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

rossie1977

User45701 wrote: »

Whats your least fav country? Italy or France?

i like italy and france the only problem with invading italy would be how we would go about cleaning up naples to make it look half daacent for the tidy towns

AtomicHorror

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:

I'm suggesting that the best way for us to "have a say" is to exercise our power over the government. If you feel that the TDs you elected are not in fact paying due attention to the legislations brought before them, sack them.

Referenda work well for divisive issues and ones which bring with them profound moral implications. Thus abortion and divorce are indeed suitable issues to put to the people. They are also quite simple issues.

Do we need to worry that by taking away the automatic right to referendum on constitutional changes that such significant moral issues will never be brought before the people? Not if we do two things:

1) build our system well so that the majority required to avoid referenda allows the will of the people to be strongly reflected in parliamentary votes.

2) vote and vote and vote until the government we have is one that reflects us. This business of fearing change and yet begrudging the status quo must end.

AtomicHorror

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

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

Your link says volumes about the aid we have received from the EU but does not support your ever-increasing figure on the value of our fisheries. In fact, it does not even mention them.

The figures I have seen in chronological order have been;

€16bn, €150bn, €160bn and €180bn...

Does anyone have a good and comprehensive source?

thefinalstage

User45701 wrote: »

Whats your least fav country? Italy or France?

"France"

"Hah, no one ever says Italy...."

SimpleSam06

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You link says volumes about the aid we have received from the EU but does not support your ever-increasing figure on the value of our fisheries. In fact, it does not even mention them.

I never said the linked article mentioned them.

The figure of €180 billion is from an article I read some months ago, but google is letting me down here. If I find it I'll post it up. It does sound accurate however.

SimpleSam06

This is from an article by Tom Prendiville printed in Magill:

STATISTICS BLOW MYTH OF IRELAND AS EU BENEFICIARY

- Because of fish supply, nation is second biggest indirect contributor to EU coffers
by Tom Prendiville, Daily Ireland, Wednesday 28 March 2006


Official European Union statistics reveal that Ireland's past image as one of Europe's largest financial beneficiaries is largely a myth.

Statistics indicate that, year on year off, Ireland has consistently been one of the biggest net financial contributors to Europe as a result of fish supply.

Official figures from the EU's statistical gathering agency, Eurostat, reveal that Ireland is second only to Germany as an indirect contributor to EU coffers.

Although Ireland did well in extracting almost E40 billion (£27.8 billion sterling) in transfer funds from the EU, the fish extracted from Irish territorial waters has been worth almost E200 billion (£139 billion sterling) in comparison.

The EU fish wars have raged in Irish waters for decades, and have now left Ireland facing a massive crisis with the prospect of the extinction of many fish species.

Statistics covering the period from 1974 to 2004 throw some light on the true cost of Ireland's EU membership to date, and the enormous financial contribution Ireland has made to the European Community.

Since 1974, the accumulated value of fish taken from Irish territorial waters,"the second most important in the EU", amounts to a E200 billion (£139 billion).

The EU fishing industry is worth almost E20 billion (£13.9 billion) per annum.

On average, more than five million tonnes of edible fish varieties, valued at E7 billion (£4.8 billion), are fished from EU waters every year, 40 per cent of which originates from Irish waters.

The true commercial value of the haul, according to David Cross, who compiled earlier Eurostat reports into the fishing industry, is double that again after processing has been considered.

He said: "The value of the output of the processing industry is nearly twice the value of the catching sector. In other words, for every euro generated in fish sales another two are generated in processing."

The most important fishery in Europe are the seas west of Ireland, the so-called Irish Box, which produce over 40 per cent of all the edible fish consumed in Europe. In monetary terms, the seas off Ireland are worth E8 billion (£5.5 billion) a year to the EU.

Every year, roughly two million tonnes are fished in Irish coastal waters. However, Ireland's share of the catch is miniscule and therein lie the current difficulties. While Ireland produces 40 per cent of the edible fish, the country's fishermen are only entitled to catch less than ten percent of
that. The rest is fished by foreign trawlers.

In recent weeks, the government has been involved in a showdown with Irish fishermen, some of whom have been flaunting the conservation quotas. Meanwhile, in the midst of the acrimonious dispute, ten Dutch factory ships, each one the size of Croke Park, have been hoovering up fish with apparent impunity in international waters 12 miles off the coast near Cork.

"The situation with foreign boats is even worse, as our naval service does not even know what the quota is," said Eamonn Ryan, Green Party spokesperson for maritime and natural resources.

"This flawed system has allowed what is in effect the open fishing of our waters. They are hunting to extinction most of the fish stocks in Irish waters."

In terms of importance, the once teeming Mediterranean produces less than 500,000 tonnes of fish yearly.

The Irish zone which extends out 200 miles into the West Atlantic is also the second most important in terms of Europe's edible fish stocks.
Adjusted Eurostat estimates for all fishing activity in Irish territorial waters since the mid-1970s indicate that over forty million tonnes of fish have been extracted

thelordofcheese

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Your link says volumes about the aid we have received from the EU but does not support your ever-increasing figure on the value of our fisheries. In fact, it does not even mention them.

The figures I have seen in chronological order have been;

€16bn, €150bn, €160bn and €180bn...

Does anyone have a good and comprehensive source?

heh. It's one of SimpleSams calling cards, mention the EU and within about 20 posts he'll ask for our fisheries back.

But i'd be highly skeptical of any magical figure that our fishing grounds would have given us, as it'd rely on alot of other factors other than simply having them back, investment in a fishing industry, a Navy to protect our waters and of course, assuming we didn't make an unholy ****e of it and overfish it ourselves.

Just because iceland (i think) have managed it doesn't mean that we would, much in the same way that london has a fantastic underground rail system doesn't mean we'd be able to manage it.

SimpleSam06

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Just because iceland (i think) have managed it doesn't mean that we would, much in the same way that london has a fantastic underground rail system doesn't mean we'd be able to manage it.

Of course, the poor thick paddies would be incapable of doing anything more than rolling down the pub to get drunk before sloshing home to beat the wife. Naturally.

Also, give us back our fisheries. I wouldn't need to ask for them constantly if it wasn't for the stream of knuckledraggers claiming we owe the EU the shirts off our backs, regardless of the truth of the matter.

Rob_l

Steve_o wrote: »

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

Well yes and no when we elected the government we did not elect them on the basis of what they would or wouldn't do on this issue, so as well as voting to elect representatives we then had to tell them what we wished to happen in relation to our constitution.

And just as well because no matter which government we could have got a fianna fail led govt. or a fianna gael led one neither according to the results of this past referendum would have done the will of the people.

Rob_l

thelordofcheese wrote: »

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.
.

Well for what you want we would have to get rid of our current system, that would require another referendum were we would agree to tear up our constitution which has served us so well.

Rob_l

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I'm suggesting that the best way for us to "have a say" is to exercise our power over the government. If you feel that the TDs you elected are not in fact paying due attention to the legislations brought before them, sack them.

Referenda work well for divisive issues and ones which bring with them profound moral implications. Thus abortion and divorce are indeed suitable issues to put to the people. They are also quite simple issues.

Do we need to worry that by taking away the automatic right to referendum on constitutional changes that such significant moral issues will never be brought before the people? Not if we do two things:

1) build our system well so that the majority required to avoid referenda allows the will of the people to be strongly reflected in parliamentary votes.

2) vote and vote and vote until the government we have is one that reflects us. This business of fearing change and yet begrudging the status quo must end.

I feel the constitution safeguards us against a government leading the nation where the people don't want.
The government has the power to legislate within the provisions of the constitution, anything needing a change made to the constitution is clearly of enough importance and change to the way the country is governed that we the people of the nation should get a referendum on the issue.

I don't know what to say about point 2, what do you mean by "vote and vote until" surely the will of the people is made clear after one vote

AtomicHorror

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

This is from an article by Tom Prendiville printed in Magill:

Good, so we can perhaps substantiate a value of €200billion. My question would be this:

If we had never joined the EU, what would the value of those fisheries have been over a 34 year period? We need to take into account the investment required to exploit the fisheries to the same extent as the EU as well as the cost of that investment in terms of interest. This would also have to take into account the efficacy of Irish governments over that period.

If the value of the fisheries based on these criteria have a value greater than the current value under the EU plus the value of EU investment (which is not merely monetary but must include the development of Ireland as an attractive gateway to the EU), then you have the beginnings of an argument. Otherwise it is speculation. I am genuinely open to the possibility that you are right, but the burden of proof in that regard is on you.

token56

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Referenda should only be used for single issue topic, abortion, divorce etc etc.

I would have to disagree with this. A referendum should be held for anything which changes our constitution, like the Lisbon Treaty. This is after all in the constitution itself.

SimpleSam06

AtomicHorror wrote: »

If we had never joined the EU, what would the value of those fisheries have been over a 34 year period? We need to take into account the investment required to exploit the fisheries to the same extent as the EU as well as the cost of that investment in terms of interest.

The value of the fisheries would be the same. The value we could extract from that would be a different story, perhaps. Nonetheless, the value of this investment, regardless of the actual figure, would continue to pay dividends essentially forever, and produce many further advantages and spinoff industries which I have already laid out in this thread. We CANNOT, long term, depend on foreign multinationals for employemnt and investment. We need to produce the capital ourselves.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

must include the development of Ireland as an attractive gateway to the EU),

You mean the same thing that EFTA countries have? The door swings both ways on trade, the EU benefits as does Ireland.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

then you have the beginnings of an argument.

Insofar as we owe the EU anything, I'd say thats game, set and match. Insofar as would we be better off having tried to exploit those resources ourselves, I would say the vast preponderance of evidence is on yes.

AtomicHorror

Rob_l wrote: »

Well yes and no when we elected the government we did not elect them on the basis of what they would or wouldn't do on this issue, so as well as voting to elect representatives we then had to tell them what we wished to happen in relation to our constitution.

Their policies on Europe are quite well-defined. Public debate and questioning during election campaigns can further clarify this, if people will but take that step.

Rob_l wrote: »

Well for what you want we would have to get rid of our current system, that would require another referendum were we would agree to tear up our constitution which has served us so well.

A referendum yes. "Tearing up" of our constitution? That is misleadingly emotive. Why would this referendum do so more than any other referendum would? I'm sure there are some who would claim that the changes to Articles 2 and 3 amounted to "tearing up" our constitution. Yet it remains.

Rob_l wrote: »

I feel the constitution safeguards us against a government leading the nation where the people don't want.

And yet it's initial drafting was put to the people as a single yes or no referendum. One which was barely passed, I might add. I maintain that we control the government by the ultimate of powers- the ability to remove them from their posts. If one wishes to enact more specific changes, there are avenues which allow this. Referenda have value, but also limits.

Rob_l wrote: »

The government has the power to legislate within the provisions of the constitution, anything needing a change made to the constitution is clearly of enough importance and change to the way the country is governed that we the people of the nation should get a referendum on the issue.

And yet there are many significant changes for which we have no such say. In terms of our day to day lives, the budget constitutes at least as significant an influence on how we live as does the legality of divorce. Yet our power over this is based upon the general and local election system.

Rob_l wrote: »

I don't know what to say about point 2, what do you mean by "vote and vote until" surely the will of the people is made clear after one vote

I mean firstly that as large a percentage of the electorate as possible must be engaged and voting. I secondly mean that voting is a system that is based on feedback. We vote to award the contract of managing our legislation and constitution to someone, we assess their performance, we vote again at the end of the contract as a reflection of that. Each time we should seek to refine the body that does this job on our behalf.

HitlersHorsebox

Lets leave the EU. Who cares about reprecussions. Sure we were better craic when we were broke and foraging in the bins outside Gerry Ryans house for food. I still have cuts on my hands to help me remember the good times.

AtomicHorror

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

You mean the same thing that EFTA countries have? The door swings both ways on trade, the EU benefits as does Ireland.

EFTA members get the trading benefits without any of the decision making or executive power of EU membership. Of course there are benefits or nobody would be bothered. There's a good chance that the Swiss and Norwegians will simply accede in time.

As to the value of the fisheries, what good is potential value if we cannot exploit it? At any rate, if the fisheries are really such an issue, the solution lies in our government. If they are not pushing for a fair share,we need to tell them to. If they fail, we must punish them.

AtomicHorror

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Insofar as we owe the EU anything, I'd say thats game, set and match. Insofar as would we be better off having tried to exploit those resources ourselves, I would say the vast preponderance of evidence is on yes.

Neither seems clear to me. Perhaps you have data I haven't seen.

thelordofcheese

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Of course, the poor thick paddies would be incapable of doing anything more than rolling down the pub to get drunk before sloshing home to beat the wife. Naturally.

I'd imagine the "poor thick paddies" would be smart enough to realise that simply because something has worked elsewhere is no indication that it would work here or to the same extent.
Or you could just continue trying to be glib. Either way is good with me.

Rob_l wrote: »

Well for what you want we would have to get rid of our current system, that would require another referendum were we would agree to tear up our constitution which has served us so well.

Drama much?
Unbunch those panties barbie, nobody is suggesting we tear up the constitution. I'm saying that it might be worth looking at the criteria for putting a topic to a referendum given that so many people went to the polls professing that they had no idea what they were voting on.

ejmaztec

Given the minuscule size of Ireland's naval and air service, has anyone got any idea how much it would cost to upgrade these services to enable them to police the fishing territory effectively?

SimpleSam06

AtomicHorror wrote: »

EFTA members get the trading benefits without any of the decision making or executive power of EU membership.

They also don't need to deal with EU laws, regulations and tax levies. Sounds good to me.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

As to the value of the fisheries, what good is potential value if we cannot exploit it?

We most certainly can exploit it. Its very far from impossible to scale up the size of the Irish fleet and invest heavily in local packaging and processing plants, for a start. Profits from that can be fed back into the industry to open new subsidiary industries and expand the existing ones. Once the ball starts rolling there is no stopping it.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

At any rate, if the fisheries are really such an issue, the solution lies in our government. If they are not pushing for a fair share,we need to tell them to. If they fail, we must punish them.

I agree, the political will needs to be there. As it stands we're still dealing with CJ's cronies, donkey cart politicians still living in their glory days of the seventies and eighties.

Definitely time for a change.

SimpleSam06

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Neither seems clear to me. Perhaps you have data I haven't seen.

Well, if you can figure out the portal to the parallel world where we didn't join the EU, you run a quick google search there. Until such time, you'll have to make do with the fact that other EU countries apparently managed to produce these maritime industries and scale them up to the task, and turn a very healthy profit in the process.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

I'd imagine the "poor thick paddies" would be smart enough to realise that simply because something has worked elsewhere is no indication that it would work here or to the same extent.
Or you could just continue trying to be glib. Either way is good with me.

Eh but you make it so easy! As I recently almost said to Terry, if you see a bullseye that big it'd be a bannable offence not to take the shot, in fairness. So you have no reasons why the projects might fail except that "they might fail".

ejmaztec wrote: »

Given the minuscule size of Ireland's naval and air service, has anyone got any idea how much it would cost to upgrade these services to enable them to police the fishing territory effectively?

Bleh. Its much easier to do that nowadays than in the past. All you need to do is find the ships using either aerial reconnaissance or radar, then drop out to them with a chopper and order them to make port in Ireland. Seize the fish and the vessels if it keeps getting out of hand. Hey look, another subsidiary industry! You could probably trim back some of the useless army to finance it at the start.

Defenestrate

I vote stay in the EU, I don't like seafood.

Jigsaw

I have to agree with an earlier post made by Atomichorror. It is pointless using referenda to make decisions on complicated EU treaties. 99% of the population do not undertand what they are voting on and just rely upon some view peddled by a politician driven by party politics or some hack trying to impress his editor with some good copy.

When you vote for politicians, you have divested your decision making power with your elected representative. They work on your behalf and if you do not feel they have performed adequately, you have the option of voting them out at the next election.

Now plenty of the politicians probably don't understand the treaty fully either but at least they will have exposure to advisers and senior civil servants who can explain the salient points.

You could then say that parties will be be heavily whipped to toe the party line which may or may not be in the country's interest but I think it would've been better to leave it to the politicians than using a referendum.

AtomicHorror

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

We most certainly can exploit it. Its very far from impossible to scale up the size of the Irish fleet and invest heavily in local packaging and processing plants, for a start. Profits from that can be fed back into the industry to open new subsidiary industries and expand the existing ones. Once the ball starts rolling there is no stopping it.

I'm sure we could do it now. But could we have done it in 1974? Would we have had the same economic growth with only our inept politicians and a large national debt to pay?

Perhaps it would have made for a better long game. But that's speculative.

SimpleSam06

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Perhaps it would have made for a better long game. But that's speculative.

Not that speculative. I'm really starting to come around to the idea that we should withdraw from the EU and just join the EFTA countries.

And yes. Give us back our fishing grounds.

Tar.Aldarion

I really don't think we could have got this great fishing ground on it's feet back then. Do you think we should ahve joined teh eu, got the capability of doing it and then tell them to bugger off?

SimpleSam06

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I really don't think we could have got this great fishing ground on it's feet back then. Do you think we should ahve joined teh eu, got the capability of doing it and then tell them to bugger off?

Why not, its not like we owe them anything.

Spook_ie

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Not that speculative. I'm really starting to come around to the idea that we should withdraw from the EU and just join the EFTA countries.

And yes. Give us back our fishing grounds.

Trouble is there are no fish left in then Irish Box, maybe if we hadn't joined the EC and joined NATO instead!

We could have got the NATO allies to bomb/block France's fishing ports...

SimpleSam06

Spook_ie wrote: »

Trouble is there are no fish left in then Irish Box, maybe if we hadn't joined the EC and joined NATO instead!

We could have got the NATO allies to bomb/block France's fishing ports...

There are still plenty of fish out there, although overfishing by our European "partners" is threatening to put an end to that.

rossie1977

Spook_ie wrote: »

Trouble is there are no fish left in then Irish Box, maybe if we hadn't joined the EC and joined NATO instead!

leave it a few years and see what happens, the results would surprise you, fish are not like cattle and sheep or even rabbits/wolves (who breed rapidly)

during WW2 most of the worlds fishing grounds were barely touched for 6 years and stocks exploded

thelordofcheese

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Eh but you make it so easy! As I recently almost said to Terry, if you see a bullseye that big it'd be a bannable offence not to take the shot, in fairness.

heh, if i had your username i'd be the last person advocating cheap shots.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

So you have no reasons why the projects might fail except that "they might fail".

And likewise you have no reason to why it would suceed except that you want them to. The only difference is that since we've joined the EU we've a terrible track record for improving our infrastructure, as you've admitted yourself. While it's certainly possible we could have exploited our fishing grounds in the manner you claim if we'd kept them (though i imagine we'd never come close to the amount the magil report claims was harvested) i don't think it's probable.

Spook_ie

rossie1977 wrote: »

leave it a few years and see what happens, the results would surprise you, fish are not like cattle and sheep or even rabbits/wolves (who breed rapidly)

during WW2 most of the worlds fishing grounds were barely touched for 6 years and stocks exploded

So thats easy then, stay in the EU for 6 years, as part of ratifying the Lisbon Treaty no fishing for 6 years, after 6 years tell them to f off and take up fishing.....sorted

LouOB

leave that up to the politicians
thats what we pay them for

SimpleSam06

thelordofcheese wrote: »

heh, if i had your username i'd be the last person advocating cheap shots.

Oh, I like people taking cheap shots at my username. They're like appetisers.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

And likewise you have no reason to why it would suceed except that you want them to.

Why else does anything succeed? Sitting there smirking and saying the country couldn't put a boat out to sea smacks of prejuidice, tbh. Your whole argument boils down to "dem tick padies".

thelordofcheese

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Why else does anything succeed? Sitting there smirking and saying the country couldn't put a boat out to sea smacks of prejuidice, tbh. Your whole argument boils down to "dem tick padies".

Of course it does, i couldn't possible have concerns about the ability of our nation to implement anything of importance after the bertie bowl fiasco, the Port tunnel, E-Voting, The Health Service pay system (who's acrynom escapes me), The M50 and the general state of the health service. It's nothing to do with that at all, it's simply because i hate all irish people.

My god your insight is stunning.

Spook_ie

BBC 17th June

The main threat facing France is that of terrorism and the country's defence system needs to reflect that, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has said.

He is presenting a major overhaul of the military which includes cutting more than 50,000 defence jobs and boosting intelligence resources.

He wants to create a smaller, more mobile army that will be better equipped to respond to such threats.

He is outlining his new strategy to some 3,000 senior officers in Paris.

"Today, the most immediate threat is that of a terrorist attack", he said.

"The threat is there, it is real and we know that it could tomorrow take on a new form, even more serious, with nuclear, chemical and biological means."

His speech follows the release of the details of France's first major defence review in 14 years, under which some 54,000 military and civilian defence jobs will be cut.

France will trim its army, navy and air force from 271,000 troops to 224,000, with the army alone set for a 24% cut.

However, he said the intelligence budget for new satellites, drones and other surveillance equipment would double

BBC 5th June

An influential Polish member of the European parliament has called for the EU to develop "hard power" and spend more money to build a European army.

Foreign affairs committee chairman Jacek Saryusz-Wolski also wants the European parliament to have the final say on deployments under the EU flag.

The French have said beefing up the EU's military capability will be a key part of their six-month presidency.

The BBC has been told their plans also include a new EU military headquarters.

Other items on the French list of proposals involve calling upon all EU countries to increase spending on defence to meet a new target of perhaps 6% of Gross Domestic Product.
More aircraft

France's leadership of the EU will also include a push for the creation of more rapid reaction forces to enable Europe to collectively undertake three simultaneous missions.

They also want more helicopters and aircraft to be made available for missions.

The big problem is finding countries that want to contribute... troops and helicopters to real missions


The EU will not officially comment until the proposals are unveiled by French President Sarkozy in two weeks' time.

The head of the German army, Gen Wolfgang Schneiderhan, told the BBC that Europe needs to be able to react to crises.

"Working together with Nato we can improve the ability of both organisations to tackle the threats that face our world," he said.

The plans are likely to prove controversial in many countries, including Britain, where there is reluctance towards any move to a European army.

In Ireland there are concerns about neutrality, while in Germany there are worries about any policy that could go beyond a peacekeeping role.

So the French want to push for a 6% of GDP increase on military spending but they intend on slashing the size of their own armed forces, to me seems a little conflicting...

rossie1977

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Of course it does, i couldn't possible have concerns about the ability of our nation to implement anything of importance after the bertie bowl fiasco, the Port tunnel, E-Voting, The Health Service pay system (who's acrynom escapes me), The M50 and the general state of the health service. It's nothing to do with that at all, it's simply because i hate all irish people.

My god your insight is stunning.

in truth you could use that type of argument against any country

e.g off the top of my head
USA: welfare system, health service, the immigrant wall along the mexico border, new orleans

UK: nhs, wembley stadium, Millennium Dome

Defenestrate

rossie1977 wrote: »

in truth you could you that type of argument against any country

e.g off the top of my head
USA: welfare system, health service, the immigrant wall along the mexico border, new orleans

UK: nhs, wembley stadium, Millennium Dome

But the NHS is 10x better than the health system over here, the Wembley stadium is a privately built and owned stadium that has nothing to do with the government and the Millenium Dome is from 8 years ago now and has been offloaded to private owners for years anyway.

New Orleans is a ridiculous situation though, but then the same argument does apply against the US as it's run by a moron.

turgon

Hmm interesting poll, I see "not ratify and continue under Nice system" is not an option. OP likes Lisbon? Well seems as its the after hours forum, my suggestion: just rob a few nukes and drop them on Luxembourg. Its so small no one will notice if its gone.

rossie1977

Defenestrate wrote: »

But the NHS is 10x better than the health system over here

the WHO rank them almost equal, but what do they know :pac:

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

SimpleSam06

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Of course it does, i couldn't possible have concerns about the ability of our nation to implement anything of importance after the bertie bowl fiasco, the Port tunnel, E-Voting, The Health Service pay system (who's acrynom escapes me), The M50 and the general state of the health service. It's nothing to do with that at all, it's simply because i hate all irish people.

My god your insight is stunning.

Yours is sadly lacking I fear - Yet another punter who can't tell the difference between a people and their politicians. Up until fairly recently, Ireland had the highest quality of life in the world, way beyond the UK, so we must be doing something right.

This is despite the obvious and glaring shambles you have pointed out. of course, even such luminaries as the UK and US can't boast a clean sheet on civil projects either, which has not prevented them from getting things done.

I'm as great a critic of the current political establishment and the dug-in parasites that it has brought with it in the public sector as you are, probably more so. However I strongly dispute that we are permanently saddled with them or paralysed by them, and I find all suggestions that the Irish people couldn't achieve goals they set out to achieve highly distasteful.

Defenestrate

rossie1977 wrote: »

the WHO rank them almost equal, but what do they know :pac:

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

That data is almost a year and a half old. Many failings have been exposed in the Irish Health Service over the last year, prompting calls for Harney's resignation.

rossie1977

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Yours is sadly lacking I fear - Yet another punter who can't tell the difference between a people and their politicians. Up until fairly recently, Ireland had the highest quality of life in the world, way beyond the UK, so we must be doing something right.

This is despite the obvious and glaring shambles you have pointed out. of course, even such luminaries as the UK and US can't boast a clean sheet on civil projects either, which has not prevented them from getting things done.

I'm as great a critic of the current political establishment and the dug-in parasites that it has brought with it in the public sector as you are, probably more so. However I strongly dispute that we are permanently saddled with them or paralysed by them, and I find all suggestions that the Irish people couldn't achieve goals they set out to achieve highly distasteful.

you better define quality of life before people claim it was all due to our suckling of the EU teat

Health: Life expectancy at birth
Family life: Divorce rate
Community life
Material well being
Political stability and security
Climate and geography
Job security
Political freedom
Gender equality

today ireland ranks number three in the world for economic freedom http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm

5th in Human Development Index which measures life expectancy, literacy, educational attainment, and GDP per capita http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

first in terms of quality of life http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf

fourth from bottom in terms of the failed states index (we are nearly twice as sustainable as the USA) http://www.fundforpeace.org/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=229&Itemid=366

and sixth in the global peace index (we were fourth last year) http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings/2008/

i am with you on your last paragraph, so many begrudgers and naysayers in this country or at least on this website with threads like "what do you hate most about ireland", "what country would you move to" etc.

this country is not perfect and it will never ever ever achieve anything close to perfection (no country ever will) but what we have achieved since independence is truly remarkable given the fact that

*the birth of this nation happened some 60 years after a devastating famine that eliminated half our population,
*we were the only country in western europe not to experience the industrial revolution which set us back 100 years
*WW1
*the stock market crash and terrible recession that resulted across the world
*WW2
*the cold war
*policies of the likes of de Valera which shall we shall we say are better best forgotten

Capt'n Midnight

I don't think our politicians will take a course of action. If they were capable then they would have had a better Yes campaign. All they needed to do was get between 54,983 people out of 3,051,278 to change their minds or 109,965 to vote.

They will react to what the EU does.

The concern is that they try to attack the referendum process, maybe if they look long enough it might turn out that they can sign treaties on our behalf

Maybe they could have a re-run with the local elections. It won't cost much extra and besides people can vote on the local issues without affecting the refernedum.

maybe if someone organised a petition with more than 862,415 names on it then there could be another go ??

[edit] betcha they are sorry they couldn't use the e-voting machines [/edit]

jimi_t

rossie1977 wrote: »

the WHO rank them almost equal, but what do they know :pac:

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

And yet Thailand is at 47? I'd love to know how they quantify such data. The concept of a 'shared room' or 'visiting hours' are alien over there, MRSA is unheard of. You certainly wouldn't hear the same instance of 36 hour waits on hospital trolleys in corridors in the NHS as you do in Ireland either, or in practically any European country.

rossie1977

^^^ huh

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1338551/Revealed-the-NHS-scandal-of-'his'-and-'hers'-trolley-corridors.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article3582299.ece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/dec/07/france.paulwebster

ejmaztec

I thought that we'd all decided to go fishing and get away from this politics stuff Where is this Irish box, anyway? Do I need a big rod?

Spook_ie

Depends on if you're going for the Ginger Box, Brunette Box or the Blonde Box...

Run_to_da_hills

Take the money and run, we did well enough out of it, we accepted their bribes and sweeteners.

As far as losing our constitutional rights and becoming a part of this big brother euro dictatorship that will eventually force us to carry RFID based Identity cards and microchip implants.

NO WAY.

NO is NO. what part of NO do these coffers not understand.