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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

What’s your most controversial opinion? **Read OP** **Mod Note in Post #3372**

1238239240241242244»

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 291 ✭✭SpoonyMcSpoon


    Here's one of mine; Ireland would be better off outside of the EU going on a somewhat solo run like Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. The UK and US are our large trading partners as well as being the most similar culturally than the rest of Europe - both of which are not in the EU. Ireland is a nice, friendly country where many people want to live; stable politically and with its weather; offering fantastic fishing and agricultural resources as well as a highly-developed and educated services ecosystem. It is not some backwater from the 50s/60s which saw EU membership as some sort of economic and social life raft; often it is fear-mongering which is used to shut down any debate on Ireland's EU membership rather than having a sensible discussion. I say this as someone born in the late 80s and growing up during very prosperous years in the country, but also experiencing the horrors post-08 right up until today where things have clearly not resolved and the country is struggling massively.

    At the very least, questions need to be asked about the EU and what it represents today for Irish people. The direction of travel for the EU is not something that the citizens get an ongoing vote on, but it is clear that no one is really in charge of when enough harmonisation and integration across the EU is enough, in fact it doesn't seem like anyone is even asking that question. The EU is just growing larger and risks becoming (if not already someway there) an enormous bureaucratic blob that has taken too much power from individual countries without any overarching democratic lever which can be pulled to stop the whole thing. It is assumed to necessarily be a good thing in whatever form it finds itself.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,063 ✭✭✭Rocket_GD


    Ye the people of Britain seem delighted with Brexit alright



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 38,134 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    There's a difference between controversial and stupid.

    The reason Ireland has so much trade with the US is entirely because we're in the EU, trade to/from all over Europe goes through here.

    UK is far less important to us and becoming less and less so.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 291 ✭✭SpoonyMcSpoon


    Talking of stupid or perhaps ignorant; the UK is still our largest trading partner in Europe. With the US a lot of our exports are pharmaceuticals and Ireland’s favorable IP regime is a big factor there which is not connected to our EU membership.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 297 ✭✭babyducklings1


    This country is falling apart on every metric. The only thing good at the moment is the weather. People are paying huge rent on rental prices or trying to buy a house. It is so crazy., The stories of people having to move because landlord is selling or people not being able to find anywhere to live. Shame!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 38,134 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    In fairness, houses were a lot cheaper when nobody had a job and nobody could get a mortgage, that tends to make prices drop alright 🙄

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,990 ✭✭✭Jack Daw


    There also was a smaller population and supply and demand were more in line.

    Owner occupier rate was 80% in 1991 it's now down to the mid 60's and decreasing and for the under 40's that's at around 33%.

    The younger generation has made far ore of an effort with improving their lives through education etc and yet they don;t get the benefits of home ownership like their parents did.

    Government policy should ahve been trying to keep the home ownership rate at 80% like it was at it's peak or even higher if possible but of course they didn't do that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 297 ✭✭babyducklings1


    Exactly impossible for the young now. Even talks of putting the fees up a thousand for college in a cost of living crisis along with other increases not even in factoring in rent Country has lost the run of itself!



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,429 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    The younger generations are just going to have to get used to the idea that homeownership is not something that happens to you under the age of about 40.
    I see no reason why government should decide that 80% homeownership rate is some kind of desirable social good when the rate is way less than that in continental Europe with no obvious ill effect. It’s quite specific to a few countries such as Ireland.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 190 ✭✭Irish History


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121155472#Comment_121155472

    Makes a mockery out of health and safety law.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 38,134 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Countries with lower rates of home ownership tend to have functioning rental markets though

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,171 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    I'm delighted the UK is lowering the voting age to 16. I hope it happens in Ireland too. But the coverage is wild. The Telegraph is covering it by only assuming they're doing it to benefit themselves and pre-emptive schadenfreude because young people won't all vote for Labour.

    It's never even occurred to them that it's just the right thing to do to let young people vote and get them engaged in the running of their country earlier in their lives. And let the chips fall where they may like every other age group who votes in terms of who they vote for.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,868 ✭✭✭Hoop66


    The telegraph is a howling shit-rag. A once respected paper now in the gutter.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,990 ✭✭✭Jack Daw


    But Labour are only doing it because they think it might benefit themselves, there is nothing more to their decision than that, anyone that thinks it's being done for any other reason is very naive.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,171 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Perhaps they are. The polling suggests labour would likely benefit most from the 16-17 year olds. Greens and Reform behind them. The problem is nobody has ever canvassed or aimed election messages at people aged 16 and 17, so well have to wait and see who they actually vote for after the next election.

    Is the suggestion that Labour shouldn't extend the vote to those people becausethey migtt benefit from it? Because of Labour don't do it, nobody else ever will.

    But so what? They're only 2.5% of the population and unlikely to have any major impact. The younger people are the less likely they are to vote. About 50% of the youngest people turn out at elections. But it's absolutely correct that they have the right to vote.



Advertisement