why so afraid to go it alone

marco_polo

thehighground wrote: »

How many times do I have to say that I just don't trust them - the fact that they are still on about tax harmonisation 10 years later proves they are not going to give up on it - they've nearly got rid of Charlie McCreevy, the biggest thorn in their side about this issue, and very soon we won't even have a representative on the Council of Ministers which has an appointed, not elected President (which goes against my republican ideology).

Oh, and I forgot, its a bit suspicious that France are drop it off tax harmonisation off their presidency agenda this week - wonder why they would do that now?

Who cares it they never give up on it, they will never get it through. 14 other countries are also against these tax reforms. That is 15 vetos altogether.

Your lack of trust is entirely subjective, and thus is irrelevant, as it has no supporting evidence in reality.

thehighground

mickoneill30 wrote: »

You were talking about beauracracy. Now you're on about headage payments (of which I'm sure you'll know I know nothing about). Stick to one argument will you?

Can you show me where I said that the treaty had anything to do with headage payments? Or are you talking to somebody else?

No, I'm talking to you. Briefly this is how headage worked:

EU subsidy to sheep farmers of €X amount per head right across Europe.
In fertile areas, the land would sustain as many as they wanted to put out - so the more sheep you had the greater your EU payment.

In west of Ireland where sheep are reared on open mountain, the environment is very fragile - probably shouldn't have more than 1/2 sheep per acre. But to get the EU subsidy, farmers put 20/30 sheep on the hills which resulted in overgrazing.

What should have happened was upland sheep farmers should have higher payments per head, than lowland farmers to protect the upland landscape. But as I say, it took years to sort it all out and it was all too late then.

seamus

To compress IRLConor's table a bit:

People who didn't understand/were mislead about the treaty: 50%
People who voted "no" based on agendas not related to the treaty: 22%
People who didn't like the treaty/didn't see it as necessary: 10%
Other/DK/NA: 17%

That's a whopping 72% of "no" voters who either didn't read or didn't care about the facts of the treaty, and less than 10% of people who actually don't like the EU.

mickoneill30

thehighground wrote: »

No, I'm talking to you. Briefly this is how headage worked:

EU subsidy to sheep farmers of €X amount per head right across Europe.
In fertile areas, the land would sustain as many as they wanted to put out - so the more sheep you had the greater your EU payment.

In west of Ireland where sheep are reared on open mountain, the environment is very fragile - probably shouldn't have more than 1/2 sheep per acre. But to get the EU subsidy, farmers put 20/30 sheep on the hills which resulted in overgrazing.

What should have happened was upland sheep farmers should have higher payments per head, than lowland farmers to protect the upland landscape. But as I say, it took years to sort it all out and it was all too late then.

Great. Thanks for that.

So your question was how would the Lisbon treaty have sorted that out. No idea. Is it applicable? You brought it up in relation to the treaty and then said it wasn't relevant. Not sure why you're asking for my input.

The Corinthian

thehighground wrote: »

I don't have any idea what's going on in the EU, that's why I'm not about to vote 'Yes' until I do.

I don't believe that's the reason and at this stage few do.

BTW, I notice you still have not responded to the fact that you attempted to use the tax issue while ignoring the fact that the Lisbon treaty gave Ireland a veto on this. Care to comment?

thehighground

IRLConor wrote: »

Would you like to learn how it works? If so, there's a whole internet full of explanations out there. Give it a try, it's not that hard.

I was being sarcastic. Pretty sad that the 'Yes' supporters have now resorted to pedentry to prove their point!

The position I'm referring to is the reducing to 15 from what would be 27 grouping where all countries will lose out for 5 years out of 15.

And yes, I know they are meant to be looking out for everyone's interests, not just their own countries

ionix5891

thehighground wrote: »

I was being sarcastic. Pretty sad that the 'Yes' supporters have now resorted to pedentry to prove their point!

The position I'm referring to is the reducing to 15 from what would be 27 grouping where all countries will lose out for 5 years out of 15.

And yes, I know they are meant to be looking out for everyone's interests, not just their own countries

let me highlight something for you

seamus

thehighground wrote: »

And yes, I know they are meant to be looking out for everyone's interests, not just their own countries

That's key really. "Our" commissioner doesn't currently look after our own interests. He looks after the EU's. His job is to convince us to do the right thing by the EU and not the other way around. Each country "losing" a commissioner for five years, isn't losing any power whatsoever.

And lisbon or not, it's going to happen. You'd have to renegotiate the Nice treaty to stop that. Are you looking to drag Nice back out for referendum?

thehighground

seamus wrote: »

That's key really. "Our" commissioner doesn't currently look after our own interests. He looks after the EU's. His job is to convince us to do the right thing by the EU and not the other way around. Each country "losing" a commissioner for five years, isn't losing any power whatsoever.

And lisbon or not, it's going to happen. You'd have to renegotiate the Nice treaty to stop that. Are you looking to drag Nice back out for referendum?

Note, I said 'meant' to be looking after EU's interests.

You see, I'm not sure I want to go where the EU is heading and I think its about time that we actually had this discussion in Ireland.

Don't think you will bully anyone though a la Nice.

thehighground

ionix5891 wrote: »

let me highlight something for you

Your condension is annoying me greatly.

IRLConor

thehighground wrote: »

I was being sarcastic. Pretty sad that the 'Yes' supporters have now resorted to pedentry to prove their point!

I didn't catch the sarcasm, sorry. (Also: I'm a pedant most of the time, I don't "resort" to it. )

thehighground wrote: »

The position I'm referring to is the reducing to 15 from what would be 27 grouping where all countries will lose out for 5 years out of 15.

18, not 15. Technically it's 2/3s of the member states. (More pedantry, sorry if it offends you.)

thehighground

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't believe that's the reason and at this stage few do.

BTW, I notice you still have not responded to the fact that you attempted to use the tax issue while ignoring the fact that the Lisbon treaty gave Ireland a veto on this. Care to comment?

Once again, it is my belief that any assurances given by the EU bureaucrats with regard to the Lisbon Treaty are not worth the paper they are written on.

Do you want me to repeat it a few times more?

thehighground

mickoneill30 wrote: »

Great. Thanks for that.

So your question was how would the Lisbon treaty have sorted that out. No idea. Is it applicable? You brought it up in relation to the treaty and then said it wasn't relevant. Not sure why you're asking for my input.

The point I'm trying to make is that 'one size doesn't fit all'. Even with the best of intentions, what suits southern Italy, might not suit northern Scotland. The area is too large, and huge cultural differences.

The Corinthian

thehighground wrote: »

Once again, it is my belief that any assurances given by the EU bureaucrats with regard to the Lisbon Treaty are not worth the paper they are written on.

My apologies; I was under the impression that you had a rational reason. Would you care to let us know why you think that the 'EU bureaucrats' would or even could be able to breach an international treaty without consequence?

Do you want me to repeat it a few times more?

Only if you think that repeating it enough times will make it true.

The Corinthian

thehighground wrote: »

The area is too large, and huge cultural differences.

A bit like the problem with trying any reunification with NI - the cultural differences there are far too large too. Don't you agree?

IRLConor

thehighground wrote: »

Once again, it is my belief that any assurances given by the EU bureaucrats with regard to the Lisbon Treaty are not worth the paper they are written on.

Do you want me to repeat it a few times more?

Repeating it won't make it reasonable or sensible.

You either believe that:

1. The veto on direct taxation is not an "assurance" given by other states but a right that Ireland may exercise at any time it pleases.
   
   OR
   
2. The veto on direct taxation is somehow ignorable by the other states and they can force their will upon us. If you believe this, then the logical conclusion is that you don't believe that any of the provisions in any of the EU treaties has any real weight. That is such a blatantly mad position that I find it hard to believe that you could support it.

sink

thehighground wrote: »

Once again, it is my belief that any assurances given by the EU bureaucrats with regard to the Lisbon Treaty are not worth the paper they are written on.

Do you want me to repeat it a few times more?

And I believe this €50 note in my pocket is not worth the paper it's written on. It's value is written in law but I believe bureaucrats can circumvent that an make it essentially worthless. I don't ever sign legal documents and I don't follow the law of the state because essential bureaucrats can circumvent them all and make anything I do/don't essentially meaningless. I'm going to put a paper bag over my head and hide in the corner now.

thehighground

The Corinthian wrote: »

My apologies; I was under the impression that you had a rational reason. Would you care to let us know why you think that the 'EU bureaucrats' would or even could be able to breach an international treaty without consequence?

Only if you think that repeating it enough times will make it true.

Did you not figure out yet that perception is everything- rational doesn't come into it

Well, they seemingly can do a lot of stuff 'without consequences'!

I'd say the 'EU Bureacrats' would very worried about the consequences of Ireland voting 'no' in a referendum. They would never be able to tell them to go away and when you have decided to vote 'Yes' come back!

djpbarry

thehighground wrote: »

The point I'm trying to make is that 'one size doesn't fit all'. Even with the best of intentions, what suits southern Italy, might not suit northern Scotland. The area is too large, and huge cultural differences.

Define "huge". It is estimated that up to 2% of the Scottish population is of Italian decent. Prominent Italian-Scots include Ronni Ancona, Peter Capaldi, Linda Fabiani, Dario Franchitti, Lou Macari, Anthony Minghella, Paolo Nutini, Sharleen Spiteri...

Ringing any bells?

thehighground

The Corinthian wrote: »

A bit like the problem with trying any reunification with NI - the cultural differences there are far too large too. Don't you agree?

Well, its not a particularly large area - but the cultural difference between 50% of pop. of NI and the population of the rest of the island of Ireland at the moment would be fairly insurmountable in my opinion.

marco_polo

thehighground wrote: »

Did you not figure out yet that perception is everything- rational doesn't come into it

That is pretty clear from debating with you.

Well, they seemingly can do a lot of stuff 'without consequences'!

Such as?

I'd say the 'EU Bureacrats' would very worried about the consequences of Ireland voting 'no' in a referendum. They would never be able to tell them to go away and when you have decided to vote 'Yes' come back!

I don't understand this sentence at all.

thehighground

djpbarry wrote: »

Define "huge". It is estimated that up to 2% of the Scottish population is of Italian decent. Prominent Italian-Scots include Ronni Ancona, Peter Capaldi, Linda Fabiani, Dario Franchitti, Lou Macari, Anthony Minghella, Paolo Nutini, Sharleen Spiteri...

Ringing any bells?

I specifially said the north of Scotland. You ever been there? Do you know anyone or anything about it?

sink

thehighground wrote: »

I specifially said the north of Scotland. You ever been there? Do you know anyone or anything about it?

My family is originally from the north of Scotland, isle of Skye to be precise, I still have cousins there and I visit them every few years. It's pretty remote but the people there are friendly and not much different to country folk all over Europe. They enjoy good food, alcohol and trad music harping back to their heritage. But they also enjoy watching tv going on holidays reading and listening to music. What exactly are the huge differences?

thehighground

seamus wrote: »

That's a whopping 72% of "no" voters who either didn't read or didn't care about the facts of the treaty, and less than 10% of people who actually don't like the EU.

Do you think people's vote should be taken away from them?

ionix5891

sink wrote: »

My family is originally from the north of Scotland, isle of Skye to be precise, I still have cousins there and I visit them every few years. It's pretty remote but the people there are friendly and not much different to country folk all over Europe. They enjoy good food, alcohol and trad music harping back to their heritage. But they also enjoy watching tv going on holidays reading and listening to music. What exactly are the huge differences?

did you not hear "we the Irish people" are special

one of the main beliefs of nationalism (didn't Sein Fein welcome the Nazis i mean the National Socialist German Workers’ Party with open arms back in the day? ) is that other people (the "they" vs "us") are sub-human somehow


this line of thinking followed to its conclusion is mainly responsible for WW2 and nationalist/patriotic bullcrap is feeding the current US military exercise over in the middle East

thehighground wrote: »

Do you think people's vote should be taken away from them?

which of these positions do you support

"If you dont know Vote no" or "If you dont know abstain"?

because the first was used a lot by the NO campaigners who went door to door

seamus

thehighground wrote: »

Do you think people's vote should be taken away from them?

What gave you the idea that I would say that?

It's just a counter to the, "People voted no because they just didn't like the Lisbon treaty" line which keeps being trotted out. The surveys indicate that most people who voted no had no beef with the treaty or didn't understand it.

It overwhelmingly shows that all the Government needs to do to secure a yes in another referendum is to

1. Keep their heads down and stop talking about Bertie and friends
2. Run a better campaign. Put on 30-second TV ads detailing why Libertas are wrong and Lisbon is right, to catch the lazy voters.

marco_polo

thehighground wrote: »

Do you think people's vote should be taken away from them?

That is not what he is saying. Do you think that for a more direct democracy to function properly, people who want the power stripped away from politicians hands and put into their own have a duty to inform themselves?

thehighground

sink wrote: »

My family is originally from the north of Scotland, isle of Skye to be precise, I still have cousins there and I visit them every few years. It's pretty remote but the people there are friendly and not much different to country folk all over Europe. They enjoy good food, alcohol and trad music harping back to their heritage. But they also enjoy watching tv going on holidays reading and listening to music. What exactly are the huge differences?

Well, I've spent a few holidays in the north of Scotland (including a couple of days on Skye!) - on a bad day (which it gets a lot of), I'd say Sky is one of the most depressing places on this earth.

Personally, I would have found the Scots quite dour (presbyterians are in general fairly miserable) in comparision to southern Italians.

sink

thehighground wrote: »

Well, I've spent a few holidays in the north of Scotland (including a couple of days on Skye!) - on a bad day (which it gets a lot of), I'd say Sky is one of the most depressing places on this earth.

Personally, I would have found the Scots quite dour (presbyterians are in general fairly miserable) in comparision to southern Italians.

Well then I suppose it's who you know. I have had some great holidays out there, they can drink most Irish people under the table and we often stayed up all night listening to traditional folk and having lots of craic. Skye actually has a high proportion of Catholics compared to the rest of Scotland, my family does however come from the protestant tradition. I also have been to southern Italy a few times and I found it pretty boring tbh. It's probably because I didn't know any of the locals and didn't speak Italian, as I said before it comes down to who you know and who you meet.

The Corinthian

thehighground wrote: »

Well, its not a particularly large area - but the cultural difference between 50% of pop. of NI and the population of the rest of the island of Ireland at the moment would be fairly insurmountable in my opinion.

TBH, the entire population in NI is substantially culturally different to the Republic's - regardless of their religion. Their attitudes are pretty alien to your average southerner as is much of what is considered normal there. Culturally the gulf is pretty similar to that which exists between the republic and, say, Scotland. Few people, including in the north, kid themselves that we really are 'one people'. We're not. Maybe we were once, but a lot of time has passed.

So unless you want to adopt one standard for the north and another for the rest of Europe, as it suits you, you'll have to apply the same measure in both cases. Otherwise, you are really only a xenophobe and petty nationalist, desperately trying to find plausible excuses to justify your prejudices and blind principles.