Fucking Ireland

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[AmPM]

Remember, forcing rules and such is democracy at work. The EU likes to act like the good guys, and they have some rabid fanbois (Unkn0wn) but they are no better than the US.

If people left the EU eventually they would be forced back in through economic pressure (tariffs and embargos) or when the EU gets cocky enough force.

The people that say a united humanity would do better are idiots, competition is what drives people and nations, not to mention that you can never get everyone to agree, so there is no "united humanity" nor will there ever be. People will disagree, there will be power struggles, and there will be war.

[Unkn0wn]

Right so you wouldn't get a president in the US EVER because usually you end up having 55% - 45% votes. I guess it would be undemocratic to just take the majority ruled president? OH NO wait, you have such a great idea, let's keep redoing the vote untill 1 side gets a 100%. Only then is it democratic!!!1!

Comparing a governmental democratic system, the most democratic system in the world mind you to a fishing trip is just blatantly ignorant.  And you're not even making a proper comparison.
A better 'fishing trip' (if you insist on this silly comparison is this:
Imagine you want to go fishing and there's 26 other people with you. You and 25 people vote YES on going fishing, one is voting NO. I guess you wouldn't go fishing because you're so pure & democatic.

The majority rule is the only way democracy can work, else you just end up getting nothing done. Shows how little you know about political systems. Also note that you have a 3/4th majority system (75% +) and a plain majority system (50% +). 26 out of 27 fucking states, that's a good enough & fair enough majority.

Especially in a system like the EU, where every member (being a country) is much more different than every member (being a person) in a country.

You obviously don't know that only democracy in theory is fully fair, in reality comprimises (and trust me, they've already comprimised a lot) need to be made and majority rules are often applied.

Remember, forcing rules and such is democracy at work. The EU likes to act like the good guys, and they have some rabid fanbois (Unkn0wn) but they are no better than the US.

Shows how little you know about the actual subject. I suggest you school up on it first before just spreading ignorance like that. But that's ok, it's difficult material, I don't blame you.

The EU is not forcing anything yet, right now they're stuck because they DO have a 100% democratic policity that states every single fucking member has to agree with the treaty by their means (be it ratification by the government, referendum, whatever). Obviously though this system will never get shit done. The EU is right now one of the most democratic institutions in the world and has been a leading model for many other supernational insitutions like the USAN (Union of South American Nations).

If people left the EU eventually they would be forced back in through economic pressure (tariffs and embargos) or when the EU gets cocky enough force.

I guess ignorance is a bless.

The people that say a united humanity would do better are idiots, competition is what drives people and nations, not to mention that you can never get everyone to agree, so there is no "united humanity" nor will there ever be. People will disagree, there will be power struggles, and there will be war.

Oh wow, let's all go back to the middle ages and bash eachother because 'it's human nature'. We've done that for 2000 years now, the EU actually prevents that shit from happening.

[HaroquenX]

Ah, Bullshit. Keep things like they were in the dark ages eh?

It worked well enough for the Rennisance and everything up until the World Wars, and then...GASP!...radical forces pushing for unification decided to impose themselves on the minorities.

A European state is essential for the future economical, social and ecological progress of Europe. The system of completely independent national states is out-dated, not needed anymore and does more harm then good.

If a European state is essential, then why are the current European countries fine on their own? And how do you propose that the varying patch work of dialects and languages be coearced into a unified nation? Magic and Pixie dust? Newspeak? Ethnic Cleansing?

Started out of economic necessity, which is more a need for survival nowadays, it is the ultimate step to bring europeans closer together. After centuries of war, the EU is the guarantee for peace, freedom and wealth amongst the european continent. People have to realize that they are not only Germans, French, English anymore, but also Europeans. Of course countries should maintain their own history and culture. Staying German, but also becoming European. Humanity has to come together if we want to survive.   

The idea that we are all united peoples is an old one. And damn, doesn't it sound like a utopian ideal.

But wait, why aim so low as just a small patchwork of european nations? Why not a globe spanning wonderwork! Remove the barriers of language and color and creed! Oh wait, damn. Certain beliefs and Cultures hold certain peoples higher than others. Well damn. I geuss we'll just have to thumb our noses at them and impose an ebargo until they give up their beliefs.

The EU sets economic standards that lift quality, brings down barriers between countries, and gives money to underdeveloped states (e.G. Ireland). It tries to establish a common foreign policy, which is the only major one in this world that makes much sense. And the only one giving a damn about ecologics. It gives aid to third world countries or countries which suffered catastrophies.

Well that's nice. Why should everyone be forced to accept it without objection to other niggling problems?

The EU hampers itself with trying to make it right for every member state. Which already made it incapable of acting too many times. Conservative national politicians know that they will lose their own power to the EU, which is why they try to keep things as they are.

And then I see people like Cosmo posting stuff like "The EU can stay in Europe, leave us alone. I don't want my countries rules influenced by some french person!" and I give up and ask myself whether humanity is even worth it.    

But...but...we should band together as a humanity! Shouldn't we? Or with your last line are you denouncing your cause in favour of disenfranchisement?

Oh your post confuses me so.

[Akranadas]

I honestly think it's fucking stupid to try and talk about the how bad the European Union is when you don't live in it.

You can't see the benefits when your on the other side of the world.

There was talk of Australia and other oceanic countries doing a similar thing to the EU a few years ago, which would help develop the region and ensure security for those countries.

[HaroquenX]

True enough Akra. But an arguement for the sake of the spirit of it will always outweigh your distance from the actual arguement.

[Willshire]

Right so you wouldn't get a president in the US EVER because usually you end up having 55% - 45% votes. I guess it would be undemocratic to just take the majority ruled president? OH NO wait, you have such a great idea, let's keep redoing the vote untill 1 side gets a 100%. Only then is it democratic!!!1!

Comparing a governmental democratic system, the most democratic system in the world mind you to a fishing trip is just blatantly ignorant.  And you're not even making a proper comparison.
A better 'fishing trip' (if you insist on this silly comparison is this:
Imagine you want to go fishing and there's 26 other people with you. You and 25 people vote YES on going fishing, one is voting NO. I guess you wouldn't go fishing because you're so pure & democatic.

The majority rule is the only way democracy can work, else you just end up getting nothing done. Shows how little you know about political systems. Also note that you have a 3/4th majority system (75% +) and a plain majority system (50% +). 26 out of 27 fucking states, that's a good enough & fair enough majority.

Especially in a system like the EU, where every member (being a country) is much more different than every member (being a person) in a country.

You obviously don't know that only democracy in theory is fully fair, in reality comprimises (and trust me, they've already comprimised a lot) need to be made and majority rules are often applied.

Actually if you look at the federalist papers along with the opinions of some of the US's founding fathers, it is quite clear that they did not intend for the populace to elect the president directly when you look at the electoral college. Rather, they intended for people to vote more locally and having less of an emphasis on federal governing and more interest in local/state governing. Our constitution clearly defines how elections and legislation should be conducted and what majorities that are needed for their respective instancees.

The Constitution of Ireland clearly defines the right of the Irish people to self-determination, and that the state is to be declared sovereign and independent. Tell me, how can a majority of vote from people simply override the constitution of ireland. It's not like this is just a law, but a contractural agreement between every citizen (subject is more like it) of Ireland. How can a majority break that?

Well when the US seceded from Britain, they elected representatives to vote for them, and all of them had to vote yes to secede, I don't see why Ireland can't do that instead of a silly popular vote, however I still be there would be representative(s) voting no because of their constituents.

Your comparison of a fishing trip isn't quite as analagous to the situation. It's like 25 people want to go on a fishing trip and 24 vote yes and bring the guy that voted no along with them, just because you voted to do so doesn't make it right, the 25th guy has a right not to go.

Ireland's constitution is that Ireland is supposed to be governed as a sovereign state. This is a contractural agreement with the people of Ireland, no majority can override a constitution, unless you just want to throw out the idea of a constitution in the first place.

A constitutional republic is a much more ideal system, that way the majority doesn't go around dictating what the minority isn't subjected to the will of the majority, and can only make changes per what the constitution allows.

[Akranadas]

True enough Akra. But an arguement for the sake of the spirit of it will always outweigh your distance from the actual arguement.

Arguing Against people that have experience of living in the EU when you yourself have none is like trying to stop a 18 wheeler with your face. Your just not going to win.

[HaroquenX]

True enough Akra. But an arguement for the sake of the spirit of it will always outweigh your distance from the actual arguement.

Arguing Against people that have experience of living in the EU when you yourself have none is like trying to stop a 18 wheeler with your face. Your just not going to win.

Always worth a try.

[AmPM]

I'm not arguing that the EU doesn't have benefits, and it may work for some countries. But you should not and cannot force your views on a people. Look at Iraq, years later and still fighting, why? Because no matter how much we want them to agree with our views, they still don't...huh I wonder why, it could be because they like their culture the way it is and would prefer if outsiders didn't force our views down their throats.

According to you the EU has no right to force rules unless the country agrees to it, and thats fine. What isn't fine are people like Unkn0wn who could care less about what other countries want to do as a people and would prefer to force his nationalist views (in the context of the EU as a nation) on other people.

[Willshire]

True enough Akra. But an arguement for the sake of the spirit of it will always outweigh your distance from the actual arguement.

Arguing Against people that have experience of living in the EU when you yourself have none is like trying to stop a 18 wheeler with your face. Your just not going to win.

Descartes would have to thoroughly disagree with you. Experience can be a quite blinding thing in many cases. Simply going through a deductive, rational, process about government can lead to many good ones. A great example is the enlightenment era and all of the vastly improved governments that came out during that era, especially the constitutional republic. We took a lot of Locke's ideas in the US and put them into action and he wasn't even alive at the time.

[Duvka]

In b4 Saint.

EDIT: If this fucks with currency im out dawg.

[lompocus]

Hahaha, somehow we got my great nation into this and I think someone even brought up Iraq. I needed a laugh. To the idiot bringing up Iraq, it's foreign powers fighting in Iraq. The people themselves just want to be a single unique Iraqi entity. They want us. Others don't want us. If anything, separate Iraq into 4 sectors: Kurdistan (requiring cooperation from Turkey and Iran to lend over some land which would require military intervention), Central Iraq, Western Iraq, and Southern Iraq. Now they'll kill each other in a way seemingly sanctioned by the world's view while Kurdistan just stays quiet and becomes Israel 2.0.

The EU is not very successful outside it's being an economic union. Europe will not have much political power, ever, nor will they ever have much military influence, ever, unless a huge sweeping cultural change occurs among all of its 500 million members, and even then it would take a significant amount of time for them to become united (as the treaty suggests they be as the states are of the US), which simply isn't so. The first 13 states had just formed upon the formalization of an official economic, political, and military entity. The Europeans countries have existed as cultural, economic, etc., etc. entities for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Let Ireland do this, if not for the whole then at least themselves. The people know what they're voting for, and this is:
-The dissipitation of borders between them and other european nations
-The dissipitation of them as a unique national, cultural, etc. entity
-If not the destruction, then a swift and heavy change in what it is to be Irish
-The allowance of foreign influence over Irish affairs
-Cultural clashes between incoming foreigners and, later, enforcement by alien militaries (other EU nations) to enforce the change of what Ireland is. Example: Muslim comes into Ireland. More muslims come into ireland. Muslims decide to build a giant mosque next to a Cathedral that's hundreds of years old.

As a side note, I learned three things from
-Oh God I'm and American and I'm... defending a European country XD. They earned it!
-Half a billion in Europe? Wow, nice trivia thing I might need one day .
-No wonder the UK refused to join the EU.

Ireland does something many Euro nations really don't do nowadays: The people have direct control over what's going on, demonstrated here. They're smart and know what they're doing.

On a final note, a single unified Europe could exist, but it has no hope in hell of working as an exact carbon copy of the US system. It's like the United States suddenly annexing... *insert remote islolated, imaginary portion of the world that has somehow escaped any US influence whatsoever. No, more alien than the boonies of China.*

[Migi2]

Just let us Irish have back Northern Ireland then we shall talk.

Couldnt agree more, if the EU wants some cooperation maybe they should solve the problems staring them in the face for 400 years first, fuking brit cocksuckers.

[Haroquen]

Hahaha, somehow we got my great nation into this and I think someone even brought up Iraq. I needed a laugh. To the idiot bringing up Iraq, it's foreign powers fighting in Iraq. The people themselves just want to be a single unique Iraqi entity. They want us. Others don't want us. If anything, separate Iraq into 4 sectors: Kurdistan (requiring cooperation from Turkey and Iran to lend over some land which would require military intervention), Central Iraq, Western Iraq, and Southern Iraq. Now they'll kill each other in a way seemingly sanctioned by the world's view while Kurdistan just stays quiet and becomes Israel 2.0.

While the rest of the post is sound, and while I may not agree with the entirety of its content, I find no real arguement with it.

However, the jingoism in this part of the post gave my cat cancer and had the same effect on my liver 50 years of vodka guzzling would.

[lompocus]

Hahaha, somehow we got my great nation into this and I think someone even brought up Iraq. I needed a laugh. To the idiot bringing up Iraq, it's foreign powers fighting in Iraq. The people themselves just want to be a single unique Iraqi entity. They want us. Others don't want us. If anything, separate Iraq into 4 sectors: Kurdistan (requiring cooperation from Turkey and Iran to lend over some land which would require military intervention), Central Iraq, Western Iraq, and Southern Iraq. Now they'll kill each other in a way seemingly sanctioned by the world's view while Kurdistan just stays quiet and becomes Israel 2.0.

While the rest of the post is sound, and while I may not agree with the entirety of its content, I find no real arguement with it.

However, the jingoism in this part of the post gave my cat cancer and had the same effect on my liver 50 years of vodka guzzling would.

Oh yes, the second I say anything pro-US its terrible, but anything pro-europe is amazing :_.

Now why was I second guessing defense of europe? Oh, wait, now I remember.

Now, Ireland and the rest of Europe can go to hell for all I care. Fuckin ignorant euros...

[Unkn0wn]

According to you the EU has no right to force rules unless the country agrees to it, and thats fine. What isn't fine are people like Unkn0wn who could care less about what other countries want to do as a people and would prefer to force his nationalist views (in the context of the EU as a nation) on other people.

They let people who know absolutely NOTHING about the EU & the Lisbon treaty decide for their country and the EU in general. That's like letting a retarded person be the jury in a murder case. There's 2 major reasons why people voted against the Lisbon treaty and both are absolutely unrelated to the actual treaty.

1. They voted CONTRA because the Government is PRO. It's a way of 'punishing' the government, just like you would with new elections... except it's actually unrelated

2. They voted CONTRA based on absolute lies like:
'The treaty would force Ireland into a military cooperation'
'The treaty would force them to legalise gay marriages'
'The treaty would force them to legalise abortion
'The treaty would cause higher taxes' (rofl)

Direct Democracy is shit, having every fucking ignorant individual on the street deciding the faith of something they don't know jack shit about to begin with just ain't right. Referendums should never be binding, sure it's great to know what the people think, but binding referenda are completely useless.

The EU is not very successful outside it's being an economic union. Europe will not have much political power, ever, nor will they ever have much military influence, ever, unless a huge sweeping cultural change occurs among all of its 500 million members, and even then it would take a significant amount of time for them to become united (as the treaty suggests they be as the states are of the US), which simply isn't so. The first 13 states had just formed upon the formalization of an official economic, political, and military entity. The Europeans countries have existed as cultural, economic, etc., etc. entities for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Wrong, the EU is a lot more than an economic union and the lisbon treaty, ratificated by 26 out of 27 nations is a major step towards a more unified political & military power. You only know the basics and that's for from sufficient for you to come in here spreading 'facts'.

Ireland does something many Euro nations really don't do nowadays: The people have direct control over what's going on, demonstrated here. They're smart and know what they're doing.

What is this, the 18th century? Go study some political history before you throw the words 'the people', 'smart' & 'direct control' in the same sentence. The majority of the population is ignorant and knows very little about what they actually vote for.

In this sense Locke & Paine were correct. Let the people be represented, do not give them direct control.


Fuck off with the Anti Euro/American bullshit. This is not the thread for it. Go ruin someone else's.
I don't even know why you brought in the US. Keep them the fuck out of it or we'll end up in a spiral of shit. (If we haven't already)

Couldnt agree more, if the EU wants some cooperation maybe they should solve the problems staring them in the face for 400 years first, fuking brit cocksuckers.

Actually, the 'Brown' administration is pro-euro and are ratificating the Lisbon Treaty. It's true though that a lot of the British are against a bigger Europe. (As a direct result of Britain's history and all that) but that's why the general public don't get thrown referenda anyway. The British politicians know that Europe is actually good for them.

If you can't keep it relevant & intelligent I'll just close this thread. Should've known starting a political debate on this forum would've ended up in this shit I guess.

[Smithy17]

Actually, the 'Brown' administration is pro-euro and are ratificating the Lisbon Treaty. It's true though that a lot of the British are against a bigger Europe. (As a direct result of Britain's history and all that) but that's why the general public don't get thrown referenda anyway. The British politicians know that Europe is actually good for them.

Which is why they promised a referendum on the constitution, looked relieved when that blew up in everybody's face so they didn't have to lose the referendum and now claim that this isn't similar enough to need a referendum while their government is beggining to go wrong. Also as everybody seems convinced that all the irish tossed coins to decide, why didn't the EU actually tell them what was in the treaty?

[Flack]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4291770489472554607&hl=en

There you go Unknown, long fucking movie, but it has the point you don't want to hear!

I would rather have every stupid motherf*ucker voting over something than just the stupid f*ucking politicians! Politicians nowadays NEVER EVER do something for their country's sake, all they do is in their personal interest.

In the movie, you have members of the EU parliament or whatever saying that this is all bullshit!

Lastly, we have the british spaker in the EU parliament, Farage speech!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-675727909256226305&ei=&hl=en

In Norway, there used to be about 53% of the people saying no. It was that way from the 80's until 2003, thats when the decline started. Now there are about 70% that will vote no, and why is that? Because the EU is a fascists system!

[Sach]

I honestly think it's fucking stupid to try and talk about the how bad the European Union is when you don't live in it.

You can't see the benefits when your on the other side of the world.

There was talk of Australia and other oceanic countries doing a similar thing to the EU a few years ago, which would help develop the region and ensure security for those countries.

The sad thing is, outsiders probably know as much as most of the inhabitants. Everything the EU does is shrouded in mis-information and media bullshit. The amount of bollocks stories weve had in the UK makes me want to cry. 'Brussels are trying to make our bananas straight!' and shit like that.

Basically I agree with Unknown in general although I disagree with the need for a EU super state. The Lisbon Agenda is a good thing, so much EU legislation is out dated and broken, a comprehensive reform is neccessary and like unknown said, the fact that its been voted down but a few hundred thousand Irish who probably have no idea what they are voting for is idiotic.

What pisses me off is every year Billions and Billions of Euros go in to Foreign Aid, Domestic Development and the fucking CAP. I wish for just 1 years they would take all that money and spend it on educating Europeans as to what the EU does, why it does it and then to implement a proper democratic system where informed people can truly affect the government that is increasingly governing them. (I acutally disagree with you Unkown, the EU is not democratic at all really.)

[Sach]

I'm not arguing that the EU doesn't have benefits, and it may work for some countries. But you should not and cannot force your views on a people. Look at Iraq, years later and still fighting, why? Because no matter how much we want them to agree with our views, they still don't...huh I wonder why, it could be because they like their culture the way it is and would prefer if outsiders didn't force our views down their throats.

The EU approach to 'winning hearts and minds' is somewhat different to the American though. The biggest instrument of change is membership itself. The human rights record of Turkey for example, while still patchy, has improved rapidly since its been a candidate country.

Every treaty the EU makes, even trading treaties, now includes things a long the lines of 'a commitment to democracy and human rights.' While its essentially rhetoric it emphasises these values and encourages foreign institutions to create themselves in a similar way to European ones.

You may not agree with changing other countries practices and values but every state has always done it, the US in the last century being the obvious one. The EU at least encourages and promotes democracy and international cooperation through non-violent means. For example, membership of the WTO results in freer and fairer trade and one of the main reasons for countries to join is if they don't then the EU will not sign bilateral free trade agreements with them. Argueably this is what finally encouraged the Russians to sign up.