10 things Eurosceptics should know.

Some uncomfortable Euro Truths.

Some uncomfortable Euro Truths.

1. Germany does not want to rule Europe. They don’t need to. Germany is such a major economic force that we want access to their markets, and so pander to them. Want to ignore the Germans? Fine. Don’t sell them stuff, buy their stuff, or ask for their money. They don’t do invasions anymore, other than with beachtowels.

2. The EU did not “depose” Berlusconi or Papandreou. The Italian and Greek parliaments have the absolute right to vote for whomever they wish, in the same way the bond markets have a right to refuse to give people they think are dodgy billions in pensioners savings as an unsecured loan. Would you lend Silvio money? 

3. Your country is not the only country in Europe that holds free elections where leaders have to answer to the people. Just because people in your country want something, that does not mean that people in another country want the same thing. Nor does it mean that they are evil or wearing pointy hats or unusual facial hair. 

4. If you don’t want money from the IMF, EU or ECB, they can’t do much to you.

5. There was a time when there was no EU, and national sovereignty did not assure control over your daily life. Just ask the Poles, Czechs, Dutch, Danes, Norwegians, Belgians and French.  

6. Blaming the EU for austerity caused by reckless domestic policies is like blaming the Mountain Rescue Service for gravity.

7. All the really big decisions in the EU are not made by Eurocrats, but national politicians, elected in national elections or by national parliaments according to national rules. In other words, by you. 

8. Don’t want to be in the EU? That’s fine. It’s your national political system that is keeping you in. Do something about that. It’s not like the EU has a massive military machine to stop you. We had to ask the Americans for help bombing a country whose navy was made up primarily of camels.  

9. If you honestly can’t see the difference between the EU and the Soviet Union, don’t forget to ask a grown up to help you turn off this big fancy machine when you’re finished. And put your crayons away, too.

10. The one thing that seems to irritate Eurosceptics even more than the Democratic Disconnect in the EU is any attempt to fix it.

A rotting corpse Vs. a backbench TD. Compare and contrast.

The Deputy for Dublin East Central.

The Deputy for Dublin East Central.

Which is better value for money to the taxpayer? A back-of-the-envelope exercise.

Constutuency work: The TD will do more clinics than a rotting corpse, and will attend more funerals. The corpse will probably only attend one.

Legislative scrutiny: Neither will seriously help shape, draft or debate legislation. The TD will claim a daily attendence allowance. The corpse won’t, so I’d put the corpse marginally ahead on this one.

Executive scrutiny: The Tribunals showed us that the Dail wasn’t up to scrutinising the government. In fairness, a rotting corpse wouldn’t do much in that regard either, but would cost less than a TD, money which could go to deferring the cost of a tribunal, so again, from a value for money perspective, the rotting corpse wins.

Expenses: A rotting corpse would cost us a few Euro in terms of preserving fluid and a big glass drum to carry it around in. But probably less than it costs to ferry a Kerry TD between airport terminals. Another win for the rotting corpse.

On balance, if we were to have local ombudsmen to deal with the constituency graft, we could probably replace most backbenchers with corpses with little loss. In fact, if we were to drown the existing ones in preserving fluid, we’d save on their pensions too! 

Imagine protestors put what they really meant on their posters.

“Other people should pay for things I want!”
“It’s not fair that when we vote for the same three parties we always vote for, we get the same policies!”
“Down with taxes on me. Up with taxes on people I don’t know”
“If I don’t like how something affects me, it’s not fair!”
“The more strongly I feel about something means how right it is!”
“Wealth is not created by hard work but some other way that isn’t nice!”
“There is an easy solution to all our problems but bad people won’t tell us what it is!”
“Poorer people than me deserve all the help other people can give them!”
“People are more important than money except when it comes to the money I get!”
“Capitalism is evil except for Facebook, Twitter and my lovely new iPad!”

Scully affair allows all the usual guff.

I’m not going to regurgitate the whole Darren Scully carry-on. But a few things occurred to me:

1. If a DUP or Tory councillor said the exact same thing about Catholics or the Irish, we’d be livid.

2. Whilst classing a whole ethnic group together is very very silly, I don’t think he actually is a racist. The fact that he didn’t think through the logic of his argument is far more worrying.

3. Newcomers to Ireland do have an obligation to adjust to our culture, and it is not racist to say so.

4. Whilst it is easy to get irritated with the usual “racist” labellers (who debase the label and make life just that little bit easier for real racists by making them believe they speak for “ordinary people”) what is really disturbing about this whole thing is the way it allows every vile remark out of the woodwork and onto radio shows and online. It is quite staggering the number of Irish people who believe that other ethnic groups should tolerate things they would not tolerate themselves.

Great books you should read: Hellraisers by Robert Sellers.

Drinkin' and fightin' and whorin'

Hellraisers is one of those books you read in a single holiday because it is a) quite short, and b) just so chock full of laugh out loud stories that you fly through them looking to get to the next one.

The subject is Burton, O’Toole, Reed and Harris, back when men were men who went roarin’ shoutin’ and fightin’ and then delivered their lines perfectly on set.

Whether it was Harris demanding tea and toast in a police station or Reed announcing to crowded pubs that one of his friends had a bigger cock than he did (When he wasn’t shooting at helicopters with his shotgun.) an absolute joy to read.

Want to help the poor? Introduce a luxury tax. If we really actually want to help, that is.

You'd like one, but you don't need one.

You'd like one, but you don't need one.

I recently posted a remark on Facebook about how the Irish people have historically never cared that much about eliminating poverty in our society. I was attacked for that remark by a Fianna Failer who was, at the time, attacking Fine Gael for being right-wing. He suggested that it was a disgraceful thing to suggest, and that the Irish people did care. Of course, on paper, he’s correct. As a people, we talk an awful lot about poverty reduction. It’s just that at election time we always vote for the parties that promise to let us keep our money rather than give too much of it to people poorer than us.

Imagine, for example, the state decided to raise extra revenue for distribution to the poor, and chose to levy a luxury tax. The concept would be a tax on high value non-essential goods, on the basis that the only people who would end up paying the tax would be those with disposable income. It could be levied on high value vehicles, clothes, certain foodstuffs, foreign holidays, consumer goods like iPads and cellphones, etc. Yes, it would be tricky to determine exactly what would be covered, but the tax could be collected by a new high rate of VAT on those specific products.

So, here’s my question. Is there a single Irish party, from the Socialist Party to Sinn Fein to People Before Profit all the way across to Fine Gael that would suggest levying a tax like this on NON-ESSENTIAL products like this to help raise additional funds to help the most vulnerable in our society? The answer is almost certainly not, because it would be incredibly unpopular. Irish people would not be willing to go without non-essential consumer goods so that poorer people could live better, and that’s why we don’t care as much as we claim about helping the poor. 

Time to put it to the American people?

Let the people settle the argument.

Let the people settle the argument.

The paralysis in US politics, signified by the failure of the Super Committee, is serious, so why not a serious and radical solution?

Why not put both the Republican and Democratic plans to the people in a referendum, and let them decide? Yes, I know, the US doesn’t “do” national referendums, but we live in extraordinary times and the deficit needs to be dealt with, and if the political system can’t solve the problem, then let the people slice the knot.

By the way, I have no idea how the vote would go, so this is not a partisan thing. This is a results thing. One way or another, the American people need an answer, even if they have to give it themselves.

IMF proposes global mass hypnosis to solve debt crisis.

Lagarde: Look into my eyes...

Lagarde: Look into my eyes...

The International Monetary Fund has proposed a radical solution to the international debt crisis by suggesting that the entire population of the planet be hypnotised into forgetting that it borrowed or lent trillions in dollars and euro.

IMF boss Christine Lagarde suggested that as the entire banking system is based for the most part not on real cash or assets but confidence, if a mass televised hypnotism programme was activated at the same time global banking and trading systems were reset to zero, the global economy could start from scratch.

Whilst explaining the details of the plan, codenamed “Operation Ctrl-alt-delete”, she also suggested that whilst we were at it, we could also do something about teenagers using the phrase “whatever!” and people who get emotionally attached to The X Factor contestants they’d never heard of a week before. Or people who put things like “You need to love yourself before you find love” on Twitter.

Could we see anti-bailout terrorism?

Given the Irish experience with terrorism, and the perception amongst many that the bailing out of banks is having an actual detrimental personal effect on so many individual lives and quality of life, how far fetched is it to imagine that extremist elements of the anti EU/IMF movement could engage in acts of violence in opposition?

There’s certainly no shortage of young politically engaged activists, but what could they actually do? Would acts of violence actually forward their agenda, or at least, do they believe they would? Would engaging in IRA-style terrorist attacks, bombing say the Department of Finance or AIB headquarters actually encourage the government to take steps such as burning the bondholders, or increase the public mood for more radical action by the government to supress them? 

What about, for example, the kidnapping of prominent figures associated with banking or business, and a demand that their families distribute money to the public or declare previously undeclared income to the Revenue Commissioners? How would the public react to that, provided the victims were not physically harmed? That would be a different kettle of fish altogether, and a much more difficult campaign for the government to handle, especially if there was a public perception that the individuals in question were not in jail anyway because of government incompetence or compliance.