Ok, now please leave EU

flintash

murphaph wrote: »

Seems some people really do want to live in 1984. :rolleyes:

I believe that was a good reading. (propaganda and brainwashing, ha)
But you deny this, as in democratic world everything is clear and thuthful.
I would recoment this one: Rendition (from Gavin Hood).As in our democratic world we always have another view.
Unfortunately i believed this one.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0804522/

IRLConor

Irish and Proud wrote: »

...yeah, and if we leave the EU, we would get to reclaim a massive part of the EU's fishing waters in which the EU has done very well to the tune of 10s of billions (someone quoted €150bn) since Maastricht - all for your €8bn! :rolleyes:

See here. I think I believe Scofflaw.

The OP is full of ****, but it doesn't make your tripe right either.

Dublin1600

sopranos wrote: »

You didn't see the excitement of a wall teared down, or the joy of thousand of eastern Europeans joining EU in 2004, after an half century of communism. You don't know what does it mean living today in cities like Berlin, Paris, Vienna or Varsaw.

If it was so exciting to tear down these walls why did Germany, Italy, France and Spain build another wall and bar workers from the EU-10 access to their employment markets. Ireland with a population of 4 million opened its borders to the EU-10 countries with a joint population of roughly 80 million.

Crash

IRLConor wrote: »

See here. I think I believe Scofflaw.

The OP is full of ****, but it doesn't make your tripe right either.

man, who wants to start betting at what stage it'll hit 200 billion?

THATS RIGHT FOLKS, 200 BILLION.

First person to repost that as fact gets a prize.

ktex2

Ok soprano have fun living under the new world order because thats what the lisbon treaty is all really about and what europe is trying to do. Its just people like you are fooled by your government into thinking their will be some kind of glory for your people when europe gets its own army etc.

People in ireland are not easily fooled by eurodictators in brussels and will never be bullied into making the wrong decision which could cost them their future.

IRLConor

ktex2 wrote: »

Ok soprano have fun living under the new world order because thats what the lisbon treaty is all really about and what europe is trying to do.

I claim the prize for finding David Icke's secret boards.ie account.

Cow Moolester

crash_000 wrote: »

man, who wants to start betting at what stage it'll hit 200 billion?

THATS RIGHT FOLKS, 200 BILLION.

First person to repost that as fact gets a prize.

Don't try to undermine what Europe has gotten out of us...






































300 BILLION!

AtomicHorror

I wonder how well Ireland in isolation could have exploited those fisheries... bringing in €160 billion (if we believe the ever-increasing guestimate) would surely have required some incredible work and investment on our part. Would we have had the Celtic Tiger boom under the pressure of a massive national debt?

limklad

sopranos wrote: »

That's the best one. You voted no to Treaty which would have brought a real improvement on democracy giving more power to a central Parliament (means: de-mo-cra-cy) and I'm the one against it.

Moreover the Treaty would give you the chance for the first time to withdraw from EU, so you may finally do your "real" referendum and leave, as the most of the people seems to like here inside.

What would today vote Ireland with a referendum in/out Europe?

I now know why we got to vote, to protect Europe against sopranos.

We are now the guardians/protectors of Europe citizens.

• We are a neutral country.

• We did not enter wars within Europe send missiles nor bomb Europe.
• We only had an internal Cold War (Fianna Fail, Fine Gael), not external Cold war.
• We did not attack anyone else, except Britain & British forces of course!
• We did not have a dictator as leader of our country (Some think Charlie Haughy was one and Brian Cowen is the new one)
• We never invade other countries with our armies (exception of Sport fans of course).
• We adopt other Europeans unwanted children.
• We were a lot fairer to Eastern European when they join the EU where most other EU countries said NO for them to WORK in their country.
• We have more in common with poorer countries than wealthy European countries because of our recent past.
• We have a multi-cultural society ( We love Chinese/thai/Italian/etc food)
• We well travelled and well known and liked throughout the world.
• We have been Pro European and have been rating around the top of the league of all EU countries and still is as stated with the EU own barometer since joining the EEC.
• We are the only pro-european country that will question our leaders’ agreements and openly and say NO despite the threats or open hostility towards us in the form of economic bomb shells.

One Most Important thing of all we were smart enough to have a referendum for every EEC, EC & EU treaties.
Therefore we are the best able to decide what best for Europe.

Scofflaw

I now know why we got to vote, to protect Europe against sopranos.

Hmm...put that way, it's almost tempting. I do so hate opera.

We are now the guardians/protectors of Europe citizens.

Protecting them from their democratically elected representatives and their constitutions, on the other hand, not so much.

amused,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

One Most Important thing of all we were smart enough to have a referendum for every EEC, EC & EU treaties.
Therefore we are the best able to decide what best for Europe.

speechless,
Scofflaw

j1smithy

Does no one else believe that the Irish no was a pro european vote? Surely we can do better than this unreadable text that can be challenged at every turn?

IRLConor

j1smithy wrote: »

Does no one else believe that the Irish no was a pro european vote? Surely we can do better than this unreadable text that can be challenged at every turn?

Having read the treaty, I certainly challenge the notion that it's unreadable.

j1smithy

IRLConor wrote: »

Having read the treaty, I certainly challenge the notion that it's unreadable.

Well if not unreadable, certainly very difficult to understand ala Ulysses. And the text is highly open to interpretation.

limklad

IRLConor wrote: »

Having read the treaty, I certainly challenge the notion that it's unreadable.

I may be written in english and probally get a 7 year old to read it.
In your opinion do you believe it is understandable to the common people?

Scofflaw

j1smithy wrote: »

Does no one else believe that the Irish no was a pro european vote? Surely we can do better than this unreadable text that can be challenged at every turn?

Of the Irish electorate, roughly 500,000 have voted No at every single EU referendum since we joined. While clearly those cannot be exactly the same people throughout that time, it illustrates that there is a core long-term anti-EU vote of about 17-18% of the electorate.

While we could claim that this referendum was entirely different, it's unlikely to have been, so the core of the No vote is presumably that 500,000 voters - and they are anti-EU.

That makes the majority of the No vote (60% of it) an anti-EU vote. Unless we're willing to simply ignore those voters as "the usual suspects", it is impossible to portray the No vote as a pro-EU vote.

cordially,
Scofflaw

limklad

Scofflaw wrote: »

Of the Irish electorate, roughly 500,000 have voted No at every single EU referendum since we joined. While clearly those cannot be exactly the same people throughout that time, it illustrates that there is a core long-term anti-EU vote of about 17-18% of the electorate.

While we could claim that this referendum was entirely different, it's unlikely to have been, so the core of the No vote is presumably that 500,000 voters - and they are anti-EU.

That makes the majority of the No vote (60% of it) an anti-EU vote. Unless we're willing to simply ignore those voters as "the usual suspects", it is impossible to portray the No vote as a pro-EU vote.


cordially,
Scofflaw

I voted No, but I very much pro-european/pro-EU so that one person less off your list of possible anti-EU numbers.

I am limerick man/ Munster Man/ Irish Man/ European /Earthling etc

IRLConor

j1smithy wrote: »

Well if not unreadable, certainly very difficult to understand ala Ulysses.

It's no more difficult than most laws I've read. I rate it somewhere between the Firearms Acts and the Taxes Consolidation Act in terms of readability. I would say that the size rather than the language is the bigger difficulty with it. You really need to take notes when you read it, otherwise it can be hard to deal with cross-references.

j1smithy wrote: »

And the text is highly open to interpretation.

I would actually say it's not. It's certainly open to a hell of a lot less interpretation than the summaries published in various places. One of the prime reasons for the difficulty people have when reading it is that it uses very pedantic legal English which usually removes ambiguity rather than adds it.

Scofflaw

limklad wrote: »

I voted No, but I very much pro-european/pro-EU so that one person less off your list of possible anti-EU numbers.

I am limerick man/ Munster Man/ Irish Man/ European /Earthling etc

Well, that puts you in the 40% of the No vote that can reasonably claim that. All I am pointing out is that a majority of No voters are, on previous form, anti-EU - so, while any individual No voter can reasonably state what you have stated, and not necessarily be doubted, one cannot claim that the No vote as a whole is not anti-EU.

I'm pretty certain that no-one is anti-European. Pretty much everyone would be upset if the continent sank, I'm sure.

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

limklad wrote: »

I may be written in english and probally get a 7 year old to read it.
In your opinion do you believe it is understandable to the common people?

It is a complex document no question and probably not understandable to the average person, certainly not in any reasonable timeframe. As an international agreement I don't think the complexity is a a flaw in the treaty persay but the lack of effort putting it into a understandable form for people most certainly is.

j1smithy wrote:

Well if not unreadable, certainly very difficult to understand ala Ulysses. And the text is highly open to interpretation.

I would say open to 'some' interpretation but few articles that are of any real consequence. The danger of some subversive re-interpretation at a later date is a little overstated IMO.

Pride Fighter

sopranos wrote: »

The "real" problem is probably you Irish don't feel Europeans because actually you are NOT Europeans. Even here in this forum you can read people wondering if they feel more US or EU or British or just proud Irish. Sorry, that's not the spirit of Europe.

You're the only country geographically separated from the rest of the Union and you probably don't understand what means being European today, on 2008. You didn't have a post war dream, you didn't try to slowly build the future of a whole big nation without any more inside wars. You didn't see the excitement of a wall teared down, or the joy of thousand of eastern Europeans joining EU in 2004, after an half century of communism. You don't know what does it mean living today in cities like Berlin, Paris, Vienna or Varsaw.

Your contact with Europe is a plastic 20euro RyanAir flight seat which brings you to some remote cheap hangaar out of the big European cities. The same flight which maybe carries a "goodbye British" or "ciao Alitalia" advertising on his fuselage.

But it seems you didn't dislike EU when millions of euro of investments arrived, when a poor last-of-the-list country rose up to one of the most modern technology centers of Europe. The same laws which spoils your pints of Guiness have broughts wealth, worker rights, economy control, stability and security. And moreover, today we do have a voice in the world. Just 20 years ago Russians and Americans controlled everything.

That's Europan Union today, take it or loose it.

ciao, soprano

Didnt feel the joy of the Eastern Europeans joining. Bull****, we are one of the few non-racist EU countries that allowed them to work here. Maybe the entire EU should leave the EU, the nations trying to create a military alliance anyway. We are the only nation that stood up for the true ideals of the EU so I dont need a lecture.

j1smithy

Scofflaw wrote: »

Of the Irish electorate, roughly 500,000 have voted No at every single EU referendum since we joined. While clearly those cannot be exactly the same people throughout that time, it illustrates that there is a core long-term anti-EU vote of about 17-18% of the electorate.

While we could claim that this referendum was entirely different, it's unlikely to have been, so the core of the No vote is presumably that 500,000 voters - and they are anti-EU.

That makes the majority of the No vote (60% of it) an anti-EU vote. Unless we're willing to simply ignore those voters as "the usual suspects", it is impossible to portray the No vote as a pro-EU vote.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I don't think I can buy into that argument. One could easy look at the various Yes votes over the years and apply the same logic of their being a hardcore pro european vote. without some research, i don't believe either to be the case

IRLConor

limklad wrote: »

I may be written in english and probally get a 7 year old to read it.

I doubt that, a 7 year old would have trouble I think.

limklad wrote: »

In your opinion do you believe it is understandable to the common people?

Anyone who has done a leaving cert should be able to understand it with enough time spent working at it. It took me about 3 weeks (partly because it's very boring, I could only stick reading it for so long at a time). I'm sure someone with a law degree would plow through it much faster than that.

I would say that if you can read and understand the Irish constitution (which anyone voting on a constitutional amendment should do) then you shouldn't have too much trouble (other than lack of time or extreme boredom) with the Lisbon Treaty.

The biggest lie that was sold by both sides in the debate was that the treaty was impenetrable. You'd almost think that neither side wanted us to read it! :eek:

Scofflaw

IRLConor wrote: »

It's no more difficult than most laws I've read. I rate it somewhere between the Firearms Acts and the Taxes Consolidation Act in terms of readability. I would say that the size rather than the language is the bigger difficulty with it. You really need to take notes when you read it, otherwise it can be hard to deal with cross-references.

I would actually say it's not. It's certainly open to a hell of a lot less interpretation than the summaries published in various places. One of the prime reasons for the difficulty people have when reading it is that it uses very pedantic legal English which usually removes ambiguity rather than adds it.

I made a start on a website that would allow you to simply click on a term (like 'neutrality'), and have the website pull up the relevant sections, plus interpretations and arguments. Ideally, it would have featured the ability for the reader to add their own weight to the tagging of sections, which would help remove claims of bias.

Unfortunately, the commitments of real life intervened, and the closer it came to the vote, the less worthwhile that seemed. I might resurrect it if the debate looks like lasting longer than a week.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

j1smithy wrote: »

I don't think I can buy into that argument. One could easy look at the various Yes votes over the years and apply the same logic of their being a hardcore pro european vote. without some research, i don't believe either to be the case

It's almost certainly true that there's a hardcore pro-EU vote that mirrors the anti-EU vote. You could probably measure it best at Nice I (which would exclude me, because I voted No).

I appreciate your point that I'm drawing a very simple diagram on top of a complicated reality, but it's a very strong pattern:

Referendum|Electorate|No Voters|Proportion of Electorate
Joining|1783604|211891|0.12
SEA|2461790|324977|0.13
Maastricht|2542840|448655|0.18
Amsterdam|2747088|578070|0.21
Nice I|2867960|529478|0.18
Nice II|2923918|534887|0.18

cordially,
Scofflaw

j1smithy

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's almost certainly true that there's a hardcore pro-EU vote that mirrors the anti-EU vote. You could probably measure it best at Nice I (which would exclude me, because I voted No).

I appreciate your point that I'm drawing a very simple diagram on top of a complicated reality, but it's a very strong pattern:

Referendum|Electorate|No Voters|Proportion of Electorate
Joining|1783604|211891|0.12
SEA|2461790|324977|0.13
Maastricht|2542840|448655|0.18
Amsterdam|2747088|578070|0.21
Nice I|2867960|529478|0.18
Nice II|2923918|534887|0.18

cordially,
Scofflaw

Appreciate the table! A pattern does exist, and I do agree to some extent with you. However it would be too simplistic to draw a conclusion from it when eurobarometer polls show us to be in general to be pro EU. Or maybe just the No side is more committed to coming out to the polls. Whatever the reason the next EU referendum is going to generate even more interest and an even greater turn-out here.

marco_polo

j1smithy wrote: »

Appreciate the table! A pattern does exist, and I do agree to some extent with you. However it would be too simplistic to draw a conclusion from it when eurobarometer polls show us to be in general to be pro EU. Or maybe just the No side is more committed to coming out to the polls. Whatever the reason the next EU referendum is going to generate even more interest and an even greater turn-out here.

What I found particularly interesting was the fact that Nice II was carried by the no vote staying static and the higher turnout increasing the No vote substantially. (Again simplistic I suppose it vis likely that a substantial number of No voters would have changed their minds and were replaced by new No Voters in the higher turnout of the second running).

Of course the Lisbon treaty poll suggests that this turnout trend is now well and truely dead.

grenache

sopranos wrote: »

The "real" problem is probably you Irish don't feel Europeans because actually you are NOT Europeans.

Ireland is an island in the continent of Europe. How does that not make us Europeans??

sopranos wrote: »

You're the only country geographically separated from the rest of the Union and you probably don't understand what means being European today, on 2008.

Britain, Malta, Cyprus.....ever heard of them? It seems to me that your idea of 'being European' is ignoring the democratic wishes of its citizens, be they French, Dutch or Irish. Are you Barosso in disguise?

sopranos

good morning guys!

Just a few considerations:

1) to everyone saying Ireland acted friendly to the eastern allowing them to work there from the first day, well, sorry but that sounds like a very good definition of the word hypocrisy. First, Italy opened his work market from the first day too. Second, there are various reasons why countries like Germany or Austria didn't do it, and for the purpose EU proposed a (max) 7 years period of transition where any country may decide whether to open its work market or not. Third, Ireland and UK opened their market just because they needed the Polish workers asap, and for no other reasons!

2) As an island, you're able to filter much better the wave of immigration. In Italy together with the workers (like those coming to British and Irish islands) are arrived thousands of eastern criminals with different purposes than "re-paint your house walls". It's a huge social problem.

3) You know who's celebrating the Irish "no" vote in Italy and Austria? In Italy is Mr. Bossi from the "Lega" party. A party which claims independence of North Italy to South Italy, which threated several times to make use of firearms and that wishes Gestapo-like measures against Romanian immigrates. In Austria is Mr. Jörg Heider, leader of BZÖ which once stated that Nazi SS where "a part of the German army which should be honoured". Those are your friends today. And all the Anti-EU extremist movements in Europe are rising their glasses of champagne to the Irish vote.

4) @claudiog: süd-tiroler are are a Deutch speaking minority in Italy, which still makes them 100% Italians like a citizen of Milan or Palermo. They have their fixed representant in the Italian Parliament. Where's arrogance here?

5) @murphaph: Greece is now connected to the rest of EU by Bulgaria, a new entry in the Union. Anyway, I see your point on being more British than European, and to feel safe thanks to mother RAF and to the Queen. It's you choice.

6) @ktex2: you don't like what you call "eurodictators"? Good, than leave EU. It's easy.

7) @limklad: if you carefully read this and other threads of this forum, you'll understand why referendum is definitevely not the right tool to ratify something like the Lisbon Treaty.

8) (jokingly): in a few months you will thank an Italian guy, Mr. Trapattoni, to have again a good football team

9) @SuperSean: Come on Österreich!!

10) this forum is really beautiful, and it's an example on how a real "debate" should be. As someone else said in another thread, the real big problem which is threating Europe is the political and social apathy of the majority of its television addicted citizens.

TheBigLebowski

grenache wrote: »

Ireland is an island in the continent of Europe. How does that not make us Europeans??


Britain, Malta, Cyprus.....ever heard of them? It seems to me that your idea of 'being European' is ignoring the democratic wishes of its citizens, be they French, Dutch or Irish. Are you Barosso in disguise?

I can't believe you people are entertaining any kind of debate with a poster whose first post was "Ok, you voted No to the Lisbon treaty. Good, now pleae leave EU. Go back to cultivate potatoes, say goodbye to EU funds and laws. Go back drinking your Guinness and do not interfere anymore with EU stuff." and whose rest of posts haven't got much better...