Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The people of Ireland have spoken.
Options
Comments
-
Sorry highground, I missed that particular post this morning, but nowhere in your original post in the matter do you mention that it is speculation, and even here you're refusing to quote a source.You mean like the recent negotiations the EU had with Israel and the notion being put out there that Israel could join the EU. The Arabs will love that alright! But, not to worry - the French arms business will do well out of it.
Sorry, all this happened about 2/3 months ago. Using the word 'notion' does not imply it was a statement from the EU or Israel (though I've seen some unofficial comments that Israel would like to join the EU). I can't actually remember who or what was said, but I personally did not make it up.I never accepted what the EU said, I read the link Scofflaw posted and summarised it. I also believe it, not because it was said, but because it makes sense. After all Israel would have to give up its status as a Jewish state to be a member of the EU. How many Israelis do you think would favour that. Other countries have been refused membership because they are not in Europe, this is just a fact and precedent not EU "propoganda" and the situation with Palestine is not one that the EU would ever want to become directly involved in, this just being common sense rather than propoganda.
I'd say that if they wanted to, they (EU & Israel) could get around being a Jewish State. In fact, considering how Israel was established in the first place, and what has happened to them throughout history, minority status etc. an exception could be made in this instance. For the record, I remember a quote from Golda Meir which went something like - "I'd deal with the devil himself, if it was good for Israel", so you shouldn't be putting limitations on other countries or peoples as they just might surprise you. I'm sure there were a fair few people about at the foundation of the Irish state who would have thought that RC would be the established Church, not to mention Ian Paisley & Adams/McGuinness power sharing.You said you reckon you heard this on the Pat Kenny show, yet you lambast me (falsely & with no real due cause) for accepting what the EU says? Personally I'd trust the EU over the Pat Kenny show myself, despite my distrust of politicians, but then thats just me!
I had actually forgotten this was a Lisbon thread!
.... and if you care to look back as to why we are discussing Georgia/Russia etc., on this thread in the first place was because some posted a link to an article in the Telegraph which said that the EU planned to open up about 160 embassies around the world, which I posted that I wouldn't believe that story and used it as evidence that I, a Lisbon sceptic don't actually believe everything the Eurosceptics come out with. How the EU deals with this situation is very interesting from a Lisbon point of view.
You quote enough of the EU to suggest that you accept without question a lot of what the EU politicians like Sarkozy etc. says.0 -
thehighground wrote: »No they haven't got involved in diplomacy. Some have taken sides though, which are different to the views (official) being expressed by the EU. Who cares what Denmark has to say on the subject - most people are only interested in what Germany/UK/France has to say. Denmark are not at the heart of the EU and never will. Just like Ireland. And anyone who thinks Ireland ever was, or ever will be need to give their heads a shake.
Only from your subjective biased pov.thehighground wrote: »I'd say its more about who is top dog between US and France/Germany with regard to Russia. Obviously they don't like the US meddling in their (European) territory.
Well there are different issues at stake for each. US can't dictate the terms without stepping on the toes of Germany and France and it needs their support to negotiate from a position of strength. The fact is that not one of them on their own can influence Russia but together with the rest of the EU and NATO they can exert some influence. So they co-operate to reach a mutually acceptable settlement, it's what the EU and NATO and other supra-national organisations are designed to do. You keep trying to put everyone in separate corners and have them fight it out when in reality they are much more mature and they negotiate for mutual benefit.thehighground wrote: »Facts are (according to Morning Ireland) - Russia objected to France brokering the deal. It seemed to me to be a fact. They didn't say why they didn't want France brokering the deal. I'm speculating in that they feel that France would be more supportive of NATO and its aspirant member Georgia, which NATO have declared that Georgia is still on course to become a member. And the country/person brokering the deal is also a member of NATO.
I don't know where they got their facts but it sounds like they got the message confused. Russia signed the French brokered six point peace plan along with Georgia.
1. No recourse to the use of force.
2. Definitive cessation of hostilities.
3. Free access to humanitarian aid (addition rejected: and to allow the return of refugees).
4. Georgian military forces must withdraw to their normal bases of encampment.
5. Russian military forces must withdraw to the lines prior to the start of hostilities. While awaiting an international mechanism, Russian peacekeeping forces will implement additional security measures (addition rejected: six months).
6. Opening of international discussions on the modalities of lasting security in Abkhazia and South Ossetia (addition rejected: based on the decisions of the UN and the OSCE).
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/world/europe/14document.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Russia never objected to Sarkozy being an intermediary.thehighground wrote: »If you can't see the obvious conflict of interests there, we better leave this part of the discussion because I'm not going to convince you of anything.
You keep going on about this conflict of interest, i'm not sure what you mean. I thought you were talking about a conflict of interest that Sarko was having being the French president and the EU president and France being a member of NATO. But I could not see a conflict there as they all want pretty much the same things. Now I think you mean the conflict of interest between Sarko and Russia, but so far Russia has not objected to Sarko's diplomacy and is perfectly capable of fighting it's own corner against any special interests he might have.
Fact is an asymmetric conflict like this requires a strong intermediary. A small neutral country with little military or economic clout would not be able to negotiate a fair deal as Russia would be able to walk all over them and Georgia.thehighground wrote: »Sorry, I have no motives about anything.
I strongly doubt that, this was a discussion about Lisbon and you brought Russia, Georgia, NATO and Israel into the argument. Your seem to have an agenda to throw mud at the west, there has to be a motive behind it. Possibly nationalism possibly something else but you clearly are motivated by something.thehighground wrote: »My point is that I feel that overall the big, powerful EU countries in Europe who are going to dominate EU business have a collosal amount of baggage with them. Most of the Nordic countries and ourselves, Switzerland etc. just don't carry the same baggage. And in my opinion, I'd prefer if Ireland kept its distance from them.
Ireland is not neutral, our economy is completely reliant on the EU and US. Dangers to Europe or the US indirectly impact us. Our interests lie with them, denying it is not going to change the fact of the matter.thehighground wrote: »I wouldn't dream of letting any of them near the situation. Surely there is someone who would be neutral or nearly neutral person? What about Barosa? Is there a Sean McBride type person about from Switzerland, Norway, Australia?
An completely neutral mediator like Sean McBride worked well in a bipolar conflict where power was evenly balance on either side. As I eluded to before this conflict is completely different and one sided and hence requires a strong mediator to bring balance.thehighground wrote: »No - not in public.
And I suppose you have inside information on the collaboration between the 'Zionisnts' and the 'New Nazi Empire'.thehighground wrote: »Under Lisbon, it is going to be difficult to remain and be seen to be a neutral country perhaps?
Who really considers us neutral any more, beside Pana?thehighground wrote: »All countries manufacturing arms, planes etc. would like to have Israel as a customer.
And all countries manufacture hurleys would like to have Ireland as a customer. Companies are motivated by profit, big shock!!! Where are you going with this?thehighground wrote: »Other reason why one would become a member of NATO is if you shared a border with the old Soviet Union or were part of said Union like Georgia was.
Or were fighting in a proxy war were your enemies were supplied by the old soviet union, ala Israel.0 -
-
Sure - a one-off sum less than the EU gives every six months. I'm not saying the surrounding countries don't give aid (although they won't accept the Palestinians themselves) - I'm pointing out that the truth of the matter is that the EU is the financial mainstay of Palestine.
I'll repeat once again for you - the Palestenians are at the mercy of the Israelis. The Israelis do not have very cordial relations with their Arab neighbours and are unlikely to allow any money to get through to the Palestinians. More than likely some cash gets through, but that is not going to be publicised now is it.
By the way, I just googled 'Sauda Arabia aid to Palestine' and that was the first item that came up. I didn't look any further. Oh, and Saudia Arabia is one country, not 27 so no need to feel too superior about that.True, no-one could imagine that Communist countries would join the EU - and none have. Israel as it is now cannot join the EU. It cannot remain a Jewish country and join the EU - and Israel's raison d'etre is as a Jewish country.
I would recommend reading Golda Meir's biography - an incredible woman.Nor, despite all the hoo-haw about it, has Turkey actually been allowed in. It's been an applicant for 20 years, while those countries that were behind the Iron Curtain when it first applied have emerged, applied, and joined. They have succeeded because they are part of Europe, and most of Turkey is not - and if Turkey is not, then Israel certainly isn't - conversely, if Israel were ever considered, there could be no further objection to Turkey.
Re Turkey's EU membership - someone I know who voted 'Yes' to Lisbon mentioned that one of the reasons for voting 'Yes' to Lisbon was that it would allow Turkey to join the EU (which would sort out their human rights problems)
:D
I make these points because you seem, rather obliquely, to be accusing the EU of a pro-Israeli bias on the apparent basis that Israel might be considered for membership, even though that has not actually occurred - Israel has never asked, and the EU has dismissed the idea out of hand.
In turn, I'm not sure why you've decided to take such a tack. The facts are indisputable (even as you dispute them) - the EU is Palestine's main financial source, and the EU has been engaged in trying to find a solution acceptable to all parties since 1971. The EU is also a huge trade partner of Israel, which is (given the US veto at the UN) the only form of external pressure that can realistically be applied to Israel. This kind of soft pressure through trade and aid is exactly how the EU does things. What would you have them do instead? Use military force?
What might happen in 30, or 50, or 100 years isn't really relevant. Sure, the world might change so much that Israel could be considered for entry - but that's a meaningless point in considering whether the EU of today is biased towards the Israel of today - on account of changes that haven't happened, and may never happen.
Your argument starts with the future hypothetical, assumes it, and interprets the present in its light - not an unusual pattern for eurosceptic arguments, of course.
cordially,
Scofflaw
I wish you would learn to discern the difference between Eurosceptics & Lisbons sceptics. As soon as anyone asks a question or gives an opinion that isn't cheerleading this wonderful EU, you resort to this Eurosceptics accusation. That does not win hearts and minds which is I presume is what you want to do. You just see black & white. You can't cope with a shade of grey. Or maybe you actually work for Libertas - and if you do (along with a few others who post here), you are doing a very good job for the Eurosceptics.
I just think that EU Foreign Policy will only work as long as Germany and France decide what it is. If we don't agree with what their policy is, tough. If we do agree, who cares. We are irrelevant outside of those two countries, so why on earth should we proceed with further integration?
PS - I do think it matters what happens in 5, 10, 20, 30, 40 etc. years time.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
thehighground wrote: »I'll repeat once again for you - the Palestenians are at the mercy of the Israelis. The Israelis do not have very cordial relations with their Arab neighbours and are unlikely to allow any money to get through to the Palestinians. More than likely some cash gets through, but that is not going to be publicised now is it.
By the way, I just googled 'Sauda Arabia aid to Palestine' and that was the first item that came up. I didn't look any further. Oh, and Saudia Arabia is one country, not 27 so no need to feel too superior about that.
It's not a question of feeling superior. I'm pointing out a fact - the EU is Palestine's biggest donor.
For some reason you seem to find this fact uncomfortable or annoying, so we have now moved on to you apparently claiming that "the Muslim countries probably donate more really but have to do it secretly because of the Israelis", and at the same time "look here's Saudi Arabia visibly donating lots" - not secretly because of the Israelis, although that apparently is simultaneously true.
You've used two contradictory items, which makes your special pleading very visible. The question is why you feel you need to engage in this special pleading - what is it that makes you unhappy about the EU being the Palestinian's biggest supporter?
The only explanation I can see is that you don't wish to see the EU doing the right thing in its foreign policy. In turn, I presume that's because you'd prefer the EU not to engage in foreign policy, and feel that arguing against it is easiest if we pretend that all EU foreign policy is bad.[/QUOTE]thehighground wrote: »I would recommend reading Golda Meir's biography - an incredible woman.
That's nice.thehighground wrote: »Re Turkey's EU membership - someone I know who voted 'Yes' to Lisbon mentioned that one of the reasons for voting 'Yes' to Lisbon was that it would allow Turkey to join the EU (which would sort out their human rights problems):D
They were indeed confused.thehighground wrote: »I wish you would learn to discern the difference between Eurosceptics & Lisbons sceptics. As soon as anyone asks a question or gives an opinion that isn't cheerleading this wonderful EU, you resort to this Eurosceptics accusation. That does not win hearts and minds which is I presume is what you want to do. You just see black & white. You can't cope with a shade of grey. Or maybe you actually work for Libertas - and if you do (along with a few others who post here), you are doing a very good job for the Eurosceptics.
I'm not really worried about "winning hearts and minds" - it's entirely up to people whether they like the EU or not, but I object quite strongly to misrepresentation of the kind you favour (I have similar objections to Creationism and climate change denial).
We could probably agree that you are "anti-Lisbon" in the sense that you oppose any further integration of the EU - so you would oppose any EU treaty that contained further integration. Since any future EU treaty will contain further integration (that being what the EU exists to do), you'll probably oppose them too.
So, you're not simply "anti-Lisbon" - you're opposed to EU political integration. That's a eurosceptic position.
As a matter of interest, did you vote Yes to Nice?thehighground wrote: »I just think that EU Foreign Policy will only work as long as Germany and France decide what it is. If we don't agree with what their policy is, tough. If we do agree, who cares. We are irrelevant outside of those two countries, so why on earth should we proceed with further integration?
EU foreign policy exists only by unanimity, so it can hardly be dictated by France and Germany (and by the way, that's another standard eurosceptic complaint). Come to that, France and Germany still wouldn't be in a position to dictate it if it was under QMV - the UK and Spain (and Poland, and Italy) have completely different interests.thehighground wrote: »PS - I do think it matters what happens in 5, 10, 20, 30, 40 etc. years time.
Obviously. However, you can't take what might happen in those future time-frames, and claim that we can interpret the present in the light of those possibilities.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
thehighground wrote: »You quote enough of the EU to suggest that you accept without question a lot of what the EU politicians like Sarkozy etc. says.
I'm not going to spend time dealing with all of your points as this is a thread no the result of the Irish referendum on the Lisbon treaty and not on some wishy-washy notion that Israel may at some point have a vague possibility of joininng the EU. Yes, people and politics change all the time, but if we're going to take that line then hell the US may decide at some future date to join in too.
Either way I would like to see you point out where I have ever accepted what the the EU politicians have told me. You're making accusations without any real ground for them. For that matter what is it they've supposedly told me at all? I'm not even sure what they've said, never mind whether I believe it or not. All I said was I'd talk their word for things over some comment on the Pat Kenny show, which doesn't strike me as unreasonable. I have a healthy (some would say unhealthy) distrust for politicians in general. I much prefer to find out things for myself as much as possible, which in my books goes beyond the odd comment on Pat Kenny or other such radio programmes. 0
Advertisement