[Article] Why the Irish Voted No - The Economist

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

We don't have the enemies that other European countries have and I want us to keep it that way.

Yeah, you're right. Why should we come to the aid of others when we have no history of terrorism in this country...

Oh, wait now...

O'Morris

djpbarry wrote: »

Yeah, you're right. Why should we come to the aid of others when we have no history of terrorism in this country...

It's not about not coming to aid of other countries. I think we should come to the aid of our neighbours in the event of a terrorist attack. I think we should come to the aid of countries that aren't in the EU as well. If Norway or Iceland is attacked I think we would have the same moral obligation to help them.

What I object to is the political obligation to stand by other countries just because they're in the EU. That implies an alliance and it could have the potential to drag us into something that we have no business being dragged into. Poland's enemies are not our enemies.

oscarBravo

O'Morris wrote: »

I think we should come to the aid of our neighbours in the event of a terrorist attack.

...

Poland's enemies are not our enemies.

Poland isn't our neighbour?

The Corinthian

Ckal wrote: »

The EU is the biggest un-democratic pile of bull****, IMO of course. :P

Then you would support the EU becoming democratic, such as removing executive power from the commission and giving it to the European parliament, which is democratically elected.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If my next door neighbour is more likely to get burgled than me, does that make it OK for me to refuse to get involved in the neighbourhood watch scheme?

The reality is that the vast majority of Eurosceptics are in reality 'little islanders' who don't really view the rest of Europe as other than 'those foreign types'. They'll tell you that they oppose the EU because it's undemocratic or because it'll result in our being drafted into a European army and gods knows what, but if you press them long enough on such objections they'll eventually admit that it just comes down to not being the same as 'those foreign types'.

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

If Norway or Iceland is attacked I think we would have the same moral obligation to help them.
...
Poland's enemies are not our enemies.

So Norway and Iceland qualify as neighbours, but Poland does not? How does that work?

O'Morris

oscarBravo wrote:

Poland isn't our neighbour?

No, it isn't. Look at the map, an entire continent separates us. Warsaw is over a thousand miles from Dublin.

And even if they were our neighbours that would still not mean we should enter into any formal alliance with them guaranteeing that we'll come to their aid if they're attacked.

The Corinthian wrote:

The reality is that the vast majority of Eurosceptics are in reality 'little islanders' who don't really view the rest of Europe as other than 'those foreign types'. They'll tell you that they oppose the EU because it's undemocratic or because it'll result in our being drafted into a European army and gods knows what, but if you press them long enough on such objections they'll eventually admit that it just comes down to not being the same as 'those foreign types'.

There's more to it than that. Eurosceptics are not anti-foreigner, they're pro-Irish. I love Europeans and I work with many of them. I just don't want to be governed by them. I don't want to be governed by Americans, Brazilians, British, Russians or Chinese either. I want to be governed by a democratically elected Irish government in Ireland. Most Irish people value our independence and our sovereignty and see them as an important part of our national identity. We don't want see any reason to sacrifice any more of that sovereignty to a foreign multinational body that does not and never will be able to claim our loyalty. I don't know why people such as yourself have such a hard time understanding that.

djpbarry wrote:

So Norway and Iceland qualify as neighbours, but Poland does not? How does that work?

I don't think they are our neighbours. They have as much right to be considered our neighbours as Poland does though. I think we have as much reason to come to their aid as we do to come to the aid of the Poles.

oscarBravo

O'Morris wrote: »

No, it isn't. Look at the map, an entire continent separates us. Warsaw is over a thousand miles from Dublin.

Oslo is 785 miles from Dublin; Reykjavik is 929. Is there a magic 1000-mile demarcation line that determines neighbourhood?

And even if they were our neighbours that would still not mean we should enter into any formal alliance with them guaranteeing that we'll come to their aid if they're attacked.

Why not? By the same token, why bother with a formal trade alliance? After all, we have a moral obligation to allow goods to move freely between us and our neighbouring countries. That should be enough, right?

There's more to it than that. Eurosceptics are not anti-foreigner, they're pro-Irish. I love Europeans and I work with many of them. I just don't want to be governed by them.

Good news: you're not, and you wouldn't have been had Lisbon been ratified. I don't know why people such as yourself have such a hard time understanding that.

thebman

The Corinthian wrote: »

The reality is that the vast majority of Eurosceptics are in reality 'little islanders' who don't really view the rest of Europe as other than 'those foreign types'. They'll tell you that they oppose the EU because it's undemocratic or because it'll result in our being drafted into a European army and gods knows what, but if you press them long enough on such objections they'll eventually admit that it just comes down to not being the same as 'those foreign types'.

Total nonsense TBH.

Any evidence to back this up?

I'm pro Europe but you can be damn sure I'll analyse everything that comes from Europe to see if there is anything dodgy in it that I should be against.

They are politicians after all and that is at the heart of the matter for me. I don't trust Irish politicians, I think whatever power we can hand over to Brussels the better in a lot of ways especially with regard to regulatory bodies. I'd much prefer single regulatory bodies over areas such as broadband and consumer affairs etc... if at all possible. I believe it keeps them more honest because there are more people watching them. Take as much of that power away from government as possible I say. If the politician's I know are this bad, it is going to be very hard for me to trust the politicians I don't know.

I think we should come to the defense of other members of the union if they are wrongfully attacked. I don't believe we should have to assume they are always in the right just because we are in a union with them. Do we have to defend a nation if they get attacked after they do something that damages the non-member state either financially or otherwise. What if they do something most would consider unethical although not violent toward a non-member state? Do we have to support them anyway? It would be nonsense to suggest we should IMO.

Anyway, even without anything on paper, it would pay us to come to the defense of another member state if we have economic ties with them would it not? We are going to have to help pay to rebuild their infastructure if the country is torn apart anyway similar to how we got money for infastructure projects from the EU so it actually pays us economically to defend them. We would have less trade with them if they had to rebuild their nation and it wouldn't be good for either nation.

I think it would not only pay us to defend them but it pays us more to defend them early as the longer we let them be attacked, the more rebuilding of infastructure that will be required.

oscarBravo

brim4brim wrote: »

Anyway, even without anything on paper, it would pay us to come to the defense of another member state if we have economic ties with them would it not?

See my earlier point: why bother with a formal trading bloc, since it's self-evidently in a country's interest to have free trade with other countries?

The Corinthian

O'Morris wrote: »

There's more to it than that. Eurosceptics are not anti-foreigner, they're pro-Irish.

Meaningless cliché.

I love Europeans and I work with many of them. I just don't want to be governed by them. I don't want to be governed by Americans, Brazilians, British, Russians or Chinese either. I want to be governed by a democratically elected Irish government in Ireland.

Enter the 'little islander'. You don't want us to be governed by 'those foreign types'. Unless they're from Northern Ireland, that is. We're culturally and ethnically homogeneous with them after all... oh wait...

brim4brim wrote: »

Any evidence to back this up?

O'Morris was kind enough to supply some.

Don't get me wrong - I don't believe that all Eurosceptics are xenophobic 'little islanders' or that criticism of the EU implies this. Euroscepticism isn't simply valid criticism of the EU or Europe; it is a fundamental rejection of the idea of Europe as anything other than a geographical term.

However, in my experience, the vast majority Eurosceptics tend to boil down to people like O'Morris - they'll typically come out with economic or democratic arguments against EU integration, but the litmus test is that if you present solutions to these arguments they'll change tactic until they are forced to admit that it simply comes down to 'those foreign types'.

thebman

oscarBravo wrote: »

See my earlier point: why bother with a formal trading bloc, since it's self-evidently in a country's interest to have free trade with other countries?

Well I didn't say I was against an alliance, I'm just against an alliance that insists we defend actions even if we think they are unethical.

There should always be the option for us to consider that they were just wrong that dosen't involve leaving the union.

That would go against the reasons for an alliance in the first place. In other words, there should be a way for the other countries to kick an allicance member that is misbehaving out of the alliance so they don't have to defend them if they decide they'd like to tick off another neighbouring country. One member should not be allowed put the whole alliance at risk.

On the economics side of things there are safeguards in place for countries with cowboy economic policies.

I think some Irish people are afraid that this scenario might occur where one country near Russia would allow the US to put a missile defense system in their country which would p*ss off Russia who may then attack against this installation and I'm not sure whether most people would think that it is right to expect the alliance to jump to their defense when they knew there was a strong possiblity Russia might attack the installation but the member state allowed it to be built anyway.

CDfm

djpbarry wrote: »

Yeah, you're right. Why should we come to the aid of others when we have no history of terrorism in this country...

Oh, wait now...

the Treaty of Rome which Ireland signed in 1973 says that the EU member states are desirous of a closer union - so - if such an act gives expression to such a desire its part of the european project.

Thats not terrorism.

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

I want to be governed by a democratically elected Irish government in Ireland.

You are. Lisbon would not have changed that fact.

O'Morris wrote: »

I don't think they are our neighbours. They have as much right to be considered our neighbours as Poland does though. I think we have as much reason to come to their aid as we do to come to the aid of the Poles.

So we should assist other nations if necessary?

djpbarry

CDfm wrote: »

the Treaty of Rome which Ireland signed in 1973 says that the EU member states are desirous of a closer union - so - if such an act gives expression to such a desire its part of the european project.

Thats not terrorism.

I have absolutely no clue what you're saying here.

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

See my earlier point: why bother with a formal trading bloc, since it's self-evidently in a country's interest to have free trade with other countries?

It's not self-evident at all.

http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-trade/miscellaneous-retail-miscellaneous/4138812-1.html

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/RN/2002-03/03RN02.pdf

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-dumping.html

There are a crapload of links out there.

Free trade has had the effect of devastating a lot of less powerful country's economies.

That's why we need to be in a trade bloc.

suckslikeafox

suckslikeafox wrote: »

This is the first I've heard of the reports findings, so basically it paints all us no voters as slobbering idiots then?

yes.

CDfm

djpbarry wrote: »

I have absolutely no clue what you're saying here.

For those who are not familiar with the Treaty of Rome by which Ireland joined the EU in 1973 - the country signed up to an agreement which expressed a desire for a closer union.

While this wasnt expressly a military union - it doesnt take a superbrain to work out that a free trade (customs) union, and political union etc might some day lead to a military union of sorts.

To infer that this is someway terrorist or that anything concerning a military agreement of some sort within the EU framework is a surprise or wasnt known about since 1973 is to be deaf dumb and blind to the Union of States we joined in 1973 is misleading. Its there in black and white in the Treaty of Rome 1957 the founding document of the EU.

O'Morris

oscarBravo wrote:

Oslo is 785 miles from Dublin; Reykjavik is 929.

They're both closer to us than Warsaw. They have therefore as much claim to being our neighbours as the Poles have.

oscarBravo wrote:

Why not?

Because it could mean that we become needlessly entangled in other countries quarrels and thereby get on the wrong sides of the enemies of other EU member states.

There are signs of a confrontation up ahead between the Russians and the Poles over the decision of the Polish government to allow the Americans to build an anti-missile system in Poland. What obligation does the EU have to Poland under the current arrangements, and more importantly, what obligations would it have to Poland if the Lisbon Treaty had been ratified?

oscarBravo wrote:

By the same token, why bother with a formal trade alliance?

Because we benefit from a trade alliance with Europe. We don't benefit from a political alliance of a kind that would see us automatically coming to the defence of another EU member state in the event of a terrorist attack.

we have a moral obligation to allow goods to move freely between us and our neighbouring countries. That should be enough, right?

Absolutely. That's what eurosceptics like myself have been saying all along. Free-trade is enough. We should be making money not war.

Good news: you're not,

And long may it continue.

The Corinthian wrote:

Enter the 'little islander'. You don't want us to be governed by 'those foreign types'.

That's correct. I want us to govern ourselves.

djpbarry wrote:

So we should assist other nations if necessary?

Of course we should, as I've already said above in a previous post. If another country is the victim of an unprovoked terrorist attack then we should not hesitate to offer our help, as long what's asked of us is reasonable and doesn't involve us in any kind of military business. It should make no difference whether the country attacked is in the EU or on the other side of the world.

What I'm opposed to is the idea of us being obligated to helping other countries just because they're in the EU. I think that will add a political dimension to our assistance and might send the wrong kind of signal to the wrong kind of people.

Ckal

O'Morris wrote: »

Seconded.

Did you mean to say that you're not anti-EU.

Yeah, sorry! I forgot the NOT in there! I'll go back and edit that in.

djpbarry wrote: »

So, like so many other 'No' voters, your vote had very little to do with the content of the treaty.

I couldn't vote, I wasn't 18 at the time. And if I could, my vote would have been based on my opinions on the treaty, like the ones I explained in my post.

And I'm also fed up with people dishing crap at no voters. This isn't directed at you personally, it's directed at all yes voters - Why did you vote yes? What are YOUR reasons for voting yes? I'm just curious because it seems that the no voters are the ones who have to explain themselves.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Such as? Unlike the current situation, where we have... oh. Are you equally uneasy about the idea of other member states assisting us if we are the victim of an attack?

What's so unpalatable about the idea of helping your neighbours?

We are a neutral country. If we were to run to the UK or Germany with help after they've been hit by terrorist attacks then that doesn't look good for us. Neutral means we shouldn't help or support either of the two opposing sides. It should stay that way.

Scofflaw

brim4brim wrote: »

Well I didn't say I was against an alliance, I'm just against an alliance that insists we defend actions even if we think they are unethical.

There should always be the option for us to consider that they were just wrong that dosen't involve leaving the union.

That would go against the reasons for an alliance in the first place. In other words, there should be a way for the other countries to kick an allicance member that is misbehaving out of the alliance so they don't have to defend them if they decide they'd like to tick off another neighbouring country. One member should not be allowed put the whole alliance at risk.

On the economics side of things there are safeguards in place for countries with cowboy economic policies.

I think some Irish people are afraid that this scenario might occur where one country near Russia would allow the US to put a missile defense system in their country which would p*ss off Russia who may then attack against this installation and I'm not sure whether most people would think that it is right to expect the alliance to jump to their defense when they knew there was a strong possiblity Russia might attack the installation but the member state allowed it to be built anyway.

I don't think being attacked by Russia qualifies as a terrorist attack (or natural disaster). I think you'll find that in those circumstances the relevant obligations would be NATO ones.

We are a neutral country. If we were to run to the UK or Germany with help after they've been hit by terrorist attacks then that doesn't look good for us. Neutral means we shouldn't help or support either of the two opposing sides. It should stay that way.

Assistance to another country in the event of a terrorist attack doesn't compromise Irish neutrality. Neutrality would be compromised in the event that we became involved (on one side only) in a conflict between states.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ckal

Scofflaw wrote: »

Assistance to another country in the event of a terrorist attack doesn't compromise Irish neutrality. Neutrality would be compromised in the event that we became involved (on one side only) in a conflict between states.

Well, then the definition of 'neutral' has changed.

"not taking part or giving assistance in a dispute or war between others"
"not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy"

I guess sending Aid wouldn't compromise Neutrality, but anything further will and I'm not willing to vote on it.

Scofflaw

Ckal wrote: »

Well, then the definition of 'neutral' has changed.

"not taking part or giving assistance in a dispute or war between others"
"not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy"

I guess sending Aid wouldn't compromise Neutrality, but anything further will and I'm not willing to vote on it.

I think you'll find that the definition of neutral used in international law has not changed. Certainly the idea that neutrality is compromised by "supporting any side or position in a controversy" is utter twaddle. Are you suggesting that we should "stay out" of an EU-US trade dispute, for example?

regards,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

CDfm wrote: »

For those who are not familiar with the Treaty of Rome by which Ireland joined the EU in 1973 - the country signed up to an agreement which expressed a desire for a closer union.

While this wasnt expressly a military union - it doesnt take a superbrain to work out that a free trade (customs) union, and political union etc might some day lead to a military union of sorts.

To infer that this is someway terrorist...

Nope, sorry. Still not a clue what you're talking about. Who inferred that the EU "is someway terrorist"?

O'Morris wrote: »

If another country is the victim of an unprovoked terrorist attack then we should not hesitate to offer our help, as long what's asked of us is reasonable and doesn't involve us in any kind of military business.

As far as I recall, the form of aid is not specified in the Lisbon treaty. It is up to the member states to decide on appropriate action.

Ckal wrote: »

I couldn't vote, I wasn't 18 at the time. And if I could, my vote would have been based on my opinions on the treaty, like the ones I explained in my post.

You mentioned that you were opposed to Lisbon because it created an EU president. This is incorrect, as the position already exists. You also mentioned that you are opposed to assisting victims of terrorist attacks. Given the history of this island, I find your position incredibly difficult to understand.

Ckal wrote: »

And I'm also fed up with people dishing crap at no voters. This isn't directed at you personally, it's directed at all yes voters - Why did you vote yes?

There have been numerous reasons for voting ‘Yes’ that have been listed on this forum; sink provides a pretty good list here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56206650&postcount=303

Ckal wrote: »

We are a neutral country. If we were to run to the UK or Germany with help after they've been hit by terrorist attacks then that doesn't look good for us.

I would say precisely the opposite is true; if we refuse to assist others when our help is needed, we can hardly expect assistance ourselves, should it ever be required.

I don’t understand why ‘neutral’ has become such a sacred position in this country.

CDfm

djpbarry wrote: »

Nope, sorry. Still not a clue what you're talking about. Who inferred that the EU "is someway terrorist"?


I don’t understand why ‘neutral’ has become such a sacred position in this country.

AS I recall it was you who used the word terrorist. Maybe you were being ironic.

Irelands neutral stance was all wrapped up with independence and unresolved NI issues in the north.Independence was new.

The Lisbon Treaty gives an expression to some of the original objectives - when the EU was concieved in the aftermath of WWII it was inconcieveable that say Italy and Germany would be part of a military alliance as such. So the objectives became economic and political.

So this is an aspect of the debate which for some is very important and new.It is probably more widespread than people imagine.

Though I dont agree with it - nonetheless it is their right to be heard because we are a democracy.

djpbarry

CDfm wrote: »

AS I recall it was you who used the word terrorist.

Actually, the first mention of terrorism was here.

I have no idea how you interpreted my post on the subject, but basically what I am saying is that Ireland has had a rather bigger problem with terrorism in the recent past than most other EU nations. With this in mind, I find it rather strange (and quite selfish, to be honest) that people object to the idea of Ireland coming to the aid of victims of a terrorist attack.

CDfm

I dont think anyone has problems with aiding victims of terrorist attacks.

The new definition of terrorism is that we may be targeted by providing aid to victims of say Arab terrorists.

Thems the breaks.

Ckal

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think you'll find that the definition of neutral used in international law has not changed. Certainly the idea that neutrality is compromised by "supporting any side or position in a controversy" is utter twaddle. Are you suggesting that we should "stay out" of an EU-US trade dispute, for example?

regards,
Scofflaw

Neutral means neutral. If the Government insists of keeping Ireland neutral then they should stick to it.

djpbarry wrote: »

You mentioned that you were opposed to Lisbon because it created an EU president. This is incorrect, as the position already exists. You also mentioned that you are opposed to assisting victims of terrorist attacks. Given the history of this island, I find your position incredibly difficult to understand.

I know there is a rotating presidency. And I typed the wrong thing. I meant this: "The Lisbon treaty replaces this system with an elected President by the European council for a two and a half year term." < thanks to the link below.

It's not my problem if you don't understand it. Everybody else I know who supports and opposes the treaty understands it. AID IS FINE.

djpbarry wrote: »

There have been numerous reasons for voting ‘Yes’ that have been listed on this forum; sink provides a pretty good list here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56206650&postcount=303

Yes, that is a good list. But when I'm in a group of people, I'm sick of getting a bollocking because I said I'd vote no. It seems Yes voters didn't get the result they wanted so they get pissy over it. It's not the No voters problem. Ireland is a democratic nation. And the people have spoken. Get over it.

djpbarry wrote: »

I would say precisely the opposite is true; if we refuse to assist others when our help is needed, we can hardly expect assistance ourselves, should it ever be required.

I don’t understand why ‘neutral’ has become such a sacred position in this country.

Fair enough. But the Irish neutrality is already compromised because of Shannon. Any more supporting one side then we are not neutral. Do you want to be a victim of a suicide bomb on the DART or Luas? As humorous as it may sound, it can very well happen.

Like I said, Aid would be fine. But anything further would not.

djpbarry

Ckal wrote: »

Neutral means neutral.

And what does that mean exactly?

Ckal wrote: »

I know there is a rotating presidency. And I typed the wrong thing. I meant this: "The Lisbon treaty replaces this system with an elected President by the European council for a two and a half year term."

Were you not complaining earlier that the EU is undemocratic? Surely an elected president would make the EU more democratic? This hardly seems like a reason for you to vote 'No'.

Ckal wrote: »

It's not my problem if you don't understand it. Everybody else I know who supports and opposes the treaty understands it. AID IS FINE.

So it is ok to assist the victims of terrorism?

Ckal wrote: »

But when I'm in a group of people, I'm sick of getting a bollocking because I said I'd vote no.

'Yes' voters do not complain because people voted no. 'Yes' voters, like myself, complain because most 'No' voters are unable to offer valid reasons for voting as they did.

Ckal wrote: »

It seems Yes voters didn't get the result they wanted so they get pissy over it. It's not the No voters problem.

Actually, it's everyone's problem. The EU cannot move forward until the current impasse is resolved, so nobody can "get over it" until 'No' voters decide why it is they voted 'No' in the first place, at which point those concerns can be addressed.

Ckal wrote: »

But the Irish neutrality is already compromised because of Shannon.

Indeed it is, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the Lisbon treaty?

Ckal wrote: »

Any more supporting one side then we are not neutral. Do you want to be a victim of a suicide bomb on the DART or Luas? As humorous as it may sound, it can very well happen.

It might, but I'd say the chances are pretty slim and, as such, it shan't figure in my consideration of which form of transport I use in getting from A to B.

Once again, I hardly think the likelihood of terrorist attacks will increase if we vote 'Yes' to Lisbon.

O'Morris

Ckal wrote:

And I'm also fed up with people dishing crap at no voters. This isn't directed at you personally, it's directed at all yes voters - Why did you vote yes?

I can't speak for the yes voters but I think the single biggest reason for them voting yes had little to do with the contents of the treaty and had more to do with the likely political reaction to an Irish no vote from the rest of Europe. I think people on the no side were far more likely to vote directly on the contents of the treaty while people on the other side were more prepared to vote on trust.

djpbarry wrote:

You mentioned that you were opposed to Lisbon because it created an EU president. This is incorrect, as the position already exists.

No it doesn't. The current position is a presidency of the EU, rotated between the different member states. It has nothing like the permanent institutional character that the Lisbon Treaty would have given the position.

What's proposed in the Lisbon Treaty is a dedicated role for a single individual. I think that's vastly different from what we have now. Hardcore 'little islanders' like myself look on it as one giant leap in the direction of a United States of Europe.

djpbarry wrote:

There have been numerous reasons for voting ‘Yes’

There are also numerous reasons for voting no.

Of the reasons given for voting yes, which ones did you personally find the most persuasive?

djpbarry wrote:

if we refuse to assist others when our help is needed, we can hardly expect assistance ourselves, should it ever be required.

Exactly, that's why it makes sense for us to help other countries when they have been attacked. If we don't help the Norwegians when they have been attacked then we can hardly expect them to help us if we're attacked.

djpbarry wrote:

'Yes' voters do not complain because people voted no. 'Yes' voters, like myself, complain because most 'No' voters are unable to offer valid reasons for voting as they did.

What do you mean most no voters are unable to offer valid reasons? We do nothing but offer valid reasons. There are countless threads on this forum where we've offered valid reasons for why we voted no. If the other side spent as much time giving valid reasons for why they voted yes maybe we might have some balance.

djpbarry wrote:

The EU cannot move forward until the current impasse is resolved

It seems to have managed alright over the last few months.

The Corinthian

O'Morris wrote: »

That's correct. I want us to govern ourselves.

Of course we want to govern ourselves - it's your definition of ourselves that is so provincial. To begin with you would claim that foreigners are not culturally heterogeneous enough to share government with us, yet your irredentist ideals would see you wanting to share with another group who are not culturally heterogeneous either - just north of the border (and please don't try selling me the BS that either of the two communities up there are just like us southerners).

The little islander approach, has nothing to do with governing oneself. It is a provincial, nationalistic approach to nationhood that fails to evolve. You see it with the British Bulldog mentality of the UKIP, or with your own vision which is caught in a 1916 time warp. It's petty tribalism wrapped in a flag.

I respect disagreement on Europe based upon real and strategic issues, but not when it is rejected on a blind nationalist basis alone; which is essentially your position. It's as if you want to see comely maidens dancing at the crossroads in the age of the Internet. Time to wake up and smell the espresso.