United States of Europe???

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

well, we voted yes.. so gullible or no, it was democratic not.. dictator..ship.

netwhizkid

We voted no firstly they wouldn't accept that and forced us to Redo it pity we didn't vote no again, they'd probably try sanctioning us like they tried to do to Austria foir having far-right leader Joerg Haider in Governement.

Regards netwhizkid

uberwolf

netwhizkid wrote:

Just simply what is the point of Ireland, joining a "united states of Europe", when our country is not even united itself. Or have any of ye watched "Michael Collins" Our freedom is our destiny and we should be able to predetermine that for ourselves.

Regards netwhizkid

words form sentences form arguments. Focus on the latter clause there if you wish to remain using this forum.

netwhizkid

Originally posted by uberwolf
words form sentences form arguments. Focus on the latter clause there if you wish to remain using this forum.

I'm sorry but i don't understand could you please dumb it down a bit. I am debating, how i feel ireland should withdraw from the EU over its shift away from what i feel was a social model. If you no longer wish me involved in the debate, i will leave immediatly.

Regards netwhizkid

uberwolf

netwhizkid wrote:

I'm sorry but i don't understand could you please dumb it down a bit. If you no longer wish me involved in the debate, i will leave immediatly.

Regards netwhizkid

TBH I'm principally concerned with you clogging up the forum with poorly formulated thoughts. Please remain using this forum, but please also make an effort to avoid making posts that add nothing and appear to be trolls.

sceptre

netwhizkid wrote:

I am debating, how i feel ireland should withdraw from the EU over its shift away from what i feel was a social model

I'd kind of rather you didn't try to turn a debate about Ireland's membership of the EU into a debate on what oh what to do about the north-eastern part of this island we're all on as we've had quite a few of those in one way or another and very few of them were any good.

Wibbs

While I obviously take issue with other of his posts on the matter, I do agree with netwhizkid's take on the Nice referendum. It was a total farce as far as democracy goes. The "Ah sure we didn't like your first answer so keep voting till we do" aspect was dubious to say the least. However I think the suggestion that EU membership has been detrimental to Ireland is a bit of a stretch. I also think a European superstate is a loooong way off. If it ever happens at all. Then again I also have grave concerns about the way the EU conducts certain aspects of it's business, but that would be an ecumenical matter for another thread.

Just a thought, might it be just as valid to suggest that our economic growth was due in part to large injections of American money as much as European? When you see Intel, Apple and Microsoft etc. setting up shop here, the money invested from that sector was huge. The EU improved our infrastructure, a few cuts in corporation tax later, large injection of American money and bang, Irelands on a winner. IMHO as well as the EU, we nearly have as much to thank the US for our current boom. However uncomfortable that may make some people feel.

Board@Work

Wibbs wrote:

the Nice referendum. It was a total farce as far as democracy goes. The "Ah sure we didn't like your first answer so keep voting till we do" aspect was dubious to say the least.

Should I remind you that we have had multiple referendums on both abortion and divorce. The turnout for the second nice referendum far exceeded that of the first and thus IMO validates the reasoning behind it. That was the problem with that referendum. In the first vote the yes campaign stayed at home thinking that it would pass easily and underestimated the no camp. This was redressed by the second vote which better reflected the pro-european attitudes of the majority of citizens.

mike65

Wibbs wrote:

Just a thought, might it be just as valid to suggest that our economic growth was due in part to large injections of American money as much as European? When you see Intel, Apple and Microsoft etc. setting up shop here, the money invested from that sector was huge. The EU improved our infrastructure, a few cuts in corporation tax later, large injection of American money and bang, Irelands on a winner. IMHO as well as the EU, we nearly have as much to thank the US for our current boom. However uncomfortable that may make some people feel.

The US investment in Ireland is a direct result of EU membership, the 10% (now 12.5%) tax regime would be largely meaningless if exports to the EU were subject to tarrifs.

Mike.

netwhizkid

I perfectly understand and accept your wishes, I was a bit cheesy taking political inspiration from Homer Simpson ! :rolleyes:
ON topic, As much as i detest the Idea of a US of Europe, i'm not losing any sleep on its account. If such moves are made through the EU parliment or Commision, i feel even if it was pushed through, National Parliments and People would not accept it. France in particular i think are becoming Euro (not the currency) sceptic and would coil in revolsion at the idea of a USE, I do have concerns at the idea of Turkey entering the EU, mainly womens rights and human rights in particular. This is not on topic i agree but it is central to the way in which europe is destined to go. Expansion should be studied in debth to find the best solution to the inherent problems it brings. Like expansion is good for X country but it has ramifacations for the former 15 too, mainly becoming less competetive to said economy and the ramifications that has on those economys.

Regards netwhizkid

m1ke

As much as i detest the Idea of a US of Europe, i'm not losing any sleep on its account. If such moves are made through the EU parliment or Commision, i feel even if it was pushed through, National Parliments and People would not accept it.

What the hell do the EU parliament or Commission have to do with forming a US of Europe? Do you have any idea of what the EU institutions are all about? I think the lack of any real substance or argument in this thread is unfortunately indicative of the lack of knowledge about the EU in general. And considering many people using this forum are so badly informed, it is disturbing to think what level the general public are at. Wandering off topic slightly this would mean: failure to connect with the public and to simplify the explanations of what the EU actually is so people stop benchmarking it against other things in life: e.g some sort of national political system that most people understand well enough.

But back on topic:
There will never, ever, be a USE. However, can we deny that the new circumstances in which we find our nation-state aren't altering our "national culture"? Well, no, because they certainly are. Higher immigration, more trade, different patterns of settlement/urbanisation, reactions and counter-reactions to globalisation, life style changes, economic changes..... the list goes on. Irelands membership of the EU is integral to all these new processes.

If we want to obstruct these processes then questioning our membership of the EU is the way forward: but as long as there are enough borderline sane individuals left in this state that will never happen. The alternative is the Ireland of the past: overly dominanted by priests, poor, high infant and general mortality rates, low levels of education, high levels of emigration, depression fuelled by alcoholism a lack of inspiration and any sort of opportunities for young people, hidden story after story of vile sexual abuse and punishment of innocent people by those in any position of power(probably a relic of an edwardian/victorian class system that we inherited). There is very little worth preserving about the Ireland of the past and although we're moving away fast from it, there are still a lot of areas that are still influenced by it.

oscarBravo

Wibbs wrote:

...the Nice referendum. It was a total farce as far as democracy goes. The "Ah sure we didn't like your first answer so keep voting till we do" aspect was dubious to say the least.

The way I remember it, the Nice referendum wasn't just a re-run. There were clarifications of some of the aspects which caused some people concern the first time out.

Bri

netwhizkid wrote:

I perfectly understand and accept your wishes, I was a bit cheesy taking political inspiration from Homer Simpson ! :rolleyes:
ON topic, As much as i detest the Idea of a US of Europe, i'm not losing any sleep on its account. If such moves are made through the EU parliment or Commision, i feel even if it was pushed through, National Parliments and People would not accept it. France in particular i think are becoming Euro (not the currency) sceptic and would coil in revolsion at the idea of a USE, I do have concerns at the idea of Turkey entering the EU, mainly womens rights and human rights in particular. This is not on topic i agree but it is central to the way in which europe is destined to go. Expansion should be studied in debth to find the best solution to the inherent problems it brings. Like expansion is good for X country but it has ramifacations for the former 15 too, mainly becoming less competetive to said economy and the ramifications that has on those economys.Regards netwhizkid

As Mike asked, do you understand the decision making procedure of the EU? The very fact people insist on benchmarking it to national systems shows a lack of awareness. France's current shivers were a product of many, many factors; not least their current political regime, privatisation by stealth, etc.

In addition, might I suggest (sorry mods but this is important!) that expansion is not simply a goal for external states that the EU feels compelled to allow every now and then. It is very clear that the EU can and does use expansion as a security tool - creating stabilisation with its neighbours and the 'near-abroad' by pushing for standards enshrined in the legal system. This encourages long-term improvements, and seeing as the EU is such a draw for outside countries, it is in the position to push for these things.
Edit: Today's FT might put your mind at rest: "Turkey will face the toughest test ever presented to a candidate for entry to the European Union and might have to settle for less than full membership, the European Commission said."
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/543dce1a-e8df-11d9-87ea-00000e2511c8,dwp_uuid=d4f2ab60-c98e-11d7-81c6-0820abe49a01.html


I don't mean to be condescending, but you seem to be moving to various thoughts, without addressing things others are challenging you on. It's a very tall order for the general public to educate themselves on the EU to a good degree, and such a complex subject will always have diverging opinions, but a reasonable amount of knowledge is attainable.

Wibbs

Board@Work wrote:

Should I remind you that we have had multiple referendums on both abortion and divorce. The turnout for the second nice referendum far exceeded that of the first and thus IMO validates the reasoning behind it. That was the problem with that referendum. In the first vote the yes campaign stayed at home thinking that it would pass easily and underestimated the no camp. This was redressed by the second vote which better reflected the pro-european attitudes of the majority of citizens.

Fair points all but at least a decent amount of time passed between the abortion and divorce referenda. Enough time had passed where a re think by the population was at least probable. The swiftness of the re vote was a tad unseemly. In any event there have been low turn outs in elections and referenda before and I don't remember calls for another vote so fast on the heels of the first one, just because the government didn't like the result. So my original point still has validity. BTW I was a yes voter.

axtradub12

netwhizkid wrote:

Yes i agree, but most people wouldn't whatever cash the farmers get will sonn be gone in say 10yrs. It will be of no beneifit to Ireland to be Involved the EU any more, i'd even go as far as bringing back the Punt.

Regards netwhizkid

The Punt. Yes, I would love to see the auld punt back. But again, one would have very little change in your pocket today. Will the prices come down too. I doubt it.

rsynnott

m1ke wrote:

If we want to obstruct these processes then questioning our membership of the EU is the way forward: but as long as there are enough borderline sane individuals left in this state that will never happen. The alternative is the Ireland of the past: overly dominanted by priests, poor, high infant and general mortality rates, low levels of education, high levels of emigration, depression fuelled by alcoholism a lack of inspiration and any sort of opportunities for young people, hidden story after story of vile sexual abuse and punishment of innocent people by those in any position of power(probably a relic of an edwardian/victorian class system that we inherited). There is very little worth preserving about the Ireland of the past and although we're moving away fast from it, there are still a lot of areas that are still influenced by it.

One of the most sensible posts on this topic so far. People are very inclined to believe in a perfect Europe-less Ireland of the past, one that never existed. We owe a hell of a lot to Europe and we shouldn't forget it.

Bri

And so ends yet another post on the EU, where those who are challenged on their points just don't bother to interact any more.

Meh, it's easier I suppose. :rolleyes:

Flex

I found it interesting that the first time, in the Netherlands and (I think) France too, the people were allowed to vote on an EU treaty they rejected it. EU politicians are out of touch with people, like most politicians, and most europeans arnt dont like where the EU is heading. Luckily for eurosceptics who dont like the EU constitution the fact France has rejected the treaty means it will have to be renegotiated or changed because France is a big country; so unlike Ireland, their opinion actually matters in Brussels. Someone brought up the point that in the 2nd Nice referendum ,where we were made vote again after rejecting it the first time in a democratic referendum, that it was clarified for us. I dont recall much clarity, i recall more or less being warned another no vote would result in Irish jobs closing (ie. a threat) and an extremely biased radio and TV campaign by the referendum commission who seemed to make out that treaty would put a provision in our constitution protecting neutrality if we voted yes and if we voted no, then our neutrality would not be protected, and that was all they mentioned. Unfortunately i was 2 months to young to vote in that referendum, but id of voted no.

Bri

Flex wrote:

I found it interesting that the first time, in the Netherlands and (I think) France too, the people were allowed to vote on an EU treaty they rejected it. EU politicians are out of touch with people, like most politicians, and most europeans arnt dont like where the EU is heading.

I don't know how you qualify that kind of statement. If anything it's more likely that the majority don't really care, as all the signs of apathy to date have shown. Also, where is the EU heading? If anything it's most uncertain time is now. Before this, economic integration was the main goal, stemming from the initial ideas of peace through interdependence. Now that much of this is achieved, they're being forced to consider the political intergration aspect more than ever. Most likely there will be a significant drop in policy innovation in the next while due to the current turmoil, and future expansion is limited at present.

Of course there's plenty of Euro-sceptics around, but please remember that France's issues involved more than supranational/intergovernmental politics. Numerous interior issues (helped with a little bit of scaremongering ) played a role also. And naturally this faciliated the Netherlands on their way.

Flex

Bri wrote:

I don't know how you qualify that kind of statement. If anything it's more likely that the majority don't really care, as all the signs of apathy to date have shown. Also, where is the EU heading? If anything it's most uncertain time is now. Before this, economic integration was the main goal, stemming from the initial ideas of peace through interdependence. Now that much of this is achieved, they're being forced to consider the political intergration aspect more than ever. Most likely there will be a significant drop in policy innovation in the next while due to the current turmoil, and future expansion is limited at present.

Basically i think the EU is fine as it is; economic union and intergovernmental conferences and forums, free movement of labor and trade and a common currency. Why is everyone so sure that the constitution isnt going to bring us closer to a USE? Because Bertie told us so? No way would i trust him or any Fianna Failers. Or how bout Fine Gael.Theyre a part of the EPP, very pro federalist party, and Fianna Fail tried to join the Liberals who are also pro federalist. I also recall reading in a newspaper how the Italian government said this would be a step towards federalism(they seem to be in favor of it though, the government anyway).Our politicians are saying one thing and others are saying another. I have read up on this treaty and i dont like the sounds of it TBH, but then again im a euro-sceptic.However, as iv said i like the EU as it is now and i would have voted yes to treatys if id been old enough to, like the common currency.

Of course there's plenty of Euro-sceptics around, but please remember that France's issues involved more than supranational/intergovernmental politics. Numerous interior issues (helped with a little bit of scaremongering ) played a role also. And naturally this faciliated the Netherlands on their way

Yeah, fine id agree with ya on those points, but like i said i found it interesting that the first time people were given the oppertunity to vote on a treaty, they rejected it, twice.

Sandals

4Xcut wrote:

With the planned further expansion of the Europen Union are we not being a bit remiss by not considering the cultural implications of possible single government for Europe.

Granted it works in the USA but one must remember that there was not the tolerence for ethnic/cultural diversity when the nation was founded. When focus returns to europe we note the vast number of different cultures.

This is not to suggest that we should not experience other cultures but if they are all intergrated into a big "mish mash" we will simply loose all sense of identity of any nation. Whn one considers the economic intergration we have already witnessed an takes into account the "acceleration of history" it is clear that the constitution is a stepping stone towards this super-state

Yeah it would be fantastic alright imagine it

Cout clerk: What are you Sir
Me: I am a citizen of europe.


it would be gas, we could have our own currency and free trade and free travel and a comman agricultural policy

Flex

Sandals wrote:

Yeah it would be fantastic alright imagine it

Cout clerk: What are you Sir
Me: I am a citizen of europe.


it would be gas, we could have our own currency and free trade and free travel and a comman agricultural policy

TBH, im happy being a citizen of Ireland.

Macmorris

Flex wrote:

Why is everyone so sure that the constitution isnt going to bring us closer to a USE? Because Bertie told us so? No way would i trust him or any Fianna Failers.

It won't be enough for politicians to deny that we're heading towards a USE. I won't be convinced until they first define what they mean by a USE, and for them then to come out and tell us that they think a USE would be a bad thing. That way they can be held to account if it does happen. I don't know where any of our politicians stand on a USE. Considering their pathetic, sycophantic relationship to the EU so far, I wouldn't be much surprised if they were enthusiastic supporters.

By my definition of a USE, I think we're almost at that stage already. We have a common currency, they're planning on having a common president, a common army, a common foreign policy, tax harmonisation across the EU, loss of national veto, less influence for smaller countries. Most of our laws are already being made in Brussels. Surely that is a superstate? If it isn't then can someone define what is meant by the term. I think we're not far behind the stage where our national governments have about as much independence and sovereignty as the governments of the member states of the USA. Doesn't that make us a USE?

rsynnott

Flex wrote:

TBH, im happy being a citizen of Ireland.

Would you be happy being a citizen of an Ireland that had never been exposed to Europe? I know I wouldn't be (though I'd almost certainly still be criminalised; I suppose it wouldn't be so bad for anyone who was a middle-class white male heterosexual catholic....)

Macmorris

rsynnott wrote:

Would you be happy being a citizen of an Ireland that had never been exposed to Europe? I know I wouldn't be

I wouldn't either but that's not what this thread is about. Leaving aside any positive impact the EU may have had on Ireland in the past, the question is whether we should now sacrifice our independence to become part of a USE superstate. I'm fairly sure that most Irish people wouldn't want that.

Sandals

I woul dhonestly want that once we are neutral and have good anti-poverty policies

Flex

Macmorris wrote:

It won't be enough for politicians to deny that we're heading towards a USE. I won't be convinced until they first define what they mean by a USE, and for them then to come out and tell us that they think a USE would be a bad thing. That way they can be held to account if it does happen. I don't know where any of our politicians stand on a USE. Considering their pathetic, sycophantic relationship to the EU so far, I wouldn't be much surprised if they were enthusiastic supporters.

Yeah, youre right on that.

By my definition of a USE, I think we're almost at that stage already. We have a common currency, they're planning on having a common president, a common army, a common foreign policy, tax harmonisation across the EU, loss of national veto, less influence for smaller countries.

But all that about planning on having a common president, a common army, a common foreign policy, tax harmonisation across the EU, loss of national veto, less influence for smaller countries wont come through if the constitution doesnt, so we're grand for the time being.

Flex

rsynnott wrote:

Would you be happy being a citizen of an Ireland that had never been exposed to Europe? I know I wouldn't be (though I'd almost certainly still be criminalised; I suppose it wouldn't be so bad for anyone who was a middle-class white male heterosexual catholic....)

Absolutely not. The common market and EU funds have greatly benefited Ireland(as they have many other countries). Im 20, so i dont remember the 80's and prior to that, but i know it was rough and the EU helped us through it. Then again, look at the country now. Its getting to the point that people wont be able to afford a home in dublin, and pretty soon the rest of the country.Im 20 and ill be finished my degree in 3 years and im really wonderin wtf im gonna do to be able to afford a house rather than living with my parents til im in my mid 40's.

And my original point about being happy to be a citizen of Ireland is that i wouldnt want my passport to read "European" rather than "Irish" at any point in the future.Id cinsider myself a European in the same way an Indian considers himself an Asian.Itll never mean anything more to me than that.

axtradub12

This will never happen. They are not so EU friendly at present. And they never will

righthand

For quite a number of years 'Irish Neutrality' was my sacred cow. It was the one issue I believed sacrosanct, the only issue that would ever get me on the streets. I believed my list in favour - historical and whatever - far outweighed those that argued in favour of joining a military alliance. I have absolutely no problem with getting our neutrality on the cheap. It always struck me as odd that those favouring joining NATO were the same ones most vocal against any other 'armed wings' and were also wire-brushing 1916.

Pre-Bush nothing would have changed my mind on this. So what now? With a benign US president and with no World Power tensions, then real global peace would have been achievable. The 'ulcer of the Middle East' could have been drained and the source of most of the world's problems and conflicts reduced. It isn't OIL that I speak of.

It's not only that Bush is pro-war that changed my stance on a political EU. It wasn't how he "with us or against us" regarded us. It wasn't the continuous lies he told to get the invasion of Iraq on. It wasn't that any white english speaking person is more of a legitimate target now. It wasn't that the best UK PM in at least half a decade has been diverted from his page in history by solving the 'Northern' problem into become Bush's lap dog with no credibility. Yes, all of these and more influenced me. I certainly resent the Irish tax payer paying to have US warplanes land at Shannon.

No, the war in Iraq may well keep Bush from deciding on 'regime change' in Venezuela, Iran or wherever else has oil. Even he may realize the limits of US power and that it's not like in his cowboy movies.

What persuaded me is the issues not directly connect with the war. It's the total bully tactics of the US on every world issue. Whether Trade, Justice, Environment, Resources, UN, and on and on. There is only one way to deal with such a bully. We MUST UNITE. All Europe together, all Europe with China and India. The sooner we unite then the sooner the bullying will stop. Separately we have no chance. The sooner it's done the sooner the likelihood of a US/UK vs the Rest real WW3 is reduced.

Oh, and I did march in Dublin for my first time when Bush last 'visited' us.
.