Is it time for a union of celtic countries

ads20101

No, I haven't gone mad. Its just a thought.

With NI & Scotland getting rather upset re Brexit, could a union of independant celtic states be organised under the governance of Ireland?

I am not talking about Irish reunification, but this could be a possible third option. This may well appeal to the Scots as France & Spain specifically don't want them in the European Union as a separate entity.

I don't know, just putting it out there

wes

Well surely governance would need to be shared in such a scenario.

Its an interesting albeit unlikely idea.

ads20101

wes wrote: »

Well surely governance would need to be shared in such a scenario.

The reason that I stated that it would have to be under the governance of Ireland is basically a kind of a EU workaround, in the fact that in this theoretical situation, neither NI or Scotland would need to reapply.

_Brian

One would have wonder why??

What possible use would there be in doing this, and why the presumption that it would come under tue governance of Ireland, we're not exactly a shining light regarding governance abilities.

In the event of Brexit happening If NI & scots have any sense they'll align themselves with the closest source of wealth and that will be London and not Dublin.

Within Europe we have essentially no presence, no one is interested in listening to our position, would it not be foolish to align with such an inconsequential voice in Europe.

Walter H Price

wales and Northern Ireland are economic dead weighs , they cannot exist on their own and i doubt the fragile economy's of the Republic and an independent Scotland could support them , making any sort of union economic suicide across the board. It's a cool idea for a football league or hosting a major tournament but not as a union of nations.

youreadthat

What's Celtic about this union? 95% of the population would speak a Germanic language and live in cities that look like most English one's.

Donnielighto

Does this include Wales? If so I can't think of a reasonable non racist reason for this. Otherwise we are just circumventing EU accession rules and I'd be very pissed off if other countries started doing that.

endacl

That'd be us out, anyway. There were never celts in Ireland.

saabsaab

What would it be called?

Federated Union of Celtic Kinship anyone..:)

eire4

I don't know about a union of Celtic countries but I could see us developing very close ties with Scotalnd if indeed they do go for and win a second independence referendum which obviously seems a very real prospect given the brexit vote.

Iwasfrozen

Considering neither Scotland, Wales or NI are self funding this is a terrible idea.

Iwasfrozen

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Considering neither Scotland, Wales or NI are self funding this is a terrible idea.

Their funding gap would also be a serious wake up call for all involved.

topper75

Outside of the gaelic territory in the highlands and islands, most Scottish people don't feel Celtic at all.

They just see Ireland as a neighbouring country but feel no link whatsoever.

The link is all imagined on the Irish side.

The whole Celtic thing is nonsense anyway. The Greeks called the tribes to their north Keltoi. The Romans, admiring everything the Greeks said and did, felt likewise with the tribes to their north in Switzerland and France (Gall). None of this has anything to do with Ireland. Some may point to designs on artifacts from the bronze age, e.g. La Tene culture. But this carries no more water than seeing a Nike symbol on clothing in Japan and the U.S. in our century.

Political union is meaningless without a cultural basis. "Not English" does not a cultural basis make.

endacl

Very true. I was in Edinburgh a few weeks before the independence referendum. Had a very interesting chat with a bunch of lads who considered themselves 'borderers', i.e. Of the borders. They weren't Scottish. They weren't English. But they were definitely British. They comprised people from both sides of the line on the map. It was an interesting eye opener, and something I had never considered.

It's never as simple as you think...

Cantstandsya

As mentioned, there were no "Celtic" people. It's just a term that attached to certain areas where particular types archaeological items have been found.

The main cultural connection is a language that most people in both countries don't speak and have little interest in.

eire4

topper75 wrote: »

Outside of the gaelic territory in the highlands and islands, most Scottish people don't feel Celtic at all.

They just see Ireland as a neighbouring country but feel no link whatsoever.

The link is all imagined on the Irish side.

The whole Celtic thing is nonsense anyway. The Greeks called the tribes to their north Keltoi. The Romans, admiring everything the Greeks said and did, felt likewise with the tribes to their north in Switzerland and France (Gall). None of this has anything to do with Ireland. Some may point to designs on artifacts from the bronze age, e.g. La Tene culture. But this carries no more water than seeing a Nike symbol on clothing in Japan and the U.S. in our century.

Political union is meaningless without a cultural basis. "Not English" does not a cultural basis make.

I take it you have never been to Glasgow so! As for the link being imagined not so. The name Scotland comes from the word Scoti a group of Gaels who came over to Scotland from Ireland around 500AD and settled in Argyall.

Water John

If language and music is one of the key markers for celts, then the peoples of Cornwall and Brittany belong to the club.

eire4

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Considering neither Scotland, Wales or NI are self funding this is a terrible idea.

Scotland is not anywhere comparable to the other 2 in terms of self funding. The facts of whether Scotalnd was self funding or not were debated relentlessly during their last independence referendum and there was never any conclusive arguments backed up with evidence that supported either side.

eire4

Cantstandsya wrote: »

As mentioned, there were no "Celtic" people. It's just a term that attached to certain areas where particular types archaeological items have been found.

The main cultural connection is a language that most people in both countries don't speak and have little interest in.

Yes there was historically and are Celtic peoples. The fact that in ancient times they were more a grouping of various tribes spread over wide swathes of Europe does not make them any the less a distinct racial grouping that they did not develop into modern nation states the way others did. Besides the modern nation state does not equate to racial identity. Sure some contries are more diverse and some less so in terms of their racial make up but nations are not always directly related to racial groups. The fact remains the term Celts, Celtic is simply the name we use today to describe the various different tribal groups that existed and were clearly of one racial grouping. Obviously only 2 major Celtic groups have survived into modern times those being of the Gaelic Celts and the Brythonic Celts.

Cantstandsya

eire4 wrote: »

Yes there was historically and are Celtic peoples. The fact that in ancient times they were more a grouping of various tribes spread over wide swathes of Europe does not make them any the less a distinct racial grouping that they did not develop into modern nation states the way others did. Besides the modern nation state does not equate to racial identity. Sure some contries are more diverse and some less so in terms of their racial make up but nations are not always directly related to racial groups. The fact remains the term Celts, Celtic is simply the name we use today to describe the various different tribal groups that existed and were clearly of one racial grouping. Obviously only 2 major Celtic groups have survived into modern times those being of the Gaelic Celts and the Brythonic Celts.

There is not and never was a Celtic race. It was a term created by the Greeks to refer to outsiders before being adopted, centuries later, by people to distinguish themselves from the dominant English and French. Narratives and identities were then spun around this re-imagined heritage.

Feel free to believe what you like though.

eire4

Cantstandsya wrote: »

There is not and never was a Celtic race. It was a term created by the Greeks to refer to outsiders before being adopted, centuries later, by people to distinguish themselves from the dominant English and French. Narratives and identities were then spun around this re-imagined heritage.

Feel free to believe what you like though.

There was and is a Celtic racial grouping. The Celts were a group of people spread throughout large portions of Europe in ancient times divided up into various tribal groupings some times forming confederations but obviously not calling themselves Celts anymore then the various Germanic tribes all called themselves Germans in ancient times. The term Celts today is used to refer to the overall cultures, religion, art, languages etc of the various Celtic tribes. Plus of course also the 2 remaining groups of modern Celts the Gaelic and Brythonic Celts.


Feel free to keep believing your Simon James clap trap.

Snickers Man

Fintan O'Toole has put forward a similar idea for a new political entity called SCINI (presumably pronounced Skinny) standing for Scotland Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Advantages:
It comprises a union of three entities that have always been the closest linked in ethnic and linguistic terms of peoples spanning these islands.
It would permit Scotland and Northern Ireland to remain in the EU while permitting the rest of the UK to leave.
It allows closer integration of the people of Ireland while providing the Ulster Protestants with the reassurance of a permanent tie with their kith and kin in Scotland.
It would yield a moderately sized European state that could become self financing without needing large government subsidies as is currently the case in Northern Ireland.


Disadvantages
There is a viscerally strong element in Scotland that would not want to break up the current union. (Rangers fans mainly)
Where would we put the capital? Two self important cities are going to lose out.
Economic future is not at all assured, whatever about the price of North Sea Oil.
In strategic terms Britain (aka England and Wales) would hate it. Newly independent from the EU they now have not only a flimsy independent state on their western border but another one to their north. And they have lost their foothold in Ireland.
Does the new Celtic state get to keep the nuclear weapons currently in Scotland and thereby become a nuclear power in its own right or do they all have to go back to England?


Can't see this happening. Too many vicious vested interests against it

Rotating Capitals

Snickers Man

Deleted User wrote: »

Rotating Capitals

What a good idea!

That's what they do in the EU. Parliament moves from Brussels to Strasbourg and back again. Presidency gets hawked around between all the member states in turn. And it's one of the JUSTIFIABLE complaints that many people have concerning the utter waste and inefficiency of much of the European Project.

Jayop

Snickers Man wrote: »

Fintan O'Toole has put forward a similar idea for a new political entity called SCINI (presumably pronounced Skinny) standing for Scotland Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Advantages:
It comprises a union of three entities that have always been the closest linked in ethnic and linguistic terms of peoples spanning these islands.
It would permit Scotland and Northern Ireland to remain in the EU while permitting the rest of the UK to leave.
It allows closer integration of the people of Ireland while providing the Ulster Protestants with the reassurance of a permanent tie with their kith and kin in Scotland.
It would yield a moderately sized European state that could become self financing without needing large government subsidies as is currently the case in Northern Ireland.


Disadvantages
There is a viscerally strong element in Scotland that would not want to break up the current union. (Rangers fans mainly)
Where would we put the capital? Two self important cities are going to lose out.
Economic future is not at all assured, whatever about the price of North Sea Oil.
In strategic terms Britain (aka England and Wales) would hate it. Newly independent from the EU they now have not only a flimsy independent state on their western border but another one to their north. And they have lost their foothold in Ireland.
Does the new Celtic state get to keep the nuclear weapons currently in Scotland and thereby become a nuclear power in its own right or do they all have to go back to England?


Can't see this happening. Too many vicious vested interests against it

The advantages are clear and obvious. You have them listed perfectly and I think that it would also make a strong economy for the three regions.

The problems are also pretty obvious. For the capital I think there's really only two options, Dublin or Edinburgh, although Belfast would be more central.

The element in Scotland will soon enough be quieted by their inevitable leaving of the UK.

The nuclear weapons are England's and should go back to them immediately. In fact they should be scrapped immediately but that's another argument entirely.


It makes sense but there's too many people who would never be pragmatic enough to even discuss it with maturity.

Snickers Man

Jayop wrote: »

It makes sense but there's too many people who would never be pragmatic enough to even discuss it with maturity.

With any political problem pragmatism is only part of the solution.

You have to have emotional buy-in too. From the parties most directly involved. Would the Wee Frees of the Western Isles and the arch unionists of Glasgow and Edinburgh really want to get into bed permanently with the "Fenians"? That's by no means certain.

The economy we could debate endlessly. I think it might be beneficial in the long run. Northern ireland has to wean itself off the British wet nurse that pays for all its "heritage centres" and "social initiatives" not too mention the healthy stipend that still comes from its considerable "security industry". But an extension of the Irish model of providing a stepping stone to Europe to modern hi-tech multinationals from US and elsewhere who are in need of qualified human resources (highly educated English speakers in other words) could be a sound strategy. Of course this would require being inside the EU.

The other major issue is the strategic imperative. EVen a truncated UK would still be one of the world's great military powers, armed with nuclear weapons. Does it want to be hemmed in by a comparatively small Celtic Nation to its North and West? Does America want that? Do Britain's enemies around the world look on this as a delicious opportunity to weaken and undermine their foe?

This last issue is one on which the most "pragmatic" deliberations would be conducted by people far away. And not necessarily having the new entity's best interests at heart.

Charles Babbage

Snickers Man wrote: »

Where would we put the capital? Two self important cities are going to lose out

Belfast, of course.

mitchconnor16

ads20101 wrote: »

No, I haven't gone mad. Its just a thought.

With NI & Scotland getting rather upset re Brexit, could a union of independant celtic states be organised under the governance of Ireland?

I am not talking about Irish reunification, but this could be a possible third option. This may well appeal to the Scots as France & Spain specifically don't want them in the European Union as a separate entity.

I don't know, just putting it out there

Why don't we just do the obvious and have our own exit Referendum?

ads20101

mitchconnor16 wrote: »

Why don't we just do the obvious and have our own exit Referendum?

I very much doubt that there isn't the level of stupidity over here in order to pass such a vote.

mitchconnor16

ads20101 wrote: »

mitchconnor16 wrote: »

Why don't we just do the obvious and have our own exit Referendum?

I very much doubt that there isn't the level of stupidity over here in order to pass such a vote.

It's clear you've already surpassed that level of stupidity.

ads20101

mitchconnor16 wrote: »

It's clear you've already surpassed that level of stupidity.

Just one persons opinion.

It's a shame that you had to get personal.

mitchconnor16

ads20101 wrote: »

mitchconnor16 wrote: »

It's clear you've already surpassed that level of stupidity.

Just one persons opinion.

It's a shame that you had to get personal.

What you're suggesting is borderline retarded.

Oafley Jones

eire4 wrote: »

There was and is a Celtic racial grouping. The Celts were a group of people spread throughout large portions of Europe in ancient times divided up into various tribal groupings some times forming confederations but obviously not calling themselves Celts anymore then the various Germanic tribes all called themselves Germans in ancient times. The term Celts today is used to refer to the overall cultures, religion, art, languages etc of the various Celtic tribes. Plus of course also the 2 remaining groups of modern Celts the Gaelic and Brythonic Celts.


Feel free to keep believing your Simon James clap trap.

No, it's bollox. They two ways we identify a culture are linguist and material morphology. There is a limited spread in terms of language ie The P and Q Gaelic (we're Q cheannaig) but this notion that exists in popular consciousness is a political construct and a fairly modern one at that. Identities are formed in opposition "we are Celtic not English etc" and the idea of the Celt was again used for political interest. It's nothing new even Vercingetorix was at with the Romans. The EU then the ECC even used the notion of the Celts to justify its existence pointing to a history of trade within Europe. Anyone who studies archaeology get the notion of the celts beaten out of them almost as quick as you arrive in the door. It's simply nonsense, there is nothing there in the evidence to support it. I recommend the work of dr Barra O'donnabhain if anyone is interested.

ads20101

mitchconnor16 wrote: »

What you're suggesting is borderline retarded.

Just to clarify, is it the issue of Brexit that offends you enough to make offensive personal comments or is it the fact that you disagree with the original concept?

If it is the Brexit referendum, then I would recommend researching the attitudes of Irish public towards the EU. I was just pointing out that, looking at the research, it does not appear that there is anywhere the same appetite to leave the European project. As for my comment about stupidity, I would stand over this. The UK (Where I have previously lived & studied) voted in a very insular way. In my opinion it all became overly personal, emotional and the facts became an almost secondary to a ghost of misdirected patriotism with a smearing of darn right racism.

If it is the issue of a union of celtic countries that bothers you, then I kind of understand. It is not something that I have made my mind up myself on, it was just a radical topic that I was contemplating based on the recent events of Brexit etc. I love a bit of intelligent debate, so I thought I’d throw out the concept to those interested on politics. I was not trying to forward a personal agenda; I just wanted a debate. If you look through the previous comments I am sure that, like me, you will gain some insight from some very informed commentators.

Are you past school age? If so, did you have debating classes and / or societies? I did, and very often I was made to argue points that I would have never agreed with. I feel that it is wonderful to argue points from various angles in order to obtain a more rounded picture. I am sure that most people can do this without becoming offensive.

ancapailldorcha

mitchconnor16 wrote: »

What you're suggesting is borderline retarded.

Please read this forum's charter before posting again. Your current posting manner is unacceptable.

eire4

Oafley Jones wrote: »

No, it's bollox. They two ways we identify a culture are linguist and material morphology. There is a limited spread in terms of language ie The P and Q Gaelic (we're Q cheannaig) but this notion that exists in popular consciousness is a political construct and a fairly modern one at that. Identities are formed in opposition "we are Celtic not English etc" and the idea of the Celt was again used for political interest. It's nothing new even Vercingetorix was at with the Romans. The EU then the ECC even used the notion of the Celts to justify its existence pointing to a history of trade within Europe. Anyone who studies archaeology get the notion of the celts beaten out of them almost as quick as you arrive in the door. It's simply nonsense, there is nothing there in the evidence to support it. I recommend the work of dr Barra O'donnabhain if anyone is interested.

Jumping straight in with the quality insults. Pretty much sums up what really is nonesense and that is your contention there is no such thing as a Celtic race in terms of a racial grouping which of course there is. There being plenty of archaeological evidence for as well as historical and linguistic evidence for it. There was many different tribal groupings of what would today be called Celts spread throughout a large portion of Europe.Of course they were not monolithic in every aspect of culture and language nor were they a nation in the more modern sense of that any more so then the various tribes that were Germanic were for instance. Of course often today nation is mistakenly aligned with enthnicity. The facts remain the term Celtic refers to the many groups of people who lived over a significant portion of Europe at one point and who have largely survived into modern terms via the Gaelic and Brythonic branches of the Celtic family.

Oafley Jones

eire4 wrote: »

Jumping straight in with the quality insults. Pretty much sums up what really is nonesense and that is your contention there is no such thing as a Celtic race in terms of a racial grouping which of course there is. There being plenty of archaeological evidence for as well as historical and linguistic evidence for it. There was many different tribal groupings of what would today be called Celts spread throughout a large portion of Europe.Of course they were not monolithic in every aspect of culture and language nor were they a nation in the more modern sense of that any more so then the various tribes that were Germanic were for instance. Of course often today nation is mistakenly aligned with enthnicity. The facts remain the term Celtic refers to the many groups of people who lived over a significant portion of Europe at one point and who have largely survived into modern terms via the Gaelic and Brythonic branches of the Celtic family.

Calling it bollox isn't an insult. It's reality. I've a degree in archaeology. Not one single lecturer I've encountered takes the notion of the celts seriously. Although you'd encounter the odd crusty who decided to study the subject and usual intertwine it with some new age Druid ****e. Then they'd drop out. If you point to the peer reviewed papers, scientific reports that support your argument I'd be interested. And be prepared to argue the evidence of them.

I also find it amusing that you could essentially replace the word Celt with European in most of your last post and you'd have the same argument.


edit: Also..

The term Celts today is used to refer to the overall cultures, religion, art, languages etc of the various Celtic tribes.

Again, we define culture via material and linguistic morphology. The commonality. This is very specific. This criteria you offer for a culture is so broad that it's practically all encompassing and essentially meaningless.

HiJacques

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Calling it bollox isn't an insult. It's reality. I've a degree in archaeology. Not one single lecturer I've encountered takes the notion of the celts seriously. Although you'd encounter the odd crusty who decided to study the subject and usual intertwine it with some new age Druid ****e. Then they'd drop out. If you point to the peer reviewed papers, scientific reports that support your argument I'd be interested. And be prepared to argue the evidence of them.

I also find it amusing that you could essentially replace the word Celt with European in most of your last post and you'd have the same argument.


edit: Also..


Again, we define culture via material and linguistic morphology. The commonality. This is very specific. This criteria you offer for a culture is so broad that it's practically all encompassing and essentially meaningless.

Sine bhfuil.

US signals corps are never futile.

Good night.

eire4

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Calling it bollox isn't an insult. It's reality. I've a degree in archaeology. Not one single lecturer I've encountered takes the notion of the celts seriously. Although you'd encounter the odd crusty who decided to study the subject and usual intertwine it with some new age Druid ****e. Then they'd drop out. If you point to the peer reviewed papers, scientific reports that support your argument I'd be interested. And be prepared to argue the evidence of them.

I also find it amusing that you could essentially replace the word Celt with European in most of your last post and you'd have the same argument.


edit: Also..


Again, we define culture via material and linguistic morphology. The commonality. This is very specific. This criteria you offer for a culture is so broad that it's practically all encompassing and essentially meaningless.

Yes using the language you used is indeed an insult. For somone who comes over as quite pedantic at least own what you yourself wrote. The fact you used the insult in regards to an ethnic gorup is also very telling.
As for your degree congratulations. Good for you. Although if by telling us about it your trying to inply that thus your opinion is infallible then not so good for you. It certainly is the impression your mention of your degree gives.
As for the lecturers you claim accept the Simon James nonesense then I guess we have encountered different lecturers.
In terms of who the Celts were they were a group of peoples who at one time covered a sigmificant portion of Europe and who largely survive in Europes North West via the Gaelic and Brythonic branches of the racial grouping. Those who went before left behind plenty of cultural, archaeological and linguistic evidence of who they were as a people.


Even Simon James the very virulent British proponent of the myth that the Celts as a distiinct racial grouping never exised still allowed his early book Exploring the World of the Celts to be re published in 2002 directly contradicting himself. Even asserting that the Celts are among the greatest peoples of European history. What is arguable and there is no evidence currently that clearly shows either for or against is that the Iron age peoples in Britain were or were not Celts. The evidence is not clear on that. But that the Celts as a racial grouping is not in doubt. The lecturers like James or Collis who claim the Celts don't exist are refering to what is indeed open to question were the iron age peoples of Britain Celts or not.
Whether the iron age peoples in Britain were or were not Celts can not be proven one way or another currently. But that changes no one iota the fact of the existence of the Celts as a racial grouping. As you point out Cultural and linguistic morphology defines culture and as it pertains to language there is no dispute as to the exitence of the Celts.

Giacomo McGubbin

ads20101 wrote: »

No, I haven't gone mad. Its just a thought.

With NI & Scotland getting rather upset re Brexit, could a union of independant celtic states be organised under the governance of Ireland?

I am not talking about Irish reunification, but this could be a possible third option. This may well appeal to the Scots as France & Spain specifically don't want them in the European Union as a separate entity.

I don't know, just putting it out there

Anders, is that you ?

ancapailldorcha

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

Anders, is that you ?

This is a forum for serious discussion. Please read the charter before posting again.

mitchconnor16

ads20101 wrote: »

mitchconnor16 wrote: »

What you're suggesting is borderline retarded.

Just to clarify, is it the issue of Brexit that offends you enough to make offensive personal comments or is it the fact that you disagree with the original concept?

If it is the Brexit referendum, then I would recommend researching the attitudes of Irish public towards the EU. I was just pointing out that, looking at the research, it does not appear that there is anywhere the same appetite to leave the European project. As for my comment about stupidity, I would stand over this. The UK (Where I have previously lived & studied) voted in a very insular way. In my opinion it all became overly personal, emotional and the facts became an almost secondary to a ghost of misdirected patriotism with a smearing of darn right racism.

If it is the issue of a union of celtic countries that bothers you, then I kind of understand. It is not something that I have made my mind up myself on, it was just a radical topic that I was contemplating based on the recent events of Brexit etc. I love a bit of intelligent debate, so I thought I d throw out the concept to those interested on politics. I was not trying to forward a personal agenda; I just wanted a debate. If you look through the previous comments I am sure that, like me, you will gain some insight from some very informed commentators.

Are you past school age? If so, did you have debating classes and / or societies? I did, and very often I was made to argue points that I would have never agreed with. I feel that it is wonderful to argue points from various angles in order to obtain a more rounded picture. I am sure that most people can do this without becoming offensive.

I think it's more likely that we'll see an exit referendum in the Republic before we'll see a border poll or union of celtic states.

Future agreements made between the UK and EU will make the idea of leaving Europe more attractive.

Snickers Man

mitchconnor16 wrote: »

Why don't we just do the obvious and have our own exit Referendum?

cause that's what THEY want us to do.

No. No. No.

Snickers Man

mitchconnor16 wrote: »

I think it's more likely that we'll see an exit referendum in the Republic before we'll see a border poll or union of celtic states.

I think you're right. And when either happens we'll all be betting on the flying pig races taking place overhead.

mitchconnor16 wrote: »

Future agreements made between the UK and EU will make the idea of leaving Europe more attractive.

For a start, you have NO idea what sort of arrangements will be put in place between Britain and EU. Feck it they don't even know themselves what they want.

And even if there was some sort of fudge which gave Britain near total single-market access in exchange for a liberal but not automatic right of movement, it would still not be in the interests of many smaller countries to drop out. Too many of them (us) remember what it was like under the sole control of only one larger neighbour.

mitchconnor16

Snickers Man wrote: »

mitchconnor16 wrote: »

I think it's more likely that we'll see an exit referendum in the Republic before we'll see a border poll or union of celtic states.

I think you're right. And when either happens we'll all be betting on the flying pig races taking place overhead.

mitchconnor16 wrote: »

Future agreements made between the UK and EU will make the idea of leaving Europe more attractive.

For a start, you have NO idea what sort of arrangements will be put in place between Britain and EU. Feck it they don't even know themselves what they want.

And even if there was some sort of fudge which gave Britain near total single-market access in exchange for a liberal but not automatic right of movement, it would still not be in the interests of many smaller countries to drop out. Too many of them (us) remember what it was like under the sole control of only one larger neighbour.

We need to be given a say on the matter tbh. Most leave voters didn't vote leave because of it's 'economic benefits'. There were other factors like immigration and sovereignty and being unhappy with the overall situation.

So before you go around saying there are no economic benefits therefore we should not leave, I think the public should be given a say on the matter. As what's good for the economy is not necessarily good for everyone else as has been quite evident in the media; homelessness, emigration and mass immigration.

The EU we live in today is not the EU we agreed to enter into in 1973. We don't need economic experts telling us what's best for us. That is not a democracy.

Charles Babbage

mitchconnor16 wrote: »

The EU we live in today is not the EU we agreed to enter into in 1973. We don't need economic experts telling us what's best for us. That is not a democracy.

Fecking economists, fearmongers the whole lot of them. What can go wrong?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfjGSfuSQpA

Snickers Man

mitchconnor16 wrote: »

We need to be given a say on the matter tbh. Most leave voters didn't vote leave because of it's 'economic benefits'. There were other factors like immigration and sovereignty and being unhappy with the overall situation.

So before you go around saying there are no economic benefits therefore we should not leave, I think the public should be given a say on the matter.

For a start, I never said that "economic benefits" are the sole or even major issue regarding the EU and our continued membership. There are more factors at play than that, including popular, or emotional, factors as well as global strategic factors and how they impinge on small countries. All of these have to be considered, both in isolation and in combination to get a picture of the likely progress of events.

But "happiness (or unhappiness) with the overall situation" is a really bad issue on which to base a vote. Many people, "unhappy with their overall situation" seek solace in the bottle or the needle. Is such escapism a good idea?

Referendums (or da) are no more a panacea for our problems than a bag of smack. The last one in Britain certainly hasn't solved hers. In fact all it has done is create a whole new set of problems that they really don't know how they want to go about solving. They were given a say in what they didn't want; what is quite clear is that there is ZERO consensus on what they DO want.

Furthermore, the notion that Ireland would hold a referendum on a simple In/Out question as happened in Britain is almost impossible. Unlike Britain, we have a written constitution. Unlike Britain, referendums are built into the machinery of administration over here. Unlike Britain, our referendums are on very specific questions and the results are clearly understood.

We hold referendums to amend our constitution. That's it. Parliament suggests a wording for a new or amended article of the Constitution; we get to say yes or no.

In Britain it's all insinuation and subtlety. Referendums are not binding, merely advisory. In theory. The Parliament is within its rights, or privileges, to tell the electorate thanks for the advice but sod off. That's unlikely to happen, but who knows what the practice of "Brexit meaning Brexit" will turn out to be?

So to come back to the OP. Before we got anywhere near the referendum that would be needed to join a new entity such as a union with independent Scotland we would have to consider all manner of issues, including but not limited to the economy. I think the downsides are so overwhelming that it would never happen.

Would exit from the EU at this point be a good alternative remedy for us? Hell no. Everything our economy is geared around is predicated on EU membership and access to teh single market. That's the primary reason the likes of Intel, Google, HP etc are here. And the pharma giants. And the financial services people who are expected to start drifting over from London if Brexit means what they fear it might mean.

To replace those would require us to resume ever closer integration with Britain. And there are numerous reasons why many of us would not want that. Economic Cultural and Strategic.

mitchconnor16

Snickers Man wrote: »

mitchconnor16 wrote: »

We need to be given a say on the matter tbh. Most leave voters didn't vote leave because of it's 'economic benefits'. There were other factors like immigration and sovereignty and being unhappy with the overall situation.

So before you go around saying there are no economic benefits therefore we should not leave, I think the public should be given a say on the matter.

For a start, I never said that "economic benefits" are the sole or even major issue regarding the EU and our continued membership. There are more factors at play than that, including popular, or emotional, factors as well as global strategic factors and how they impinge on small countries. All of these have to be considered, both in isolation and in combination to get a picture of the likely progress of events.

But "happiness (or unhappiness) with the overall situation" is a really bad issue on which to base a vote. Many people, "unhappy with their overall situation" seek solace in the bottle or the needle. Is such escapism a good idea?

Referendums (or da) are no more a panacea for our problems than a bag of smack. The last one in Britain certainly hasn't solved hers. In fact all it has done is create a whole new set of problems that they really don't know how they want to go about solving. They were given a say in what they didn't want; what is quite clear is that there is ZERO consensus on what they DO want.

Furthermore, the notion that Ireland would hold a referendum on a simple In/Out question as happened in Britain is almost impossible. Unlike Britain, we have a written constitution. Unlike Britain, referendums are built into the machinery of administration over here. Unlike Britain, our referendums are on very specific questions and the results are clearly understood.

We hold referendums to amend our constitution. That's it. Parliament suggests a wording for a new or amended article of the Constitution; we get to say yes or no.

In Britain it's all insinuation and subtlety. Referendums are not binding, merely advisory. In theory. The Parliament is within its rights, or privileges, to tell the electorate thanks for the advice but sod off. That's unlikely to happen, but who knows what the practice of "Brexit meaning Brexit" will turn out to be?

So to come back to the OP. Before we got anywhere near the referendum that would be needed to join a new entity such as a union with independent Scotland we would have to consider all manner of issues, including but not limited to the economy. I think the downsides are so overwhelming that it would never happen.

Would exit from the EU at this point be a good alternative remedy for us? Hell no. Everything our economy is geared around is predicated on EU membership and access to teh single market. That's the primary reason the likes of Intel, Google, HP etc are here. And the pharma giants. And the financial services people who are expected to start drifting over from London if Brexit means what they fear it might mean.

To replace those would require us to resume ever closer integration with Britain. And there are numerous reasons why many of us would not want that. Economic Cultural and Strategic.

So you're saying all those who voted leave in the referendum should be compared to heroine addicts and alcoholics?

Snickers Man

mitchconnor16 wrote: »

So you're saying all those who voted leave in the referendum should be compared to heroine addicts and alcoholics?

I didn't say anything like that at all. :rolleyes: