryle-dwyer/staying-out-of-the-second-world-war-was-a-real-declaration-of-independence-119804.html

Register

The Irish Community have posted
8 REPLIES TO THIS TOPIC
for logged in members to view.

Irish Forums Message Discussion :: Foreign speculators exploit Ireland- Irish in EU super state

Foreign speculators exploit Ireland- Irish in EU super state