Europe has been good to us?

cornbb · 11-06-2008 5:32pm

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Sloblocks. We lost three euros for every euro we gained, and thats just in fish stocks.

Fish stocks? What about the other 99.9% of our Economy? Our infrastructure? Our infrastructure still sucks, but we may not even have many of the roads, railway lines and buses we do without EU funding.

Way to ignore the point I made about the EU saving Europe from large-scale wars by the way...

Macha · 11-06-2008 5:34pm

And where do you think a large part of your electricity comes from? Just under 50% of Ireland's electricity is produced from...yes you got it in one! Natural Gas!!

Sorry but those are facts. I'm not going to get into an epistemological debate with you but I'd really love to see you refute one of those facts as opposed to just making some vague allusions that they're not true.

In 2006 Ireland imported 90% of its gas. Government policy is to increase our national dependency on natural gas to over 50%. We would be mad to try and do this without the EU's clout behind us.

ART6 · 11-06-2008 5:39pm

Ireland isn't dependant on Russia for natural gas. Take a look at http://www.bordgais.ie/corporate/index.jsp?1nID=93&2nID=97&3nID=354&nID=365

Ireland is dependant on the UK's North Sea reserves. Yes, they will run out in due course, and Russia has massive reserves, so we may end up with them, but not for a long time yet. Will the UK cut us off for political reasons? Come on now!

However, if the comment means we have reason to be wary of Russia, then I agree to a point, having done business there for the past five years. The Russian ruling class has begun to realise that this democracy business is a two edged sword, and that there is a lot to be said for an autocracy. Anyone care to make a comparison with the Lisbon Treaty?

SimpleSam06 · 11-06-2008 5:45pm

cornbb wrote: »

Fish stocks? What about the other 99.9% of our Economy? Our infrastructure? Our infrastructure still sucks, but we may not even have many of the roads, railway lines and buses we do without EU funding.

You don't get it. For every euro we received from the EU, we could have made three from our fish stocks. We could have had strong local industries in processing, export and shipbuilding. Greenland didn't join the EU because it didn't want EU ships plundering its fishing grounds, why do you think they did that?

cornbb wrote: »

Way to ignore the point I made about the EU saving Europe from large-scale wars by the way...

The advent of nuclear weapons has made that academic in any case.

taconnol wrote: »

And where do you think a large part of your electricity comes from? Just under 50% of Ireland's electricity is produced from...yes you got it in one! Natural Gas!!

And did you miss the wind power thingy there? 6% of our power comes from that, and it doubled in 2004. We could easily supply most or all of our power from wind.

taconnol wrote: »

Sorry but those are facts.

Again you use that word. Look at ART6's post there, good post btw.

taconnol wrote: »

Government policy is to increase our national dependency on natural gas to over 50%.

I get the feeling this government won't be around for long, tbh.

Macha · 11-06-2008 5:47pm

Hmm, I knew that a lot of our gas came from the North Sea (which is mainly owned by Norway, not the UK) but I did read that we also took in a lot of gas from Russia. I'll have to find a source.

Bord Gais is 1 or 3 major importers of gas into Ireland so they may be maimly talking about their own operations.

Edit: Simplesam, I know that we have fantastic wind resources but our national grid is not suitable for wind energy at the moment. It needs huge investment and time to make it more suitable. I hope you're right about this government.

AARRRGH · 11-06-2008 5:49pm

Joining the EU allowed lots of good looking Europeans come here to live and work. This gives us a greater chance of having good looking babies.

EU FTW.

suspectdevice · 11-06-2008 5:52pm

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Sarcasm!

poor effort

SimpleSam06 wrote:

They'd better get in line with the buggy whip makers so.

but i'm getting to notice it

SimpleSam06 · 11-06-2008 5:53pm

taconnol wrote: »

Edit: Simplesam, I know that we have fantastic wind resources but our national grid is not suitable for wind energy at the moment. It needs huge investment and time to make it more suitable. I hope you're right about this government.

True, the electricity from wind is more wobbly than the electricity from power stations. This wobbly could propagate up the power lines and destabilise us, possibly causing the whole country to flip over. I agree this is an unacceptable risk.

Stop using fear to try to help a yes vote. Its not helping your cause, and you got drubbed up and down the thread by the facts.

suspectdevice · 11-06-2008 5:55pm

cornbb wrote: »

Fish stocks? What about the other 99.9% of our Economy? Our infrastructure? Our infrastructure still sucks, but we may not even have many of the roads, railway lines and buses we do without EU funding.

Way to ignore the point I made about the EU saving Europe from large-scale wars by the way...

railway lines and buses from the eu. is that where they come from. i thought we bought off the film set for gandhi

why would ever want to be saved from war when we are neutral? war is not an issue here

Macha · 11-06-2008 5:56pm

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

True, the electricity from wind is more wobbly than the electricity from power stations. This wobbly could propagate up the power lines and destabilise us, possibly causing the whole country to flip over. I agree this is an unacceptable risk.

Stop using fear to try to help a yes vote. Its not helping your cause, and you got drubbed up and down the thread by the facts.

Hi-larious. You talk about wind energy being more 'wobbly' and then pass comments about the credibility of MY facts?? You're hilarious.

I think the word you're looking for is 'intermittency'.

SimpleSam06 · 11-06-2008 6:06pm

taconnol wrote: »

Hi-larious. You talk about wind energy being more 'wobbly' and then pass comments about the credibility of MY facts?? You're hilarious.

Wow. Can we get a vote on this as being the most credulous post of the century on boards? Are you German by any chance?

Jaysus.

taconnol wrote: »

I think the word you're looking for is 'intermittency'.

Actually the words I am reaching for are starting to look more and more like "butt ignorant".

Macha · 11-06-2008 6:30pm

You just reminded me why I shouldn't bother posting about serious issues in AH.

cornbb · 11-06-2008 6:36pm

suspectdevice wrote: »

why would ever want to be saved from war when we are neutral? war is not an issue here

Of course war is an issue. We were neutral during WW2 but we still suffered then, what with rationing, Irish soldiers being killed while serving with the Brits/Americans etc.

The EU has brought Europeans closer together, prior to the push for European unity that began after WW2 Europeans were at each other's throats for millennia. It amazes me that people can ignore this fact while whining about relatively petty issues like the introduction of fishing quotas.

ART6 · 11-06-2008 6:38pm

Getting back to basics, and ignoring for the moment the threat of Russia and China and India and Ahmed and his bl**dy camel in Iran (or even Gorgeous Gormley and his bike, which is a much greater threat), let's look at democracy. That is what seems to exercise people on this and other threads.

The democracy we have was put together by cherry picking from that of England, and it was the foundation of the Irish Constitution. It wasn't foolproof, but it was a child of it's time, and it has developed and became the best possible guardian of the people against political oppression and maladministration.

The world's oldest democracies are those of the UK and the USA. Europe does not have that history. Germany (the dominant power) became a democracy briefly between 1918 and 1935, and then not again until 1945. France has had what? Less than 200 years? Spain? A dictatorship within living memory. The Balkan states? part of the Soviet empire. Austria? Hanging as usual on the coat tails of Germany.

Democracy? The EU has no comprehension of what that word means. It means that the will of the people will prevail, right or wrong. It means that when the people have spoken, then that is the absolute rule of law (anyone remember Nice?). It means that the people will elect others to represent them, but those others will be dedicated to serve them to the best of their ability, to the denial of their own interests (now consider the EU Commission).

It is an imperfect system and has been proven so. But it has also been proven to be superior to autocracies and dictatorships. It has also been scientifically demonstrated that if a question is asked of a sufficient number of people, the answer is almost always right. That is the very foundation of democracy, and it is why I for my sins are opposed to Lisbon.

Terry · 11-06-2008 6:40pm

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Wow. Can we get a vote on this as being the most credulous post of the century on boards? Are you German by any chance?

Jaysus.

Actually the words I am reaching for are starting to look more and more like "butt ignorant".

Cut it out.

SimpleSam06 · 11-06-2008 6:51pm

taconnol wrote: »

You just reminded me why I shouldn't bother posting about serious issues in AH.

No problem, or if you do bother posting, get your facts right. On the other hand, you have convinced me to vote no, so you did achieve something here tonight.

Terry wrote:

Cut it out.

Not a bother.

suspectdevice · 11-06-2008 7:09pm

cornbb wrote: »

Of course war is an issue. We were neutral during WW2 but we still suffered then, what with rationing, Irish soldiers being killed while serving with the Brits/Americans etc.

The EU has brought Europeans closer together, prior to the push for European unity that began after WW2 Europeans were at each other's throats for millennia. It amazes me that people can ignore this fact while whining about relatively petty issues like the introduction of fishing quotas.

ireland is a neutral country. anyone who died in the war died voluntarily. they weren't drafted or anything else. their choice. it may be the right choice for them but the individuals choice all the same. not an issue for this country. the fact is not being ignored, this is the second or third time i have not ignored it.

fishing quotas have destroyed one of our few natural resources. next up they are going to stop us cutting turf. europe didn't give us anything for free, they just gave us a long term loan which we are paying back. i don't see them replenishing the fish. how do you think the spanish vineyards would deal with a load of paddies going down there and harvesting their grapes? shot on sight i'd imagine

cornbb · 11-06-2008 7:42pm

suspectdevice wrote: »

ireland is a neutral country. anyone who died in the war died voluntarily. they weren't drafted or anything else. their choice. it may be the right choice for them but the individuals choice all the same. not an issue for this country. the fact is not being ignored, this is the second or third time i have not ignored it.

Are you seriously suggesting that Ireland did not directly suffer as a result of World War II and that the inherent peacekeeping role of the EU is not worth discussing? You need to read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emergency_(Ireland)

SimpleSam06 · 11-06-2008 7:56pm

cornbb wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that Ireland did not directly suffer as a result of World War II and that the inherent peacekeeping role of the EU is not worth discussing? You need to read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emergency_(Ireland)

There will never be a major open war between world powers again, courtesy of nuclear weapons and MAD. So the peacekeeping powers of the EU appear to be both overrated and unneccesary.

suspectdevice · 11-06-2008 8:02pm

cornbb wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that Ireland did not directly suffer as a result of World War II and that the inherent peacekeeping role of the EU is not worth discussing? You need to read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emergency_(Ireland)

reading wiki is one of my least favourite things. if i want to know about the emrgency then i will ask the people that lived through like my parents or grandparents or auld lads in the pub.

when i say "not an issue for this country", i mean it is not something we participate in. sure there is an impact of war. but we are neutral. we shouldn't particpate. its one of the last great bations of being irish and they are eroding that all the time. having kids in the knowledge that they will never be drafted is a very comforting thing. however, just look at the impact of that slime bag georgie bush's was in iraq has on us, and his illegal invasion of afghanistan. sure they have an impact and we should not accept it but we shouldn't go fight their wars, we're neutral.
secondly, what eu peacekeeping force?

cornbb · 11-06-2008 8:16pm

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

There will never be a major open war between world powers again, courtesy of nuclear weapons and MAD. So the peacekeeping powers of the EU appear to be both overrated and unneccesary.

Even if this were true, its undeniable that the EU has created a spirit of brotherhood and co-operation that has been beneficial for all involved. There hasn't been so much of a skirmish in the EU since the foundation of the EEC, let alone a large scale war. The prospect of EU membership has fostered peace in countries that would otherwise be at each other's throats, e.g. former Yugoslavian countries.

suspectdevice wrote: »

reading wiki is one of my least favourite things. if i want to know about the emrgency then i will ask the people that lived through like my parents or grandparents or auld lads in the pub.

Either way, learn about it. Your suggestion that war has not affected Ireland even though we did not participate is false.

when i say "not an issue for this country", i mean it is not something we participate in. sure there is an impact of war. but we are neutral. we shouldn't particpate. its one of the last great bations of being irish and they are eroding that all the time. having kids in the knowledge that they will never be drafted is a very comforting thing. however, just look at the impact of that slime bag georgie bush's was in iraq has on us, and his illegal invasion of afghanistan. sure they have an impact and we should not accept it but we shouldn't go fight their wars, we're neutral.

Irish neutrality alone would not prevent us from being drawn into or being directly affected by a conflict. If there was another war between large European nations we would be affected one way or another. Neutrality did not keep us out of things in the past, it will not do so in the future. Irish neutrality has always been a half-assed thing anyway. We have always been leaning towards a NATO alliance, from providing covert support to the Allies in WWII to hosting US military aircraft in Shannon. (Granted, we once hosted Soviet planes too but the Western/NATO alliance has always been much stronger.)

secondly, what eu peacekeeping force?

I never mentioned an EU peacekeeping force. I mentioned the EU peacekeeping role. It is inherent to the spirit of the EU, the desire for stability and peace in Europe was the main factor that led to the birth of a community of European nations.

suspectdevice · 11-06-2008 8:41pm

cornbb wrote: »

Either way, learn about it. Your suggestion that war has not affected Ireland even though we did not participate is false.

you have mis-read what i tried to say if that is your perception. everywhere is affected by war, we choose not to send people to die in them and protect that right, sure we might suffer but we don't send our kids to be killed in some foreign land, and we never should. even if the eu has such leanings, we should stay out of it. our role in the world is to provide relief and charity, its what we do best. sending our youth somewhere with the possibility to come back in a body bag would be a disgraceful turn of events. get your perception right, afterall, it appears to be your reality

cornbb wrote:

Irish neutrality alone would not prevent us from being drawn into or being directly affected by a conflict. If there was another war between large European nations we would be affected one way or another. Neutrality did not keep us out of things in the past, it will not do so in the future. Irish neutrality has always been a half-assed thing anyway. We have always been leaning towards a NATO alliance, from providing covert support to the Allies in WWII to hosting US military aircraft in Shannon. (Granted, we once hosted Soviet planes too but the Western/NATO alliance has always been much stronger.)

we also supported german u-boats and sent condolences to the germans upon the death of hitler. the right thing to do for a neutral state because that is what neutrality means. we have no ambition to be part of war mongerers like nato, thats of no consequence to us.

(on a side note - why would ever support anything with membership like turkey who to this day deny the armenian holocaust of the first world war, to this day are allowed deny it completely because it suits the americans and other occupying forces in iraq to use turkey as a base for operations, the very holocaust observed by the germans who later used their experience and knowledge gained to carry out the holocaust of wwii. fu'ck nato)

cornbb wrote:

I never mentioned an EU peacekeeping force. I mentioned the EU peacekeeping role. It is inherent to the spirit of the EU, the desire for stability and peace in Europe was the main factor that led to the birth of a community of European nations.

agreed. and there is no eu peacekeeping role of any consequence.

single currency and larger market. lebensraum, only not by war, by economics

cornbb · 11-06-2008 9:02pm

suspectdevice wrote: »

you have mis-read what i tried to say if that is your perception. everywhere is affected by war, we choose not to send people to die in them and protect that right, sure we might suffer but we don't send our kids to be killed in some foreign land, and we never should. even if the eu has such leanings, we should stay out of it. our role in the world is to provide relief and charity, its what we do best. sending our youth somewhere with the possibility to come back in a body bag would be a disgraceful turn of events. get your perception right, afterall, it appears to be your reality

The EU has always been aligned with our desire to stay out of trouble. Ireland alone does not have the power to be unaffected by conflicts going on around it. Neutrality minimises the damage created by such conflicts. The EU goes to the source of the problem by preventing such conflicts in the first place.

we also supported german u-boats and sent condolences to the germans upon the death of hitler. the right thing to do for a neutral state because that is what neutrality means. we have no ambition to be part of war mongerers like nato, thats of no consequence to us.

We never supported U-boats and the condolences sent upon Hitler's death was lipservice designed to promote the illusion of complete neutrality. We sent weather reports to the Allies but not the Axis. Allied airmen who crashed here were sent home while Nazis were interned. I support Irish neutrality, and it is a great thing in principle, but Ireland has never been properly neutral as, say, Switzerland is.

and there is no eu peacekeeping role of any consequence.

It may not be tangible, it may not be written in stone anywhere, but it is completely self-evident. Its ingrained in the spirit of the EU, its the spirit upon which European unity was founded. It speaks for itself.

suspectdevice · 11-06-2008 9:40pm

cornbb wrote: »

The EU has always been aligned with our desire to stay out of trouble. Ireland alone does not have the power to be unaffected by conflicts going on around it. Neutrality minimises the damage created by such conflicts. The EU goes to the source of the problem by preventing such conflicts in the first place.

the eu is not aligned with ireland, that implies it wants to be in aligned with irish policies, thats just plain silly. sure we have to power to be not affected by it. we don't send our kids to fight their wars. we may suffer from their wars.

the eu prevents none of its member states taking part in the war in iraq or afghanistan or on terror so how you can say it goes to the source is beyond me. ireland is neutral, thats what prevents ireland from participating.

cornbb wrote:

condolences sent upon Hitler's death was lipservice designed to promote the illusion of complete neutrality.

sure it was, in hindsight, lol

cornbb wrote:

We sent weather reports to the Allies but not the Axis. Allied airmen who crashed here were sent home while Nazis were interned. I support Irish neutrality, and it is a great thing in principle, but Ireland has never been properly neutral as, say, Switzerland is.

you are suggesting that switzerland is neutral when it has concealed funds in so many bank accounts. bank accounts that were used to store the profits of war crimes. thats not neutral. poor example

cornbb wrote:

It may not be tangible, it may not be written in stone anywhere, but it is completely self-evident. Its ingrained in the spirit of the EU, its the spirit upon which European unity was founded. It speaks for itself.

please explain in what you mean by the spirt of the eu? i haven't heard of it. what does it stand for? who subscribes to it in times of conflict? those that are barred from having forces can't, those that fundamentally object can't, perhaps its the eu members of nato who can, i don't know.

Europe has been good to us?

Comments