Irexit party yay or nay?

Zubeneschamali

Gravelly wrote: »

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 agree that slavery is a silly comparison, there is no support anywhere in the Western world for reintroduction of slavery.

Hanging is a much better example - lots of people support the reintroduction of hanging. But even in the UK, the general attitude is to no-platform these people, deny them oxygen, have all parties oppose it en bloc, offer no openings.

And dead right.

Mind you, I'm sure after Brexit is a fact, they will come out of the woodwork again, thinking that removal of EU nannyism means they can start hanging people again.

Quin_Dub

Gravelly wrote: »

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.

I'm pretty sure that's not what anyone has said..

No issue whatsoever with EU Skeptics , however a lot of people (including me) have said that anyone saying "Leave the EU , we can sort out the specifics later" is not someone that they'd have interest in debating as it's not a very bright position to start from.

I think you'd be hard pushed to find a single poster in this thread thus far that is 100% "Pro-EU" however it would appear that the majority are of the opinion that on balance, Ireland has done well inside the EU and would not do as well outside it. That does not mean that we cannot be disapproving of some elements of the EU.

I don't think the EU is perfect , there are lots of things that I'd like to see done more effectively but the EU has been good for Ireland and its economy and continues to be so.

Gravelly

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I agree that slavery is a silly comparison, there is no support anywhere in the Western world for reintroduction of slavery.

Hanging is a much better example - lots of people support the reintroduction of hanging. But even in the UK, the general attitude is to no-platform these people, deny them oxygen, have all parties oppose it en bloc, offer no openings.

And dead right.

Mind you, I'm sure after Brexit is a fact, they will come out of the woodwork again, thinking that removal of EU nannyism means they can start hanging people again.

So comparing scepticism of the EU with slavery is silly (which I agree with) but a comparison with hanging isn't?! Why is EU scepticism similar to hanging? Almost any reasonable person would consider hanging repulsive, why should questioning participation in a political and economic union be repulsive? That's like saying that objecting to joining Fine Gael is repulsive, or objecting to membership of NATO is repulsive. I never get why people get so defensive about the EU, almost like it is a religion.

Rory28

Gravelly wrote: »

So comparing scepticism of the EU with slavery is silly (which I agree with) but a comparison with hanging isn't?! Why is EU scepticism similar to hanging? Almost any reasonable person would consider hanging repulsive, why should questioning participation in a political and economic union be repulsive? That's like saying that objecting to joining Fine Gael is repulsive, or objecting to membership of NATO is repulsive. I never get why people get so defensive about the EU, almost like it is a religion.

Its not that people are so defensive about the EU its more that we have seen what leaving the EU without a proper plan looks like. Nobody should want to follow that. If someone puts forward valid reasons for leaving and a plan to actually do that then i'm sure those in this thread will happily debate it.

Podge_irl

Gravelly wrote: »

So comparing scepticism of the EU with slavery is silly (which I agree with) but a comparison with hanging isn't?! Why is EU scepticism similar to hanging? Almost any reasonable person would consider hanging repulsive, why should questioning participation in a political and economic union be repulsive? That's like saying that objecting to joining Fine Gael is repulsive, or objecting to membership of NATO is repulsive. I never get why people get so defensive about the EU, almost like it is a religion.

A majority of the UK are in favour of bringing back hanging. Though if your argument is that a majority of the UK is unreasonable then you may have a point.

stuff.hunter wrote: »

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

Who do you think is making decisions in Brussels the democracy in Brussels is just a variation of the representative democracy we practice at home. The govt we have elected appoints commissioners. The council of ministers has a minister from our govt represented. What more are you looking for?

Gravelly

Rory28 wrote: »

Its not that people are so defensive about the EU its more that we have seen what leaving the EU without a proper plan looks like. Nobody should want to follow that. If someone puts forward valid reasons for leaving and a plan to actually do that then i'm sure those in this thread will happily debate it.

As I have said numerous times in this thread, I don't actually think we should leave. I just don't think that considering or speaking about leaving is blasphemy.

ancapailldorcha

Gravelly wrote: »

As I have said numerous times in this thread, I don't actually think we should leave. I just don't think that considering or speaking about leaving is blasphemy.

Nobody has said that it is. As has been pointed out, a facts-based position is required or else anyone who proposes Irexit invites ridicule and scepticism given what is happening at the moment between the UK and the EU.

Gravelly

Podge_irl wrote: »

A majority of the UK are in favour of bringing back hanging. Though if your argument is that a majority of the UK is unreasonable then you may have a point.

Actually, I understand that is what is now popularly known as fake news. A poll was done which showed the majority favoured capital punishment, which certain papers then announced as "Majority want to bring back hanging"

Gravelly

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Nobody has said that it is. As has been pointed out, a facts-based position is required or else anyone who proposes Irexit invites ridicule and scepticism given what is happening at the moment between the UK and the EU.

Lots have described any discussion of it as "madness" "stupidity" etc. and claimed there should be "no platform given" to those who want to discuss it (i.e they should be banned from doing so). The same kind of reaction religious zealots give to those who question their faith, thus my blasphemy comparison is, I feel, reasonable.

ancapailldorcha

Gravelly wrote: »

Lots have described any discussion of it as "madness" "stupidity" etc. and claimed there should be "no platform given" to those who want to discuss it (i.e they should be banned from doing so). The same kind of reaction religious zealots give to those who question their faith, thus my blasphemy comparison is, I feel, reasonable.

Describing it as "Madness" and "Stupidity" is voicing an opinion and therefore free speech. If you want to describe any sort of criticism whatsoever as cries of blasphemy then people are going to be inclined to treat what you have to say with scepticism or outright cynicism.

demfad

Gravelly wrote: »

So comparing scepticism of the EU with slavery is silly (which I agree with) but a comparison with hanging isn't?! Why is EU scepticism similar to hanging? Almost any reasonable person would consider hanging repulsive, why should questioning participation in a political and economic union be repulsive? That's like saying that objecting to joining Fine Gael is repulsive, or objecting to membership of NATO is repulsive. I never get why people get so defensive about the EU, almost like it is a religion.

People have rational reasons for wanting to stay in the EU which they can substantiate. The reasons Brexiters and yourselves give for leaving are not really substantiated. They are based on appealing to emotion or nationalism.

If people are cutting your arguments to shreds its not because they are defensive, it's because your arguments are weak, unsubstantiated or simply made up.

Religion is a blind belief and faith that the end will justify the means. This seems to fit Brexit or Irexit pretty well.
Non believers in Brexit are traitors, saboteurs etc etc.
Brexit resembles fundamentalist religion.

Rory28

Gravelly wrote: »

As I have said numerous times in this thread, I don't actually think we should leave. I just don't think that considering or speaking about leaving is blasphemy.

Speaking about leaving the EU without providing any information on the how or why is deserving of ridicule. It is just put out there by people who apparently dont want to leave but feel we should be able to discuss it anyway yet no discussion has happened so ridicule becomes the theme of the thread.

Gravelly

demfad wrote: »

People have rational reasons for wanting to stay in the EU which they can substantiate. The reasons Brexiters and yourselves give for leaving are not really substantiated. They are based on appealing to emotion or nationalism.

If people are cutting your arguments to shreds its not because they are defensive, it's because your arguments are weak, unsubstantiated or simply made up.

Religion is a blind belief and faith that the end will justify the means. This seems to fit Brexit or Irexit pretty well.
Non believers in Brexit are traitors, saboteurs etc etc.
Brexit resembles fundamentalist religion.

As I have stated numerous times that I don't think we should leave, the making up is all your own.

Gravelly

Rory28 wrote: »

Speaking about leaving the EU without providing any information on the how or why is deserving of ridicule. It is just put out there by people who apparently dont want to leave but feel we should be able to discuss it anyway yet no discussion has happened so ridicule becomes the theme of the thread.

That would be fine if the ridicule was of the reasons or otherwise for leaving. The whole point I'm making, which is either going over your head, or being deliberately ignored, is that the ridicule is directed at the very act of discussing leaving.
If my wife suddenly told me she was leaving me, it would be reasonable and just for me to demand a reason, and to argue any reason given. If I were to mock my wife on a daily basis that she could never leave me, and she's be a fool to even think about it that would make me a bully.

Greysquirel09

demfad wrote: »

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.

What exactly has Nigel Farage lied about? He's a politician who campaigned for Brexit for 20 years.

stuff.hunter

Podge_irl wrote: »

....Who do you think is making decisions in Brussels the democracy in Brussels is just a variation of the representative democracy we practice at home. The govt we have elected appoints commissioners. The council of ministers has a minister from our govt represented. What more are you looking for?

kinda agree with you but personally feeling that meaning of democracy as such has gone with the wind, we've elected them, they've picked someone else etc.
anyways, I see decisions by EU made from position of power, bigger and stronger countries such as Germany of France always will get whatever they want in the name of majority (and power).. leaving us, small ones screwed up (as usual)

demfad

Gravelly wrote: »

As I have said numerous times in this thread, I don't actually think we should leave. I just don't think that considering or speaking about leaving is blasphemy.

Fairness dictates that the amount something is given attention to by media or platforms should reflect the amount of interest in it.

Now Farage had coverage from all the Irish big media players and he was on prominent radio current affairs shows.

Recent history has shown that many players in the far-right upsurge attack the media, and accuse others of censorship just in order to gain more air space.

People proposing this idiotic idea often say our relationship with the UK who are leaving is more important. As of today the British cabinet still don't know how they will leave and it's still not certain if they will leave at all.

Thus there is no point in dwelling too much on this until we know what shape Brexit has taken, and that it has been successful. That's a decade away.

Zubeneschamali

Gravelly wrote: »

there should be "no platform given" to those who want to discuss it (i.e they should be banned from doing so).

Giving someone no platform is not the same as banning their views.

Universities regularly have folks in to talk to societies and other student groups, or to give public lectures. RTÉ have a list somewhere of "spokespeople" who get invited onto debate issues, like the Iona crew, or the head of Atheist Ireland.

The likes of John Waters, Kevin Myers, or George Hook have, over the years, been given platforms on TV and in the newspapers to air their views because they stir up controversy and generate sales (or these days, clicks.)

But no-one is entitled to such a platform simply because they have a view. If you want to bring back hanging, deny votes to women, or reduce the age of consent to 5, nobody is obliged to offer you a platform to argue your case.

That does not mean discussion of your views is banned, just that no-one has to help you disseminate them.

relax carry on

Gravelly wrote: »

As I have stated numerous times that I don't think we should leave, the making up is all your own.

Ok for clarification if nothing else. Do you believe that if an IREXIT party is to gain any traction it will need to be able to provide reasoned arguments which can stand up to fact checking in order to attempt to convince anyone to their cause? If so then shouldn't the same condition hold true for the posters on this thread who support an IREXIT? Simply saying we should have the debate without debating anything is a bit pointless.

Rory28

Gravelly wrote: »

That would be fine if the ridicule was of the reasons or otherwise for leaving. The whole point I'm making, which is either going over your head, or being deliberately ignored, is that the ridicule is directed at the very act of discussing leaving.

The ridicule is their because nobody has put forward anything to debate. How can we have a debate if the Irexit side won't even say why we should leave? There is nothing to discuss until someone does.

demfad

stuff.hunter wrote: »

kinda agree with you but personally feeling that meaning of democracy as such has gone with the wind, we've elected them, they've picked someone else etc.
anyways, I see decisions by EU made from position of power, bigger and stronger countries such as Germany of France always will get whatever they want in the name of majority (and power).. leaving us, small ones screwed up (as usual)

So you don't actually know how the EU operates but you're sure it screws 'small ones' like Ireland.
A few months ago little Ireland (one of the EU27) gave big UK (not one of the EU27) a set of instructions on how the UK needed to set up its future trading relationship with it's largest partner which we could veto if we din't like it.

How do you think that would have went outside the EU?
How would little Ireland cut off from the EU manage negotiating an FTA with a very desperate and waaaaaaayyy bigger UK?

Notice the difference.

Gravelly

demfad wrote: »

Fairness dictates that the amount something is given attention to by media or platforms should reflect the amount of interest in it.

Now Farage had coverage from all the Irish big media players and he was on prominent radio current affairs shows.

Recent history has shown that many players in the far-right upsurge attack the media, and accuse others of censorship just in order to gain more air space.

People proposing this idiotic idea often say our relationship with the UK who are leaving is more important. As of today the British cabinet still don't know how they will leave and it's still not certain if they will leave at all.

Thus there is no point in dwelling too much on this until we know what shape Brexit has taken, and that it has been successful. That's a decade away.

The bit in bold I wholeheartedly agree with - if the UK suddenly becomes a world-beating economy once Brexit is done (if it ever gets done) then a lot of people will start to think perhaps there's something in leaving after all. If the UK turns into North Korea (as so many seem to think) then it will probably end any talk of leaving. I just wish that people looked upon it in a normal, logical way, like they would with NATO, or any other political grouping. For some reason in Ireland, and some other countries, the EU is some kind of sacred cow who must never be mentioned in anything but glowing terms. This is one of the reasons I believe that none of the EU's many faults will ever be addressed - Brexit could have been a positive for the rest of us if it had been seen as a sign that all was not well, instead of being seen as a sin against the great EU God.

BorneTobyWilde

USA,UK, IRELAND, JAPAN, CHINA could be a formidable team V the EU , let the EU have all the immigrants they want, and give them free homes and benefits at the expense of taxpayers.
Free trade and travel and working rights with USA,UK,JAPAN AND CHINA would be great.

demfad

Rory28 wrote: »

The ridicule is their because nobody has put forward anything to debate. How can we have a debate if the Irexit side won't even say why we should leave? There is nothing to discuss until someone does.

The idea of the 'conversation' is to make it a 'thing'.
If you talk about something it generates more interest.

Social media and media get played this way. Irish media feels obliged to give even the most ludicrous ideas 50:50 status in coverage. That's what they want.

Any news, any conversation is good for a loser idea like this that wouldn't get any airtime or interest were it not pushed by dodgy 'celebrity' politicians like Farage.

stuff.hunter

demfad wrote: »

So you don't actually know how the EU operates but you're sure it screws 'small ones' like Ireland.
A few months ago little Ireland (one of the EU27) gave big UK (not one of the EU27) a set of instructions on how the UK needed to set up its future trading relationship with it's largest partner which we could veto if we din't like it.

How do you think that would have went outside the EU?
How would little Ireland cut off from the EU manage negotiating an FTA with a very desperate and waaaaaaayyy bigger UK?

Notice the difference.

I know how it works, our fishermen knows it too..
it just sounds like we've to stay with EU as theres no other option and believe me, whatever we've gave to UK doesn't matter as everything will be sorted anyways without our input

Gravelly

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Giving someone no platform is not the same as banning their views.

Universities regularly have folks in to talk to societies and other student groups, or to give public lectures. RTÉ have a list somewhere of "spokespeople" who get invited onto debate issues, like the Iona crew, or the head of Atheist Ireland.

The likes of John Waters, Kevin Myers, or George Hook have, over the years, been given platforms on TV and in the newspapers to air their views because they stir up controversy and generate sales (or these days, clicks.)

But no-one is entitled to such a platform simply because they have a view. If you want to bring back hanging, deny votes to women, or reduce the age of consent to 5, nobody is obliged to offer you a platform to argue your case.

That does not mean discussion of your views is banned, just that no-one has to help you disseminate them.

This is the great modern "liberal" cry - just because you are no-platformed doesn't mean you don't have free speech - but of course if the mob decide who gets to address the public and who doesn't, only a tyrant would pretend they have free speech. At least one poster here has said that they believe anyone who wants to discuss leaving the EU shouldn't be allowed to have a platform - that is not free speech. One of the keystones to democracy is the belief in two-sided discussion. Your comparison of EU scepticism with paedophilia is yet another sign of the sheer derangement of the EU zealots.

demfad

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

USA,UK, IRELAND, JAPAN, CHINA could be a formidable team V the EU , let the EU have all the immigrants they want, and give them free homes and benefits at the expense of taxpayers.
Free trade and travel and working rights with USA,UK,JAPAN AND CHINA would be great.

Japan just de facto told the UK that it will be pulling out its big corpos out of the UK if it leaves the SM/CU. China likewise and has already stopped buying UK Gov bonds since Brexit vote.
China and the US might be at nuclear war soon.
Oh! Cheddar man was black :pac:

Do wear a hat out: there are woodpeckers about.

seamus

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

USA,UK, IRELAND, JAPAN, CHINA could be a formidable team V the EU , let the EU have all the immigrant they want, and give them free homes and benefits at the expense of taxpayers.

Of course in such a five-way arrangement, Ireland would be annihilated. Japan and China would do all the heavy lifting in terms of manufacturing and raw materials, the UK can carve out all the english-speaking service jobs and the US can produce all the food. The US and China would ensure that the group does everything it can to reduce regulations and human rights for lower costs and higher profits.

Nothing left for Ireland.

demfad

Gravelly wrote: »

This is the great modern "liberal" cry - just because you are no-platformed doesn't mean you don't have free speech - but of course if the mob decide who gets to address the public and who doesn't, only a tyrant would pretend they have free speech. At least one poster here has said that they believe anyone who wants to discuss leaving the EU shouldn't be allowed to have a platform - that is not free speech. One of the keystones to democracy is the belief in two-sided discussion. Your comparison of EU scepticism with paedophilia is yet another sign of the sheer derangement of the EU zealots.

You got a platform in the RDS. That bored cleaner telling you time was up wasn't a mob.
Look youve had over coverage on national media of the Farage visit for a few days. What on earth are you complaining about?

demfad

stuff.hunter wrote: »

I know how it works, our fishermen knows it too..
it just sounds like we've to stay with EU as theres no other option and believe me, whatever we've gave to UK doesn't matter as everything will be sorted anyways without our input

Again you are making assertion on our relationship with the EU based on what it sounds like. Could you find out the actual truth of it and comment then?