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
[Article] Why the Irish Voted No - The Economist
Options
Comments
-
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.
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
Well then I need a full definition of what they consider terrorism since they'll just use it for whatever suits.
Is it anyone that opposes the EU? Will we be getting an EU version of the Patriot act? Will they monitor all our movements invading our rights just in case we do something wrong not the basis that we should have nothing to hide?
I think Britain has crossed a number of these lines already.0 -
Depends on why you oppose it. For example, you interview two people for a job; one white, one black. You give the job to the white person. If you did so because they were better qualified, then that is acceptable. If it is on the basis of race, then it is not.Is it anyone that opposes the EU? Will we be getting an EU version of the Patriot act?
Similarly, if you criticise the EU, then it should be for valid reasons - and there are plenty of them out there. If your objections are based upon xenophobia (which is irrational), then this is not acceptable.
However, as with the example of the job (where no employer will admit to race being a factor), no one will admit to xenophobia as a rational to opposing EU integration (indeed many will confuse the term with racism). This is why in many debates on the issue you'll get prolonged FUD arguments, that when dissected will eventually result in the Euroscpetic giving up on them and simply admitting that they just don't like/trust foreigners.
From experience it takes a while to get them to admit this though, because they know they'll have lost the support of the audience the moment they do so.0 -
Did The Economist mention the role of the church?
Seems we're all priest ridden again.0 -
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.
Ireland has not had a bigger problem with terrorism (though the worst atrocity of the Troubles happened in Dublin/Monaghan). The honour of having a very large terrorism problem would go to Northern Ireland, which politically is part of the United Kingdom. And politics is what we are talking about here.
However, we are probably in a very good position to understand how and what terrorism is and be able to decide who the victims are.
btw, didn't we have a national day of mourning for 9/11 - one of the few European countries to hold one. Don't remember anyone actually claiming that we were compromising our 'neutrality' doing that.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
The Corinthian wrote: »Depends on why you oppose it. For example, you interview two people for a job; one white, one black. You give the job to the white person. If you did so because they were better qualified, then that is acceptable. If it is on the basis of race, then it is not.
Similarly, if you criticise the EU, then it should be for valid reasons - and there are plenty of them out there. If your objections are based upon xenophobia (which is irrational), then this is not acceptable.
However, as with the example of the job (where no employer will admit to race being a factor), no one will admit to xenophobia as a rational to opposing EU integration (indeed many will confuse the term with racism). This is why in many debates on the issue you'll get prolonged FUD arguments, that when dissected will eventually result in the Euroscpetic giving up on them and simply admitting that they just don't like/trust foreigners.
From experience it takes a while to get them to admit this though, because they know they'll have lost the support of the audience the moment they do so.
Since I was stupid enough to vote yes to the Nice Treaty. I have been screwed over so many times by employers who now don't need irish workers because they can very easily exploit foreign workers and get them to work for half the price. Moore MacDowell was rte 1 radio(last sunday week on Tom mcGurks show) and said straight out it was okay to expliot foreign workers. Unfortunately I think he represents the attiude of most white collar and public sector workers who dont give a ****e about anyone else. I can safely say there is no prospect for anyone in the private sector to earn a proper wage.
This article is propaganda, it mirrors the government press release. Let me ask the YES voters a question. Why did you vote yes? Ireland is going to be a net contributer to the EU in the next few years and if you include all the fish taken from Irish waters the EU has got more out of us.0 -
It's the Shannon stopover flights that make me laugh at the whole European army scaremongering. Has Libertas been campaigning against those?thehighground wrote: »btw, didn't we have a national day of mourning for 9/11 - one of the few European countries to hold one. Don't remember anyone actually claiming that we were compromising our 'neutrality' doing that.
To return to your example of companies exploiting cheap foreign labour, you need to ask what for. The reality of the EU is that the vast majority of our commerce is as a direct result of being a member of the common market, which has removed the barriers, not only on simple trade, but the movement of capital and services and even labour. The Celtic Tiger was as a result of that membership - no one in their right mind would suggest that we would have had such economic growth had we retained the same protectionist policies that saw one in five unemployed. So in short, you might not have any cheap foreigner taking 'your' job, in such an economy, but then again, the job would not be there for you either.This article is propaganda, it mirrors the government press release. Let me ask the YES voters a question. Why did you vote yes? Ireland is going to be a net contributer to the EU in the next few years and if you include all the fish taken from Irish waters the EU has got more out of us.
On the topic of fishing rights however, we sold them out so we could get a better deal for the farmers. That's right, we sold them and got something in return. The farmers have more clout in Lenster house than the Fishermen, and so we managed to favour one group to the detriment of another all on our own.
Bottom line is there's no such thing as a free lunch. Ireland did well when we needed to develop our economy and so there will always be a price to pay. The question is on whether that price is worth it and if not how to remedy it - and for that we've been very capable in cutting deals to our advantage.
Thinking that there's no quid pro quo in any trade is frankly delusion. Or the philosophy of a conman.0 -
And what does that mean exactly?
How many times do I have to quote the dictionary?
From what I saw on a YES leaflet, the president of the EU will be appointed by each head of state and that president will choose their own commissioners. The people of Europe don't get a say. Therefore, it's not democratic for the people of Europe.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'.So it is ok to assist the victims of terrorism?
Aid is ok.'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.
I don't know how many times we have to give you people valid reasons. Time after time, I give my reasons for NO while I listen to people's reasons why they voted YES. This then leads to me being bollocked, even after I politely accepted their reasons for YES vote.
This whole thing about people voting no because they didn't know what it was about is complete bull**** made up by the Government and YES voters because they couldn't accept the fact that NO MEANS NO.I don't trust opinion polls and I never will. The amount of **** in those polls is astonishing. And I feel sorry for the people who believe them.
And also, I know a very large number of people who voted YES based on the fact that FF were Lisbon supporters. It makes you think, really.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.
Why does the EU need to move forward though? This treaty is good for super powers like Germany and the UK, but the Irish, the Czechs, the Dutch etc. don't benefit from it. We rejected it, the Dutch initially rejected it (as did the French), and the Czechs are in a toss-up over it. All because they don't know what it's about? I don't think so.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.
A slim chance is still a chance. Small it may be, but it can happen. And if Lisbon is ratified and this does happen, then you'll all be wondering why this happened. And a big I-told-you-so will be coming to YES voters way.0 -
Since I was stupid enough to vote yes to the Nice Treaty. I have been screwed over so many times by employers who now don't need irish workers because they can very easily exploit foreign workers and get them to work for half the price. Moore MacDowell was rte 1 radio(last sunday week on Tom mcGurks show) and said straight out it was okay to expliot foreign workers. Unfortunately I think he represents the attiude of most white collar and public sector workers who dont give a ****e about anyone else. I can safely say there is no prospect for anyone in the private sector to earn a proper wage.
Hey, just because you were stupid enough to vote yes to Nice don't blame us public sector workers. All my public service friends and myself foresaw the race to the bottom that cheap Eastern European labour meant and voted against it. The employers weren't bringing in cheap labour for our good you know.
But what do we know, we butchered the Celtic Tiger!0 -
The Corinthian wrote:Of course we want to govern ourselves - it's your definition of ourselves that is so provincial.
It's not provincial, it's national. My definition of ourselves is a national one. You probably look on Ireland as being nothing more than a province of Europe but I think most of rest of us still look on it as a nation.The Corinthian wrote:To begin with you would claim that foreigners are not culturally heterogeneous enough to share government with us
I don't think I've ever claimed any such thing. My objection to being governed by foreigners is not that they're foreign. My objection is that they're not Irish citizens with the best interests of the Irish people in mind. That's what self-government means. I don't look on English people as being culturally foreign to us but I don't want to be governed by them. I would have a hard time looking on Welsh, Scottish, Australian or New Zealand people as foreigners either but I don't want to be governed by them anymore than I would want to governed by the Chinese. I want to be governed by an Irish government, democratically elected by the Irish people and accountable to those Irish people. It doesn't mean either that I would object to being governed by a foreigner in this country. As long as they're an Irish citizen and they're elected by fellow Irish citizens then I wouldn't have a problem with that.The Corinthian wrote:yet your irredentist ideals would see you wanting to share with another group who are not culturally heterogeneous either - just north of the border
I don't want to have to share power with the orangemen. They make up only a sixth of the total Irish population. We can afford to give them a disproportionate amount of power and influence in a united Ireland without having to worry about them dominating us in the way we have to worry about the Germans, French or British dominating us in a united Europe.The Corinthian wrote:and please don't try selling me the BS that either of the two communities up there are just like us southerners
Ireland is one country and the nationalists are one people with the southerners. Orangemen are far more similar to southerners than the French or Italians or Austrians or Finns are to southerners. I would even say they're as similar to southerners as northern Englishmen are to southern Englishmen or northern Italians are to southern Italians.The Corinthian wrote:The little islander approach, has nothing to do with governing oneself.
Yes it does. Your response to me saying that I would like to us to govern ourselves was to label me a little islander and so you evidently seem to believe that the two things are connected. Maybe I'm wrong but I think you consider anyone who would prefer to be governed from their own country's capital city to be a xenophobic, little-islander. Am I right?The Corinthian wrote:It is a provincial, nationalistic approach to nationhood that fails to evolve.
I don't see why it needs to evolve. I think we can have all the benefits of European co-operation without having to become one country with Europe. I can't think of anything that a coalition of independent nation states acting together can't achieve that a federal multinational state could achieve. There's nothing stopping such a coalition from having a common energy policy, environmental policy or health policy if they wanted to. They could even have a common defence policy and a common foreign policy if they wanted that. National independence does not mean that we can't co-operate or that we have to go it on our own on every single issue. It just means that ultimate sovereignty and the power of veto rests in the national government that is representative of and has the loyalty of the people it governs.
The real force behind the drive to a United States of Europe as I can see is an irrational and emotional one. It's because it gives liberal-minded people a nice warm feeling inside to think that we're all one big happy family now and we're so much more evolved than we were a century ago.The Corinthian wrote:You see it with the British Bulldog mentality of the UKIP, or with your own vision which is caught in a 1916 time warp.
I think the 1916 rising was a tragic mistake and I've never had anything to do with republicanism. I'm a pro-British unionist and I want to see all of Ireland back in the commonwealth and a constitutional recognition given to the British monarch. The fact that you have such a black and white view of the EU debate I think says a lot about how narrow-minded the pro-EU side can be. I get the impression that you see the people of this country as made up of either good Europeans on one side or xenophobic little-islanders on the other side, without any shade of grey in between. It's not all that different to the way republicans lazily dismiss anyone who doesn't share their views as unionists.
And you make it sound as though I'm in a minority of the population when I think we both know that's not the case. I think it's obvious at this stage that if a poll was to be taken most Irish people would side with me in preferring to live in an independent Ireland rather than being governed from Brussels.The Corinthian wrote: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.
I respect your position even though I know it's as fundamentally as irrational and emotional as mine is. I want to live in a country called Ireland, you want to live in a country called Europe. We both feel a strong emotional attachment to our respective countries and so we should be able to at least partly respect each others views.The Corinthian wrote:It's as if you want to see comely maidens dancing at the crossroads
It would really brighten up my day if I saw that.The Corinthian wrote:From experience it takes a while to get them to admit this though, because they know they'll have lost the support of the audience the moment they do so.
Just so I'm clear about what you mean by xenophobia, can you confirm that you consider anyone who wants to preserve the independence of their country to be a xenophobe?0 -
Advertisement
-
I think it's gas the way the yes people give out to no voters about our xenophobia and then turn around and give out about that Brit Ganley and his Brit UKIP mates interfering in Irish politics.0
-
Not on the evidence of this website.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.
Could you describe this "permanent institutional character"? Or is that just more meaningless rhetoric?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.
How so?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.
Such as? Give me one, with specific reference to the treaty.There are also numerous reasons for voting no.
I'll narrow it down to three:Of the reasons given for voting yes, which ones did you personally find the most persuasive?- More power for the EU parliament.
- Greater co-operation in justice and policing.
- Greater EU competency for energy and environmental policy.
Fair enough.Exactly, that's why it makes sense for us to help other countries when they have been attacked.
In general, that is not true. You yourself have admitted that your opposition to the EU (not just the Lisbon Treaty) is grounded in irrational nationalism. That's not a valid reason.What do you mean most no voters are unable to offer valid reasons? We do nothing but offer valid reasons.
Has it? Everyone’s just forgotten about the treaty and moved on, have they?It seems to have managed alright over the last few months.0 -
I can safely say you're having a laugh.I can safely say there is no prospect for anyone in the private sector to earn a proper wage.
Don't hold your breath.Ireland is going to be a net contributer to the EU in the next few years...
Done to death. The value of Irish fisheries has been greatly over-exaggerated....and if you include all the fish taken from Irish waters the EU has got more out of us.0 -
I don’t know, but I’m not looking for a literal definition. My question was, what does it mean for Ireland to be neutral? Do we have to remain on the fence with regard to every single dispute? Because that doesn’t sound terribly productive.How many times do I have to quote the dictionary?
Well, I can assure you that is quite inaccurate. Dare I say you read that on a ‘No’ leaflet?From what I saw on a YES leaflet, the president of the EU will be appointed by each head of state and that president will choose their own commissioners.
So how should the EU president be elected?The people of Europe don't get a say. Therefore, it's not democratic for the people of Europe.
So you’ve done a u-turn on one of your reasons for voting ‘No’?Aid is ok.
The two reasons you’ve given on this thread are not exactly solid.I don't know how many times we have to give you people valid reasons.
Really? Because you seem to have gotten the wrong end of the stick with regard to the EU president.This whole thing about people voting no because they didn't know what it was about is complete bull****...
And that’s all it boils down to, isn’t it? Stickin’ it to the man. The treaty isn’t important, it’s all about giving Sarkozy and co. the finger....they couldn't accept the fact that NO MEANS NO.
Really? How so?Why does the EU need to move forward though? This treaty is good for super powers like Germany and the UK, but the Irish, the Czechs, the Dutch etc. don't benefit from it.
Conspiracy theories is this way.A slim chance is still a chance. Small it may be, but it can happen. And if Lisbon is ratified and this does happen, then you'll all be wondering why this happened.0 -
You are. Political co-operation between ourselves and our neighbours does not change that.I want to be governed by an Irish government, democratically elected by the Irish people and accountable to those Irish people.
Forgive my language, but that is a great big pile of steaming horse****. Is Ireland a single homogenous group of people with the same attitudes, beliefs and values? The evidence of this website would certainly suggest otherwise. To suggest that people are all nice and neatly divided along the lines of nationality is absolutely preposterous.Ireland is one country and the nationalists are one people with the southerners. Orangemen are far more similar to southerners than the French or Italians or Austrians or Finns are to southerners. I would even say they're as similar to southerners as northern Englishmen are to southern Englishmen or northern Italians are to southern Italians.
Hmmm. That was all proposed in some sort of “treaty” recently. Oh, what was it called....I can't think of anything that a coalition of independent nation states acting together can't achieve that a federal multinational state could achieve. There's nothing stopping such a coalition from having a common energy policy, environmental policy...
...
They could even have a common defence policy and a common foreign policy if they wanted that.
You want Ireland to have a monarch, but you’re opposed to the idea of an EU president? Seriously?I'm a pro-British unionist and I want to see all of Ireland back in the commonwealth and a constitutional recognition given to the British monarch.
Oh, I think we can safely say you are. I think you’re unlikely to find much support for your constitutional role for Lizzy in these parts.And you make it sound as though I'm in a minority of the population when I think we both know that's not the case.
Which is the current state of affairs. Hurrah.I think it's obvious at this stage that if a poll was to be taken most Irish people would side with me in preferring to live in an independent Ireland rather than being governed from Brussels.
Now I must have overlooked this part of the treaty...I want to live in a country called Ireland, you want to live in a country called Europe.0 -
Oh ffs. I've given up. There is no point trying to post with you lot. Shall we agree to disagree? :rolleyes:0
-
-
What is a nation though? The term has evolved over the centuries to the point that it has become almost meaningless. After all, look at how nations are 'made' - there are no real rules to this. They are often multi-ethnic or simply based upon political circumstances.It's not provincial, it's national. My definition of ourselves is a national one. You probably look on Ireland as being nothing more than a province of Europe but I think most of rest of us still look on it as a nation.
Provincial denotes when one's perspective is limited to their little corner of the World. As the definitions of this corner and of a nation evolve, so does the implication of provincial. Only a few centuries ago a Florentine would have considered himself the citizen of a city state - that was his 'nation'. Even in Ireland, we were divided into separate kingdom nations. By the mid-nineteenth century the definition of nation in many places had moved on and anyone clinging to these views would have been considered provincial.
But no one is suggesting that we should be governed by 'foreigners'. It's like suggesting that the Dail should only be composed of Dubliners, who would in turn govern the rest of Ireland. Add to this that no one is suggesting any form of centralization - indeed Ireland allows far less self-government at a local level than the EU has ever suggested, or is practiced in most EU states.I don't think I've ever claimed any such thing. My objection to being governed by foreigners is not that they're foreign. My objection is that they're not Irish citizens with the best interests of the Irish people in mind. That's what self-government means.
That's what self-government means.
So it's all right for us to dominate another group, but not for someone else to dominate us? Aren't you being just a tad hypocritical?I don't want to have to share power with the orangemen. They make up only a sixth of the total Irish population. We can afford to give them a disproportionate amount of power and influence in a united Ireland without having to worry about them dominating us in the way we have to worry about the Germans, French or British dominating us in a united Europe.
Also, Dublin has often been accused of 'dominating' Irish politics, by dint of population and voting power. Is this wrong? Or is it OK because of your magic definition of nationhood?
I don't think so and quite a few other Irishmen would agree with me. Sure, they're similar, but so are the Scots or Welsh or English on much the same level.Ireland is one country and the nationalists are one people with the southerners.
As I've already explained, you have a limited grasp of what nationhood, let alone self-government actually mean. You are a little-islander because you have a provincial view of what nationhood means and you are xenophobic, because your fear of foreigners have allowed you to believe that we will loose all self-government.Yes it does. Your response to me saying that I would like to us to govern ourselves was to label me a little islander and so you evidently seem to believe that the two things are connected. Maybe I'm wrong but I think you consider anyone who would prefer to be governed from their own country's capital city to be a xenophobic, little-islander. Am I right?
Tell that to the brontosaurus.I don't see why it needs to evolve.
Societies must evolve to survive. If you don't believe me I suggest you look at what happened to a stagnant China by 1900. They were convinced they had it all figured out too.
It may not be ultimately a good idea, but I think you almost hit the nail on the head when you admitted that you "can't think of anything" - in reality you "won't think of anything" because you have already ruled out that option before considering if it is a good idea on balance or not.I think we can have all the benefits of European co-operation without having to become one country with Europe. I can't think of anything that a coalition of independent nation states acting together can't achieve that a federal multinational state could achieve.
That is the nature of blindly following nationalistic ideals - you can't ask certain questions.
As opposed to your own irredentist ideals?The real force behind the drive to a United States of Europe as I can see is an irrational and emotional one.
Actually I don't - I already explained that earlier in this thread. If you wish to reject that explanation, feel free to do so.I get the impression that you see the people of this country as made up of either good Europeans on one side or xenophobic little-islanders on the other side, without any shade of grey in between. It's not all that different to the way republicans lazily dismiss anyone who doesn't share their views as unionists.
Don't delude yourself. A no vote to Lisbon no more means that everyone's turned Eurosceptic any more than a yes vote would have meant that we all want to become a federation.And you make it sound as though I'm in a minority of the population when I think we both know that's not the case. I think it's obvious at this stage that if a poll was to be taken most Irish people would side with me in preferring to live in an independent Ireland rather than being governed from Brussels.
I think you'd have to point out why it is irrational and emotional before making such a claim, just as I have pointed this out in your case.I respect your position even though I know it's as fundamentally as irrational and emotional as mine is.
Buy a time machine then.It would really brighten up my day if I saw that.
No, you're not clear on xenophobia. Why don't you look it up. Better still; read a book.Just so I'm clear about what you mean by xenophobia, can you confirm that you consider anyone who wants to preserve the independence of their country to be a xenophobe?0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »It's the Shannon stopover flights that make me laugh at the whole European army scaremongering. Has Libertas been campaigning against those?
To return to your example of companies exploiting cheap foreign labour, you need to ask what for. The reality of the EU is that the vast majority of our commerce is as a direct result of being a member of the common market, which has removed the barriers, not only on simple trade, but the movement of capital and services and even labour. The Celtic Tiger was as a result of that membership - no one in their right mind would suggest that we would have had such economic growth had we retained the same protectionist policies that saw one in five unemployed. So in short, you might not have any cheap foreigner taking 'your' job, in such an economy, but then again, the job would not be there for you either.
On the topic of fishing rights however, we sold them out so we could get a better deal for the farmers. That's right, we sold them and got something in return. The farmers have more clout in Lenster house than the Fishermen, and so we managed to favour one group to the detriment of another all on our own.
Bottom line is there's no such thing as a free lunch. Ireland did well when we needed to develop our economy and so there will always be a price to pay. The question is on whether that price is worth it and if not how to remedy it - and for that we've been very capable in cutting deals to our advantage.
Thinking that there's no quid pro quo in any trade is frankly delusion. Or the philosophy of a conman.
The Celtic Tiger was a result of or membership of the EU. Partly, most of our exports still go to the USA and Britian. But we where members of the EU since 1973 and since the worst Depression in recent times happpened from 1980 to 1990 when we where members of the EU. The EU partly should get some of the blame for this as well. The EU is just a economic alliance and is becoming more and more an Politial Union of all the states.
I went to see Brian Crowley speak about the Lisbon Treaty. I was shocked to hear his attiude towards Russia on the situation in South Ossetia. He was taking a very anti Russian stance and more or less impiling the EU should bully Russia into excepting Georgia's position. As far as I am concerned the Georgian government was completly out of line and thier sinister use of the EU flag during the conflict. Now I am sorry but it is none of our business what happens to Georgia if they try and steal land from Russia. In fact we should be taking Russia's side as far as I am concerned. Georgia was clearly in the wrong. Germany and France backed Russia. while the brits and the old eastern bloc backed Georgia.
I think the Brits backed Georgia out thier own interests(their land grap with Bush in Iraq) and the eastern bloc to settle old scores. Now how in Gods name is the EU going to come up with a common foreign policy.
Well if the Brits have there way they could use us for connon fodder against the Russian badies(as seen in Rocky 4). Good ole FF MEP's will be cheerleading.
Anyone who would vote YES in a traitor. Our elected leaders have sold us down the drain for a few scraps on the table,0 -
Explain? I earn about 40k if I want to buy a house it should be 3 times my earning about 120k. If there is a house for under 400k in this country that isn't a glorified shoebox I would like to see it.I can safely say you're having a laugh.
Don't hold your breath.
Done to death. The value of Irish fisheries has been greatly over-exaggerated.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think you misunderstood what I wrote. The Celtic Tiger was not simply the result of EU membership, but it would not have happened without that membership. It also would not have happened without the economic polices that were persued from the late eighties either - EU membership is not a magic wand that will solve a country's economic woes; it is membership within a market that can solve those woes if your country gets its shìts together. That's why countries such as Poland and the Czech Republic have benifited far more than Romania or Bulgaria.The Celtic Tiger was a result of or membership of the EU. Partly, most of our exports still go to the USA and Britian. But we where members of the EU since 1973 and since the worst Depression in recent times happpened from 1980 to 1990 when we where members of the EU. The EU partly should get some of the blame for this as well.
TBH, if anything this indicates that the EU is not a cohesive political superstate and that Ireland is still influenced politically more from Washington than Brussels.I went to see Brian Crowley speak about the Lisbon Treaty. I was shocked to hear his attiude towards Russia on the situation in South Ossetia. He was taking a very anti Russian stance and more or less impiling the EU should bully Russia into excepting Georgia's position. As far as I am concerned the Georgian government was completly out of line and thier sinister use of the EU flag during the conflict. Now I am sorry but it is none of our business what happens to Georgia if they try and steal land from Russia. In fact we should be taking Russia's side as far as I am concerned. Georgia was clearly in the wrong. Germany and France backed Russia. while the brits and the old eastern bloc backed Georgia.
Do you actually know exactly how we have been "sold down the drain" or, for that matter, what continues those "few scraps on the table" or are you simply coming out with emotionally fuelled opinion, given your use of terms such as "traitor"?Anyone who would vote YES in a traitor. Our elected leaders have sold us down the drain for a few scraps on the table,
Please try sticking to the facts. You'll earn the respect of your peers if you do.0 -
You can't really blame the EU for the housing market. Ireland pursued a policy of low taxation (by EU standards), following more the Anglo-Saxon economic model than the high-tax, social model used in the majority of the EU. This naturally resulted in a more Darwinistic (or meritocratic, if you prefer) system where wealth began to be distributed less evenly than before.Explain? I earn about 40k if I want to buy a house it should be 3 times my earning about 120k. If there is a house for under 400k in this country that isn't a glorified shoebox I would like to see it.
It is important to note that this has nothing to do with the EU and if anything is at odds with most member states.
Secondly we had a housing boom. Greater overall wealth fuelled this. So did the cultural need to own a house (Ireland has a high degree of home ownership historically). Then enter the speculators and developers and prices rocketed to levels that we were all to willing and, in many cases, able to pay. The result is that anything over a shoebox will set you back at least 400k.
It is important to note that this also has nothing to do with the EU and if anything is at odds with most member states.
I think it is important to focus on what the real issues are when discussing economic problems, otherwise it is too easy to come up with scapegoats; be they foreign labour, the EU, Islam, the US or whoever we want to blame without really knowing why.0 -
Actually, the liberalization of movement of capital within EU member states did increase the level of cheap credit available, thus further fulling price rises.
You definitely can say that the EU had a hand in that side of things there, although attributing principle blame would be a bit of a stretch.0 -
Well then I need a full definition of what they consider terrorism since they'll just use it for whatever suits.
Is it anyone that opposes the EU? Will we be getting an EU version of the Patriot act? Will they monitor all our movements invading our rights just in case we do something wrong not the basis that we should have nothing to hide?
I think Britain has crossed a number of these lines already.
Britain has indeed - for example, it used its terrorism legislation to sequester the funds of Icelandic banks.
However, that has no relevance to the EU mutual assistance clause, which has nothing to do with such monitoring, or such legislation - or attacks on "the EU". It simply states that in the event of a terrorist attack on a member state the other states will offer aid, as determined by the states offering the aid. Ireland would have no obligation where it didn't agree that any such attack had taken place, and is also fully entitled to determine what aid is offered.
Currently the main bastions against the increasing erosion of privacy by national governments have been, variously, the EU Parliament, the British House of Lords, and the various Constitutional Courts - not ours, of course, because we have no constitutional right to privacy.
Those bodies are largely unelected, with the exception of the EUP. Other than them, the elected bodies of member states - the national parliaments - have been more than willing to reduce our civil liberties in the name of counter-terrorism.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Done to death. The value of Irish fisheries has been greatly over-exaggerated.
I must have missed this ... could you please supply link where it was decided that the value of thefish catch was over-exagerated. I recall Scafflaw was going to come back to us with a response and I can't find it.0 -
djpbarry wrote:Could you describe this "permanent institutional character"? Or is that just more meaningless rhetoric?
Just a dedicated permanent position for an EU president as opposed to the current situation where the position is rotated temporarily between each member state.djpbarry wrote:How so?
First of all, the current position is a temporary role that lasts for only a few months at a time and is rotated between each member state. Secondly, the current position is a national representative role with the position being occupied by a government rather than a single individual. Thirdly, the current presidency is a dual role while the new post of the president would have been a dedicated role. The person holding the current presidency is also the leader of their country's government.
You gave me three so I'll give you threeSuch as?
1. The loss of 30-60 of our vetoes
2. A reduction in Ireland's voting weight in the European Council from 2% to 0.8%
3. The creation of the new posts of EU president and foreign ministerdjpbarry wrote:I'll narrow it down to three:
1. More power for the EU parliament.
2. Greater co-operation in justice and policing.
3. Greater EU competency for energy and environmental policy.
Be honest old boy. Did you really vote yes to the Lisbon Treaty because you wanted to see greater co-operation in justice and policing and greater EU competency for energy and environmental policy? We could have achieved all of those three things you mentioned without having had to sacrifice any of our sovereignty. Are you sure you didn't just vote for the treaty because you wanted to be a good European?
I think in general it is true. And not only are the reasons given by the no side valid but they also tend to be more specific than the reasons given by the yes side. The yes side are more likely to use vague terms like 'Greater co-operation', 'Greater EU competentcy', 'more efficient', while the no side tend to refer to specific, identifiable changes that will result from the treaty.In general, that is not true.
My opposition to the EU is grounded in irrational nationalism in the same sense that your marriage to your wife is grounded in irrational love. I'm sure there were good and rational economic reasons for your decision to marry your wife but I think they were secondary to the emotional reasons.You yourself have admitted that your opposition to the EU (not just the Lisbon Treaty) is grounded in irrational nationalism.
Was your decision to marry your wife entirely rational or was their an irrational, emotional element involved?That's not a valid reason.
Seems that way to me. I haven't seen much in the media about it in the last few weeks. Europe's leaders are rightly focused on more important issues. And so it should be. The Lisbon Treaty is dead and most Europeans are happy to move on.Has it? Everyone’s just forgotten about the treaty and moved on, have they?djpbarry wrote:You are. Political co-operation between ourselves and our neighbours does not change that.
You're right, political co-operation between ourselves and our neighbours doesn't change that. That's why I'm not opposed to political co-operation between ourselves and our neighbours. If I had my way I would like to see greater political co-operation between ourselves and our neighbours. I would even be open to the idea of the independent nation states of Europe having a common energy policy, a common defence policy and a common foreign policy.djpbarry wrote:Forgive my language, but that is a great big pile of steaming horse****. Is Ireland a single homogenous group of people with the same attitudes, beliefs and values?
No, it isn't a homogenous group of people but I don't think it's any less homogenous than any other European country. You just need to compare Ireland with Belgium or Spain to see how insignificant our differences are in
this country compared with other countries. If there's a lack of homogeneity in Ireland today it's a mainly a result of mass immigration.
I didn't say they were all nice and neatly divided along national lines. Nationality does not imply complete cultural homogeneity.To suggest that people are all nice and neatly divided along the lines of nationality is absolutely preposterous.
It's not the policies proposed in the Lisbon Treaty that I'm opposed to. It's the means to achieving them that I have a problem with.Hmmm. That was all proposed in some sort of “treaty” recently. Oh, what was it called....djpbarry wrote:You want Ireland to have a monarch, but you’re opposed to the idea of an EU president? Seriously?
I don't want Ireland to have a monarch. I want Ireland to have a president elected by the Irish people. I just want some minor constitutional recognition for the British monarch in the Irish constitution.
I wasn't referring to my views on the Queen. I've no doubt that I am in a minority in holding that view.I think you’re unlikely to find much support for your constitutional role for Lizzy in these parts.
Although I'm sure most Irish people would be open to the idea if it increased the likelihood of a united Ireland. I was referring to my attitude to the EU and my opposition to any further erosion of our national sovereignty. I've no doubt that most Irish people and most Europeans feel similarly to me on the subject.djpbarry wrote:Which is the current state of affairs. Hurrah.
It is and I want to keep it that way.0 -
The Corinthian wrote:Provincial denotes when one's perspective is limited to their little corner of the World.
Well then I wouldn't consider myself to be provincial as my perspective is not limited to my little corner of the world. My outlook on the world is as cosmopolitan and as your outlook is.The Corinthian wrote:As the definitions of this corner and of a nation evolve, so does the implication of provincial. Only a few centuries ago a Florentine would have considered himself the citizen of a city state - that was his 'nation'. Even in Ireland, we were divided into separate kingdom nations. By the mid-nineteenth century the definition of nation in many places had moved on and anyone clinging to these views would have been considered provincial.
That's very true. Ireland is still a nation in the eyes of most people though. So is France, Denmark, Holand, Norway and Sweden. I don't see myself as being an more or less provincial than the average citizens of those countries.The Corinthian wrote:But no one is suggesting that we should be governed by 'foreigners'.
I'm not objecting to being governed by foreigners. If Barack Obama had renounced his American citizenship a few years ago to become an Irish citizen and if he decided he wanted to be the first black man to head an Irish government then I would not hesitate to vote for him.The Corinthian wrote:It's like suggesting that the Dail should only be composed of Dubliners, who would in turn govern the rest of Ireland.
I don't know what you mean by that. Are you assuming that I'm a Dubliner and that I would therefore want the Irish government to be made up just of Dublin people? How does that relate to my position on Europe? If you think I want the EU commission to be made up just of Irish people then you have seriously misunderstood my position.The Corinthian wrote:So it's all right for us to dominate another group, but not for someone else to dominate us?
I don't want us to want to dominate any other group and I don't want us to be dominated by any other group. I just think that if domination of one group by another is likely to occur then I can see far more potential for it happening in a united Europe than I can in a united Ireland. Northern unionists make up a greater share of the total Irish population than the total Irish population makes up of the total EU population. It's much easier for Europeans to dominate Irish people than it is for south of Ireland people to dominate north of Ireland people.
Could you imagine the outcry from liberal-minded people if southern nationalists treated the result of an Irish unity poll in the north in the same way that the EUers treated the result of the Irish Lisbon result?The Corinthian wrote:Aren't you being just a tad hypocritical?
No, I've never suggested that we should dominate any other group.The Corinthian wrote:Also, Dublin has often been accused of 'dominating' Irish politics, by dint of population and voting power. Is this wrong?
No, it's not wrong. It's just the nature of democracy that political power is representative of population.The Corinthian wrote:I don't think so and quite a few other Irishmen would agree with me.
A few might but most wouldn't. Most Irishmen would agree with me that northern nationalists are just as Irish as southerners.The Corinthian wrote:As I've already explained, you have a limited grasp of what nationhood, let alone self-government actually mean.
I think I have a very firm grasp of what nationhood means and which nation I belong to. My nation is Ireland. What's your nation?The Corinthian wrote:You are a little-islander because you have a provincial view of what nationhood means
So any Irishman who sees his nation as Ireland is a little-islander in your opnion? Does that just apply to Irish people or does it apply to other countries as well? Is a Dane who sees his nation as Denmark a little-islander (or 'little-peninsular') as well?The Corinthian wrote:and you are xenophobic, because your fear of foreigners have allowed you to believe that we will loose all self-government.
Really? My fear of foreigners has allowed me to believe that we will loose all self-government?
I wasn't aware that I had a fear of foreigners but maybe I'm just living in denial. I've never said that I believed we would loose all self-government and I've already said explicitly that my objection to being governed from outside our nation's capital is less to do with the fact that the people doing the governing are foreigners and more to do with the fact that they're not Irish citizens with the best interests of Ireland at heart.The Corinthian wrote:Societies must evolve to survive.
Yes, and that's why it's not a good thing for our society not to evolve. I want Ireland to be open to new technology and be prepared to reform in order for us to remain competitive and part of the modern world. I think we're better able to do that as an independent nation state than we would be if we were part of a United States of Europe.The Corinthian wrote:If you don't believe me I suggest you look at what happened to a stagnant China by 1900.
They were convinced they had it all figured out too.
That must why be they did what the Japanese did and abandoned nationalism.The Corinthian wrote:It may not be ultimately a good idea, but I think you almost hit the nail on the head when you admitted that you "can't think of anything" - in reality you "won't think of anything"
I was expecting your reply to contain some specific examples of things that a federal mulinational state can achieve tha a coalition of independent countries wouldn't be able to achieve? Can you give some examples of the things that a federal, multinational state could achieve that a coalition of independent states acting together wouldn't be able to achieve?The Corinthian wrote:As opposed to your own irredentist ideals?
My attitude to Irish unity is not all that different to your attitude to a European unity. Just as I want my country to be united with the consent of the people involved, I'm sure you would also like to see Europe united with the consent of the people involved.
Can I take it that you agree that the driving force behind the road to a United States of Europe is at least partly emotional?The Corinthian wrote:Actually I don't - I already explained that earlier in this thread.
But you do think that people who want to be governed by a government based in their own capital city are xenophobic little-islanders?The Corinthian wrote:A no vote to Lisbon no more means that everyone's turned Eurosceptic
I think if a poll was taken it would show that the majority of Irish people are not happy about the direction the EU is heading in and that they do not want to see any further sacrifice any more of our national independence. I'm as certain of that as I am about Irish people's views on immigration or on Irish unity.The Corinthian wrote:I think you'd have to point out why it is irrational and emotional before making such a claim
I'll point out what is irrational and emotional about your position when you can point out what it is about my euroscepticism that indicates a fear of foreigners.The Corinthian wrote:No, you're not clear on xenophobia.
I am clear about what xenophobia is, I'm just not clear on what you mean by the term. Can you answer the question whether you think that anyone who wants to preserve the independence of their country is a xenophobe.0 -
I'm not objecting to being governed by foreigners. If Barack Obama had renounced his American citizenship a few years ago to become an Irish citizen and if he decided he wanted to be the first black man to head an Irish government then I would not hesitate to vote for him.
I don't know what you mean by that. Are you assuming that I'm a Dubliner and that I would therefore want the Irish government to be made up just of Dublin people? How does that relate to my position on Europe? If you think I want the EU commission to be made up just of Irish people then you have seriously misunderstood my position.
I am pro- Lisbon.
But why vote for Barack Obama he knows nothing about Ireland and has no experience of our politics ,knowlege of our laws culture legislature or nothing.
I found your example of running Ireland from Dublin very apt - as you know Northern Unionists used to refer to the Dail as the Dublin Government and the decentralisation of the Irish Civil Service didnt run smoothly beacause of the reluctance of Civil Servants to move out of Dublin. the Civil Service is Dublin centric and the EU might be more visable,relevant and accessable to those in Dublin.The Irish Government is the single largest employer however the jobs are not spread around to the benefit of local economies. So maybe people have a right to be wary of centralisation.
But if you look at the Lisbon Treaty and referendum etc as a company and the voters as shareholders voting for a merger it might be clearer to you. This merger is diluting the voting power of a class of shareholders. I heard a debate between the Germans and the Poles concerning the vote weighting -where the Poles argued for a higher weighting based on an adjusted population -adjusted upwards to account for WWII war dead.
So I wonder if there had been a free vote throughout the EU would other countries not have equally voiced concerns on Cold War or other forms of voting alliances that have not been seen in Europe before. I am pro-EU but I can understand these concerns.0 -
So why is the change a bad thing? Surely having a dedicated president for a longer term promotes continuity and improves efficiency? It’s not as though the EU president supersedes the Irish president – they’re two different positions.Just a dedicated permanent position for an EU president as opposed to the current situation where the position is rotated temporarily between each member state.
…
First of all, the current position is a temporary role that lasts for only a few months at a time and is rotated between each member state. Secondly, the current position is a national representative role with the position being occupied by a government rather than a single individual. Thirdly, the current presidency is a dual role while the new post of the president would have been a dedicated role. The person holding the current presidency is also the leader of their country's government.
Could you list some of the areas in which we have these crucially important vetoes that we need to hang on to? How many times have we used these particular vetoes in the past?1. The loss of 30-60 of our vetoes
Not true and you know it. I’m not going into it again here because there’s clearly no point.2. A reduction in Ireland's voting weight in the European Council from 2% to 0.8%
Yes, I did.Be honest old boy. Did you really vote yes to the Lisbon Treaty because you wanted to see greater co-operation in justice and policing and greater EU competency for energy and environmental policy?
What does that even mean? What is “sovereignty”, how is it measured and how much would we “lose” if Lisbon is ratified?We could have achieved all of those three things you mentioned without having had to sacrifice any of our sovereignty.
You mean like “loss of sovereignty”? Yeah, very specific.And not only are the reasons given by the no side valid but they also tend to be more specific than the reasons given by the yes side.
You’ve obviously never been married.I'm sure there were good and rational economic reasons for your decision to marry your wife...
Then you’re obviously not looking very hard:I haven't seen much in the media about it in the last few weeks.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2008/1106/1225893546503.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/1111/breaking89.htm
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1112/1226408554551.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7725121.stm
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1110/clausv.html
So why are you opposed to the EU? After all, what is the EU but a series of agreements between ourselves and our neighbours?You're right, political co-operation between ourselves and our neighbours doesn't change that. That's why I'm not opposed to political co-operation between ourselves and our neighbours. If I had my way I would like to see greater political co-operation between ourselves and our neighbours. I would even be open to the idea of the independent nation states of Europe having a common energy policy, a common defence policy and a common foreign policy.
So what you're saying is that within any particular country, there are various different kinds of people? So maybe nationality is not a very good way to define people?No, it isn't a homogenous group of people but I don't think it's any less homogenous than any other European country.
Yeah, everyone in Ireland agreed on everything before all the immigrants came :rolleyes:.If there's a lack of homogeneity in Ireland today it's a mainly a result of mass immigration.
Broadly speaking, you did.I didn't say they were all nice and neatly divided along national lines.
So why vote ‘No’?It's not the policies proposed in the Lisbon Treaty that I'm opposed to.
You mean the way the treaty hasn’t come into force because Ireland voted ‘No’? SHOCKING!Could you imagine the outcry from liberal-minded people if southern nationalists treated the result of an Irish unity poll in the north in the same way that the EUers treated the result of the Irish Lisbon result?
I'd hate to hear the outcry from the ‘No’ side if Ireland had voted ‘Yes’!
Isn’t that pretty much the same thing?… I've already said explicitly that my objection to being governed from outside our nation's capital is less to do with the fact that the people doing the governing are foreigners and more to do with the fact that they're not Irish citizens with the best interests of Ireland at heart.
We are independent and Lisbon would not have changed that. The whole USE thing is a straw man; it’s not what we were voting on.I want Ireland to be open to new technology and be prepared to reform in order for us to remain competitive and part of the modern world. I think we're better able to do that as an independent nation...
Which of the following best describes the EU?I was expecting your reply to contain some specific examples of things that a federal mulinational state can achieve tha a coalition of independent countries wouldn't be able to achieve?- Federal multinational state
- Coalition of independent countries
Unfortunately for you, your predictions on the outcomes of polls don’t count for much.I think if a poll was taken it would show that the majority of Irish people are not happy about the direction the EU is heading in and that they do not want to see any further sacrifice any more of our national independence. I'm as certain of that as I am about Irish people's views on immigration or on Irish unity.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think if a poll was taken it would show that the majority of Irish people are not happy about the direction the EU is heading in and that they do not want to see any further sacrifice any more of our national independence. I'm as certain of that as I am about Irish people's views on immigration or on Irish unity.
You may be certain of this, but you are wrong; the polls you're conducting inside your head are way off. The latest Eurobarometer poll for Ireland, taken after the referendum, shows that Irish people have no problem with EU policy-making in some areas (fighting terrorism, environmental issues, etc) but understandably want to retain control over issues like education, tax, etc. [I'm referring to table 3 in that poll]. Which is pretty much the situation we have now, and would not have changed with the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. [Edit to add: by "would not have changed", I mean we still retain control over the issues that we're most insistent on keeping.]0
We wouldn't be priest written again except for the EU. :eek: 
Advertisement