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

What do you think is the best course of action for Ireland to take now?

1246

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    Rob_l wrote: »
    What a terrible opinion we did not elect the government to change the constitution we elected them to govern under the powers granted by the constitution, and the people are the perfect choice to decide on this matter.
    If you think the TD's in the dail read half of the stuff they vote on your misguided and this would have been passed by the dail not because it was good for the country but because party whips would tell their party members what to do and so they wouldn't need to read the treaty.

    Actually, AtomicHorrors opinion is by far the best one on this thread.

    Referenda shouldn't be used for complex treaties like this, as every thread on boards has shown, there are too many people who vote without knowing what they are voting on.
    Democracy means that people can vote but it also means that people should make themselves informed as to what they are voting on. It's a two way street, something the No campaign was keen to forget with the contemptable "If you don't know, vote NO" slogan.

    Referenda should only be used for single issue topic, abortion, divorce etc etc.
    Everything else should be dealt with by the people we elected to represent us and govern. Now i know the usual suspects will try and pounce on this and go "HURRRR DURRRR BUT THEY ARE ALL CORRUPT AND USELESS!!!"
    Fine. Then maybe next time you'll vote them out. If you're willing to elect them into office for the day to day running of the country (which is far more important than the lisbon treaty ever was) then you should be willing to let them sign treaties they negotiated on our behalf.

    Rob_l wrote: »
    The people shouldn't have a say in running their country, is that your opinion? :eek::eek::eek:
    *facepalm*
    Well that's a fine conclusion you've leapt to in a single bound.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,340 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    Rob_l wrote: »
    What a terrible opinion we did not elect the government to change the constitution we elected them to govern under the powers granted by the constitution, and the people are the perfect choice to decide on this matter.
    If you think the TD's in the dail read half of the stuff they vote on your misguided and this would have been passed by the dail not because it was good for the country but because party whips would tell their party members what to do and so they wouldn't need to read the treaty.

    The people shouldn't have a say in running their country, is that your opinion? :eek::eek::eek:

    it may be worse than you imagine, those elected didn't read lisbon it seems; listen to someone who has actually been there for the best part of 30 years



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    Once upon a time there was a small country with a small economy, then their big richer brothers in Europe helped their little brother out and send them lots of euro's to build up their small country and small economy. That small country got a big economy and became rich beyond their wildest dreams. Then that small country began to lose some of their richness due to poor government and a poor global economy. That small country was asked to decide whether the Europe should continue to expand and whether it was going to help the other countries in the EU because it is now a big brother. That country had now turned into a rich arrogant country and feared it would loss the euro's it had been given. The little country turned its back on its bigger brothers and a crisis ensued in the EU. That little brother was then sidelined from the EU and just as quick as it had become rich it turned back into a small country with a small economy. Would it be given help by its bigger brother in the future?

    You stole that from someone's comment on the BBC website. It's a very simplistic view of what we've gotten from the EU, what we've given them, and why we are now a rich country.

    When the no vote came in, Mary Lou McDonald could be seen doing parkour in Temple Bar for over two hours.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,048 ✭✭✭SimpleSam06


    Everything else should be dealt with by the people we elected to represent us and govern. Now i know the usual suspects will try and pounce on this and go "HURRRR DURRRR BUT THEY ARE ALL CORRUPT AND USELESS!!!"
    Fine. Then maybe next time you'll vote them out.
    Its not as black and white as you make out. Over the last few years the economy has been going well, so people kept running with the same horses they started the race with, which is mildly understandable. That these politicians were in no way responsible for the economic boom escaped a lot of people at the time.

    However now the economy is going into a nose dive, people are starting to ask why, and realise that they elected a shower of chancers to look after their country. Now nobody trusts them, and nobody trusts their negotiations with the EU either. These lads are looking out for number one, and they'll sign away their grannies with a grin and a flourish to get nice cushy numbers in the EU structure, where they don't have to answer to anyone.

    I think a lot of the "no" vote was the awakening realisation on the part of the electorate that they simply do not trust the people they elected any more, and they are growing uneasy about signing up to their negotiated agreements. The fact that tits like sinn fein and libertas were campaigning for the same side was largely coincidence.

    Change comes slowly but it does come.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Sanjuro


    jayok wrote: »
    Can't really blame the rest of the EU for going ahead. In reality they 800,000-odd no voters are holding up progress for 500 million-odd people. Only way Ireland now could get onboard is to vote again.
    This is actually a fallacy. 500 million people in the EU did not ratify the Lisbon treaty. They weren't given the opportunity. Their governments ratified the treaty without giving the people the right to vote for or against it. What needs to be done is to put the treaty to vote in all states of the EU. That way, if the majority of people vote to ratify it, then so be it. At least then, democracy would have been properly carried out.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,321 ✭✭✭prendy


    Its not as black and white as you make out. Over the last few years the economy has been going well, so people kept running with the same horses they started the race with, which is mildly understandable. That these politicians were in no way responsible for the economic boom escaped a lot of people at the time.

    However now the economy is going into a nose dive, people are starting to ask why, and realise that they elected a shower of chancers to look after their country. Now nobody trusts them, and nobody trusts their negotiations with the EU either. These lads are looking out for number one, and they'll sign away their grannies with a grin and a flourish to get nice cushy numbers in the EU structure, where they don't have to answer to anyone.

    I think a lot of the "no" vote was the awakening realisation on the part of the electorate that they simply do not trust the people they elected any more, and they are growing uneasy about signing up to their negotiated agreements. The fact that tits like sinn fein and libertas were campaigning for the same side was largely coincidence.

    Change comes slowly but it does come.



    so your saying the govt are no way responsible for the Boom but its their fault its over?:rolleyes:
    Simple sam indeed!
    Its a disgrace that so many people voted to leave the EU. talk about double standards. We take billions of other countries money when we had none then leave when were asked to help out poorer countries.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,048 ✭✭✭SimpleSam06


    prendy wrote: »
    so your saying the govt are no way responsible for the Boom but its their fault its over?:rolleyes:
    I didn't say its their fault that its over. I did say that people realise now the level of shifty eyed incompetents they hired to do the job.
    prendy wrote: »
    Simple sam indeed!
    Eh another fine example of our tax euros gone to pot, if this is what the educational system produces. A swing and a miss.
    prendy wrote: »
    Its a disgrace that so many people voted to leave the EU. talk about double standards. We take billions of other countries money when we had none then leave when were asked to help out poorer countries.
    Ireland was always one of the most charitable countries, giving more per capita than most other nations, even in the doldrums of the 80s. As for who gave more, the EU earned a hell of a lot more from Ireland than we ever earned from them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,953 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    As for who gave more, the EU earned a hell of a lot more from Ireland than we ever earned from them.

    Got any sums?


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,905 ✭✭✭User45701


    Dave! wrote: »
    Invade France

    Whats your least fav country? Italy or France?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,048 ✭✭✭SimpleSam06


    ejmaztec wrote: »
    Got any sums?
    €50 billion in EU aid (inflation adjusted), estimated take in direct fish stocks from Irish fishing grounds, €180 billion, disregarding ancillary benefits.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,340 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    User45701 wrote: »
    Whats your least fav country? Italy or France?

    i like italy and france :( the only problem with invading italy would be how we would go about cleaning up naples to make it look half daacent for the tidy towns :p


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Rob_l wrote: »
    What a terrible opinion we did not elect the government to change the constitution we elected them to govern under the powers granted by the constitution, and the people are the perfect choice to decide on this matter.
    If you think the TD's in the dail read half of the stuff they vote on your misguided and this would have been passed by the dail not because it was good for the country but because party whips would tell their party members what to do and so they wouldn't need to read the treaty.

    The people shouldn't have a say in running their country, is that your opinion? :eek::eek::eek:

    I'm suggesting that the best way for us to "have a say" is to exercise our power over the government. If you feel that the TDs you elected are not in fact paying due attention to the legislations brought before them, sack them.

    Referenda work well for divisive issues and ones which bring with them profound moral implications. Thus abortion and divorce are indeed suitable issues to put to the people. They are also quite simple issues.

    Do we need to worry that by taking away the automatic right to referendum on constitutional changes that such significant moral issues will never be brought before the people? Not if we do two things:

    1) build our system well so that the majority required to avoid referenda allows the will of the people to be strongly reflected in parliamentary votes.

    2) vote and vote and vote until the government we have is one that reflects us. This business of fearing change and yet begrudging the status quo must end.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    €50 billion in EU aid (inflation adjusted), estimated take in direct fish stocks from Irish fishing grounds, €180 billion, disregarding ancillary benefits.

    Your link says volumes about the aid we have received from the EU but does not support your ever-increasing figure on the value of our fisheries. In fact, it does not even mention them.

    The figures I have seen in chronological order have been;

    €16bn, €150bn, €160bn and €180bn...

    Does anyone have a good and comprehensive source?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,502 ✭✭✭thefinalstage


    User45701 wrote: »
    Whats your least fav country? Italy or France?

    "France"

    "Hah, no one ever says Italy...."


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,048 ✭✭✭SimpleSam06


    You link says volumes about the aid we have received from the EU but does not support your ever-increasing figure on the value of our fisheries. In fact, it does not even mention them.
    I never said the linked article mentioned them.

    The figure of €180 billion is from an article I read some months ago, but google is letting me down here. If I find it I'll post it up. It does sound accurate however.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,048 ✭✭✭SimpleSam06


    This is from an article by Tom Prendiville printed in Magill:

    STATISTICS BLOW MYTH OF IRELAND AS EU BENEFICIARY

    - Because of fish supply, nation is second biggest indirect contributor to EU coffers
    by Tom Prendiville, Daily Ireland, Wednesday 28 March 2006



    Official European Union statistics reveal that Ireland's past image as one of Europe's largest financial beneficiaries is largely a myth.

    Statistics indicate that, year on year off, Ireland has consistently been one of the biggest net financial contributors to Europe as a result of fish supply.

    Official figures from the EU's statistical gathering agency, Eurostat, reveal that Ireland is second only to Germany as an indirect contributor to EU coffers.

    Although Ireland did well in extracting almost E40 billion (£27.8 billion sterling) in transfer funds from the EU, the fish extracted from Irish territorial waters has been worth almost E200 billion (£139 billion sterling) in comparison.

    The EU fish wars have raged in Irish waters for decades, and have now left Ireland facing a massive crisis with the prospect of the extinction of many fish species.

    Statistics covering the period from 1974 to 2004 throw some light on the true cost of Ireland's EU membership to date, and the enormous financial contribution Ireland has made to the European Community.

    Since 1974, the accumulated value of fish taken from Irish territorial waters,"the second most important in the EU", amounts to a E200 billion (£139 billion).

    The EU fishing industry is worth almost E20 billion (£13.9 billion) per annum.

    On average, more than five million tonnes of edible fish varieties, valued at E7 billion (£4.8 billion), are fished from EU waters every year, 40 per cent of which originates from Irish waters.

    The true commercial value of the haul, according to David Cross, who compiled earlier Eurostat reports into the fishing industry, is double that again after processing has been considered.

    He said: "The value of the output of the processing industry is nearly twice the value of the catching sector. In other words, for every euro generated in fish sales another two are generated in processing."

    The most important fishery in Europe are the seas west of Ireland, the so-called Irish Box, which produce over 40 per cent of all the edible fish consumed in Europe. In monetary terms, the seas off Ireland are worth E8 billion (£5.5 billion) a year to the EU.

    Every year, roughly two million tonnes are fished in Irish coastal waters. However, Ireland's share of the catch is miniscule and therein lie the current difficulties. While Ireland produces 40 per cent of the edible fish, the country's fishermen are only entitled to catch less than ten percent of
    that. The rest is fished by foreign trawlers.

    In recent weeks, the government has been involved in a showdown with Irish fishermen, some of whom have been flaunting the conservation quotas. Meanwhile, in the midst of the acrimonious dispute, ten Dutch factory ships, each one the size of Croke Park, have been hoovering up fish with apparent impunity in international waters 12 miles off the coast near Cork.

    "The situation with foreign boats is even worse, as our naval service does not even know what the quota is," said Eamonn Ryan, Green Party spokesperson for maritime and natural resources.

    "This flawed system has allowed what is in effect the open fishing of our waters. They are hunting to extinction most of the fish stocks in Irish waters."

    In terms of importance, the once teeming Mediterranean produces less than 500,000 tonnes of fish yearly.

    The Irish zone which extends out 200 miles into the West Atlantic is also the second most important in terms of Europe's edible fish stocks.
    Adjusted Eurostat estimates for all fishing activity in Irish territorial waters since the mid-1970s indicate that over forty million tonnes of fish have been extracted


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    Your link says volumes about the aid we have received from the EU but does not support your ever-increasing figure on the value of our fisheries. In fact, it does not even mention them.

    The figures I have seen in chronological order have been;

    €16bn, €150bn, €160bn and €180bn...

    Does anyone have a good and comprehensive source?

    heh. It's one of SimpleSams calling cards, mention the EU and within about 20 posts he'll ask for our fisheries back.

    But i'd be highly skeptical of any magical figure that our fishing grounds would have given us, as it'd rely on alot of other factors other than simply having them back, investment in a fishing industry, a Navy to protect our waters and of course, assuming we didn't make an unholy ****e of it and overfish it ourselves.

    Just because iceland (i think) have managed it doesn't mean that we would, much in the same way that london has a fantastic underground rail system doesn't mean we'd be able to manage it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,048 ✭✭✭SimpleSam06


    Just because iceland (i think) have managed it doesn't mean that we would, much in the same way that london has a fantastic underground rail system doesn't mean we'd be able to manage it.
    Of course, the poor thick paddies would be incapable of doing anything more than rolling down the pub to get drunk before sloshing home to beat the wife. Naturally.

    Also, give us back our fisheries. I wouldn't need to ask for them constantly if it wasn't for the stream of knuckledraggers claiming we owe the EU the shirts off our backs, regardless of the truth of the matter.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,905 ✭✭✭Rob_l


    Steve_o wrote: »
    I don't want an arguement, but is electing a Government to represent the people not the ultimate say in the running the country?

    Well yes and no when we elected the government we did not elect them on the basis of what they would or wouldn't do on this issue, so as well as voting to elect representatives we then had to tell them what we wished to happen in relation to our constitution.

    And just as well because no matter which government we could have got a fianna fail led govt. or a fianna gael led one neither according to the results of this past referendum would have done the will of the people.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,905 ✭✭✭Rob_l


    Actually, AtomicHorrors opinion is by far the best one on this thread.

    Referenda shouldn't be used for complex treaties like this, as every thread on boards has shown, there are too many people who vote without knowing what they are voting on.
    Democracy means that people can vote but it also means that people should make themselves informed as to what they are voting on. It's a two way street, something the No campaign was keen to forget with the contemptable "If you don't know, vote NO" slogan.

    Referenda should only be used for single issue topic, abortion, divorce etc etc.
    Everything else should be dealt with by the people we elected to represent us and govern. Now i know the usual suspects will try and pounce on this and go "HURRRR DURRRR BUT THEY ARE ALL CORRUPT AND USELESS!!!"
    Fine. Then maybe next time you'll vote them out. If you're willing to elect them into office for the day to day running of the country (which is far more important than the lisbon treaty ever was) then you should be willing to let them sign treaties they negotiated on our behalf.
    .

    Well for what you want we would have to get rid of our current system, that would require another referendum were we would agree to tear up our constitution which has served us so well.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,905 ✭✭✭Rob_l


    I'm suggesting that the best way for us to "have a say" is to exercise our power over the government. If you feel that the TDs you elected are not in fact paying due attention to the legislations brought before them, sack them.

    Referenda work well for divisive issues and ones which bring with them profound moral implications. Thus abortion and divorce are indeed suitable issues to put to the people. They are also quite simple issues.

    Do we need to worry that by taking away the automatic right to referendum on constitutional changes that such significant moral issues will never be brought before the people? Not if we do two things:

    1) build our system well so that the majority required to avoid referenda allows the will of the people to be strongly reflected in parliamentary votes.

    2) vote and vote and vote until the government we have is one that reflects us. This business of fearing change and yet begrudging the status quo must end.


    I feel the constitution safeguards us against a government leading the nation where the people don't want.
    The government has the power to legislate within the provisions of the constitution, anything needing a change made to the constitution is clearly of enough importance and change to the way the country is governed that we the people of the nation should get a referendum on the issue.

    I don't know what to say about point 2, what do you mean by "vote and vote until" surely the will of the people is made clear after one vote


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    This is from an article by Tom Prendiville printed in Magill:

    Good, so we can perhaps substantiate a value of €200billion. My question would be this:

    If we had never joined the EU, what would the value of those fisheries have been over a 34 year period? We need to take into account the investment required to exploit the fisheries to the same extent as the EU as well as the cost of that investment in terms of interest. This would also have to take into account the efficacy of Irish governments over that period.

    If the value of the fisheries based on these criteria have a value greater than the current value under the EU plus the value of EU investment (which is not merely monetary but must include the development of Ireland as an attractive gateway to the EU), then you have the beginnings of an argument. Otherwise it is speculation. I am genuinely open to the possibility that you are right, but the burden of proof in that regard is on you.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,588 ✭✭✭token56


    Referenda should only be used for single issue topic, abortion, divorce etc etc.

    I would have to disagree with this. A referendum should be held for anything which changes our constitution, like the Lisbon Treaty. This is after all in the constitution itself.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,048 ✭✭✭SimpleSam06


    If we had never joined the EU, what would the value of those fisheries have been over a 34 year period? We need to take into account the investment required to exploit the fisheries to the same extent as the EU as well as the cost of that investment in terms of interest.
    The value of the fisheries would be the same. The value we could extract from that would be a different story, perhaps. Nonetheless, the value of this investment, regardless of the actual figure, would continue to pay dividends essentially forever, and produce many further advantages and spinoff industries which I have already laid out in this thread. We CANNOT, long term, depend on foreign multinationals for employemnt and investment. We need to produce the capital ourselves.
    must include the development of Ireland as an attractive gateway to the EU),
    You mean the same thing that EFTA countries have? The door swings both ways on trade, the EU benefits as does Ireland.
    then you have the beginnings of an argument.
    Insofar as we owe the EU anything, I'd say thats game, set and match. Insofar as would we be better off having tried to exploit those resources ourselves, I would say the vast preponderance of evidence is on yes.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Rob_l wrote: »
    Well yes and no when we elected the government we did not elect them on the basis of what they would or wouldn't do on this issue, so as well as voting to elect representatives we then had to tell them what we wished to happen in relation to our constitution.

    Their policies on Europe are quite well-defined. Public debate and questioning during election campaigns can further clarify this, if people will but take that step.
    Rob_l wrote: »
    Well for what you want we would have to get rid of our current system, that would require another referendum were we would agree to tear up our constitution which has served us so well.

    A referendum yes. "Tearing up" of our constitution? That is misleadingly emotive. Why would this referendum do so more than any other referendum would? I'm sure there are some who would claim that the changes to Articles 2 and 3 amounted to "tearing up" our constitution. Yet it remains.
    Rob_l wrote: »
    I feel the constitution safeguards us against a government leading the nation where the people don't want.

    And yet it's initial drafting was put to the people as a single yes or no referendum. One which was barely passed, I might add. I maintain that we control the government by the ultimate of powers- the ability to remove them from their posts. If one wishes to enact more specific changes, there are avenues which allow this. Referenda have value, but also limits.
    Rob_l wrote: »
    The government has the power to legislate within the provisions of the constitution, anything needing a change made to the constitution is clearly of enough importance and change to the way the country is governed that we the people of the nation should get a referendum on the issue.

    And yet there are many significant changes for which we have no such say. In terms of our day to day lives, the budget constitutes at least as significant an influence on how we live as does the legality of divorce. Yet our power over this is based upon the general and local election system.
    Rob_l wrote: »
    I don't know what to say about point 2, what do you mean by "vote and vote until" surely the will of the people is made clear after one vote

    I mean firstly that as large a percentage of the electorate as possible must be engaged and voting. I secondly mean that voting is a system that is based on feedback. We vote to award the contract of managing our legislation and constitution to someone, we assess their performance, we vote again at the end of the contract as a reflection of that. Each time we should seek to refine the body that does this job on our behalf.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18 HitlersHorsebox


    Lets leave the EU. Who cares about reprecussions. Sure we were better craic when we were broke and foraging in the bins outside Gerry Ryans house for food. I still have cuts on my hands to help me remember the good times.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    You mean the same thing that EFTA countries have? The door swings both ways on trade, the EU benefits as does Ireland.

    EFTA members get the trading benefits without any of the decision making or executive power of EU membership. Of course there are benefits or nobody would be bothered. There's a good chance that the Swiss and Norwegians will simply accede in time.

    As to the value of the fisheries, what good is potential value if we cannot exploit it? At any rate, if the fisheries are really such an issue, the solution lies in our government. If they are not pushing for a fair share,we need to tell them to. If they fail, we must punish them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Insofar as we owe the EU anything, I'd say thats game, set and match. Insofar as would we be better off having tried to exploit those resources ourselves, I would say the vast preponderance of evidence is on yes.

    Neither seems clear to me. Perhaps you have data I haven't seen.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    Of course, the poor thick paddies would be incapable of doing anything more than rolling down the pub to get drunk before sloshing home to beat the wife. Naturally.

    I'd imagine the "poor thick paddies" would be smart enough to realise that simply because something has worked elsewhere is no indication that it would work here or to the same extent.
    Or you could just continue trying to be glib. Either way is good with me.


    Rob_l wrote: »
    Well for what you want we would have to get rid of our current system, that would require another referendum were we would agree to tear up our constitution which has served us so well.

    Drama much?
    Unbunch those panties barbie, nobody is suggesting we tear up the constitution. I'm saying that it might be worth looking at the criteria for putting a topic to a referendum given that so many people went to the polls professing that they had no idea what they were voting on.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,953 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    Given the minuscule size of Ireland's naval and air service, has anyone got any idea how much it would cost to upgrade these services to enable them to police the fishing territory effectively?


Advertisement