United States of Europe???

4Xcut

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

mike65

I would'nt worry, with every new member the chance of a Federated EU becomes smaller and smaller.

Mike.

m1ke

The constitution wasn't proposing anything even slightly resembling a USE

There is absolutely no chance of a USE ever - even in the distant future

The question is still worth examing just for purely theoretical reasons. However, to confuse it with what is really possible is imagination and fantasy gone wild.

bonkey

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.

Seeing as you obviously feel we are remiss, why don't you outline exactly what the cultural implications are that you have considered and that prompted you to start this thread?

but if they are all intergrated into a big "mish mash" we will simply loose all sense of identity of any nation.

Any nation? Or any culture? I thought it was cultural issues you were talking about, not nationalistic ones? They're not the same - not unless we decide that at present, every nation has one and only one culture, and that cultures are unique to each nation.

And incidentally - exactly what are you basing this conclusion on? Is there evidence of some super-congolmerate which has occurred which has done what you're describing?

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

No, its not clear at all.

Its about as clear as me saying "Ireland joined the EEC, which makes it clear we wanted to become part of a post-EEC, post-EC, post-EU superstate.....which would suggest that we're clearly too late to be considering these issues, because we made the decision over 30 years ago and presumably considered them.

Of course, if my logic isn't solid and clear here...as I'd myself argue it isn't...then one has to ask why yours is any moreso.

jc

4Xcut

Cultural implications: If you take it that the constitution is a stepping stone towards further unity then we could presume that with cheaper air travel and transport being more accesable that there would be a lot more movement of people throughout europe. The benifit would be that the continent would be a bustling market place of ideas, creativity and culture from many different societies. Consider the fact that some countries re much larger than others and have a much larger population. Then would it be too obsurd to argue that a country such as germany would have greater power of cultural influence than a small country such as ireland. I'm not saying that we are going to wake up next year on day and be speaking german. All i'm meerly saying is that we must retain our identity. Go to paris and walk the streets. You cannot help but noticing a modern city, however unlike Ireland it hasn't sarcaficed any of its culture. The french do not pull a building down if it is old, they restore and maintain it. While walking throgh paris you would know you were in paris. In ireland the only thing that lets you know it is ireland is the litter on the streets. We must preserve our sense of identity. This is something that can be one without blind nationalism.

But this raises an important question. Is there anything wrong with sensible nationalism. I am proud to be from Ireland. I am proud of our culture and our achievements as a nation. I am not advocation blind following o a flag or some other symbol but an educated appreciation of irish culture. For example in the junior cert i remember that there are two sections in drama "shakesperian" and "other". the "other" is usually a play by an irish author. Should the message being sent to the youth of Ireland really be to consider irish playwrites' work as "other".

netwhizkid

Originally posted by 4Xcut
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

it works in the USA ? The USA is no more a advert for democaracy than a russian goulag. Two Parties, the same thing with different names, politics bought by big global Corporations, This is exactly we need to avoid. If anyone here watches the Simpsons and saw the Halloween special Where the Aliens Kodus and Klang took over the US presidential race. That it what american politics is like. You yeah and we'll just invade any old country we like and kill innocent people while stealing there oil. cummon people America is a dictatorship under Bush. Do we want Europe to become the 4th Reich under Shroder and dopey Chirac ? I would suggest Ireland pull out of the EU now, we got our money and lets pull out now before its too late. Just look at the Norwegian Scenario a rich country in charge of it affairs including it oil and gas and its abbundant fisheries.

I rest my case.

Regards netwhizkid

4Xcut

netwhizkid wrote:

it works in the USA ? The USA is no more a advert for democaracy than a russian goulag. Two Parties, the same thing with different names, politics bought by big global Corporations, This is exactly we need to avoid. If anyone here watches the Simpsons and saw the Halloween special Where the Aliens Kodus and Klang took over the US presidential race. That it what american politics is like. You yeah and we'll just invade any old country we like and kill innocent people while stealing there oil. cummon people America is a dictatorship under Bush. Do we want Europe to become the 4th Reich under Shroder and dopey Chirac ? I would suggest Ireland pull out of the EU now, we got our money and lets pull out now before its too late. Just look at the Norwegian Scenario a rich country in charge of it affairs including it oil and gas and its abbundant fisheries.

I rest my case.

Regards netwhizkid

Obviously pulling out now is the best course of action but unfortunatly th rest of the country don't see it that way

netwhizkid

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

rsynnott

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

Ah, right. Of course, the Common Market does not help us economically in any way. Furthermore, we don't benefit from European courts or legislation at all. Anyone who suggests that Europe built our roads and our railways is obviously delusional.

And you certainly did rest your case above. Norway is incredibly rich in natural resources. We have a small amount of gas, some fish and zinc. We can, obviously, beat Europe on zinc.

Next week, we can pull out of the UN, as well.

Bri

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

I find it quite unbearable just how misguided people are about Europe. People are entitled to opinions but.... :eek:

Briefly:
-The EU is not simply a bureaucracy for signing structural funds and CAP cheques.
-IMO, The constitution is not a stepping stone towards a super-state. It is definatley not a clear indication of this, and I'd happily argue it isn't a realistic possibility. Member States don't throw away sovereingty without thought. It is a lot more complex than that.
-Could you tell us more about why exactly we'd want the Punt brought back? Because an Italian minister said something similar recently? Because we've got all the EU has to offer?! Hmmm. A small open economy with a common currency in a common market. What a dreadful idea!
-Please note that Chirac and Schroder will not be around long enough to try and fulfil these ideas.

4Xcut

rsynnott wrote:

Anyone who suggests that Europe built our roads and our railways is obviously delusional.

He did not say that they didn't build anything or give us money. What he did say was that we will not continue to fecieve money from Europe in the same volumes we once did. We got what we came for so lets go

More than likley you are right about Chirac and Schroder not being around too fulfil any of their ideas but they have put them out there. Its very hard to get rid of an idea. They may not finish them but they will put the ball rolling

rsynnott

4Xcut wrote:

He did not say that they didn't build anything or give us money. What he did say was that we will not continue to fecieve money from Europe in the same volumes we once did. We got what we came for so lets go

What a lovely sentiment. Have you considered a career as a corporate looter?

4Xcut

Prehaps that is a bit mean but screw that. Some countries have to have more money than others otherwise currency would be valueless. It may aswell be us.

rsynnott

Hmm, and what happens next time we need help? They'll look at us and say "oh, they're the ones who took our money and never gave anything back last time round".

murphaph

bonkey wrote:

Is there evidence of some super-congolmerate which has occurred which has done what you're describing?

I imagine the US is a good example of how a superstate can dumb down individual cultures. When the US was founded as many people spoke German and French as English. That's pretty much gone now awith just a few remnants in Pennsylvania and Louisiana. I know loads of colleagues from the North Eastern US who have wonderful french names but can't speak a word. I dare say if their ancestors had settled <100 miles north in Quebec that they'd still speak French.

Interesting stuff but I agree with the majority sentiment here that a USE is never likely to happen. What we have is a bit like the USA, just it's kind of messier in how the wealth is distributed between member states.

rsynnott

murphaph wrote:

Interesting stuff but I agree with the majority sentiment here that a USE is never likely to happen. What we have is a bit like the USA, just it's kind of messier in how the wealth is distributed between member states.

Really? I was under the impression that there was massive inequality of distribution of wealth in the US, as well. New York and California are massively rich, places like Tennasee, not so much.

murphaph

rsynnott wrote:

Really? I was under the impression that there was massive inequality of distribution of wealth in the US, as well. New York and California are massively rich, places like Tennasee, not so much.

You misunderstand. There are loads od sh!t poor parts of the US, no doubt-I've seen 'em. The 'messiness' is in so far as the US has federal taxation, Europe does not but funds are still redistributed about the EU through fairly inneficient means, that's all I was refering to.

rsynnott

murphaph wrote:

You misunderstand. There are loads od sh!t poor parts of the US, no doubt-I've seen 'em. The 'messiness' is in so far as the US has federal taxation, Europe does not but funds are still redistributed about the EU through fairly inneficient means, that's all I was refering to.

Ah, right, yep. Though they also have some form of state-level taxation, no?

murphaph

rsynnott wrote:

Ah, right, yep. Though they also have some form of state-level taxation, no?

Oh, yes, indeed. Most of your taxes are state level. Many of the wealthier states you mentioned have issues paying federal taxes too-just like the germans in west germany resent paying the 'unity tax' which goes to the east and the same goes on all over Europe.

Board@Work

I like most people have a fear of a US of E. Of people in brussels making decisions that affect our daily lives yet are completely out of touch with our culture.

The fear lies in a losing of our sovernty and culture in a federalised state. Most europhiles seem to dismiss this as an irrational fear but it is definitely moving in that direction although the constitution seemed to clear up some of my fears.

I dont understand why we cannot move the Union more towards a confederacy of independent and sovereign states. (Maybe thats what we have now) With free trade, single currency and development fund to help the smaller poorer countries to develop. I also wouldn't have a problem with a unified defence partnership that couldn't declare war but could act as peacekeepers and for defence.

In the short term we should concentrate on not losing our independent tax regime to that of a federalised high tax continental one.

The Corinthian

netwhizkid wrote:

If anyone here watches the Simpsons and saw the Halloween special Where the Aliens Kodus and Klang took over the US presidential race.

I find it deeply disturbing that you take your political instruction from the Simpsons.

oscarBravo

The Corinthian wrote:

I find it deeply disturbing that you take your political instruction from the Simpsons.

I'm seeing a pattern here...

CerebralCortex

Is it just me or do I get a smell of fear of change in this thread and why are people so worried about cultural identity and then use it as a reason to have Ireland pulled out of the EU. Not every culture has a nationality, I know the culture I live my life by hasn't and I'm an Irish citizen. I'm glad (pride is vulgar) to have European Union written on my passport.

netwhizkid

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

liver bird

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

What a lovely selfish sentiment by the irish ,now your benefited by billion of pounds and you are now a successful country who should and will in a few years be contributing back some of the money that you have been given you want to pull out ?who said european solidarity was dead? I find it funny that britain always gets accused of not being european but we are a net contribuer.

netwhizkid

Originally posted by liver bird
What a lovely selfish sentiment by the irish ,now your benefited by billion of pounds and you are now a successful country who should and will in a few years be contributing back some of the money that you have been given you want to pull out ?who said european solidarity was dead? I find it funny that britain always gets accused of not being european but we are a net contribuer.

Why the heck should Ireland give our money to the EU, they shafted us from the start, Our fisheries were worth more if had kept control of them than all the EU money we recieved in total. Now they expect us to donate money while the Spanish plunders our fish, they even come up the large bays, Donate a few billion to them when Our own people are dying in hospitals, from alck of funds and care. You need to wake up to modern Ireland and see the quaqmire it really is.

Regards netwhizkid

Bri

Board@Work wrote:

I dont understand why we cannot move the Union more towards a confederacy of independent and sovereign states. (Maybe thats what we have now) With free trade, single currency and development fund to help the smaller poorer countries to develop. I also wouldn't have a problem with a unified defence partnership that couldn't declare war but could act as peacekeepers and for defence.

This book might interest you, written by a leading academic.

In the short term we should concentrate on not losing our independent tax regime to that of a federalised high tax continental one.

I'd also point you to read Moravcsik, who thankfully points out the million and one reasons why the EU is not about to turn into a federal state. It might put your fears at rest.

netwhizkid wrote:

Why the heck should Ireland give our money to the EU, they shafted us from the start, Our fisheries were worth more if had kept control of them than all the EU money we recieved in total. Now they expect us to donate money while the Spanish plunders our fish, they even come up the large bays, Donate a few billion to them when Our own people are dying in hospitals, from alck of funds and care. You need to wake up to modern Ireland and see the quaqmire it really is. Regards netwhizkid

You sir, have such a myopic view of things it's almost laughable. Shafted us? How could I forget the compulsary membership forced upon us?! Does the fact we've been net beneficiaries for way longer than we deserve not strike you at all? The EU is more than fisheries and CAP, although this may not be apparant to all. It's actually hard to know where to start in trying to draw you a bigger picture. :mad:

airetam_storm

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

Oh dear, that film couldn't be biased

Can the myth please be despelled about europren unity

-The is never been any mention of a european 'Superstate'. This idea is ridiculas as the whole of (nearly)europe was engulfed in war little over half a century ago. THe EU was formed from a number of organisations that wished to prevent this happening again.

-Away from history lesson, pulling out of the EU is the must selfish thing i have ever heard. 1970 ireland=****...2005 ireland=rich country...catalyst=EU

murphaph

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

We can. If a majority of the citizens of NI and Ireland wish there to be a UI then there will be. That situation doesn't exist at the moment.

As for your other comments about pulling out, I don't know where to start on how foolish that would be for a small TRADE DEPENDENT economy. :rolleyes:

Cojofl

netwhizkid wrote:

Why the heck should Ireland give our money to the EU, they shafted us from the start, Our fisheries were worth more if had kept control of them than all the EU money we recieved in total. Now they expect us to donate money while the Spanish plunders our fish, they even come up the large bays, Donate a few billion to them when Our own people are dying in hospitals, from alck of funds and care. You need to wake up to modern Ireland and see the quaqmire it really is.

Regards netwhizkid

You have to look beyond what our explicit net income/outgoings with regard to the EU. A lot of our national income is due to the fact we are part of the EU and it's common market. If we pulled out of the EU our economy would be smaller in ten years time than it otherwise be. The tax that the government would recieve due to this economic growth would far exceed any money the would have been saved on explicit outgoings to the EU.

netwhizkid

They are forcing us to do what they says. Thats not democracy thats a dictatorship. We voted NO to Nice and what did they do, they forced Bertie and Harney to hold another referendum, Then the gulible people voted yes. I for one hope the Eu fails and that Ireland withdraws from this Globalisation travesty that is the EU sooner rather than later.

Regards netwhizkid

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.