No to a Eurostate

New_Departure06

Gurgle wrote:

Again:
The EU is something that has never been done before.
It has, so far, been an outstanding success.

Tell that to the French, Germans, Italians...

Moriarty

New_Departure06 wrote:

Tell that to the French, Germans, Italians...

Yeah, being the 6th, 3rd and 7th largest economys in the world respectively demonstrates just how much in the crapper these countrys are. I don't know how they can even afford to feed themselves!

New_Departure06

Moriarty wrote:

Yeah, being the 6th, 3rd and 7th largest economys in the world respectively demonstrates just how much in the crapper these countrys are. I don't know how they can even afford to feed themselves!

12% unemployment.

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

12% unemployment.

Have you come back to throw some more FUD or answer the rebuttals that you were so studiously ignoring on the previous page?

How about you tell us that one about how Ireland can still be neutral and “turn a blind eye” to foreign troops moving across her soil? That was a real rib tickler.

New_Departure06

The Corinthian wrote:

Have you come back to throw some more FUD or answer the rebuttals that you were so studiously ignoring on the previous page?

How about you tell us that one about how Ireland can still be neutral and “turn a blind eye” to foreign troops moving across her soil? That was a real rib tickler.

I think we are getting into legalistic minutia here about what does and does not constitute neutrality. For me and most Irish people, we associate the term with not being dragged actively into fighting wars. That is what I am concerned will happen in a Eurostate.

Lemming

New_Departure06 wrote:

I think we are getting into legalistic minutia here about what does and does not constitute neutrality.

No, we're not. We're pointing out exactly what neutrality actually is. It's not anybody else's problem if you cannot accept a fact as defined by universally accepted international agreement.

Making the equivalent of "la la la la la la la" when pointed out that you are mistaken in your understanding isn't exactly a stunning defence ...

For me and most Irish people, we associate the term with not being dragged actively into fighting wars.

Eh, no. Speak for yourself. Neutrality to me is exactly that. Neutrality. The word that gives you away is "actively". You don't have to be "actively" fighting in a war to be involved. Logistical support, trade support for a war effort, troop garrison in non-combat theatres is STILL involved, just not "actively fighting" as you put it. Tell me. From those above few examples I cited ... what is Ireland currently doing? I believe the correct answer is logistical support.

You've been shown that you're in a hole. Stop digging before the rain starts.

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

I think we are getting into legalistic minutia here about what does and does not constitute neutrality. For me and most Irish people, we associate the term with not being dragged actively into fighting wars.

As has been suggested, stop attempting denial. You’re patently talking rubbish and you’ve been caught out. Deal with it and have the backbone to admit it.

That is what I am concerned will happen in a Eurostate.

Then speak to someone better informed and less paranoid than yourself.

dathi1

Then speak to someone better informed and less paranoid than yourself.

There you go again! It’s a waste for a person with such a good grasp of words to reduce your argument to cheap slurs. You lose again. Well done 06.

The Corinthian

dathi1 wrote:

There you go again! It’s a waste for a person with such a good grasp of words to reduce your argument to cheap slurs.

A cheap slur would imply a falsehood, which, if you bothered reading the last few pages, you would realise it is not. New_Departure06 has consistently attempted to sidestep or, where that failed, redefine the argument or elements of the argument, whenever one of his points is rebutted. Issues such as Irish neutrality and his fabled ‘cautionary approach’ have been repeatedly shot down by me and others - something that he not only does not acknowledge and simply drops the points, but also even has the gall to simply repeat the same points several pages later when he feels the rebuttals have been forgotten.

Where he particularly got caught was his bizarre need to redefine neutrality so as to fit his agenda. When faced with the definition of neutrality as held by international law (and recently upheld in the recent Horgan case) his only defence was that this was “legalistic minutia” - as opposed to his learned opinion we are left to suppose.

So he is poorly informed, otherwise he would have a better grasp of the facts - which he has repeatedly failed to demonstrate in this thread - and his arguments are paranoid as they conjure up fantastical scenarios such as European imperial military adventures without being able to back them up. Thus the slur is neither cheap, nor indeed a slur in the first place.

And finally he is intellectually dishonest as these rather transparent and disingenuous tactics leave us with the inescapable conclusion that he is intentionally attempting to manipulate the discussion with a view to deceive.

On which point, you’ve been rather quite for a few pages too in this thread, ever since I challenged you one of your claims. You might address that now.

Flex

Well, Id be against a European state simply because Im proud of my nationality and citizenship as an Irishman and dont really fancy giving it away for something else.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

I'd be the opposite. If Europe could come in here, sort out the infrastructure (rather than just chucking money at it) and bring us up to par with other European countires, then I say let them.

Widgeon

We have to remember why the EU was originally set up under the Treaty of Rome. It has achieved theose aims, but nothing ever remains static.
One of the greatest causes of conflict is the ideology of nationalism.

New_Departure06

Widgeon wrote:

We have to remember why the EU was originally set up under the Treaty of Rome. It has achieved theose aims, but nothing ever remains static.
One of the greatest causes of conflict is the ideology of nationalism.

What about the ideology of Communism and the millions killed in the name of "Great Leaps Forward" or "Collectivisation" etc. or those killed in Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge or in North Korea by the Kims?

You are wrong. The Hitler/Mussolini brand of Nationalism is a tiny % of Nationalism as a movement. I have nothing in common with them. Yes I am a Nationalist but the brand of nationalism that promotes national identity, self-determination and preservation of the Irish language harms no-one.

You are overgeneralising to the point where if I were doing the same I might charge that Socialism was one of the greatest causes of conflict in history because of what I refer to in the first paragraph but the lefties I'm sure would accuse me of overgeneralising because the vast majority of them are not Communists.

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

What about the ideology of Communism and the millions killed in the name of "Great Leaps Forward" or "Collectivisation" etc. or those killed in Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge or in North Korea by the Kims?

You are wrong. The Hitler/Mussolini brand of Nationalism is a tiny % of Nationalism as a movement. I have nothing in common with them.

He’s not actually. In the ninetieth and twentieth centuries, Nationalism was indeed one of the greatest causes for conflict. Communism caused much suffering too, but typically as a result of botched economic and social policy rather than conflict - a pedantic point, but it was what Widgeon actually said.

And of course you have something in common with either Hitler or Mussolini; you’re a Nationalist and so were they. It may be a limited commonality, but important to remember nonetheless, lest you believe yourself immune to their mistakes.

Yes I am a Nationalist but the brand of nationalism that promotes national identity, self-determination and preservation of the Irish language harms no-one.

The problem with Nationalism, or for that matter Socialism or any other ideology, is when the ideology becomes more important than its original purpose. Ideologies are there to serve the people and when we begin to blindly follow them, when the people begin to serve the ideology, and then it’s probably time to reassess why we have the ideology in the first place.

And just so you know, when you begin to hold to a belief and cannot logically defend it, or simply hold to it for nothing more that abstract principle, then you’ve fallen into that trap.

outlook

Hi Im new here and all the points made on this thread are very valid points you have made. I Think that most Irish people are not happy with the idea of Eurostate. I found a site which maybe be of interest to you. Check it out.
Basically its some kind of online petition aimed at the Government I think but by reading some of the comments left on the site I think Irish people are not happy with the way our Government has handled our intergration into Europe.

www.peoplesvoice.info

The Corinthian

outlook wrote:

Hi Im new here

Sure you are...

bonkey

outlook wrote:

I Think that most Irish people are not happy with the idea of Eurostate.

I thnk you're making an unfounded assumption with your use of the word "most".

If you prefer: the assumption is unsupported within the content of your post.

I think but by reading some of the comments left on the site I think Irish people are not happy with the way our Government has handled our intergration into Europe.

Given the absolutely tiny number of comments, and utter lack of statistics about signatures collected to date, this site would reinforce the notion that only a tiny minority of Irish people have an issue with a Eurostate.

If there was a protest of an equivalent number of people outside the Dail, complaining about the issue, it probably wouldn't be considered large enough to make the evening news.

To take a handful of comments like this and extrapolate that they are representitive of the mindset of a nation is ludicrous.

jc

New_Departure06

If there was a protest of an equivalent number of people outside the Dail, complaining about the issue, it probably wouldn't be considered large enough to make the evening news.

Ever heard of the silent majority?

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

Ever heard of the silent majority?

Yes, it’s a commonly used cliché used by people who bluff a lot.

bonkey

New_Departure06 wrote:

Ever heard of the silent majority?

I have indeed.

The problem with invoking the silent majority is that its an implicit admission that there isn't actually any solid, factual basis on which to base whatever claim they are supposed to support....what with their being silent and all.

If you take silence as assent with an opinion, then you end up in the situation where the silent must agree with both sides - which is a somewhat useless conclusion.

Hogmeister B

Seems to me most people just don't care.

constitutionus

bonkey wrote:

I have indeed.

The problem with invoking the silent majority is that its an implicit admission that there isn't actually any solid, factual basis on which to base whatever claim they are supposed to support....what with their being silent and all.

If you take silence as assent with an opinion, then you end up in the situation where the silent must agree with both sides - which is a somewhat useless conclusion.

untill you get things like the citizenship referendum, then all the media types look like fools cause they couldnt figure out 4 out 5 people were in favor of it. i believe the papers of record were predicting a two horse race that was too close to call