No to a Eurostate

Cork

New_Departure06 wrote:

I also note that there is nothing in the 1916 Proclamation on a Federal Europe.

There was also nothing about WW2 or the assisination of JFK.

We live in a global village where a strong EU is needed to stand up to the economies of China and the US.

We'll get an EU Constitution - It probably won't be called a constitution to appease the Euro Skeptics.

New_Departure06

Cork wrote:

There was also nothing about WW2 or the assisination of JFK.

We live in a global village where a strong EU is needed to stand up to the economies of China and the US.

We'll get an EU Constitution - It probably won't be called a constitution to appease the Euro Skeptics.

I don't want an EU Constitution. A constitution is normally something that indicates a single country. I am happy with my own country and will vote to defend it against imperialism. I am Irish first and European second. I agree with being in the EU but only while we retain control over the remaining issues we have not yet surrendered control of to the Brussels bureaucrats. The EU has been of great benefit to Ireland but let us be honest about it. We joined it for our own interests. We did not do it out of support for the grand-designs of a Eurostate that were germinating in the thoughts of De Gaulle and Adenauer.

And we should make further decisions on questions of European integration based on OUR interests and no-one elses. I will not apologise for taking this view. It is time for nationalism to take control of the political agenda regarding our links with the EU. We should be in the EU but should jealously guard our remaining independence. I don't want imperial powers setting my tax rates. Remember the promises that were made of what benefits would come for Catholics in the Act of Union, by William Pitt? Then George III vetoed them and we had to wait until 1829 and Catholic Emancipation. And only after monster rallies of hundreds of thousands of people. Then we had the Famine.

So let's beware of false promises from the bureaucrats in Brussels and the arrogant euro-elite that are seeking ways of getting around the courageous No vote of the French and the Dutch.

Oh and look at this. Interesting!
http://euobserver.com/9/21477

At the heart of the French idea is the elimination of national vetoes in justice and police cooperation and workers' protection rules, through a legal construction which does not require a change in current EU treaties.

Agree with this? Why? Why should we lose control of our own justice policy?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

New_Departure06 wrote:

And we should make further decisions on questions of European integration based on OUR interests and no-one elses. I will not apologise for taking this view. It is time for nationalism to take control of the political agenda regarding our links with the EU. We should be in the EU but should jealously guard our remaining independence. I don't want imperial powers setting my tax rates. Remember the promises that were made of what benefits would come for Catholics in the Act of Union, by William Pitt? Then George III vetoed them and we had to wait until 1829 and Catholic Emancipation. And only after monster rallies of hundreds of thousands of people. Then we had the Famine.

So let's beware of false promises from the bureaucrats in Brussels and the arrogant euro-elite that are seeking ways of getting around the courageous No vote of the French and the Dutch.

Nor should you be expected to apologise. However, I'm getting a sence of fear from you that you don't believe our culture is strong enough to stand up to a eurostate. We've been lied to before, yes, but that doesn't mean it's automatically going to happen again.

I don't want an EU Constitution. A constitution is normally something that indicates a single country. I am happy with my own country and will vote to defend it against imperialism. I am Irish first and European second. I agree with being in the EU but only while we retain control over the remaining issues we have not yet surrendered control of to the Brussels bureaucrats. The EU has been of great benefit to Ireland but let us be honest about it. We joined it for our own interests. We did not do it out of support for the grand-designs of a Eurostate that were germinating in the thoughts of De Gaulle and Adenauer.

Personally, I'm an individual first. And no government, socieity or eurostate can change that, so I'm not scared. I also have a bit of 'Irish'skeptic' in me because, having lived in other European countires, I find them to be much better run than Ireland. Example - taxes are higher in some, Denmark for example, but the infrastructure is far better than ours.

I honestly think that, althought we are one of the more culturally-enriched countries in Europe but we're not one of the stronger when it comes to organisation and equality. This could and should be enhanced.

Don't go by history. Histroy is dead and buried. We'd like to think we use history in order to learn from the mistakes of the past, but this is ridiculous - all it does is reinforce hate and fear. Don't quote dates and statistics, use your own personal experience. You'll see more and learn more in the long run. What is happening in Europe RIGHT NOW to lead you to believe that, in a eurostate, EVERY decision will be made by Brussels. In the US, the indivdual states still have a lot of power to set laws and levles of taxation.

New_Departure06

Don't go by history. Histroy is dead and buried. We'd like to think we use history in order to learn from the mistakes of the past, but this is ridiculous - all it does is reinforce hate and fear. Don't quote dates and statistics, use your own personal experience. You'll see more and learn more in the long run. What is happening in Europe RIGHT NOW to lead you to believe that, in a eurostate, EVERY decision will be made by Brussels. In the US, the indivdual states still have a lot of power to set laws and levles of taxation.

At least in the US, there are presidential election, unlike in the EU. We have absolutely no say over who becomes Commission president. The system of legislating on an EU-wide level is fundamentally undemocratic compared to the US. It would be like all the state governors or their ministers attending meetings and voting through laws some of which then come into force without the wishes of the Congress. It would also be like the Governors choosing the president instead of the voters.

The EU leaders have let vanity go to their heads. They want future generations to compare them with the authors of the US Constitution, and they are letting that cloud their better judgements on the value of independence.

We either learn from history or are doomed to repeat it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

New_Departure06 wrote:

At least in the US, there are presidential election, unlike in the EU. We have absolutely no say over who becomes Commission president. The system of legislating on an EU-wide level is fundamentally undemocratic compared to the US. It would be like all the state governors or their ministers attending meetings and voting through laws some of which then come into force without the wishes of the Congress. It would also be like the Governors choosing the president instead of the voters.

The EU leaders have let vanity go to their heads. They want future generations to compare them with the authors of the US Constitution, and they are letting that cloud their better judgements on the value of independence.

We either learn from history or are doomed to repeat it.

Well, we ceretainly don't learn from it!!

I agree with you, to a point, that if a eurostate were to eveolve it should be treated as a democracy with people voting for a president. That's a given. I also think that culture is far stronger than politics. That's what will give people their identitiy. One thing I've learnt on my travels is to never judge a people by the regime that governs it.

samb

Ikky Poo2 wrote:

One thing I've learnt on my travels is to never judge a people by the regime that governs it.

Luckily for US, many share this view:)......or should that be us

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

The poll findings I have shown you include the "Northern Irish" option as a distinct one from "Irish".

Yes, which by this response would indicate that you still can't grasp what I meant by your kind of Irish.

Which is all besides the point of the topic at hand, to which you listed out a series of either factually erroneous or simply imaginary reasons. So for the third time I’d ask you to respond to the points I raised in relation to those.

Cork

Those who in the past who opposed EU treatys have been wrong.

No consciption and there have never been more working in Ireland.

Many of those who oppose the EU constitution are scare mongerers and Euro Skeptics.

They ignore the benefits the EU has brought such as social and environmental protection not to mention the billions.

As for the democratic deficit stuff - social partnership has downgraded the importance of our national parliament far more than the EU.

Social Partnership talks are behind closed doors.

Yet people have no problem with this.

dathi1

No consciption and there have never been more working in Ireland.

Another myth. We have full employment because of our 12% Corp tax, American Investment and a hard working young workforce. We made our Economy not Europe! Brussels wants to take away the 12%

Many of those who oppose the EU constitution are scare mongerers and Euro Skeptics.

The bastion of modern Europe ..........the French??????? They didnt just oppose it..they rejected it.

Social Partnership talks are behind closed doors.

And the EU commission doesn’t??

The Corinthian

dathi1 wrote:

Another myth. We have full employment because of our 12% Corp tax, American Investment and a hard working young workforce. We made our Economy not Europe! Brussels wants to take away the 12%

That we are a gateway into the European open market and also received generous social grants from the Commission to build up our laughable infrastructure obliviously played no part in it according to you.

New_Departure06

Cork wrote:

Those who in the past who opposed EU treatys have been wrong.

No consciption and there have never been more working in Ireland.

Many of those who oppose the EU constitution are scare mongerers and Euro Skeptics.

They ignore the benefits the EU has brought such as social and environmental protection not to mention the billions.

As for the democratic deficit stuff - social partnership has downgraded the importance of our national parliament far more than the EU.

Social Partnership talks are behind closed doors.

Yet people have no problem with this.

I am not a Eurosceptic. I actually voted Yes to the others but those were not votes on a EU Constitution. We need to consider each EU treaty on its own merits or demerits. It's not good enough to simply say "the EU has been beneficial to Ireland, therefore let's give them a blank cheque to do what they like in the future". Blank cheques are dangerous. I recall one led to WW1.

What I am sceptical about is going all the way with European integration. I do not want a Eurostate. I think Ireland's tradition of neutrality inspires respect abroad. I think that being a small country on the edge of Western Europe in the most unstrategic part of the world is surely beneficial in that we don't come under pressure to take part in wars. If we get a Eurostate on the other hand then these decisions will be made in Brussels where Ireland's interests will have little bearing on what happens in a 25 member EU.

Anyway have you actually read the EU Constitution? Read it and tell me can you understand a word of it because a lot of people can't. If you don't know, vote No.

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

I am not a Eurosceptic.

Unless you’ve just done a complete u-turn on every thing else you’ve said in this thread, then you are. Hell, look up eurosceptic in the dictionary and there’s probably even a photo of you.

I think Ireland's tradition of neutrality inspires respect abroad.

No it does not, because we are not and never have been really neutral. Switzerland is neutral, Sweden is neutral, but Ireland is simply hedging her bets. We did it in World War II and we’re doing it now by claiming not to be involved, while acting as a military transit point.

I think that being a small country on the edge of Western Europe in the most unstrategic part of the world is surely beneficial in that we don't come under pressure to take part in wars.

Ireland is not in an ‘unstrategic’ part of the World. To begin with we lie just off Britain and give potentially easy access to anyone wanting to go there (a fact not lost to the French in the Eighteenth and Germans in the Twentieth centuries). Secondly were one big airstrip and seaport, right smack in the middle of the Atlantic. Thirdly we are an anglophone nation that merit economic importance for the special access we can give to the EU market.

Your belief that Ireland lacks any strategic importance is frankly deluded.

If we get a Eurostate on the other hand then these decisions will be made in Brussels where Ireland's interests will have little bearing on what happens in a 25 member EU.

These decisions will be made even if Ireland was not part of the EU, leaving us with no say at all in them and in the precarious position of hoping that we’re going to left alone. We won’t.

Anyway have you actually read the EU Constitution? Read it and tell me can you understand a word of it because a lot of people can't. If you don't know, vote No.

FUD. Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt. Engender enough of it and you might scare people without having to actually back up your assertions.

Oh, and feel free to respond to the points I raised earlier - I particularly liked shooting down your harmonised taxes theory. And this is the fourth time I’m asking you to do this.

New_Departure06

I wondered what you meant by "other points". So I have scrolled back and looked for what you could mean and will now answer what I think you mean.

Wrong. For example, Switzerland.

Apart from them. It hardly ever happens that a federal state does not involve a central income tax. The balance of probability is that if we have a Eurostate we will have that. That can only mean higher income taxes and possibly corporate taxes because that reflects the socialist nonsense emanating in mainland Europe where statism always wins the ideological battles. Western Europe outside Britain and Ireland is a high-tax zone. Why should we be brought down to their levels?

That really is the basest of scare-mongering crap I’ve heard in a while - do you have any evidence other than your own paranoia for any of those assumptions?

A state of 450 million (that's before Turkey comes in) sounds like a superpower to me, and superpowers always seek 'glory' in the form of military adventures. The British one did, the US does, China has done in Tibet and is threatening Taiwan. Why should a European one be any different? This has been the way throughout history.

(C: The men and women of 1916 did not die for a European superstate.)

So what?

So if we create a Eurostate we are betraying their sacrifice. Perhaps that sits well with you. It doesn't with me. I honour their sacrifice and want to protect the gains in terms of sovereignty they gave their lives for.

Isn’t it a little hypocritical for someone who argued that they were “more concerned with the 21st century than the 80's” is suddenly all precious about history?

I think you misunderstand the context in which my remarks are meant. The gains wrought from 1916 are still with us, whereas WW2 was in the past. As such, I fail to see the relevance of arguments that because there has not been a Western European war on its territory for decades that this means we have to ratify yet another EU treaty. It could equally be argued that the presence of US troops on EU soil is helping guarantee peace on Western European soil.

(E: Don't want unelected Brussels bureaucrats and Franco-German imperialists running my life.)

Then, as I’ve already suggested (you didn’t acknowledge it though), campaign for democratisations of those roles and stop using this as an excuse to justify your xenophobia.

I have already made it clear that my prefered demos for deciding on issues is the Irish people. Irish public representatives are more accessible - for all their flaws - than people thousands of miles away in Brussels. The more powers we give people based in Brussels and Strasbourg the further away the holders of power become from the ordinary people. I am not xenophobic. Why is it that at EVERY EU referendum or the debate on EVERY EU treaty the charge of "xenophobia" is places? Do you seriously believe that the 38% who voted No to Nice are xenophobes?

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

Apart from them. It hardly ever happens that a federal state does not involve a central income tax.

Again wrong, you’ll find that many federal systems you have differing tax rates. For example in the USA (India as well, but I’m not certain) they have both state and federal taxes - so there is no true harmonisation. And other countries will often have automatous regions with their own tax systems and rates - such as Aldo Adige in Italy or the Basque region in Spain.

The balance of probability is that if we have a Eurostate we will have that.

No, you assume - based upon an erroneous series of assertions - that any European federation or confederation would have that.

That can only mean higher income taxes and possibly corporate taxes because that reflects the socialist nonsense emanating in mainland Europe where statism always wins the ideological battles.

Again this is a huge assumption. The same could be said of the UK in the 1970’s and Ireland in the 1980’s, yet both changed. You’re assuming that in the current global economy that mainland Europe will be unwilling to reform in the next decade or two, which is dubiously specualtive.

A state of 450 million (that's before Turkey comes in) sounds like a superpower to me, and superpowers always seek 'glory' in the form of military adventures. The British one did, the US does, China has done in Tibet and is threatening Taiwan. Why should a European one be any different? This has been the way throughout history.

More assumptions and scare mongering. India (pop. 1.3 billion) and Brazil (pop. 190 million) would appear to fall into the same category of superpower by your criteria, yet they’ve not behaved in the manner you’ve suggested.

So if we create a Eurostate we are betraying their sacrifice. Perhaps that sits well with you. It doesn't with me. I honour their sacrifice and want to protect the gains in terms of sovereignty they gave their lives for.

No, we may betray your interpretation of their sacrifice, but that is all. And I’m certainly not going to simply take your word that you’ve got a clue about what they were about, TBH.

I think you misunderstand the context in which my remarks are meant. The gains wrought from 1916 are still with us, whereas WW2 was in the past.

Yes, the proof of that is that we’re still part of the British Empire and never got independence. You are, of course, talking rubbish.

It could equally be argued that the presence of US troops on EU soil is helping guarantee peace on Western European soil.

It certainly could, although the case for this has lessened since the end of the Cold War.

I have already made it clear that my prefered demos for deciding on issues is the Irish people. Irish public representatives are more accessible - for all their flaws - than people thousands of miles away in Brussels. The more powers we give people based in Brussels and Strasbourg the further away the holders of power become from the ordinary people.

Your preferred demos is regionalism. Your same argument is actually used by many Northern Unionists (and even some nationalists) who would rather be governed by Belfast and not by far away Dublin.

The kernel of your regionalism is, as you suggested, in accessibility. The European Parliament certainly is in need of serious reform. It’s of limited relevance to European citizens and limited influence because the national governments will not allow it to become a true parliament.

Of course, if accessibility is your issue, they you should be arguing for reform that would turn it into a true democratic institution, but you’re not because you don’t like the idea of further political integration not because of a question of democracy but because you just don’t like the idea of further political integration.

I am not xenophobic. Why is it that at EVERY EU referendum or the debate on EVERY EU treaty the charge of "xenophobia" is places? Do you seriously believe that the 38% who voted No to Nice are xenophobes?

Of course not, I’m only calling you xenophobic; I can’t speak for everyone’s motivations.

Your arguments are largely based upon spurious and erroneous assumptions and when they’re not based upon those you repeatedly retort to scare mongering as a means to put your argument across - “Join the Euro-superstate and we’ll start World War III!” So given your position seem wholly based upon nationalistic sentiment and fear with no real reason or evidence backing it up, it is a pretty conclusion to call you a xenophobe.

New_Departure06

Your arguments are largely based upon spurious and erroneous assumptions and when they’re not based upon those you repeatedly retort to scare mongering as a means to put your argument across - “Join the Euro-superstate and we’ll start World War III!” So given your position seem wholly based upon nationalistic sentiment and fear with no real reason or evidence backing it up, it is a pretty conclusion to call you a xenophobe.

I admit I am a nationalist, but I am not a xenophobe. I am not calling for us to leave the EU. I feel that we should protect what little independence we have left. Otherwise the concerns of the Irish people will count for nothing in a federal Europe. We are a very small country and as such, our representation in the European parliament is very tiny compared to France and Germany. Our weight vote in the EU Council of Ministers is around 3%. So we have little influence in these bodies. Things are more equal in the Commission where everyone has one Commissioner. But then again we have no role in choosing our Commissioner electorally.

This is a flawed model. We have something put in front of us every few years and are asked to say "Yes" or "No". Just like that. Not "I like these bits but not the others". No. Just Yes or No. As such it would be wrong to interpret past Yes votes as approval of 100% of what was in the various EU treaties. I have said there are flaws in the system already but not big enough for me to want to leave the EU. I see it as a marriage of convenience. We should b in it for what we can get out of it. But we should not agree to give up any more local control. That would be too high a price to pay. I would also regard it as undermining my separate Irish national identity. I am an Irish person first, a Leinsterman second, and a European afterwards.

dathi1

New Dep06 when they start trashing the word xenophobe about you know you've won the argument!! well done.

Tax here is partially determined at a townland level, partially at a Cantonal level, and partially at a national level. Oh, and your religion also has an effect too, just in case it wasn't complicated enough.

No wonder they stayed out of the EU:D

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

This is a flawed model. We have something put in front of us every few years and are asked to say "Yes" or "No". Just like that. Not "I like these bits but not the others".`

No one is disagreeing that this may be a flawed model, but your response to it is a simple blanket rejection based upon false assumptions and not a call to reform them.

That’s what betrays your xenophobia.

dathi1 wrote:

New Dep06 when they start trashing the word xenophobe about you know you've won the argument!! well done.

I’ve quite rationally and logically explained, point by point, why. But if you feel that you’re capacity for cliché is more convincing, feel free to delude yourself.

bonkey

dathi1 wrote:

Brussels wants to take away the 12%

Whats that you were saying about myths?

jc

Gurgle

New_Departure06 wrote:

A: There has never been a state without harmonised taxes - in a federal system there has never been one where there is not a common income tax in each state. Harmonised European taxes would inevitably mean our taxes going up, wrecking the economy and dragging us down to the level of mainland Europe with its 10% unemployment.

There has never been a willing union of dozens of nations into one federation. Even the USA, the self-styled bastion of freedom and democracy was unified through wars of conquest. And btw, each state has different tax levels. So your point is not only irrelevant its inaccurate.

New_Departure06 wrote:

B: A Eurostate would have a common army. We could be conscripted into it and forced into wars we do not want.

Absolute bullsh`it.
Thats one of the carved-in-stone conditions of Irelands membership of the EU, we are neutral.

New_Departure06 wrote:

C: The men and women of 1916 did not die for a European superstate.

No, they died for liberation from an imperial oppressor.

New_Departure06 wrote:

It was hard enough getting independence in the first place. Something hard fought for should not be surrendered so easily.

Thats the same point as C

New_Departure06 wrote:

E: Don't want unelected Brussels bureaucrats and Franco-German imperialists running my life.

And the best way to ensure that theres never another Hitler or Napoleon is to build a europe united in democracy and peace.
Look around, its working.

dathi1

Thats one of the carved-in-stone conditions of Irelands membership of the EU, we are neutral.

A question for the Europhiles.
The US is confident today that Europe is in full support of implementing sanctions against Iran. Given the recent withdrawal of funds to the democratically elected government of Palestine are we now part and parcel of the Brussels dictat when it comes to foreign policy? or do we have no choice? The later I suspect. Ireland’s influence me ar.se.

blueshirt

Actually what we should be doing is rejoining the commonwealth with a view to eventually being part of the UK again. We should ditch the euro and embrace sterling. Wouldn’t it make rugby matches less complicated? We wouldn’t have to endure Irelands call any more. And do away with the “British Isles” debate for once and for all. And of course a real bonus would be no more silly presidents and we would have a proper air force, The RAF.

The Corinthian

I love this:

dathi1 wrote:

The US is confident today that Europe is in full support of implementing sanctions against Iran. Given the recent withdrawal of funds to the democratically elected government of Palestine are we now part and parcel of the Brussels dictat when it comes to foreign policy?

Speculation on what government policy (not the ravings of a few Dail members) is without actually knowing what it is on both matters.

or do we have no choice? The later I suspect.

Introduction of a paranoid conclusion based upon the above assumption.

Ireland’s influence me ar.se.

No, that would be the orifice you’re presently exercising in this discussion.

blueshirt wrote:

Actually what we should be doing is rejoining the commonwealth with a view to eventually being part of the UK again. We should ditch the euro and embrace sterling. Wouldn’t it make rugby matches less complicated? We wouldn’t have to endure Irelands call any more. And do away with the “British Isles” debate for once and for all. And of course a real bonus would be no more silly presidents and we would have a proper air force, The RAF.

Trolls work better if they’re subtler.

New_Departure06

What is wrong with wanting decisions affecting us to be made in our country, by local people who are acquainted with peoples' problems? Rather than someone thousands of miles away in another country who is remote and out of touch, and who I cannot vote to remove if I dislike his/her decisions?

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

What is wrong with wanting decisions affecting us to be made in our country, by local people who are acquainted with peoples' problems? Rather than someone thousands of miles away in another country who is remote and out of touch, and who I cannot vote to remove if I dislike his/her decisions?

Firstly, Brussels, Strasburg or any of the other institutions are not “thousands of miles away” - they’re all a few hundred miles away. This is simply another example of your need for artistic licence when dealing with the facts of the argument.

Secondly, were that the case then it frankly makes little difference as long as we are properly and democratically represented. There’s certainly need for reform there - something that I note you do not wish to broach as if we did, God forbid, you would run out of excuses.

Finally, I find it rather rich from someone to preach regionalism when I’ve little doubt that were the majority population in Northern Ireland to suggest that they should be ruled by “by local people who are acquainted with peoples' problems” in Belfast, you’d probably be happy to do a U-turn on your previously stated position, on some spurious nationalistic basis that “it’s different”. Sure.

New_Departure06

The Corinthian wrote:

Firstly, Brussels, Strasburg or any of the other institutions are not “thousands of miles away” - they’re all a few hundred miles away. This is simply another example of your need for artistic licence when dealing with the facts of the argument.

Secondly, were that the case then it frankly makes little difference as long as we are properly and democratically represented. There’s certainly need for reform there - something that I note you do not wish to broach as if we did, God forbid, you would run out of excuses.

Finally, I find it rather rich from someone to preach regionalism when I’ve little doubt that were the majority population in Northern Ireland to suggest that they should be ruled by “by local people who are acquainted with peoples' problems” in Belfast, you’d probably be happy to do a U-turn on your previously stated position, on some spurious nationalistic basis that “it’s different”. Sure.

It is different because its only up the road and far nearer and because it is historically part of the Irish homeland. However devolution under the GFA is something which includes powersharing so yes, I would want local people governing it - ideally from Dublin but until then I'd be happy with devolution up there though I wouldn't ecactly shed tears if Plan B happened either.

dathi1

Speculation on what government policy (not the ravings of a few Dail members) is without actually knowing what it is on both matters

eh..no wrong again. Our Government supports Palestinian aid despite our master’s crackdown on April 10th. I think the paranoia is on you. Any attempt to criticise EU policy brings on fits of cheap psychoanalysis.

No, that would be the orifice you’re presently exercising in this discussion.

Very good........Well from the people I've met that know you.......You're a master at bull**** yourself.

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

It is different because its only up the road and far nearer and because it is historically part of the Irish homeland.

No, only up the road is a very subjective concept - I can get to Paris faster than I can to Belfast or Galway after all.

As for this Irish homeland argument, that just brings us back to the real reason you’re a Europhobe, which has nothing to do with economics or the democratic nature of the EU. Essentially you’re basing all of your arguments on some outdated romantic nationalistic ideal that has scant relevance in today’s Ireland. From this you induce reasons why the EU is bad, which invariably are ill thought out - in short, you begin with a conclusion and work backwards to find the reasons to support that conclusion.

However devolution under the GFA is something which includes powersharing so yes, I would want local people governing it - ideally from Dublin but until then I'd be happy with devolution up there though I wouldn't ecactly shed tears if Plan B happened either.

Dublin is not local for Belfast and vice versa. You hold some distinct double standards where it comes to your regionalism.

dathi1 wrote:

eh..no wrong again. Our Government supports Palestinian aid despite our master’s crackdown on April 10th.

Everyone ‘supports’ Palestinian aid. Now if you would care to show us where our government has so vehemently disagreed with EU policy?

I think the paranoia is on you. Any attempt to criticise EU policy brings on fits of cheap psychoanalysis.

Any ‘cheap psychoanalysis’ comes after I expose point after point of hysterical misinformation by you and New_Departure06 in particular, so you’ll forgive me if I make observations about your rather transparent thinking.

democrates

new departure06, my grandfather was in the freestate army and I don't like the fashion in some comfortable circles of spitting on the memories of "the boys of '16".

But this is our time. Why would we opt to be ruled by the dead hand of the past? If I were involved in a similar campaign I'd hate to think that in 90 years time people were slavishly following my analysis. It reminds me of US senators debating "what the founding fathers intended", as if they have lost the capacity to think from first principles.

TC hit the nail on the head for me. Reading your points it occurs to me that you could restate them as a set of proposals for improving the eu, and the conditions under which you would agree to further co-operation. No conscription, local tax control, democratically elected president, etc etc.

Pushing the nationalism button is counter-productive. Just because it has been done in the past doesn't justify it for all time, the world has moved on. Marx et al chose to characterise history as class struggles. In each case a flag of convenience was chosen to propagate a glorious us and demonic them mentality so that people could be provoked into taking the action the architects sought. That's no way to proceed today, it's divisive.

Which brings me to the real issue facing all peoples, including the eu. We are increasingly divided and conquered. Greater strides have been made in globalising competition than co-operation. In the 80's capitalism conquered the markets, in the 90's it conquered democracy. Push any issue with a minister and eventually you'll get to the constraint that we have to be competitive, we have to be investor friendly. Hence one vote per person is being sidelined by one vote per euro.

What value is your vote, only to make sure no-one leads our economy down the toilet by making us less competitive. You get less and less by virtue of citizenship, more and more necessary services from bin collections to healthcare have gained a price tag with scant account for the equitable taxation principle of ability to pay.

Competition is sold on the ideal that it increases efficiency and lowers prices. But that is cover for what is a short-term faustian deal. We can't have infinite growth of consumption and pollution in a finite ecosytem. Capitalism is the driver, it creates winners and losers, it has one job, concentrate wealth with investors, so the gap between rich and poor is intensifying and for me that trend is not a tenable long term proposition. Also the idea that the best way forward is ever increasing competition to make a living is disturbing. I can't accept this unfolding scenario as the only option.

But what's to be done? I wrestle with this as I am not content to be a nay-sayer with no plans for a better tomorrow. I like democracy, but even if we had swiss-style democracy throughout the eu, what difference would it make? We in the eu still have to compete against India China Brazil etc to make a living. We're still in the global race to the bottom.

This suits footloose investors who pit nation against nation, all competing for crumbs of employment by altering their tax regimes to be more investor friendly. But before we run madly down the us and them road, we need some competition to make efficient use of the earths scarce resources, we want some freedom to invest and create business, but we also want greater fairness, ie global socio-economic cohesion. We need a better balance.

I often rail against the injustice of it all, accelerated by the influential elite, but the truth is, we the peoples of earth have the power to shape a better future any time we like, if we co-operate. But we have bought into untrammelled competition hook line and sinker. We are the laggards, we have failed to find a better way, and we will only solve this together. So I think less fists of fury and more hands of friendship are in order, and more brainpower expended on looking for solutions. Otherwise we condemn ourselves through fear and selfishness to lesser lives.

Conar

Thats exactly what I was about to say!

Seriously though, a very refreshing point of view! Nice 1!

New_Departure06

I often rail against the injustice of it all, accelerated by the influential elite, but the truth is, we the peoples of earth have the power to shape a better future any time we like, if we co-operate. But we have bought into untrammelled competition hook line and sinker. We are the laggards, we have failed to find a better way, and we will only solve this together. So I think less fists of fury and more hands of friendship are in order, and more brainpower expended on looking for solutions. Otherwise we condemn ourselves through fear and selfishness to lesser lives.

I have no problem with cooperation. I have every problem with coercion. If we give up more vetoes we will increasingly have more EU laws foisted upon us that may not suit the needs of this country. That is coercion, not cooperation. The existing EU constitutional architecture gives sufficient leeway for cooperation and unfortunately some for coercion too. We don't need further abolition of national vetoes as the French are demanding and the Constitution would bring about in order to increase cooperation. I agree we need to increase cooperation on a range of issues e.g. organised crime, people-trafficking. However we can already do that with what we have.

Leave things as they are, or return some of the vetoes to the State.