What do you think is the best course of action for Ireland to take now?

Guy:Incognito

ruskin wrote: »

Ireland voted no. Full stop. Surely even those of you who voted yes believe that this is a democracy and that the voice of the people should be respected? .

TBH the people didnt vote no for the lisbon treaty. There was more than enough of the no vote that were voting for reasons totally outside the treaty (didnt understand it/ want the foreigners out :eek: /anti vrt vote :rolleyes: etc) that if they had educated themselves or kept out of something they dont understand it would have went the other way.

People should be made take a test to show they understand somehting before they are allowed vote for or against it.

davyjose

Duffman wrote: »

Switzerland has agreements with the EU that allow free access to the single market. So as far as these companies are concerned then yes, they might as well be in the EU. Also, examples?

Except they don't have to ratify Treaties against the will of their citizens.....

Tar.Aldarion

davyjose wrote: »

Except they don't have to ratify Treaties against the will of their citizens.....

We have a say in the market they have to trade in and it's laws, they don't.

davyjose

Stekelly wrote: »

People should be made take a test to show they understand somehting before they are allowed vote for or against it.

That's bullshìt; that's your idea of democracy? At the end of the day, if half the NO voters voted due to a lack of understanding, it isn't their fault. This was NOT an easy treaty to understand and one of the most significant things was the fact that it was VERY obtuse. There was no way the normal punter could fully understand every single nuance of it.

davyjose

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

We have a say in the market they have to trade in and it's laws, they don't.

Ehhh, so they only sell chocolate and cuckoo clocks in Europe now? We have a very small say in part of the market they trade in. They don't have to trade anywhere they don't want.
And a huge part of their economy is based on tourism and banking, something the EU would have no say in. In fact, they would surely have destroyed the banking services on them, as they did here with the fishing and agricultural industry.

Duffman

davyjose wrote: »

That's bullshìt; that's your idea of democracy? At the end of the day, if half the NO voters voted due to a lack of understanding, it isn't their fault. This was NOT an easy treaty to understand and one of the most significant things was the fact that it was VERY obtuse. There was no way the normal punter could fully understand every single nuance of it.

You're right. You might even say it wasn't really a suitable subject for a referendum at all, precisely for the reasons you identify.

utick

Stekelly wrote: »

TBH the people didnt vote no for the lisbon treaty. There was more than enough of the no vote that were voting for reasons totally outside the treaty (didnt understand it/ want the foreigners out :eek: /anti vrt vote :rolleyes: etc) that if they had educated themselves or kept out of something they dont understand it would have went the other way.

People should be made take a test to show they understand somehting before they are allowed vote for or against it.

lol dont pretend there wasnt just as many people voting yes just because of party lines, or all the politicians told us too, or even the scaremongering from the yes side.

also the fact that sinn fein were for a no vote had to of given the yes side at least a 10% boost.

If you want to discount peples poor decision making for voting no you have to do the same for the yes side, and im sure if you did this the no side would have come out even further ahead

Guy:Incognito

davyjose wrote: »

That's bullshìt; that's your idea of democracy? At the end of the day, if half the NO voters voted due to a lack of understanding, it isn't their fault. .

Of course it's their fault. How many times have you google something (anything) to get information about it? Why is this any different.

utick wrote: »

also the fact that sinn fein were for a no vote had to of given the yes side at least a 10% boost.

If your talking about political voting, the es side had 95% of the voters to begin with so.

utick wrote: »

If you want to discount peples poor decision making for voting no you have to do the same for the yes side, and im sure if you did this the no side would have come out even further ahead

I seriously doubt that. I didnt hear so much as on eno voter (outside of boards) that had a solid reason for voting no. Be they the celelbrities that chimed up (Ben Dunne , Louis Walsh and Sinead O'cooner between them came up with "I dont understand it and "were beign rushed") or any of the average joes questioned in the media. Dont even get me starte don the peopl eI work with.

rossie1977

Duffman wrote: »

We realised that full membership might confer other benefits perhaps? A massive new market for our goods, influence far beyond our size in international affairs, structural funds, prosperity, unprecedented economic development, the best quality of life our citizens have ever enjoyed. I could go on, but the suggestion that we'd benefit from leaving the EU is stupid enough to speak for itself I think.

massive new market by joining the eu but Switzerland are the EU's third largest goods supplier and second largest customer and 25% of the Swiss workforce are EU citizens

most of your other points can be debated too but i don't have time e.g. quality of life is broken into 9 areas with job security and material well being the only two one could say the EU had a part to play. the likes of Norway, Switzerland and Iceland are all in the top 6 places in the world with the highest quality of life, all outside the EU

Well the first example is from London where costs are among the highest in the world, corporate tax is like 30% and it's um, not in Ireland.

yeah but Yahoo moved their base from a city with the highest concentration of skilled business people in the world to a country outside the EU, a country with low corporate taxes and highly educated workforce... concidence or not
[/quote]

arybvtcw0eolkf

jayok wrote: »

To the people who voted to "Leave the EU". Care to say why? I can't see any advantage of doing this and I would like someone to explain the advantages.

I didn't vote (in this poll), until you posted this, then I did

rossie1977

where is option D and E

after all the French and Dutch didn't pick A, B or C in that poll after their peoples voted No :pac:

corkgal1981

Where did the notion of Ireland leaving the EU come from?! Ever since the the issue first arose, deluded people have been spreading this fear that Ireland will be 'left behind' if theres a NO vote. Thats ridiculous! Nothings going to change. This is just the Nice Treaty all over again. All the talk of a second vote is crazy! Remember democracy?

Duffman

corkgal1981 wrote: »

Where did the notion of Ireland leaving the EU come from?! Ever since the the issue first arose, deluded people have been spreading this fear that Ireland will be 'left behind' if theres a NO vote.

Well yeah, the idea that we should leave is deluded but the suggestion that we'll be left behind is spot on - it's already happening.

davyjose

Duffman wrote: »

Well yeah, the idea that we should leave is deluded but the suggestion that we'll be left behind is spot on - it's already happening.

And yet this is somehow the NO voters' fault, not the Eurocrats'.

ART6

Duffman wrote: »

LOL. You're concerned about the effect of the strength of the Euro on the Irish economy? It fell to a three-year low immediately, as a direct consequence of the referendum result. Result!

Oh come on now. I was speaking about events before the referendum, as I am sure you have realised.

ruskin wrote: »

Ireland voted no. Full stop. Surely even those of you who voted yes believe that this is a democracy and that the voice of the people should be respected? Zarcozy and Barosso's attitudes really show the complete arrogance and downright stubborn attitude of Europe, in that from their point of view its full steam ahead with Lisbon. The fact of the matter is, that Ireland voted no, and thus the Lisbon Treaty is dead. I now hope other member states who have not ratified the treaty begin to say that their is no point in ratifying the treaty given Ireland's no vote. We are already hearing this from the Czech president. If all the 26 other states voted for Lisbon, then I really think EU leaders would put pressure on us to vote again. However, I realistically think other countries will scrap Lisbon in the coming months.

Hopefully yes. I am a firm supporter of Europe as a common market and an alliance between like thinking independant states. I am not a supporter of a federal state dominated by politicians and bureaucrats who do not consider the voice of the people worth listening to.

Duffman wrote: »

Switzerland has agreements with the EU that allow free access to the single market. So as far as these companies are concerned then yes, they might as well be in the EU. Also, examples?

Switzerland and a few others are members of EFTA. If we as a people cannot accept the EU Federal State, perhaps that is where we should be?

davyjose

ART6 wrote: »

Oh come on now. I was speaking about events before the referendum, as I am sure you have realised.

That can't be our fault ART, we're only 800,000. What voice do we have??? :rolleyes:

eoin2nc

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Fish stocks are livestock, they replenish themselves, assuming you don't overfish them, which is fairly easy to manage.

Yes switching from producing high technology,eg PCs, processors, medicines, financial services, to fishing is really going to improve our economy? We would simply be priced out of the market by fihers in SE Asia

xOxSinéadxOx

why are loads of people picking leave the EU? surely you'd prefer to be a "second class member" or whatever you want to call it. we'd still be the only english speaking country in the eurozone, still have our low corporation tax and still be a part of the open market. in fairness what else do we want from the EU?

Ass

It's safe to say nobody will vote for us in the Eurovision again, next time around.

corkgal1981

Ass Face wrote: »

It's safe to say nobody will vote for us in the Eurovision again, next time around.

You see - nothings changed!

jayok

Mairt wrote: »

I didn't vote (in this poll), until you posted this, then I did

And what did you vote and why?

thefinalstage

xOxSinéadxOx wrote: »

why are loads of people picking leave the EU? surely you'd prefer to be a "second class member" or whatever you want to call it. we'd still be the only english speaking country in the eurozone, still have our low corporation tax and still be a part of the open market. in fairness what else do we want from the EU?

Easier travel between states?

Flex

The treaty is now legally dead, it had to be ratified by all member states and it has failed in doing so. Find it odd that the EU leaders say theyre going to press ahead with it despite knowing it cant be passed now, and more odd that the Euro-philes in Ireland want to give more power and control over to these people who obviously dont give a ****e about our opinion

j1smithy

So whats going to happen? I see to real possibilities: another vote in November or which is more likely, the EU will wait a couple of years and bundle in the reforms with the accession treaty of Croatia. There will then be a real issue, if you vote no you're denying croatia a place in Europe.

A two tier Europe? That won't happen, at least we'll have the UK on our side against that.

I can't see Ireland leaving the EU either. In the more immediate term, Ireland will be left to cool off before the reforms are put to us again.

arybvtcw0eolkf

jayok wrote: »

And what did you vote and why?

I voted no, use the 'search' engine here - it works.

I'm all debated out now.

AtomicHorror

davyjose wrote: »

You're naive to believe they have the full backing of their people.

Democratically-elected means that they have the majority backing. There isn't a government in the world with 100% backing of the electorate.

We elected people to do this job for us, to make the call. We ignored the people we put in charge. The difference between other European nations and us is that we sometimes get the pleasure of direct voting on international treaties and legislation, a job that the average person is not only ill-qualified to do, but which is a gross waste of time, money and resources. In other countries, a referendum is only called when the government cannot gain a majority vote to change their constitution. This is the norm and yet people are pointing at Europe and claiming that they don't know democracy!

The Lisbon no vote was the result of what happens when scientists, architects, farmers, fishermen, nurses and teachers are asked to do the job of politicians and lawyers. The default vote in Ireland when faced with uncertainty is "no". It's hard to blame people for that, they should never have had to deal with this. It's an idiotic form of democracy.

AtomicHorror

ART6 wrote: »

Switzerland and a few others are members of EFTA. If we as a people cannot accept the EU Federal State, perhaps that is where we should be?

People voted no to Lisbon (where they didn't vote no out of fear) because they want to maintain decision-making power at parliamentary and council level and, apparently, want us to have more executive power than any other EU state. In what world does stepping back into the EFTA tally with that motive? We get trade links with zero executive or decision-making power. Super.

DonJose

jayok wrote: »

Can't really blame the rest of the EU for going ahead. In reality they 800,000-odd no voters are holding up progress for 500 million-odd people.

If those 500 million people were allowed a voice/vote the majority would vote the same way as the Irish. The Dutch rejected the EU constitution in June 2005, 61.6% of people voted "No" and only 38.4% voted "Yes". The French also rejected the EU constitution in May 2005, 55% of people voted "No", 45% voted "Yes".

AtomicHorror

DonJose wrote: »

If those 500 million people were allowed a voice/vote the majority would vote the same way as the Irish.

Do you have an actual source on that or is it speculation? More to the point do you have a source based on a sample set who have even a vague idea of the content of the treaty? I suspect if you just poll them on short notice the figures aren't worth much.

DonJose wrote: »

The Dutch rejected the EU constitution in June 2005, 61.6% of people voted "No" and only 38.4% voted "Yes". The French also rejected the EU constitution in May 2005, 55% of people voted "No", 45% voted "Yes".

The rejection cannot be looked upon as a rejection of 100% of the Constitution document. Nor can it be seen as a rejection of any part of Lisbon since the area of contention, in the absence of good data, could easily have been the 5% difference between the two. People are asked to read 260 pages of legal language and respond with "yes" or "no". So more information is needed... The polls suggested that amongst the primary issues to do with the Constitution were the use of the word "constitution" and the adoption of an unpopular EU national anthem.

And so, almost as if operating under democracy (shock), the opinions of the people were addressed. Compromise was reached, a compromise which included input from Ireland. Input dictated by people we elected democratically. Lisbon was not put to the people of France and Holland. But it would be far too easy to simply assume that this was an effort to silence the people. The governments of France and Holland were not obliged to put this to referendum this time and so they didn't. Isn't it quite likely that, given a choice, a government won't choose to spend millions of euros, months of campaigning, forcing upon the people a document designed to be understood by lawyers?

Isn't it fair to say that when a country elects into power a strongly pro-European government, that they should fully expect such a government to ratify pro-European treaties on their behalf? An analogy: If I really think that my doctor is not doing a good job of treating my heart condition, do I say sod it and take matters into my own hands, drugs, surgery and all? Or do I get a new doctor? Governments are our employees, they are specialists. They are doing a job for us, which in most nations includes making sense of stuff like Lisbon on our behalf. If they screw it up (and of course sometimes they do), we can fire them. In Ireland we almost never do.

Spook_ie

Extracted from todays Irish Times

The most outspoken criticism of Ireland came from German foreign minister Frank Walter Steinmeier who suggested that this country should take "a break" from the EU to allow other member states continue with integration.

Mr Steinmeier suggested "Ireland could exit the integration process for a time to clear the way for the Lisbon Treaty to come into force in 26 countries".

The German foreign minister is a leading member of the Social Democrat party (SPD), which governs Germany in coalition with the Christian Democrat party (CDU) of Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Wouldn't we have to have another referendum for this to occur

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0616/1213369972691.html

xOxSinéadxOx

if there's a Lisbon 2 i think yes will win because everyone's afraid we're going to be kicked out of the EU now

Spook_ie

I suspect the real question people should be asking here is do you believe in the EU and their version of democracy, after they say the LT must be ratified by all 27 members, and then as soon as 1 doesn't the EU starts saying "oh well 26 will do"

If France and Germany want to be in a united Europe then let them change their country name to Gerance or Franermany or even Gaul and enter the EU as one country...

ART6

eoin2nc wrote: »

Yes switching from producing high technology,eg PCs, processors, medicines, financial services, to fishing is really going to improve our economy? We would simply be priced out of the market by fihers in SE Asia

No-one was saying that we should reclaim our fisheries or should have retained them instead of going down the high tech path you mention. I suggest that the point that was being made was mainly that while we got a lot out of Europe, Europe got a fair bit out of us. No-one said forget all the other crap and let's all become fishermen.

SimpleSam06

eoin2nc wrote: »

Yes switching from producing high technology,eg PCs, processors, medicines, financial services, to fishing is really going to improve our economy? We would simply be priced out of the market by fihers in SE Asia

Actually no, fishing isn't like other agricultural sectors, the more high tech you bring to bear on it the more productive and efficient you are in the short and long term. Anyone can plant crops and harvest them, but taking advantage of the ocean is an entirely different kettle of fish, so to speak.

In addition you wouldn't see line workers in Dell hopping on a trawler out of Rosslare, there are a huge variety of subsidiary and associated industries in maritime trade that could blossom around a healthy fishing resource, among them marine science, shipbuilding, packaging and processing, export routes, marine electronics and engineering (something that is going to be globally vital over the coming century as continental resources become more difficult to extract), the list is endless.

One major bonus of all this is that it gives us a domestic export based industry that doesn't leave us at the mercy of international corporations that can relocate on a whim in their race to the bottom.

Also, as Art pointed out, you don't need to drop the high tech, financial or medical instrumentation sectors to achieve any of these goals. A less involved role in Europe, and vice-versa, might be beneficial for all parties at the table.

SimpleSam06

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Isn't it fair to say that when a country elects into power a strongly pro-European government, that they should fully expect such a government to ratify pro-European treaties on their behalf?

I think its fair to say that most politicians would see the EU as an enhanced career path for them, regardless of the wishes of their electorates, bringing with it more money and power. As such it is unreasonable to expect them to act in any way which might threaten that career growth.

A lot of the concern people have is the overlaying of enormous layers of beaurocracy on top of our already gigantic beaurocratic machine here in Ireland, levying taxes to pay for its existence, and laws which have little to do with how things are on the ground here.

The problem with democracy isn't that people are given a voice, its that the people attracted to that power are not the sorts you want in charge of anything.

Dyr

The most outspoken criticism of Ireland came from German foreign minister Frank Walter Steinmeier who suggested that this country should take "a break" from the EU to allow other member states continue with integration.

Mr Steinmeier suggested "Ireland could exit the integration process for a time to clear the way for the Lisbon Treaty to come into force in 26 countries".

Und ve see your tru colours, shinink through.. :pac:

AtomicHorror

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I think its fair to say that most politicians would see the EU as an enhanced career path for them, regardless of the wishes of their electorates, bringing with it more money and power. As such it is unreasonable to expect them to act in any way which might threaten that career growth.

Which, within a democracy, suggests a logical course of action. Vote them out. That ought to make their career path take a turn. People cry a lot about democracy without ever really taking it into their hands. In Ireland in particular, the default vote seems to be "change nothing, I'm scared". This is then followed by people complaining that nothing changed.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

A lot of the concern people have is the overlaying of enormous layers of beaurocracy on top of our already gigantic beaurocratic machine here in Ireland, levying taxes to pay for its existence, and laws which have little to do with how things are on the ground here.

Yet we see a gradual move towards the EU having more and more on-the-ground relevance. A move towards slimming of the institutions and reduction of the layers that lie between the local voter and Brussels. That seems to really be what people are afraid of, since it suggests inevitably that Ireland will lose it's sovereign government. Strange that we are afraid to lose something that we are increasingly dissatisfied with, but that feeds back into my point about change.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

The problem with democracy isn't that people are given a voice, its that the people attracted to that power are not the sorts you want in charge of anything.

Well now that is neither an argument regarding Lisbon or the EU. For what it's worth, I agree- it's an idealistic system applied to flawed humans. Aren't they all?

Duffman

Spook_ie wrote: »

Extracted from todays Irish Times



Wouldn't we have to have another referendum for this to occur

No.

Rob_l

AtomicHorror wrote: »

We elected people to do this job for us, to make the call. We ignored the people we put in charge. The difference between other European nations and us is that we sometimes get the pleasure of direct voting on international treaties and legislation, a job that the average person is not only ill-qualified to do, but which is a gross waste of time, money and resources.
.

What a terrible opinion we did not elect the government to change the constitution we elected them to govern under the powers granted by the constitution, and the people are the perfect choice to decide on this matter.
If you think the TD's in the dail read half of the stuff they vote on your misguided and this would have been passed by the dail not because it was good for the country but because party whips would tell their party members what to do and so they wouldn't need to read the treaty.

The people shouldn't have a say in running their country, is that your opinion? :eek::eek::eek:

Steve_o

Rob_l wrote: »

The people shouldn't have a say in running their country, is that your opinion? :eek::eek::eek:

I don't want an arguement, but is electing a Government to represent the people not the ultimate say in the running the country?

thelordofcheese

Rob_l wrote: »

What a terrible opinion we did not elect the government to change the constitution we elected them to govern under the powers granted by the constitution, and the people are the perfect choice to decide on this matter.
If you think the TD's in the dail read half of the stuff they vote on your misguided and this would have been passed by the dail not because it was good for the country but because party whips would tell their party members what to do and so they wouldn't need to read the treaty.

Actually, AtomicHorrors opinion is by far the best one on this thread.

Referenda shouldn't be used for complex treaties like this, as every thread on boards has shown, there are too many people who vote without knowing what they are voting on.
Democracy means that people can vote but it also means that people should make themselves informed as to what they are voting on. It's a two way street, something the No campaign was keen to forget with the contemptable "If you don't know, vote NO" slogan.

Referenda should only be used for single issue topic, abortion, divorce etc etc.
Everything else should be dealt with by the people we elected to represent us and govern. Now i know the usual suspects will try and pounce on this and go "HURRRR DURRRR BUT THEY ARE ALL CORRUPT AND USELESS!!!"
Fine. Then maybe next time you'll vote them out. If you're willing to elect them into office for the day to day running of the country (which is far more important than the lisbon treaty ever was) then you should be willing to let them sign treaties they negotiated on our behalf.

Rob_l wrote: »

The people shouldn't have a say in running their country, is that your opinion? :eek::eek::eek:

*facepalm*
Well that's a fine conclusion you've leapt to in a single bound.

rossie1977

Rob_l wrote: »

What a terrible opinion we did not elect the government to change the constitution we elected them to govern under the powers granted by the constitution, and the people are the perfect choice to decide on this matter.
If you think the TD's in the dail read half of the stuff they vote on your misguided and this would have been passed by the dail not because it was good for the country but because party whips would tell their party members what to do and so they wouldn't need to read the treaty.

The people shouldn't have a say in running their country, is that your opinion? :eek::eek::eek:

it may be worse than you imagine, those elected didn't read lisbon it seems; listen to someone who has actually been there for the best part of 30 years

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kr0Foq3CQE

AARRRGH

Weathercheck wrote: »

Once upon a time there was a small country with a small economy, then their big richer brothers in Europe helped their little brother out and send them lots of euro's to build up their small country and small economy. That small country got a big economy and became rich beyond their wildest dreams. Then that small country began to lose some of their richness due to poor government and a poor global economy. That small country was asked to decide whether the Europe should continue to expand and whether it was going to help the other countries in the EU because it is now a big brother. That country had now turned into a rich arrogant country and feared it would loss the euro's it had been given. The little country turned its back on its bigger brothers and a crisis ensued in the EU. That little brother was then sidelined from the EU and just as quick as it had become rich it turned back into a small country with a small economy. Would it be given help by its bigger brother in the future?

You stole that from someone's comment on the BBC website. It's a very simplistic view of what we've gotten from the EU, what we've given them, and why we are now a rich country.

When the no vote came in, Mary Lou McDonald could be seen doing parkour in Temple Bar for over two hours.

SimpleSam06

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Everything else should be dealt with by the people we elected to represent us and govern. Now i know the usual suspects will try and pounce on this and go "HURRRR DURRRR BUT THEY ARE ALL CORRUPT AND USELESS!!!"
Fine. Then maybe next time you'll vote them out.

Its not as black and white as you make out. Over the last few years the economy has been going well, so people kept running with the same horses they started the race with, which is mildly understandable. That these politicians were in no way responsible for the economic boom escaped a lot of people at the time.

However now the economy is going into a nose dive, people are starting to ask why, and realise that they elected a shower of chancers to look after their country. Now nobody trusts them, and nobody trusts their negotiations with the EU either. These lads are looking out for number one, and they'll sign away their grannies with a grin and a flourish to get nice cushy numbers in the EU structure, where they don't have to answer to anyone.

I think a lot of the "no" vote was the awakening realisation on the part of the electorate that they simply do not trust the people they elected any more, and they are growing uneasy about signing up to their negotiated agreements. The fact that tits like sinn fein and libertas were campaigning for the same side was largely coincidence.

Change comes slowly but it does come.

Sanjuro

jayok wrote: »

Can't really blame the rest of the EU for going ahead. In reality they 800,000-odd no voters are holding up progress for 500 million-odd people. Only way Ireland now could get onboard is to vote again.

This is actually a fallacy. 500 million people in the EU did not ratify the Lisbon treaty. They weren't given the opportunity. Their governments ratified the treaty without giving the people the right to vote for or against it. What needs to be done is to put the treaty to vote in all states of the EU. That way, if the majority of people vote to ratify it, then so be it. At least then, democracy would have been properly carried out.

prendy

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Its not as black and white as you make out. Over the last few years the economy has been going well, so people kept running with the same horses they started the race with, which is mildly understandable. That these politicians were in no way responsible for the economic boom escaped a lot of people at the time.

However now the economy is going into a nose dive, people are starting to ask why, and realise that they elected a shower of chancers to look after their country. Now nobody trusts them, and nobody trusts their negotiations with the EU either. These lads are looking out for number one, and they'll sign away their grannies with a grin and a flourish to get nice cushy numbers in the EU structure, where they don't have to answer to anyone.

I think a lot of the "no" vote was the awakening realisation on the part of the electorate that they simply do not trust the people they elected any more, and they are growing uneasy about signing up to their negotiated agreements. The fact that tits like sinn fein and libertas were campaigning for the same side was largely coincidence.

Change comes slowly but it does come.

so your saying the govt are no way responsible for the Boom but its their fault its over?:rolleyes:
Simple sam indeed!
Its a disgrace that so many people voted to leave the EU. talk about double standards. We take billions of other countries money when we had none then leave when were asked to help out poorer countries.

SimpleSam06

prendy wrote: »

so your saying the govt are no way responsible for the Boom but its their fault its over?:rolleyes:

I didn't say its their fault that its over. I did say that people realise now the level of shifty eyed incompetents they hired to do the job.

prendy wrote: »

Simple sam indeed!

Eh another fine example of our tax euros gone to pot, if this is what the educational system produces. A swing and a miss.

prendy wrote: »

Its a disgrace that so many people voted to leave the EU. talk about double standards. We take billions of other countries money when we had none then leave when were asked to help out poorer countries.

Ireland was always one of the most charitable countries, giving more per capita than most other nations, even in the doldrums of the 80s. As for who gave more, the EU earned a hell of a lot more from Ireland than we ever earned from them.

ejmaztec

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

As for who gave more, the EU earned a hell of a lot more from Ireland than we ever earned from them.

Got any sums?

User45701

Dave! wrote: »

Invade France

Whats your least fav country? Italy or France?

SimpleSam06

ejmaztec wrote: »

Got any sums?

€50 billion in EU aid (inflation adjusted), estimated take in direct fish stocks from Irish fishing grounds, €180 billion, disregarding ancillary benefits.