Irexit party yay or nay?

seamus

Arthur Daley wrote: »

Many people have advocated Ireland look at it's Euro membership. David McWilliams being one. I think he knows a thing or two about Economics.
https://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-mcwilliams/david-mcwilliams-leaving-the-euro-may-be-our-least-extreme-option-26806047.html

So you use an article containing predictions that McWilliams got wrong to prove the he "knows a thing or two" about economics?

In any case, nobody is saying we can't or shouldn't have euroskeptic parties. We have a couple, and a few euroskeptics in the main parties too.

The fact that they have very low numbers is just democracy. Most Irish people aren't blindly euroskeptic.

It's also not black-and-white, however much euroskeptics would like to present it.

One can be in favour of EU membership while also being cautious about things like PESCO. There's nobody who blindly advocates that we just do everything the EU says without question.

On the other hand there are those who believe we should blindly resist everything the EU suggests.

Arthur Daley

Arthur Daley wrote: »

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

100% need a eurosceptic voice in Ireland. What about PESCO? Irish Neutrality? We were told there is no EU army being formed by our politicians. Now I see 10-15 Irish soldiers getting involved with an EU response force. Not only economic issues to discuss here IMO. With euroscepticism growing throughout Europe there's a good chance the EU may not survive. We need to be ready for that if it happens. I find the way we are snuggling up to Brussels and helping to vilify the British is ridiculous. All they have done is vote to leave the EU. That's democracy. We should be looking for a free trade deal with them and maintain our relationship with them because the way the EU is going the Brits may have the last laugh.

Exactly. If for nothing else, then checks and balance against the one world view. Challenge one's thinking. If people look at the history of UKIP it didn't emerge in 2016. It was developed since the mid 90s. Initially it's focus was on keeping the British pound. Having a referendum to leave was probably a pipe dream for many of them back in the late 90s. They (and a sizeable rump of the Conservative party) challenged the orthodoxy.

Many people have advocated Ireland look at it's Euro membership. David McWilliams being one. I think he knows a thing or two about Economics.
https://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-mcwilliams/david-mcwilliams-leaving-the-euro-may-be-our-least-extreme-option-26806047.html

Whatever about her background and other ideas, a candidate advocating an EU in out referendum in France achieved 34% of the vote in the Presidential election last May. A candidate had to form a party from scratch and come from nowhere to stop her.

17m British, a sizeable percentage of the French electorate. But in Ireland?

There is something quite odd about presenting this as a point in your favour.

seamus

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I think we should be involved. If war breaks out, we'll be involved anyway. We are adopting a holiver than though attitude akin to abortion otherwise.

It's not even an EU army anyway.

It's a series of co-operative "projects" designed to enhance military co-operation within the EU and countries taking part can opt-in or out of these projects as their foreign policy allows/requires.

So while Ireland will get involved in intelligence, training and disaster relief projects, it will opt-out of combat-specific ones.

Yes, it is looking down the road of building an EU army, but in an opt-in manner rather than "tricking" countries into taking part. The goal is to create the structures, processes and legal frameworks that are necessary to allow such an army, ultimately making it easier for member states to join such a venture in future.

Whether Ireland should take part I think isn't relevant to neutrality. We're not committed to taking part in armed conflicts, and that's really all that matters.

ancapailldorcha

Arthur Daley wrote: »

Exactly. If for nothing else, then checks and balance against the one world view. Challenge one's thinking. If people look at the history of UKIP it didn't emerge in 2016. It was developed since the mid 90s. Initially it's focus was on keeping the British pound. Having a referendum to leave was probably a pipe dream for many of them back in the late 90s. They (and a sizeable rump of the Conservative party) challenged the orthodoxy.

Many people have advocated Ireland look at it's Euro membership. David McWilliams being one. I think he knows a thing or two about Economics.
https://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-mcwilliams/david-mcwilliams-leaving-the-euro-may-be-our-least-extreme-option-26806047.html

Whatever about her background and other ideas, a candidate advocating an EU in out referendum in France achieved 34% of the vote in the Presidential election last May. A candidate had to form a party from scratch and come from nowhere to stop her.

17m British, a sizeable percentage of the French electorate. But in Ireland?

I don't see what your point is here. The central problem with this "Irexit" is the fact that the only available method of assessing it is Brexit which is so far an unmitigated disaster characterised by an unending series of gaffes from Conservative MPs and cabinet officials. If you support Irexit and wish to persuade others to do so then you need to offer a fact-based argument specific to Ireland as to why it will be both different to the Brexit disaster and beneficial to Ireland.

Nearly two thirds (66.1%) of people rejected LePen. This is a resounding defeat and not at all comparable to the bare-bones majority won by the Leave side in the UK in 2016.

As an aside, the Leave campaign developed from the old Business for Sterling group. Also explains UKIP's previous logo. From The Guardian:

The Guardian wrote:

For all its fervour, though, Euroscepticism in the late 1990s could not have been more unfashionable. New Labour was ascendant, and openly intent on deeper integration with the EU. In the summer of 1998, Tony Blair praised the incoming single currency and the prospect of Britain adopting the euro became the next line of battle in the European debate. The ERG published a paper, The Euro: bad for business, written by Reckless, and Hannan organised two conferences on the subject before helping to establish Business for Sterling, a single-issue pressure group to fight what was, at the time, a widely expected referendum.

Largely forgotten now, Business for Sterling set the template, and included some of the key personnel, for the 2016 leave campaign. (Vote Leave’s initial vehicle, Business for Britain, was named in homage.) Although the group was chaired by Tory rebels and right-leaning grandees – led by Rodney Leach, a merchant banker, who later became a lord; Rupert Hambro, of Hambros Bank, and the Marquess of Salisbury – it was outwardly cross-party and apolitical. “Business for Sterling were the first campaign to sort of bring those concerns out of the political margins and into the real mainstream,” Theresa Villiers told me.

Hotblack Desiato

Arthur Daley wrote: »

Exactly....

Any chance you'll respond to the points I raised, Arthur?

How's that free floating Danish currency getting along, for instance?

Greysquirel09

seamus wrote: »

It's not even an EU army anyway.

It's a series of co-operative "projects" designed to enhance military co-operation within the EU and countries taking part can opt-in or out of these projects as their foreign policy allows/requires.

So while Ireland will get involved in intelligence, training and disaster relief projects, it will opt-out of combat-specific ones.

Yes, it is looking down the road of building an EU army, but in an opt-in manner rather than "tricking" countries into taking part. The goal is to create the structures, processes and legal frameworks that are necessary to allow such an army, ultimately making it easier for member states to join such a venture in future.

Whether Ireland should take part I think isn't relevant to neutrality. We're not committed to taking part in armed conflicts, and that's really all that matters.

All well and good except for the fact that the Commissioner himself said he wanted his an EU Army to show Russia we're serious. It seems to me the Irish government has adopted an attitude of its all rosy in the garden here at the moment don't rock the boat on the army thing. Tell the people it's nothing to worry about and cross that bridge when we come to it. Then we resist, we'll be bullied into it. Unfortunately I don't think the IREXIT argument will gain any traction until it hits our pockets. No one thought of leaving until the UK did it. If the recession hit after Brexit had happened we'd be out the door.

ancapailldorcha

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

All well and good except for the fact that the Commissioner himself said he wanted his an EU Army to show Russia we're serious. It seems to me the Irish government has adopted an attitude of its all rosy in the garden here at the moment don't rock the boat on the army thing. Tell the people it's nothing to worry about and cross that bridge when we come to it. Then we resist, we'll be bullied into it. Unfortunately I don't think the IREXIT argument will gain any traction until it hits our pockets. No one thought of leaving until the UK did it. If the recession hit after Brexit had happened we'd be out the door.

That's just a cherrypicked remark. Each member state would have to agree to allow an EU army, an idea which makes a lot of sense IMO but it nowhere near definite.

There's no reason for the Irish government to rock the boat. Ireland is doing extremely well out of being an EU member.

Greysquirel09

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's just a cherrypicked remark. Each member state would have to agree to allow an EU army, an idea which makes a lot of sense IMO but it nowhere near definite.

There's no reason for the Irish government to rock the boat. Ireland is doing extremely well out of being an EU member.

Yeah you make a good point actually. We can just push for a referendum on the issue and just vote no. Remember that happened with the Lisbon Treaty.. Oh wait. Didn't we have to vote again on that? And other countries voted No.. yet they still managed to push it through. Were you not outraged at the Lisbon Treaty fiasco? It seems to me once your opinion is once we're pocketing the cash sure let's ride the wave and let them ride the wave. Not everyone is living the dream on the Emerald Isle.

Zubeneschamali

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

Remember that happened with the Lisbon Treaty.. Oh wait. Didn't we have to vote again on that?

So vote No again.

ancapailldorcha

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

Yeah you make a good point actually. We can just push for a referendum on the issue and just vote no. Remember that happened with the Lisbon Treaty.. Oh wait. Didn't we have to vote again on that? And other countries voted No.. yet they still managed to push it through. Were you not outraged at the Lisbon Treaty fiasco? It seems to me once your opinion is once we're pocketing the cash sure let's ride the wave and let them ride the wave. Not everyone is living the dream on the Emerald Isle.

Nope. There was nothing whatsoever to stop the Irish electorate from rejecting the revised Lisbon treaty. There was no second referendum.

If you can't do any better than sarcastic quips like this then people aren't going to risk their economic wellbeing for some idealistic Irexit.

Greysquirel09

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Nope. There was nothing whatsoever to stop the Irish electorate from rejecting the revised Lisbon treaty. There was no second referendum.

If you can't do any better than sarcastic quips like this then people aren't going to risk their economic wellbeing for some idealistic Irexit.

The thread is Irexit party yay or nay, I'm not saying leave the EU. The French voted No too and it was simply forced upon them. Is that democracy? No one can give an answer to these points except, I'm making a few quid I'm not risking it.

Rory28

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

The thread is Irexit party yay or nay, I'm not saying leave the EU. The French voted No too and it was simply forced upon them. Is that democracy? No one can give an answer to these points except, I'm making a few quid I'm not risking it.

Thats a very simplified version of why we should stay but its still better than lets leave just because. Why are you so against europe? I think its great. The free travel alone is worth staying imo.

seamus

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

The thread is Irexit party yay or nay, I'm not saying leave the EU. The French voted No too and it was simply forced upon them. Is that democracy? No one can give an answer to these points except, I'm making a few quid I'm not risking it.

No-one can give an answer to points that haven't been made.

The French didn't reject the Lisbon Treaty. They rejected the proposed EU constitution, which was then binned.

If your point is that "citizens of the EU sometimes have things forced upon them that they didn't vote for", then I'm not sure what answer you expect. There isn't a borough, city, province, principality or country in the world where that statement isn't true.

Greysquirel09

seamus wrote: »

No-one can give an answer to points that haven't been made.

The French didn't reject the Lisbon Treaty. They rejected the proposed EU constitution, which was then binned.

If your point is that "citizens of the EU sometimes have things forced upon them that they didn't vote for", then I'm not sure what answer you expect. There isn't a borough, city, province, principality or country in the world where that statement isn't true.

It's different, we are a nation not a borough or a city and we supposedly rule our own country but if you're saying we are Europe all as one. That's fine, that's your opinion.
I personally don't like it and would rather it was a much more open democratic EU than the one we have now. Across Europe the euroscepticism is growing at a serious rate. 100 seats for a euro sceptic party in Germany. Our eurosceptic party reps are on TV talking about why we should ban ring girls in boxing matches. Irexit party- yay. No harm hearing an alternative voice. Sure we'll all have a pint afterwards.

wes

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's just a cherrypicked remark. Each member state would have to agree to allow an EU army, an idea which makes a lot of sense IMO but it nowhere near definite.

There's no reason for the Irish government to rock the boat. Ireland is doing extremely well out of being an EU member.

Yeah you make a good point actually. We can just push for a referendum on the issue and just vote no. Remember that happened with the Lisbon Treaty.. Oh wait. Didn't we have to vote again on that? And other countries voted No.. yet they still managed to push it through. Were you not outraged at the Lisbon Treaty fiasco? It seems to me once your opinion is once we're pocketing the cash sure let's ride the wave and let them ride the wave. Not everyone is living the dream on the Emerald Isle.

Democracy isn't you win one vote and you win forever. What you suggest is tyranny.

Zubeneschamali

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

No harm hearing an alternative voice.

Cameron called a must-win referendum but neither Labour nor the Tories gave full-throated support to Europe, their whole pitch was how the EU is pretty crap but a bit better than leaving.

Meanwhile, the Leave campaign told any insane lie they liked unchallenged and without a robust response, and without taking even a tiny bit of responsibility for them (350m for the NHS, Nazi posters of hordes of immigrants).

And now the UK are in the poo.

This is what happens when you say "Sure what harm?". There is of course nothing stopping anyone starting an Irexit party, but it is vital that we fight these destructive influences from the outset, and don't just say "Ah the EU can defend themselves".

Greysquirel09

wes wrote: »

Democracy isn't you win one vote and you win forever. What you suggest is tyranny.

Tyranny? You've lost me.

wes

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

wes wrote: »

Democracy isn't you win one vote and you win forever. What you suggest is tyranny.

Tyranny? You've lost me.

You were complaining about there being a 2nd vote. You don't get to win once and win forever. That is not democracy.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: No more sniping please. Posts deleted.

Hotblack Desiato

At the next general election, will there be people complaining about being asked to vote again? Sure we already decided what government we wanted in 2016...

Greysquirel09

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

At the next general election, will there be people complaining about being asked to vote again? Sure we already decided what government we wanted in 2016...

Little bit different though voting for a government than a treaty but I take your point.

seamus

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

It's different, we are a nation not a borough or a city and we supposedly rule our own country but if you're saying we are Europe all as one. That's fine, that's your opinion. I personally don't like it and would rather it was a much more open democratic EU than the one we have now.

Decisions made at an EU level are done democratically, taking the population of the EU as a whole.

Decisions taken at a national level are done by the democratically elected governments of those countries. The EU doesn't "force" any country to do anything that they haven't chosen to do.

I'm not sure what "more open" democracy in the EU looks like to you? There is a functional limit on how much direct input a population can have into decision-making. Sure, on the small scale of a housing estate or even a village, you can have populations vote directly on matters. But as you scale up to towns, cities & countries it becomes impractical and you have to move to representative democracies.

Direct democracy doesn't exist at a large scale anywhere in the world because it's basically not practically possible. Switzerland has a great system, but it's not pure direct democracy. And the same system wouldn't be as relevant to the EU since the powers/competencies of the EU are not those of a federal authority or state.

I would personally favour a more open democracy at a national level than an EU one.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

Decisions made at an EU level are done democratically, taking the population of the EU as a whole.

Decisions taken at a national level are done by the democratically elected governments of those countries. The EU doesn't "force" any country to do anything that they haven't chosen to do.

I'm not sure what "more open" democracy in the EU looks like to you? There is a functional limit on how much direct input a population can have into decision-making. Sure, on the small scale of a housing estate or even a village, you can have populations vote directly on matters. But as you scale up to towns, cities & countries it becomes impractical and you have to move to representative democracies.

Direct democracy doesn't exist at a large scale anywhere in the world because it's basically not practically possible. Switzerland has a great system, but it's not pure direct democracy. And the same system wouldn't be as relevant to the EU since the powers/competencies of the EU are not those of a federal authority or state.

I would personally favour a more open democracy at a national level than an EU one.

And even Switzerland once in a while mess up with their wonderful system and have to "vote again" when mistakes creep through.

demfad

seamus wrote: »

Decisions made at an EU level are done democratically, taking the population of the EU as a whole.

Decisions taken at a national level are done by the democratically elected governments of those countries. The EU doesn't "force" any country to do anything that they haven't chosen to do.

I'm not sure what "more open" democracy in the EU looks like to you? There is a functional limit on how much direct input a population can have into decision-making. Sure, on the small scale of a housing estate or even a village, you can have populations vote directly on matters. But as you scale up to towns, cities & countries it becomes impractical and you have to move to representative democracies.

Direct democracy doesn't exist at a large scale anywhere in the world because it's basically not practically possible. Switzerland has a great system, but it's not pure direct democracy. And the same system wouldn't be as relevant to the EU since the powers/competencies of the EU are not those of a federal authority or state.

I would personally favour a more open democracy at a national level than an EU one.

Good points. I would have have one suggestion about how to improve the democratic strenght of the EU parliament. The more informed the electorate, the stronger their democratic decision to choose a suitable candidate and to impress on candidates their position.
In EP elections candidates still run under their national political Party. Their national party is irrelevant in the European Parliament : Their European party is all that is relevant.
The advantage of this status quo to the politician is obvious: they are less accountable and anyway it's what they have always done.
The disadvantages outweight it for democracy at least: The voter cannot vote on a candidate or party based on accurate information about what that candidate and party can achieve. That means you have your mid term protest votes, you have your maverick independents and you have your UKIP who can lie and say that the EU is a waste of money, is corrupt, sure lets throw in 'evil empire' while we are at it. In other words Europe gets the maximum amount of blame that local politicians can get away with giving it. This is Union wide.
A more engaged and informed electorate would mean less disinformation and falshoods being able to be pedalled by serial liars like Farage.
It would see Mickey Mouse 'movements' like 'Irexit' receive even less than its tiny base of support.

stuff.hunter

seamus wrote: »

Decisions made at an EU level are done democratically, taking the population of the EU as a whole.

Decisions taken at a national level are done by the democratically elected governments of those countries. The EU doesn't "force" any country to do anything that they haven't chosen to do.

decisions made in Brussels has nothing to do with democracy and as far as i know, EU forces states / members to abide their 'democratic' decisions

Agent Smith

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

So with the Farage appearance at the rally in the RDS over the weekend in the news, what do people think about his assertion that there is a “gap in the market” in Ireland for an Irexit/eurosceptic political movement?

Personally I think it would be no harm to have some dissenting voices regarding the EU in the body politic of Ireland. A check on the exuberant EU Uber Alles attitude of some in the mainstream parties perhaps.

I wonder what their general appeal would be, I suspect something akin to one of the smaller parties like the Soc Dems or Greens possibly.

SNIP. Don't post nonsense here please.

Chips Lovell

Gravelly wrote: »

If you want to put it like that, dissent for the sake of dissenting. I would be opposed to Irexit (unless the EU disintegrates further) but I am happy that there are people considering the alternatives, even if I don't agree with that alternative. It is a good thing to see what could or might be, even if it never happens.

I'm not sure I understand this position. I mean, there's no end of political positions that are currently unrepresented. It's like saying "I'm opposed to the death penalty, but its healthy for democracy that we have groups arguing for it..." or "I'm opposed to the reintroduction of slavery but...."

There's no bar on people forming political parties. If the demand is there, they appear.

Gravelly

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand this position. I mean, there's no end of political positions that are currently unrepresented. It's like saying "I'm opposed to the death penalty, but its healthy for democracy that we have groups arguing for it..." or "I'm opposed to the reintroduction of slavery but...."

There's no bar on people forming political parties. If the demand is there, they appear.

It's a simple enough position to understand, I stated it clearly. Your reference to slavery is, as I'm sure you are aware, silly. Comparing scepticism of the EU to support for slavery just undermines any validity your post might have.

I never said there was a bar on forming political parties - this meeting may or may not be the start of the formation of one. If it has support, it will gain traction, if not it will die. My post was in reference (again, as I'm sure you are aware) to the posters who wish to "no platform" any EU sceptics, or who posted that they believe anyone holding these views is mad or stupid.

Chips Lovell

Gravelly wrote: »

Your reference to slavery is, as I'm sure you are aware, silly

Gravelly wrote: »

My post was in reference (again, as I'm sure you are aware) to the posters who wish to "no platform" any EU sceptics, or who posted that they believe anyone holding these views is mad or stupid.

You may be contradicting yourself here a little.

Gravelly

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

You may be contradicting yourself here a little.

2/10.

Mad
Definition: mentally ill; insane

Stupid
Definition: having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense

Silly
Definition: absurd and foolish