Is anyone else actually turning against their side in the treaty because...

meglome

Karsini wrote: »

I thought I had covered that by mentioning Cóir spouting out claims that our minimum wage will be cut, no? This time round I have seen many more Yes posters than No ones however.

But you went to the trouble of specifically listing three ****e Yes posters that irritated you. I've no issue what that. Every single No poster I've seen has contained a lie, in many cases blatant lies. So why so ready to be irritated by the Yes side?

FutureTaoiseach

I'm somewhat annoyed with UKIP because I don't want the yes side being handed ammo in terms of playing the anti-British card. I have contacted them twice to urge them to keep out of our referendum campaign because they risk becoming a welcome distraction for Dick Roche to use as a stick to beat the no campaign. On the other hand, I agree with a lot of what Nigel Farage said, with an important exception. I am firmly a supporter of remaining in the EU. But my conscience cannot permit me to vote for what I would consider to be imposing provisions on the peoples of France and Holland that I consider they have rejected in the EU Constitution. I also think Europe has enough powers and I don't find the arguments to the contrary compelling or compensatory to the cost in sovereignty. I have a love-hate relationship with Coir. I want the no side to win. So if their tactics work, then I won't complain. I agree with some of their arguments but moral issues are not a big deal for me (though I oppose abortion except in cases of rape and to save the mother's life).

meglome

meglome wrote: »

But you went to the trouble of specifically listing three ****e Yes posters that irritated you. I've no issue what that. Every single No poster I've seen has contained a lie, in many cases blatant lies. So why so ready to be irritated by the Yes side?

As I said, I've seen far more yes posters than no ones. The only other No posters I've seen are from the Socialist party suggesting that the treaty will affect workers rights. I don't know anything about it so couldn't say either way.

K-9

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Again, I asked these questions originally as a doubting Yes voter, but the responses of either contempt for Ireland's right to foreign policy or for the idea that the EU could ever push a policy we don't approve of.

Who has contempt for Irelands' right to decide our own foreign policy?

hatrickpatrick wrote:

and the fact that so many yes voters argue that the nation state isn't something to be guarded against erosion of sovereignty.

Who argued this?

fenris

That is exactly my concern - the first run at the referendum was about Lisbon - voted yes based on the theory that it would clean up some of the mess from Nice, but the rest of the voters didn't agree, but that is democracy.
To my mind the treaty has not changed, cowan grovelled, told europe that we were a bit thick and we would give it another go to see if we could come up with the right answer when we were asked the second time, a bit like Mrs Doyle's cup of tea.

We are being asked to vote on the same treaty again, not to leave the EU. Being told to return a different answer to the same question is nothing to do with the EU and everything to do with local politics, the fact that the recommendation is from a group of people that I woud't trust with a plastic spoon does not inspire confidence. The no to lisbon groups are irrelevant and more than a bit scary, if they had shown their current colours the first time around then maybe we would have gotten the yes vote we wanted.

hatrickpatrick

marco_polo wrote: »

What in particular was annoying you about the Yes campaign last October and January and March?

Why are you pretending to have recently swung from the Yes to the No camp as a result or percieved arrogance?

I never said it was recent. It more or less started as soon as the government started reacting to the no vote.
I don't know how many times I have to say this before people actually take it in, but I voted yes the first time around. If I could prove that by showing you my ballot I would, but that's sadly not possible.

I was particularly irritated by the "Are we in Europe or not" crap. As I said before, we are voting on a treaty within an organization. Not on the organization itself. See my ship analogy in this same thread (I think).

hatrickpatrick

nesf wrote: »

It's not irrelevant, it's extremely relevant! If the EU hadn't been good to us we'd have a huge bunch of other reasons to vote No! Plus because of the EU's respect of Irish guarantees in the past (c.f. the protocol on abortion) we can infer that they're probably not going to screw us over on our guarantees this time, or at least we can dismiss any claims that they will as scaremongering. And so on across the board.

So you mean we should vote yes because we have x number of reasons to vote no instead of having x + y number of reasons?

We are voting on a TREATY - NOT on the organization. Arguing over the benefits of the EU itself or our membership to it is irrelevant to the debate unless that membership is at stake, which the yes side deny.

In other words, there are two statements being made here.
1: Being an EU member is good for Ireland
2: Voting no will not mean that we are thrown out of the EU.

If statement one is relevant to the debate, then statement two has to be a lie. And if statement two is true, statement one has nothing whatsoever to do with the treaty.

I really don't know how much more I can explain this - I've honestly tried to make this argument as simple as possible.

fenris

meglome wrote: »

I was wondering how tired I get could get with the same lines being wheeled out, it seems very tired.

That is because we were here the first time around, being "tired" of the earth being round doesn't make it flat.

The title of the thread may present a clue as to why people seem to be stating the oposite of their normal position.

To me this is where I try to get some perspective on why voting yes again is the right thing to do even if it will leave me feeling dirty, conned and selfish.

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I never said it was recent. It more or less started as soon as the government started reacting to the no vote.
I don't know how many times I have to say this before people actually take it in, but I voted yes the first time around. If I could prove that by showing you my ballot I would, but that's sadly not possible.

Indeed - however, as far as is possible on boards, I can vouch for hatrickpatricks's claim. As far as I recall, his vote first time round was "based on fear", according to himself.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I was particularly irritated by the "Are we in Europe or not" crap. As I said before, we are voting on a treaty within an organization. Not on the organization itself. See my ship analogy in this same thread (I think).

Well, not quite. Like it or not, we're also voting on Ireland's future in the EU, because rightly or wrongly this vote has become something of a defining vote on that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I'm somewhat annoyed with UKIP because I don't want the yes side being handed ammo in terms of playing the anti-British card. I have contacted them twice to urge them to keep out of our referendum campaign because they risk becoming a welcome distraction for Dick Roche to use as a stick to beat the no campaign. On the other hand, I agree with a lot of what Nigel Farage said, with an important exception. I am firmly a supporter of remaining in the EU. But my conscience cannot permit me to vote for what I would consider to be imposing provisions on the peoples of France and Holland that I consider they have rejected in the EU Constitution. I also think Europe has enough powers and I don't find the arguments to the contrary compelling or compensatory to the cost in sovereignty. I have a love-hate relationship with Coir. I want the no side to win. So if their tactics work, then I won't complain. I agree with some of their arguments but moral issues are not a big deal for me (though I oppose abortion except in cases of rape and to save the mother's life).

What did France and Holland vote against in the Constitution?

cordially,
Scofflaw

meglome

fenris wrote: »

That is because we were here the first time around, being "tired" of the earth being round doesn't make it flat.

The title of the thread may present a clue as to why people seem to be stating the oposite of their normal position.

To me this is where I try to get some perspective on why voting yes again is the right thing to do even if it will leave me feeling dirty, conned and selfish.

You cut out the substance of what I actually said.

meglome wrote: »

I was wondering how tired I get could get with the same lines being wheeled out, it seems very tired.

But once more with feeling then... Our constitution allows us to have referenda, that same constitution allows there to be more than one. It may not suit you but it's perfectly democratic and is perfectly legal. I'm sorry but either you respect our constitution or you don't. If you want to change it then I suggest you campaign for that.

Nothing could save the reputation of this government of ours, nothing. A Yes to Lisbon helps Ireland and Fianna Fail can still go **** themselves. I've no idea how you think potentially hurting this country in order to save your job makes any sense.

Sam Vimes

fenris wrote: »

That is exactly my concern - the first run at the referendum was about Lisbon - voted yes based on the theory that it would clean up some of the mess from Nice, but the rest of the voters didn't agree, but that is democracy.
To my mind the treaty has not changed, cowan grovelled, told europe that we were a bit thick and we would give it another go to see if we could come up with the right answer when we were asked the second time, a bit like Mrs Doyle's cup of tea.

We are being asked to vote on the same treaty again, not to leave the EU. Being told to return a different answer to the same question is nothing to do with the EU and everything to do with local politics, the fact that the recommendation is from a group of people that I woud't trust with a plastic spoon does not inspire confidence. The no to lisbon groups are irrelevant and more than a bit scary, if they had shown their current colours the first time around then maybe we would have gotten the yes vote we wanted.

Look mate, significant numbers of people voted no because of the issues of taxation, neutrality, abortion, conscription and the commissioner. The commissioner issue has been rectified, it just didn't require a change to the treaty and the other issues have been clarified as not now nor ever having been related to Lisbon in any way. The people who voted no on those issues now no longer have a reason to vote no.

Add to that the fact that the biggest reason for rejection by far was lack of understanding. People have now had two years to learn about it and there is a wealth of information out there so they no longer have that reason to vote no

All of those reasons for rejection are no longer valid even though the treaty hasn't changed so why not give the people who voted no for those reasons an opportunity to change their minds?

hatrickpatrick

Scofflaw wrote: »

Indeed - however, as far as is possible on boards, I can vouch for hatrickpatricks's claim. As far as I recall, his vote first time round was "based on fear", according to himself.

Fear was only one of my reasons for voting yes. The truth is that there are a lot of aspects to Lisbon that I agree with, but unfortunately for me the things I disagree with outweigh those. And those fears were realized when we were asked to vote again - that the EU is not in fact a democratic organization and will simply keep badgering people until they vote the right way.

Well, not quite. Like it or not, we're also voting on Ireland's future in the EU, because rightly or wrongly this vote has become something of a defining vote on that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

See this is the kind of argument I don't understand. Are you implying that if we vote no, we will subsequently vote to leave the EU ourselves, or are you implying that if we vote no we will be pushed out?

Because I for one would never vote to leave the EU, that's absolute lunacy. The principle of the economic union is a sound and clever ideal - it's just become far too corrupted with both federalist agendas and power. I believe the EU does have too much power and I'm not going to deny that - but it's not a black and white issue. You're surely not suggesting that we have to either agree to everything the EU does or agree with none of it? I agree with this particular direction. That doesn't mean I have a problem with the ship. Ergo, I would vote no to Lisbon and yes to EU membership.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're essentially arguing is that the direction of the EU should be decided by the politicians and employees of the EU, and not by the people living in it. This is the point that I fundamentally disagree with. I don't think it should be for the EU to make decisions about the future of its member states and for the people in those states to automatically agree with them. I believe it's for the Eurocrats to make suggestions, and for the citizens to decide whether to accept them or not. That, in my view, is democracy.

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Fear was only one of my reasons for voting yes. The truth is that there are a lot of aspects to Lisbon that I agree with, but unfortunately for me the things I disagree with outweigh those. And those fears were realized when we were asked to vote again - that the EU is not in fact a democratic organization and will simply keep badgering people until they vote the right way.

Except that, as repeatedly pointed out, we're not being 'badgered' by the EU. All they're doing is waiting to see whether the Irish government can persuade people to ratify - which they'd rather see done than not.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

See this is the kind of argument I don't understand. Are you implying that if we vote no, we will subsequently vote to leave the EU ourselves, or are you implying that if we vote no we will be pushed out?

I'm not implying either. That's like trying to reduce every marital disagreement to the question of divorce - a marriage can be dysfunctional without divorce ever being on the table.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Because I for one would never vote to leave the EU, that's absolute lunacy. The principle of the economic union is a sound and clever ideal - it's just become far too corrupted with both federalist agendas and power. I believe the EU does have too much power and I'm not going to deny that - but it's not a black and white issue. You're surely not suggesting that we have to either agree to everything the EU does or agree with none of it? I agree with this particular direction. That doesn't mean I have a problem with the ship. Ergo, I would vote no to Lisbon and yes to EU membership.

No, I don't argue that. I disagree with the CFP, and I disagree with a lot of EU policy, but that doesn't mean I'm not pro-EU.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're essentially arguing is that the direction of the EU should be decided by the politicians and employees of the EU, and not by the people living in it. This is the point that I fundamentally disagree with. I don't think it should be for the EU to make decisions about the future of its member states and for the people in those states to automatically agree with them. I believe it's for the Eurocrats to make suggestions, and for the citizens to decide whether to accept them or not. That, in my view, is democracy.

I have to correct you, then, because I'm not arguing anything of the kind. I'm pointing out that for various reasons, this vote has become important for Ireland's relationship with the EU - partly because we signally failed to vote on the treaty itself last time (and possibly this time), and partly because a lot of the interests calling for a No vote (both Irish and foreign) are undeniably anti-EU. It shouldn't be about the Irish relationship with the EU, but like it or not (and I don't) it has become so.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

Who has contempt for Irelands' right to decide our own foreign policy?




Who argued this?

Hatrickpatrick, care to answer that previous reply?
Give me an example of a Yes voter supporting your original quote.

There should be loads of examples of Yes voters from your post.

fenris

meglome wrote: »

You cut out the substance of what I actually said.

No I addressed the point that your personal feeling of tiredness does not change reality (except in your head of course).

Your point about the constitution is an irrelevant distraction relative to my point regarding the subject matter of this thread, but in another way, maybe it is working example of exactly what this thread is about.

My final point is that as a yes voter, voting yes again, at the expense of what is right in my mind relative to a decision made by the people of Ireland, that makes me feel like I am now rolling in the muck and aligning myself with people that disgust me, but I will get over it.
Pretty much what this thread was supposed to be about rather than the usual general mindless assault on any contrary opinion to the lisbon is god mantra.

There is a reason that there are no photos on FF lisbon posters.

A bit of reading here might help to understand why the previous yes vote block cannot be taken for granted this time. Gibberish about people not understanding the first time is not really helpful, abortion etc were bought in after the fact as excuses for a lazy bad job the first time round and a made for nice easy number for a few senators to go through teh motion laying the foundation for the repeat.

Buying into your own propaganda might be comfy and cozy but people vote from the heart when the debate gets blurred beyond all recognition, the difference this time is that there is no credible leadership on either side of the debate making the referendum a complete lottery whose outcome is more likely to be decided by the weather on the day than the efforts of either campaign.

nesf

fenris wrote: »

A bit of reading here might help to understand why the previous yes vote block cannot be taken for granted this time. Gibberish about people not understanding the first time is not really helpful, abortion etc were bought in after the fact as excuses for a lazy bad job the first time round and a made for nice easy number for a few senators to go through teh motion laying the foundation for the repeat.

Ok, I 100% agree with you on how abysmally lazy and bad the job of the Lisbon I Yes campaign was. It stunk of arrogance and complacency with mainstream politicians believing because only far left and right groups opposed it that a Yes vote was guaranteed. I'd also argue that while things are better this time around that isn't saying much and that I haven't been impressed by the Yes campaign.


But Abortion etc came from surveys done by multiple independent groups. They weren't just magicked up by politicians to excuse their own failure (though they were used for this, they were real factors).

meglome

fenris wrote: »

Buying into your own propaganda might be comfy and cozy but people vote from the heart when the debate gets blurred beyond all recognition, the difference this time is that there is no credible leadership on either side of the debate making the referendum a complete lottery whose outcome is more likely to be decided by the weather on the day than the efforts of either campaign.

Personally I hate liars which is why I'm doing my best to support the Yes side. Most of the Yes campaign is pathetic but not full of blatant lies like the No campaign. If people voted from the heart it might not be too bad. Unfortunately there seems to be a lot of voting out of spite and anger. Now there are plenty of people we should be angry with, but generally the EU has been nothing but good to us. Maybe we should be angry with ourselves for voting in a bunch of corrupt tools. If it comes down between supporting a pathetic campaign or a corrupt one, there's no contest for me.

hatrickpatrick

K-9 wrote: »

Who has contempt for Irelands' right to decide our own foreign policy?

It's not necessarily anyone on boards, I'm including people I know in real life as well. However I'm sure I can find some examples on Boards and I will look for such in the morning and post them ASAP.

Who argued this?

Several people. Scofflaw comes immediately to mind - every time he engages with my arguments about the sovereignty of our state, his arguments are not "Lisbon will not affect our sovereignty", but rather "Why is the nation state so set in stone, couldn't it be possible that there is a better system" etc etc etc. Don't get me wrong, I have every respect for that opinion, but it's a silly way of arguing with avery committed nationalist, isn't it? It just further alienates me from the yes side - if their reassurance about the loss of sovereignty is "don't worry, it doesn't really matter" then I know I'm making the right decision in voting no. Ireland should be ruled by its citizens and no one else. As I've pointed out in other debates, in my view the larger a population under a government becomes, the less democratic it is.

Let's just imagine that every EU decision was taken through the EU parliament. We elect so few MEPs that Ireland would have absolutely no power over its laws at all. This is why I oppose any suggestion that power must reside in a larger entity than our national government (or, even better, in regional governments / county councils). To put my views simply, the national government is already undemocratic enough as it is. My personal opinion is that far more power should be vested in the local councils. So giving more power to the EU runs in the exact opposite direction to where I'd like to see democracy going.

hatrickpatrick

I apologize by the way. This thread was not supposed to be a debate thread and I shouldn't therefore have engaged the invitations to debate. It won't happen again.

To sum up what my original point was meant to be, I really do get uneasy about siding with these conservative prudes. I hate the idea. But again, although I do truly desire total social freedom (not likely to happen but even so that's what I support), it has to come democratically from the Irish people, not forced upon us by an outside body. Social freedom is the second most important principle to me, but democracy comes first.

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's not necessarily anyone on boards, I'm including people I know in real life as well. However I'm sure I can find some examples on Boards and I will look for such in the morning and post them ASAP.



Several people. Scofflaw comes immediately to mind - every time he engages with my arguments about the sovereignty of our state, his arguments are not "Lisbon will not affect our sovereignty", but rather "Why is the nation state so set in stone, couldn't it be possible that there is a better system" etc etc etc. Don't get me wrong, I have every respect for that opinion, but it's a silly way of arguing with avery committed nationalist, isn't it? It just further alienates me from the yes side - if their reassurance about the loss of sovereignty is "don't worry, it doesn't really matter" then I know I'm making the right decision in voting no. Ireland should be ruled by its citizens and no one else. As I've pointed out in other debates, in my view the larger a population under a government becomes, the less democratic it is.

Let's just imagine that every EU decision was taken through the EU parliament. We elect so few MEPs that Ireland would have absolutely no power over its laws at all. This is why I oppose any suggestion that power must reside in a larger entity than our national government (or, even better, in regional governments / county councils). To put my views simply, the national government is already undemocratic enough as it is. My personal opinion is that far more power should be vested in the local councils. So giving more power to the EU runs in the exact opposite direction to where I'd like to see democracy going.

Er, what? My argument is only ever that the nation-state shouldn't be set up as some kind of sacred cow that denies the legitimacy of all other levels of decision-making. If you choose to interpret that as me arguing for their abolition then that says rather a lot more about you than about my argument - it says, in fact, that the nation-state is a sacred cow to you, and that - to you - any suggestion it shouldn't be is identical with a claim it should be slaughtered. Heresy is heresy, in other words.

irritated,
Scofflaw

meglome

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Let's just imagine that every EU decision was taken through the EU parliament. We elect so few MEPs that Ireland would have absolutely no power over its laws at all. This is why I oppose any suggestion that power must reside in a larger entity than our national government (or, even better, in regional governments / county councils). To put my views simply, the national government is already undemocratic enough as it is. My personal opinion is that far more power should be vested in the local councils. So giving more power to the EU runs in the exact opposite direction to where I'd like to see democracy going.

This really is one of the major problems I have with some No campaigners. We have the reality that the EU has been very good for Ireland, has never even tried to force us to do anything and has done everything through negotiation. On the other hand we have the 'what if the sky falls down' scenario. Of course the sky could fall down, it never has nor are there any signs it will but we should get ready for that imminent fall. It just doesn't add up.

BTW are those the same local councils that pushed through all those dodgy planning decisions?

hatrickpatrick

Scofflaw wrote: »

Er, what? My argument is only ever that the nation-state shouldn't be set up as some kind of sacred cow that denies the legitimacy of all other levels of decision-making. If you choose to interpret that as me arguing for their abolition then that says rather a lot more about you than about my argument - it says, in fact, that the nation-state is a sacred cow to you, and that - to you - any suggestion it shouldn't be is identical with a claim it should be slaughtered. Heresy is heresy, in other words.

irritated,
Scofflaw

Just to clear this one up, I meant absolutely no offense to you whatsoever Scofflaw and I'm sorry if it came over like that. I'm not saying you're arguing for the abolition of states at all - I'm just saying that where you and I differ is that for me, the abolition of the Irish state is absolutely unacceptable and apparently for you, you're more open to the idea.

The only reason it's relevant is that you have never argued that "The Lisbon treaty does not take sovereignty from the Irish state", you have in fact argued that "I don't really mind whether it does". What I'm saying is that while that argument of course makes sense to you, it actually makes me much more worried, since you as a yes campaigner are not only making no comment about whether the Lisbon treaty does, but you're actually arguing that even if it did, you wouldn't care. That's your opinion and you're perfectly entitled to it - but it still leaves the question of Lisbon's impact on sovereignty unanswered, AND gives the impression that the "yes camp" don't view it as important.

Again, I'm not in any way criticizing your view, I'm just saying that you're not in fact answering the question. It's like the following:

Person A: "Will this new contract mean we have to work longer hours?"
Person B: "So what if it does? I don't really mind."

It's a perfectly valid argument, but it makes person A far more nervous about accepting Person B's recommendation about how to vote. I'm just looking for an answer to the actual question, not whether the question is an important issue or not.

PopeBuckfastXVI

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Just to clear this one up, I meant absolutely no offense to you whatsoever Scofflaw and I'm sorry if it came over like that. I'm not saying you're arguing for the abolition of states at all - I'm just saying that where you and I differ is that for me, the abolition of the Irish state is absolutely unacceptable and apparently for you, you're more open to the idea.

don't want to speak for Scofflaw but I would say you are pretty much 100% wrong with that assessment, read his post a few more times, meanwhile I will try to distil it further.

Theory 1.
A. 100% National Sovereignty is self evidentially the only legitimate form of government, no justification for this is needed, as it is obvious.
B. Any pooling of sovereignty is therefore illegitimate, based on A.

Theory 2.
A. National Sovereignty is a good and legitimate form of government, but 100% national sovereignty is not necessarily the best form of government.
B. Pooling of sovereignty, where it makes sense is entirely legitimate and consistent with A.

Some people subscribe to Theory 1, I would suggest Scofflaw subscribes to Theory 2.

PopeBuckfastXVI

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Person A: "Will this new contract mean we have to work longer hours?"
Person B: "So what if it does? I don't really mind."

To be honest 'longer hours' has an inherent implication that it's a 'bad thing'.

Lisbon increases the amount of sovereignty we share with our partners in the EU, and the amount of sovereignty they share with us.

Otherwise we wouldn't be having a referendum.

Some people view any sharing of sovereignty as self evidentially bad, without feeling compelled to justify their position. They tend to accuse anyone who disagrees of being unpatriotic, or seeking to destroy Nation States. They invent false dichotomies to suit themselves, essentially.

Now on to another point altogether:

It's possible to ask for justification for the existence of Nation States, beyond that they are 'self evidentially' the best form of government, without necessarily wanting to destroy them, or even dilute them.

marco_polo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Just to clear this one up, I meant absolutely no offense to you whatsoever Scofflaw and I'm sorry if it came over like that. I'm not saying you're arguing for the abolition of states at all - I'm just saying that where you and I differ is that for me, the abolition of the Irish state is absolutely unacceptable and apparently for you, you're more open to the idea.

The only reason it's relevant is that you have never argued that "The Lisbon treaty does not take sovereignty from the Irish state", you have in fact argued that "I don't really mind whether it does". What I'm saying is that while that argument of course makes sense to you, it actually makes me much more worried, since you as a yes campaigner are not only making no comment about whether the Lisbon treaty does, but you're actually arguing that even if it did, you wouldn't care. That's your opinion and you're perfectly entitled to it - but it still leaves the question of Lisbon's impact on sovereignty unanswered, AND gives the impression that the "yes camp" don't view it as important.

Again, I'm not in any way criticizing your view, I'm just saying that you're not in fact answering the question. It's like the following:

Person A: "Will this new contract mean we have to work longer hours?"
Person B: "So what if it does? I don't really mind."

It's a perfectly valid argument, but it makes person A far more nervous about accepting Person B's recommendation about how to vote. I'm just looking for an answer to the actual question, not whether the question is an important issue or not.

But since you are not anti EU membership even you find a certain level of share soverignty you find acceptable?

hatrickpatrick

^ Yes, I've explained that before - I support the economic union, the free market, and all the pooling of sovereignty that comes with it. But purely economic. Social policy, government organization, justice, etc should be within the control of our national parliament.

Again, that's my opinion. So in other words if it's about economics and financial policy, the EU has done a lot of good for everyone and continues to do so. But how we live our lives should be up to us.

PopeBuckfastXVI

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

^ Yes, I've explained that before - I support the economic union, the free market, and all the pooling of sovereignty that comes with it. But purely economic. Social policy, government organization, justice, etc should be within the control of our national parliament.

Again, that's my opinion. So in other words if it's about economics and financial policy, the EU has done a lot of good for everyone and continues to do so. But how we live our lives should be up to us.

Thus far, and no further eh? Fair enough.

Would you roll back environmental and employment rights legislation then?

meglome

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But purely economic. Social policy, government organization, justice, etc should be within the control of our national parliament.

Would you seriously have trusted our governments to get this right on their own? Personally I wouldn't.

P. Breathnach

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

^ Yes, I've explained that before - I support the economic union, the free market, and all the pooling of sovereignty that comes with it. But purely economic. Social policy, government organization, justice, etc should be within the control of our national parliament...

Does the principle of a free market, which you say you support, include a free market for labour?