Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Ok, now please leave EU
Options
Comments
-
good morning guys!
Just a few considerations:
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.
What means exactly "extremist" should be all to be demonstrated.
In your vision, clearly shown by your words, "extremists" are those who are not agree with a given philosophy in which you believe.
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?
Yes! Since they had no choice to join with the italians, as the Lisbon treaty would be for all the europeans.
...and let me add that this is equal for many other nations within the multinational State of Italy.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.
This is the only point in which I agree, but you should re-read yourself at first point: may be such "extremists" are guys that decided to turn off tv.0 -
It was an anti-EU vote from me anyway insofar as I believe the EU has gone and is going too far wrt integration. I am pro-Europe insofar as I have no dislike for any of them and have no problem with freedom of movement in Europe. Being pro-Europe does not imply one must be pro-EU of course.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,
Scofflaw0 -
The french and dutch voted no to the ambiguous version. We voted no to the unambiguous legal version of the same thing. If the irish people cannot be forgiven for not understanding 300 pages of legal merisms, the EU elite certainly cannot be forgiven for failing to understand 3 words from 80 million people-NO, NO, NO!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.0 -
Erm, no, it isn't! This thread is a joke as you have repeatedly ignored any point you cannot counter and instead opted for one line quips. Italy is (economically) the sick (dead) man of Europe I'm afraid. Your pensions crisis is going to make ours look like a walk in the park. Ariverderchi.10) this forum is really beautiful, and it's an example on how a real "debate" should be.0 -
The french and dutch voted no to the ambiguous version. We voted no to the unambiguous legal version of the same thing. If the irish people cannot be forgiven for not understanding 300 pages of legal merisms, the EU elite certainly cannot be forgiven for failing to understand 3 words from 80 million people-NO, NO, NO!
It wasn't even close to 80 million people saying no.
26,661,082 people said yes to the EU constitution; 22,668,594 said no to it.
752,451 people said yes to the Lisbon Treaty; 862,415 said no to it.
Is it any wonder the EU considers that a mixed message?0 -
Advertisement
-
good morning guys!
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.
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.
Social apathy allows those mad/racist groups that you mentioned get into power and after all they are politicians too as most of them got elected by small group of people. It also allow corrupt and arrogant governments take over power away from the people.
I am very proud of the Irish electorate who bothered to Vote either YES or NO in the referendum that cared about their future. Apologies to those who wanted to vote and who tried or genuine reasons could not make it to the polling booth.
EU Leaders claim that the Lisbon Treaty is suppose to be more Democratic. If that true then they should have no problem letting their citizen’s vote on it for approval.0 -
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.
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|0.183
Lisbon|3051278|862415|0.286
Its hard to say without proper research. People have a myriad of reasons for voting No, and being anti-EU completely must surely be a diminishing reason for voting No over the years (ie: its a long time since 1972 and the electorate has changed significantly).
I would opine that perhaps there is always a 'hardcore' of people that do not want to take the next step, whatever that is. There is clearly also a 'hardcore' of people that will vote Yes to every EU treaty. (I was talking with 3 people like that yesterday!). The only way to find out why people vote No (or Yes) at each of the above, is to do detailed research on it. That may be done somewhere, I dont know, but looking at the raw numbers tells us absolutely nothing about anti-EU levels, or pro-EU levels. The devil in this case is certainly in the detail.
Redspider0 -
Fair enough on the numbers but Ireland voted NO. The netherlands voted NO. France voted NO. All the usual arguments about the contents of the three referenda being too complex for the average joe to vote on, so I SAY AGAIN....let's have a plebiscite in each and every EU (or potential EU) state with a simple question to gauge public opinion properly (and not in a "sure most political parties are pro-EU ergo the people are" kind of way). That question could be as simple as "Do you approve of further social and political integration of the EU?". Let's test the commitment of the EUROPEAN PEOPLE to further integration with a simple, completely understandable explanation of where the EU is headed and see if the people agree. If not, the EU must HALT!It wasn't even close to 80 million people saying no.
26,661,082 people said yes to the EU constitution; 22,668,594 said no to it.
752,451 people said yes to the Lisbon Treaty; 862,415 said no to it.
Is it any wonder the EU considers that a mixed message?0 -
Fair enough on the numbers but Ireland voted NO. The netherlands voted NO. France voted NO. All the usual arguments about the contents of the three referenda being too complex for the average joe to vote on, so I SAY AGAIN....let's have a plebiscite in each and every EU (or potential EU) state with a simple question to gauge public opinion properly (and not in a "sure most political parties are pro-EU ergo the people are" kind of way). That question could be as simple as "Do you approve of further social and political integration of the EU?". Let's test the commitment of the EUROPEAN PEOPLE to further integration with a simple, completely understandable explanation of where the EU is headed and see if the people agree. If not, the EU must HALT!
How do you get around the prohibition on referenda in some other EU member states?0 -
I've posted this elsewhere (the 'let's leave the EU' thread), so my apologies for anyone reading this a second time. I think that one of the biggest problems in this referendum was asking people to vote on something at a time of serious economic uncertainty. If people are stressed, and things aren't looking good, then having a bunch of people shouting at you about "VOTE YES!" or "VOTE NO!", and the things they're asking you amounts to "The treaty is Shemmeb embelem mebebemmle egenb yerteblem. Yes or No, mark 'x' in the box." - Well 'no' is, was and always will be the safe option if you aren't sure about what's going on. The worst that can happen is that everything stays the same.
When in doubt, just say no. It's what we're been told since we were kids. People shouldn't read too much into issues like neutrality, taxation, democracy, etc. because the result is really likely down to fear of the unknown.
The consequences of voting against the treaty, however, that's going to be interesting as to how the population of Ireland deals with that.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Lots of my mates (normal people) voted YES for exactly the same uncertain reasons.kevteljeur wrote: »When in doubt, just say no. It's what we're been told since we were kids. People shouldn't read too much into issues like neutrality, taxation, democracy, etc. because the result is really likely down to fear of the unknown.
I'd say it'll be more interesting to see what Europe does.kevteljeur wrote: »The consequences of voting against the treaty, however, that's going to be interesting as to how the population of Ireland deals with that.0 -
Not referenda. Not even legally binding. Just take an honest and transparent measure of public opinion. That's all I ask.
It's not a bad idea in itself, the problem is that people have a terrible habit of saying one thing and then doing another. Countless elections in this country have shown this to be true. Of course, this 'weighting' will work differently in every country, and be very affected by many, many different factors...0 -
A simple study of history, human nature and a cursory understanding of what motivates the self should be enough to see where the EU is going.
Human nature is what it is and I think most of us should be well aware of its tenancies by now. Why we continue to argue and seek conflict/separation is part of being human and so too is the drive to power and, to a certain degree, have control over others depending on various psychological childhood and other experiential issues. Nothing is black and white, there is always another motive and this is most widely evident in politics. They are, after all, people in these positions of power and each has their own flavor of emotional and psychological fu*kedupness.
Most of us continue to play out childhood patterns in our adult lives and it doesn't take a psychologist to see that in the world of politics. Many of the patterns we see on a playground are being played out on the world political stage. The EU is now behaving like the leader of a school yard gang that can't accept that one of the other kids doesn't want to play by his/her sandpit rules.
So let's continue to prattle on about the merits/demerits of this treaty but can we drop the notion that the motivation by those in power is pure and that they have our best interests at heart. I can accept that the EU can become more efficient as it stands but that doesn't mean it is beyond fundamental reform or that it needs to be improved upon.
At this stage I have to wonder about the merits of the EU as a political entity. Democracy, in this case, is failing 47% of those in Ireland who voted.
Nick0 -
I disagree with this comment and it can be construed as bulling on the other 53% and very disrespectful to those who vote because they voted the way you did not want them to vote.MeatProduct wrote: »At this stage I have to wonder about the merits of the EU as a political entity. Democracy, in this case, is failing 47% of those in Ireland who voted.
Nick
47% does not represent 100% of the population voice, otherwise Fine Gael or Labour would be running our current government or you just giving them the right to say Democracy is failing them. What about Sinn Fein? Is Democracy failing them? I bet you would not want them in power, neither do I.
Democracy is about everybody have a say no matter if it is Right or Wrong.
It is about coming to an agreement and negotiating for a better future together. Democracy is evolving over time and it will always have bumps and road blocks along the road. Democracy in many forms forces us to come together and work out an agreement to move forward together.
The EU countries are full of conflicting politics and varying forms of Democracy . The only reason why the EU was born because of common agreements and that one country cannot force laws on another without [FONT="][/FONT]unanimous agreement otherwise the EU principles that it was built on is DEAD.
If the EU principles that it was built on is dead, then I will argue that we should leave the EU because of Large countries will dictate polices without our voice, which is very undemocratic since we did not vote them in to office. We will not be the only ones once other small countries will see what the way the current and future large EU country leaders behave.[FONT="][/FONT]0 -
That comment was not intended as taking on a sides cause. It was a statement of fact that 47% of those who voted are not represented by the implications of the 53% saying no. Now a series of processes will be set in motion, the consequences of which 47% of those who voted are not in agreement with.I disagree with this comment and it can be construed as bulling on the other 53% and very disrespectful to those who vote because they voted the way you did not want them to vote.
In a democracy there will always be people who lose out, that's what I was aiming at. Whether it's right or wrong is up for each of us to decide, I believe there are better ways of organising people in a community and it must be on a smaller scale. But that is not for discussion here.
Nick0 -
Not referenda. Not even legally binding. Just take an honest and transparent measure of public opinion. That's all I ask.
Oh, OK then. The EU does that kind of surveying all the time. There's some stuff here on the constitution: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/constitution_en.htm
I'm sure there'll be follow-up surveys done in Ireland in the aftermath of our no vote.0 -
I'd rather it was taken in the form if the ballot box than telephone interviews.Oh, OK then. The EU does that kind of surveying all the time. There's some stuff here on the constitution: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/constitution_en.htm
I'm sure there'll be follow-up surveys done in Ireland in the aftermath of our no vote.0 -
But the EU is built on unanimous agreements because of different politics throughout the EU, without unanimous agreements, what is the point of staying in the EU? Look at the North, you need agreement on 50% of each side of the National/unionist traditions to hold a government. Is that fair on the other minorities in Northern Ireland? No, but it was built on a very difficult agreement that took years to bring peace to Northern Ireland.MeatProduct wrote: »That comment was not intended as taking on a sides cause. It was a statement of fact that 47% of those who voted are not represented by the implications of the 53% saying no. Now a series of processes will be set in motion, the consequences of which 47% of those who voted are not in agreement with.
In a democracy there will always be people who lose out, that's what I was aiming at. Whether it's right or wrong is up for each of us to decide, I believe there are better ways of organising people in a community and it must be on a smaller scale. But that is not for discussion here.
Nick
Look at the Politics of Belgium & Finland, the way their countries and how treaties are ratified. Here is a link of the ratificaiton needed in each Eu country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon
Look how at our non EU European country Switzerland is governed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland
In Finland without the Aland Islands, International agreements that includes, the Lisbon Treaty is Dead because Finland cannot ratify the agreement to their agreement because of the agreement on their Union.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85land
If Aland Islands had rejected the treaty, Should we or France, or UK or Germany interfere with their sovereign politics?
[FONT="][/FONT]0 -
I'd rather it was taken in the form if the ballot box than telephone interviews.
The problem is that the only people who'll turn up to a non-binding opinion poll like that are the cranks from both sides. Given the low turnouts to many binding polls I can't see something like that having any amount of turnout. It's not good to let your sample self-select.
While the sample size of the phone polls was low they were randomly selected. This gives it a good deal more statistical credibility.
Maybe a larger random poll would be better?0 -
Advertisement
-
Unanimous means an agreement of all, not limited to the governments' agreement. In the case you put it, if I am understanding you correctly, unanimous means the percentage of the voting population that is deemed necessary to make that agreement. In our case that was 53%. So at worst a unanimous agreement is 51% of the populace for that agreement and at best it is 100%. However we don't see these figures in the EU presently as we are not hearing the peoples' voice. We can try to insuinate that the government giving the peoples voice is accurate but that's just speculation.But the EU is built on unanimous agreements because of different politics throughout the EU, without unanimous agreements, what is the point of staying in the EU?
As a perfectly tuned machine democracy can discount the interests of up to 49% of the population. Of course nothing in this world operates without frictional losses and inefficiencies. Politicians have their own agendas just like you an I do. Who do they put first in their lives? Who do they remember on their deathbeds? You and me? They remember the people they had personal contact with, people who touched their lives, i.e. not you and I. So with this in mind we have a loss of pure information that should be communicated from the people, through our government and out to the world. This distortion filter lies betwwen the interests of the people and those of the politician. How that mixture gets composed is dependent on the politician has a human being, their life experiences. The polarities being GWB and Gandhi, as examples. GWB takes the interests of the people and those of his personal interests and blends them with a heavy weighting towards his personal interests whereas Gandhi would have gone the other direction, and I haven't seen any Gandhi's in politics recently.
Democracy on a large scale is not suitable for the human condition.
The EU as a common trade entity is adequate, as a political entity it is unnecessary. Except if you are a politican.If Aland Islands had rejected the treaty, Should we or France, or UK or Germany interfere with their sovereign politics?
We have strayed off topic.
Nick0 -
No EU agreement/treaty rules for ratifying means that all EU countries government must agree first 100% (unanimous) and then ratified within their own legal rules. Any road blocks here means the agreement/treaty is dead.MeatProduct wrote: »Unanimous means an agreement of all, not limited to the governments' agreement. In the case you put it, if I am understanding you correctly, unanimous means the percentage of the voting population that is deemed necessary to make that agreement. In our case that was 53%. So at worst a unanimous agreement is 51% of the populace for that agreement and at best it is 100%. However we don't see these figures in the EU presently as we are not hearing the peoples' voice. We can try to insuinate that the government giving the peoples voice is accurate but that's just speculation.
In our case more than 50% in a referendum vote + >50% Dail + >50% Senate.
In France they need 50% to pass upper and lower house of their version of the parliament or whatever their legal requirements to pass EU treaties.
In Belgium, It is more complicated because the was their country is made up.MeatProduct wrote: »Democracy on a large scale is not suitable for the human condition.
Dictatorship type rule is not the answer either. We have seen from other countries experience where large groups of minorities or majorities are push aside for the few. At least with Democracy there is some hope. Not great but some. As I said before Democracy is ever evolving process only through agreements with others. Only together can we move forward but not before issues and concerns are sorted first.
agreed on this point.MeatProduct wrote: »The EU as a common trade entity is adequate, as a political entity it is unnecessary. Except if you are a politican.
Nick0 -
I am not advocating dictatorship. I do advocate government on a very localised level as we seem to have a deeply ingrained need for governance. The need for larger polulation governance creates more disillusionment, misrepresentation and potential for corruption. Why do we need it?Dictatorship type rule is not the answer either. We have seen from other countries experience where large groups of minorities or majorities are push aside for the few. At least with Democracy there is some hope. Not great but some. As I said before Democracy is ever evolving process only through agreements with others. Only together can we move forward but not before issues and concerns are sorted first.
What are the key advantages to mass governance? Improved trade, living standards, communication? How do these impact on the life of an individual in a way that improves their life experience? I would like to know how increased governance from the EU will improve the life of the individual. What is the goal here and when will the EU project have reached it's goal? When we are all in a state of democratic EUtopia where 51% are in a magical state of accordance with our government and the rest are manically depressed?
I agree with this agreement.agreed on this point.
Nick0 -
People have a need for governance for common issues, security & Protection, services such as water, electricity, food, trade, travel etc.MeatProduct wrote: »I do advocate government on a very localised level as we seem to have a deeply ingrained need for governance. The need for larger polulation governance creates more disillusionment, misrepresentation and potential for corruption. Why do we need it?
What are the key advantages to mass governance? Improved trade, living standards, communication? How do these impact on the life of an individual in a way that improves their life experience? I would like to know how increased governance from the EU will improve the life of the individual. What is the goal here and when will the EU project have reached it's goal? When we are all in a state of democratic EUtopia where 51% are in a magical state of accordance with our government and the rest are manically depressed?
Nick
They do not need a type of government that will change the rules in which they can govern, at their own free will (Without the People stamp of approval). Good changes take time by discussing the implications of it and cannot be rushed, that is where mistakes are made and we lose our power to possible corrupt governments.
We need to be careful before choosing. Wars and revolutions were fought because of bad government/dictators/kings who when against the will of the people or bad mistakes of the people out of ignorance (too trusting of politicians without sussing out their true intentions and implications are).When we fail to learn from history mistakes, we are doomed to repeat themBe careful of wolf/s in sheep clothing for they come in many shape and sizesGood things come to those who wait (have patience)
It is better to make an informed decision before voting Yes. By voting Yes, you are agreeing to terms and conditions of others.0 -
-
I agree with your post but I was looking for advantages of large government structures being more effective/useful than smaller scale ones. As all of the points you illustrated above can apply to both with varying degrees of effectiveness. Perhaps you are not an advocate of large government, e.g. EU as a political entity.People have a need for governance for common issues, security & Protection, services such as water, electricity, food, trade, travel etc.
They do not need a type of government that will change the rules in which they can govern, at their own free will (Without the People stamp of approval). Good changes take time by discussing the implications of it and cannot be rushed, that is where mistakes are made and we lose our power to possible corrupt governments.
We need to be careful before choosing. Wars and revolutions were fought because of bad government/dictators/kings who when against the will of the people or bad mistakes of the people out of ignorance (too trusting of politicians without sussing out their true intentions and implications are).
It is better to make an informed decision before voting Yes. By voting Yes, you are agreeing to terms and conditions of others.
Nick0 -
I am in favour of having EU as a political entity. It is already a political entity. I have no problems with the type of governance that stands at the moment. It protects smaller states from the likes of Starkozy and more, who will want to change our laws etc, to suit them and he is the type of person if Lisbon is passed that will do it. EU was built upon full cooperation and if anyone has a problem it is dealt with fairly and with respect. I do not want a leader that has no respect for its citizens or any other country citizens to satisfy the bigger nation’s government.MeatProduct wrote: »I agree with your post but I was looking for advantages of large government structures being more effective/useful than smaller scale ones. As all of the points you illustrated above can apply to both with varying degrees of effectiveness. Perhaps you are not an advocate of large government, e.g. EU as a political entity.
Nick
95% of Lisbon Treaty is already in place in EU countries laws., therfore we are protected.
That 95% of the Lisbon Treaty is in place, so why are we voting on it if its already in place? The point above was more distraction for us to vote for it as the above was already in all EU countries in statues Law.http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/721421/part_3/irelands-eu-referendum-will-be-no-walkover.thtml]
Most of the policies and institutions that would have been authorised by the Constitution/Lisbon Treaty have been implemented anyway:
the Charter of Fundamental Rights,
the European External Action Service,
common rules on immigration,
a pan-European magistracy
They should have only presented this to us to cut out the jaron!! and made the treaty much more readable. It is better to read 5% than 95%From the same link above.
As for the remaining 5 per cent — chiefly the new voting weights, the smaller Commission and the single presidency — these will be agreed at a miniature inter-governmental conference in a year or so. We shall be told that there is no need for any referendums, since the changes represent a rearrangement of the furniture, not new powers for Brussels.
They used the other facts which was already implemented to hide or distract waht in 5% or less.
Most country has the title ministry for Defence not ministry for war. Defence is a word used for Self Protection nor to wage war. English is a very vague language and can be interpret many ways.lisbontreaty2008.ie wrote:http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_changes_eu.html#f
F. Solidarity Clause
This is a clause in the Treaty which states that Member States are obliged to assist each other if one is the victim of a terrorist attack or a natural or man made disaster. The precise details of this co-operation would have to be agreed unanimously by the Council.
US and UK went to war on a possible terrorist attack from Iraq with so called WMD. Another country attacked and we saw what happen there when the truth came out. There are still there as we all know well.
Much of the language is a red herring as government hold power in their parliaments. So government and parliaments powers are one of the same as governments are greater than 50% of parliaments.lisbontreaty2008.ie wrote:http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_changes_gov.html
Proposed Changes - Power to Change the Treaties
At present the Treaties governing the EU are amended only by the Member States agreeing to an amending treaty which must then be approved by the Member States in accordance with their own constitutional traditions. In almost all cases this involves parliamentary approval. In some cases, for example in Ireland, a referendum may be required.
The Lisbon Treaty now proposes to give the European Council (Heads of Government) the power to propose changes to certain parts of the governing Treaties. Any such changes cannot increase the competence of the EU. Any such proposals must be agreed unanimously by the European Council. This means that any national government may veto such a proposal. If the European Council does agree a proposed change, then in order for it to come into effect, it must be ratified by the Member States in accordance with their own constitutional traditions. This may require a referendum in Ireland as happens at present.
The Lisbon Treaty also proposes to give the European Council the power to amend the Treaties so as to allow Qualified Majority Voting to operate in certain areas where unanimity is now required. It will also give them the power to apply the Ordinary Legislative Procedure in certain areas where a Special Legislative Procedure applies at present. Any such proposals must be agreed unanimously by the European Council.
This means that any national government may veto such a proposal. If the European Council does agree a proposed change, any national parliament may prevent these changes coming into effect. Under the proposed amendment to the Constitution of Ireland the approval of the Dáil and Seanad will be required for Ireland to agree to such proposed changes. Such changes would not require a referendum in Ireland.
The power to change from unanimity to Qualified Majority Voting or from the Special Legislative Procedure to a Ordinary Legislative Procedure does not extend to military and defence issues.
It could apply, for example, to taxation where unanimity is required at present. However as outlined earlier in this website, any such proposed change could be vetoed by the Irish government.
I have a big problem with may & could as they are a grey word in the English language.
Also Using Citizens’ Initiative can be used to distract people on other unwanted changes from the people point of view.0 -
-
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
I've a few rather serious issues to take with your post.
1) What is all this nonsense about geographic seperation? It's 2008, not 1808, we have planes, fast boats, telephones, television, radio waves, fiber optics, satellites and the internet... It's not like we're cut off and don't speak to the rest of Europe. Ireland's part of Europe, however you seem to be discriminating against us because we're not part of CONTINENTAL Europe. Short of physically relocating the island, which I think is an impossibility, I don't think this situation is likely to change. Also, what has living in Paris, Warsar, Prague, Berlin etc have to do with anything, the vast majority of Europeans don't live in big cities. Most of us live in small to middle size cities and towns. Many Irish people have lived in London, Paris, Barcelona, Madrid, Berlin, Prague etc... I don't understand your point ... perhaps you could explain?
2) What have you got against Ryanair ? Ireland's Ryanair pioneered low fares flights that have provided connections to parts of Europe that were previously very difficult to access. So, before you slag off Ryanair, think of how many places that are now very accessible that were previously far flung and difficult to reach. Sure, they fly to obscure airports in bigger cities like Paris and Berlin to reduce costs, but at least you can damn well get there thesedays. I really don't see why the fact that we access Europe by plane makes any difference. Let's face it the experience isn't a whole lot worse than several hours in a plasticy train... It's a bit more environmentally friendly, but at the end of the day it achieves the same result gets you from A to B..
3) No we didn't have to deal with communism (thankfully), but yes we did have to deal with the aftermath of WWII which pretty much killed our economy. Following a period of being an oppressed collony, and a huge famine in the 1800s which saw our population decimated we had a major war with the UK in the early part of the 20th century and a horrendous civil war immediately afterwards. We then sank into deep poverty for most of the 1930s, 40s, 50s and into the 60s. Experienced mass emmigration. Then we had the whole Northern Ireland 'troubles' to contend with for the 1970s, 80s and 90s... So, I really don't see how our experience was much different to the rest of Europe in most regards. We all had our conflicts and all had our serious difficulties.
4) Why should we leave the EU? France and Holland also rejected this treaty under its previous incarnation as the European Constitution, yet I didn't hear any one asking for France to be immediately kicked out at that time. Did you?
5) The EU has flaws, these failing referenda in various EU countries (including Ireland) are just showing up that there's a huge communciations problem between the EU and European Citizens. Irish people cherish their democracy and fought very long and hard to achieve it. Many people genuinely do feel that democracy is being erroded by the EU as it is at the moment. The institutions are blatently undemocratic and there has been no serious move to address this. Yes, Lisbon improves things, but it doesn't go nearly far enough.
Why should we just blindly accept absolutely everything that the EU offers without any questions. That isn't democracy and it's not how you end up with a good system for Europe in the end. Yes we received structural funding, but we're now a net contributor to the EU budget and in time those structural funds will end up being paid back anyway through our funding of regions of Europe that need money via the same cohesion fund system!
Problems NEED and MUST be resolved now. Simply sweeping annoying referenda under the carpet isn't a sollution.
Frankly, I think you've a vastly over simplistic view of the situation. This isn't about pure ideals, it's about pragmatism and creating a good, sensible and stable Europe going forward.
The EU may need to reassess where it's going with this project and get a measure of what the people of Europe actually want it to do.
If it ploughs on blindly it will just end up damaging itself and becoming less relevant. The EU must have popular support of European citizens. it's quite possible that deeply integrated federal political union isn't a desirable end for many EU Citizens.
It's also possible the EU is moving too fast and too soon. Lets not forget that the EU is a totally unprecedented project, hurtling head first into more and more integration and rapid expantion without any time to absorb what's already happened is not going to achieve a very stable system either.
People need time to adapt and take on board these changes.
Thankfully, I think most of the serious EU leaders recognise that there are major problems and are willing to look at doing something about them.
You're adopting the attitude of a blind Europhile who simply cannot see that there are bumps on the road, that we need to know where the road is going to and that everyone on board needs to be in agreement.
As benevolant and well meaning as the EU is, people need to know what exactly is going on and where this project is leading to.0 -
Advertisement
-
As benevolant and well meaning as the EU is, people need to know what exactly is going on and where this project is leading to.
Europeans outside of Ireland can clearly see where this is leading to. Certainly not to more democracy, but disinformation and strenghtening the Elite (no Dasvid Icke remarks, please). The EU seems to consists mainly of France and Germany, those who would clearly win the power struggle through the Lisbon treaty.
How dare you, Soprano, speak of more democracy, after so many people's democracy has simply been ignored. How can ANYONE...0
Advertisement