Why don't we leave the EU? Join the Swiss in EFTA

BetterLisbon

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Nonsense. If the entire electorate turned on the idea of Lisbon and wanted the amended constitution to be "re-amended", and made this their primary issue when voting in any elections, the government wouldn't budge?

Maybe they wouldn't. But they wouldn't last another term, and whatever party ran on the "We will re-amend" campaign would sweep into power.

I know in your mind we live in a dictatorship or something, but you're not thinking outside your box.

The problem with that is that there are multiple issues related to general elections. I will in all probabilities vote for a pro-Lisbon party in 2012 as they better represent me on all issues bar europe than the anti-Lisbon parties.

BetterLisbon

View wrote: »

Not according to the Supreme Court. And their opinion is what counts...

Legally there is nothing wrong with a referendum every day. My point was that with abortion/divorce the government of the day accepted the result and withdrew their proposal and didnt reintroduce it without at least 2 parliamentary terms elapsing.

BetterLisbon

ei.sdraob wrote: »

our problems are entirely home-grown, if we werent in EU we probably would have ended up worse, think Iceland^10

It actually saddens me to hear comments like this. What little you must think of the irish people that we need external powers to survive.

Henry McConville

BetterLisbon wrote: »

It actually saddens me to hear comments like this. What little you must think of the irish people that we need external powers to survive.

Are you for real? Have you seen what the goverment that we the Irish people voted in have done to this country?

BetterLisbon

bonkey wrote: »

Thats somewhat misrepresentative of both sides, actually.
We didn't bring about either the Nice or Lisbon Treaties. Rather, we said yes alongside everyone else who had to say yes. That we used a referendum where others didn't is neither here nor there...the requisite conditions were met in the EU for the Eu to change itself.

To change our minds (from "yes to no") involves another change of the EU. To do this, the requisite conditions would (again) have to be met.
Alternately, we have the option which underlines the entire premise for this thread. Rather than requiring a change to the EU, we can withdraw. We can change from yes to no, all on our own, as long as we're willing to do so by rejecting the entire framework (the EU) which defines the "yes".

Even if that weren't the case, I'd point out that the whole "no going back" thing was a fairly integral part of a lot of the opposition to both Treaties. If people are only realising now that they supported making a move which wasn't so easily undoable, then I'd honestly find it hard to have sympathy for them.....as they must have cast their original vote having steadfastly ignored the debates going on around them, as well as the facts that were available.

We did bring about the Nice and Lisbon treaties as no parliament would dare fail to ratify. The only spanner that could go into the works was the irish people.
We could change from yes to no by repealing the legislation enacting the Lisbon treaty and ask President Mcaleese to declare the irish copy of the treaty null and void. That would however release the bull into the china shop. But again our political class wouldnt dare even in the unlikely scenario that they wanted to.
Remember those who point out the "ratchet" mechanism are called liars so its hard to argue that the people really knew the irreversibility of saying yes.

BetterLisbon

Scofflaw wrote: »

This is false, has been proven false, and if repeated, will lead to sanction. You cannot expect to repeat false information endlessly.

moderately,
Scofflaw

DaBrows comment was a highly vague and subjective complaint about the injustice of the common fisheries policy. Thus to call it false and "proven false" is absurd. My regret is that this injustice is not more coherently expressed.

BetterLisbon

Henry McConville wrote: »

Are you for real? Have you seen what the goverment that we the Irish people voted in have done to this country?

Well you could take a look at Italy, Greece, Spain, the UK...plenty of hopelessly incompetent governments. Are you sure you want to cede sovereignty to them? What makes you think they will do a better job, especially as once you give them the power there is no turning back. At least we can vote our gombeens out.

Henry McConville

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Well you could take a look at Italy, Greece, Spain, the UK...plenty of hopelessly incompetent governments. Are you sure you want to cede sovereignty to them? What makes you think they will do a better job, especially as once you give them the power there is no turning back. At least we can vote our gombeens out.

And replace them with who, Kenny? One shambles for another. I would rather be governed by the best of Europe.

Flamed Diving

BetterLisbon wrote: »

The problem with that is that there are multiple issues related to general elections. I will in all probabilities vote for a pro-Lisbon party in 2012 as they better represent me on all issues bar europe than the anti-Lisbon parties.

Like I said, if one cared that much, they would base their vote on it. You clearly don't, and used that to sidestep my example, while ignoring your earlier point about not being allowed to change back.

How dull and predictable.

BlitzKrieg

BetterLisbon wrote: »

DaBrows comment was a highly vague and subjective complaint about the injustice of the common fisheries policy. Thus to call it false and "proven false" is absurd. My regret is that this injustice is not more coherently expressed.

just cause its going to drag on and on in quips and snips

original breakdown on fishing in ireland and the effect of the EU by scofflaw

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055314533&highlight=fishing

website again if you want to see the real figures of irish fishing and who and when they were fished is www.seaaroundus.org

Martin 2

DaBrow wrote: »

I was using an expression of speech with "Murder".... The EU allows it members to run wild without punishment i.e. Take as much as they want from the kitty.

However... Thank you for reminding me.

How many scumbags across the continent have we allowed into our country? Knowingly and Unknowingly

The EU allows anyone into our borders... Regardless of whether they are honest citizens or Violent Scumbags.

A Land Lady in Ireland was murdered by a Czech or Slovak thief, with convictions as long as their arm and even in the UK a young Teenage Girl was murdered by a Truck Driver from either Lithuanina or Estonia... He was suspected for murder in his own country.

Goes to show how wonderful the EU really is?

We have no idea whether those that arrive are honest or actually criminals.......
.
.

I get the impression we export more criminals to the rest of the EU than we import, a criminal trade surplus as it were. Look at Irish criminal gang members that have moved to the "Costa del Crime" in southern Spain (see link ) or Irish drug dealers based in the Netherlands.
I also have vague recollections of judges back in the 70's (& maybe early 80's) who would drop the charges against a criminal when he/she promised to take the boat to England and never return to Ireland.

Of course we need to ensure that criminals can't escape justice or supervision by crossing into another jurisdiction and as the EU has become more integrated so too has cross border police cooperation, see initiatives such as Europol, Eurojust and the European Arrest Warrant amongst others.

BetterLisbon

Henry McConville wrote: »

And replace them with who, Kenny? One shambles for another. I would rather be governed by the best of Europe.

Are you prepared to be governed by the worst of them too? Berlusconi being the prime example.

BetterLisbon

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Like I said, if one cared that much, they would base their vote on it. You clearly don't, and used that to sidestep my example, while ignoring your earlier point about not being allowed to change back.

How dull and predictable.

Oversimplification Flamed. Electing a parliament requires considering a vast range of issues. For example im pro-life and pro-civil liberties, some eurosceptic parties would oppose me on those issues. I also have to consider ministerial experience (or lack of it) in the party, ability to deal with civil servants, trade unions etc.
Again this was spun re the overturning of the French and Dutch no votes on the basis that "they really werent that bothered" as they voted for parties in favour of the constitution.

BetterLisbon

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

just cause its going to drag on and on in quips and snips

original breakdown on fishing in ireland and the effect of the EU by scofflaw

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055314533&highlight=fishing

website again if you want to see the real figures of irish fishing and who and when they were fished is www.seaaroundus.org

Scoffs analysis is predictated on multiple assumptions which have the effect of minimising the net loss of transferring fisheries to the community whereas various fishing lobby groups have built their analysis on assumptions which have the effect of maximising said net loss.

I am not attempting to offer an exact figure as any figure will depend on multiple assumptions which may or may not be appropriate. Nonetheless the net loss is substantial and does counterbalance to a significant degree the EU handouts we got down the years.

BetterLisbon

Martin 2 wrote: »

Of course we need to ensure that criminals can't escape justice or supervision by crossing into another jurisdiction and as the EU has become more integrated so too has cross border police cooperation, see initiatives such as Europol, Eurojust and the European Arrest Warrant amongst others.

Or abandon the madness of schengen rather than dismantle civil liberties with initiatives such as EAW.

maggy_thatcher

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Or abandon the madness of schengen rather than dismantle civil liberties with initiatives such as EAW.

What part of Schengen don't you like? The open flow of information between member states, the simple border/visa control management or is it too open for you?

For the most of Europe, it simplifies the fact that there is a massive land border between each state (keep track of the area in a unified sense). Re-introducing border controls just provides a myth that the border is secure, unless a massive wall is built around each and every country - highly impractical. Ireland opted out (primarily because the UK opted out and it would be too difficult to manage the land border between the two nations), so we don't get these benefits.

maggy_thatcher

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Are you prepared to be governed by the worst of them too? Berlusconi being the prime example.

We aren't governed by them - the EU national governments don't control what the EU European government do, except in a very loose way (the MEPs can be of the same party). What makes you think that they would control what we do?

Flamed Diving

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Oversimplification Flamed. Electing a parliament requires considering a vast range of issues. For example im pro-life and pro-civil liberties, some eurosceptic parties would oppose me on those issues. I also have to consider ministerial experience (or lack of it) in the party, ability to deal with civil servants, trade unions etc.
Again this was spun re the overturning of the French and Dutch no votes on the basis that "they really werent that bothered" as they voted for parties in favour of the constitution.

Who? Me?

Sorry, I didn't realise you were addressing me because you don't seem to be talking about the issue at hand. Do you remember what it is?

Let me help.

Again we can change our minds from no to yes but not from yes to no.

So... stop me if I am wrong here. But you are suggesting that we cannot undo the amendment, or leave Lisbon, or whatever.

So what on earth are you blathering on about? Pro-life? Eh?

As I said, if the electorate wanted to leave badly enough, we would be out like a shot. Your statement above is wrong. Stop dodging it. Just admit it. Jeezus...

BetterLisbon

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

What part of Schengen don't you like? The open flow of information between member states, the simple border/visa control management or is it too open for you?

For the most of Europe, it simplifies the fact that there is a massive land border between each state (keep track of the area in a unified sense). Re-introducing border controls just provides a myth that the border is secure, unless a massive wall is built around each and every country - highly impractical. Ireland opted out (primarily because the UK opted out and it would be too difficult to manage the land border between the two nations), so we don't get these benefits.

I have serious problems with the SIS database in terms of civil liberties in terms of what data is held and who can access it. The "freedom" of no internal borders has led to compensatory measures like the European Arrest Warrant which is a de facto EU criminal code as you can be extradited for things that are not illegal in Ireland (the dual illegality principle) which used to be a line we wouldnt cross on the grounds of civil liberties.
The external schengen frontier also harks back to the iron curtain as it has divided europe in two again. Once it was the soviet union trying to keep people in, now its the EU trying to keep them out.
Also the exit controls feel like a police state deciding if you can leave, this however is a personal view.

BetterLisbon

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

We aren't governed by them - the EU national governments don't control what the EU European government do, except in a very loose way (the MEPs can be of the same party). What makes you think that they would control what we do?

I was turning Henry's argument around on him. He claimed he would like to be governed by the best of europe. In case you hadnt noticed under the community method laws can be made for us against our wishes which kinda equates to being governed by the EU.

BetterLisbon

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Who? Me?

Sorry, I didn't realise you were addressing me because you don't seem to be talking about the issue at hand. Do you remember what it is?
Let me help.
So... stop me if I am wrong here. But you are suggesting that we cannot undo the amendment, or leave Lisbon, or whatever.
So what on earth are you blathering on about? Pro-life? Eh?
As I said, if the electorate wanted to leave badly enough, we would be out like a shot. Your statement above is wrong. Stop dodging it. Just admit it. Jeezus...

Again oversimplifying the issue. I am saying that i would happily vote for a eurosceptic party subject to other issues. This is one of the flaws of parliamentary democracy.

Flamed Diving

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Again oversimplifying the issue. I am saying that i would happily vote for a eurosceptic party subject to other issues. This is one of the flaws of parliamentary democracy.

Oversimplification? Such as...

Again we can change our minds from no to yes but not from yes to no.

Perhaps you should take your own advice.

sirromo

Flamed Diving wrote:

So... stop me if I am wrong here. But you are suggesting that we cannot undo the amendment, or leave Lisbon, or whatever.

The cost of leaving the EU is so high that withdrawal is not a realistic option. We'd be worse than Iceland is we left the EU.

Flamed Diving wrote:

As I said, if the electorate wanted to leave badly enough, we would be out like a shot.

Do you really think Irish people would risk turning their country into an economic basket-case by trying to leave the EU? We'd be worse than Iceland if we left the EU. The whole country would fall apart.

maggy_thatcher

BetterLisbon wrote: »

I have serious problems with the SIS database in terms of civil liberties in terms of what data is held and who can access it. The "freedom" of no internal borders has led to compensatory measures like the European Arrest Warrant which is a de facto EU criminal code as you can be extradited for things that are not illegal in Ireland (the dual illegality principle) which used to be a line we wouldnt cross on the grounds of civil liberties.

SIS data is available to police & customs officials (and only some of this data is available to Irish police/customs due to their reluctance to take part). There's no real difference between the information within SIS and what the local police have on you, it's just available to law enforcement throughout the common area. An EAW can only be issued if you commit the crime in the 3rd-country. If you break the law in a country, why shouldn't you do the time?

BetterLisbon wrote: »

The external schengen frontier also harks back to the iron curtain as it has divided europe in two again. Once it was the soviet union trying to keep people in, now its the EU trying to keep them out.

Strong border controls prevents illegal immigration and reduces crime. Anyway - we don't get any of these benefits as Ireland opted out.

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Also the exit controls feel like a police state deciding if you can leave, this however is a personal view.

A lot of countries have exit-stamps, that's not something specific to Schengen. Isn't it better that we catch criminals before they try to escape the jurisdiction rather than having to try and track them down once they flee?

The EAW isn't perfect, but I'd rather we had ways of tackling criminal behaviour which didn't involve going through the governments.

Flamed Diving

sirromo wrote: »

The cost of leaving the EU is so high that withdrawal is not a realistic option. We'd be worse than Iceland is we left the EU.




Do you really think Irish people would risk turning their country into an economic basket-case by trying to leave the EU? We'd be worse than Iceland if we left the EU. The whole country would fall apart.

Ok. Sit down. Get relaxed. I want you to think real hard as I lay it out. I will make it as simple as I can.

BetterLisbon's statement implies that we, the electorate cannot choose to opt-out.

Now. And listen carefully here, cause this is the technical bit. This has nothing to do with whether we --->should<--- opt-out. It has only to do with whether we, the electorate, have the choice at all.

Quick! Stop the internal dialogue! I don't care about your examples above. It is a matter of whether the choice exists.

Do you understand? If you don't, there is really nothing I can do for you. Sorry. In fact, I will not even respond to anything but an understanding of this.

DaBrow

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Ok. Sit down. Get relaxed. I want you to think real hard as I lay it out. I will make it as simple as I can.

BetterLisbon's statement implies that we, the electorate cannot choose to opt-out.

Now. And listen carefully here, cause this is the technical bit. This has nothing to do with whether we --->should<--- opt-out. It has only to do with whether we, the electorate, have the choice at all.

Quick! Stop the internal dialogue! I don't care about your examples above. It is a matter of whether the choice exists.

Do you understand? If you don't, there is really nothing I can do for you. Sorry. In fact, I will not even respond to anything but an understanding of this.

I must be the only one picking up on Sirromo's sarcasm... Like we would fall apart if we left the EU.

Iceland had a single implosion, but they are quickly recovering unlike ourselves because thanks to handing away all our controls as a soverign nation, we can't do anything.

The country is falling apart and we'll follow Greece after today's revelation...

"
European Central Bank Governing Council member Axel Weber has said Greece may require assistance of up to €80 billion to avoid default.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Mr Weber also told legislators that Greece's situation was worsening and that "the numbers are changing all the time", citing a source.
Borrowing costs and the progress of talks with European and IMF officials will determine whether Greece triggers an international aid mechanism, Greece's finance minister George Papaconstantinou said today.

Greek borrowing costs hit a fresh high today and investors increasingly believe the discussions starting tomorrow will lead Greece to tap an aid package of €40-45 billion."
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0420/breaking11.html

The Corinthian

I just can't get over one glaring flaw in the logic being presented here. That we (the Irish) are exactly the same as the Icelanders, Swiss or Norwegians. Or for that matter that our economies or infrastructure are similar in any way. I'd love to see some rational for it here.

It reminds me of the old gag; if the Dutch and Irish had swapped countries, Ireland would be covered by a sea of tulips and Holland would be covered by a sea.

Scofflaw

BetterLisbon wrote: »

DaBrows comment was a highly vague and subjective complaint about the injustice of the common fisheries policy. Thus to call it false and "proven false" is absurd. My regret is that this injustice is not more coherently expressed.

DaBrow can defend himself, thank you.

moderately,
Scofflaw

DaBrow

Scofflaw wrote: »

DaBrow can defend himself, thank you.

moderately,
Scofflaw

I can certainly stand up to bullying and attempts at intimidation...

Especially from those that wish to silence debate on something that cheeses them off.

ei.sdraob

DaBrow wrote: »

Iceland are recovering unlike us... we are sinking slowly into the economic quicksand.

Thats has nothing to do with EU

but with our home-grown f**ktards insisting on "socialising" the risks

if you read the forums you would see myself and others in arms about the steps by our local gombeens taken which will drives us deeper into a depression