Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,450
To respect the view it has to be understood. So the following explanations will be provided.TV said:They must clearly deliver the message that the irish people have given their view. Respect this view should be the message.
To respect the view it has to be understood. So the following explanations will be provided.
Irish people do not like abortion and prostitution and they thought that was in the Treaty;
Irish people hate being involved in wars even just wars like against Hitler; after all there has always been somebody like America or Britain to protect them. They thought this Treaty would force them into wars;
Irish women do not want their sons conscripted and they thought this Treaty would do that;
Irish workers do not like competition from Eastern Europe and 70% of them voted No, the killer punch; actually in this case they were accurately interpreting the direction of the European project;
People like TV think the Treaty is going to privitise education, and that is a cold place to be;
Still others are in fear of the dreaded "surveylance";
Others felt that decisions would be made behind closed doors as soon as there was a power cut and the proceedings of the Council could no longer be broadcast.
Our EU colleagues will make up their own minds but we can't insist that they respect the above views.
TV I thought my analysis of the reasons for the No vote was rapier satire. However, you took the majority of my caricatures and actually jusitified them..
I was going to mention fishing myself. Talk is often made of the money we got from the EU. Noone ever mentions the billions upon billions worth of fish we gave back to them ; since 1973, worth far more than we took in EU grants. Barroso won't want to destroy the fishing economy of Portugal. Only problem is Cowen is untested as leader and seems a bit passive in front of these boys from the big EU smoke..
To respect the view it has to be understood. So the following explanations will be provided.
Irish people do not like abortion and prostitution and they thought that was in the Treaty;
Irish people hate being involved in wars even just wars like against Hitler, after all there has always been somebody like America or Britain to protect them. They thought this Treaty would force them into wars;
Irish women do not want their sons conscripted and they thought this Treaty would do that;
Irish workers do not like competition from Eastern Europe and 70% of them voted No, the killer punch; actually in this case they were accurately interpreting the direction of the European project;
People like TV think the Treaty is going to privitiseeducation, and that is a cold place to be;
Still others are in fear of the dreaded "surveylance";
Others felt that decisions would be made behind closed doors as soon as there was a power cut and the proceedings of the Council could no longer be broadcast.
Our EU colleagues will make up their own minds but we can't insist that they respect the above views.
CJ, can you be more explicit. Was it the colour of the document? Its length maybe? The fact that it was an incomprehensibe amending legal tome? Or is there some particular substantive point you found objectionable?I voted NO and I didn't believe any of those things. I voted based on the document.
Danger of going off topic here, but what's this all about our fishes? I thought we were only entitled to 3 miles off our coast. Do we own half the Atlantic fishing rights, except we gave them to the EU?
CJ, can you be more explicit. Was it the colour of the document? Its length maybe? The fact that it was an incomprehensibe amending legal tome? Or is there some particular substantive point you found objectionable?
CJ, can you be more explicit. Was it the colour of the document? Its length maybe? The fact that it was an incomprehensibe amending legal tome? Or is there some particular substantive point you found objectionable?
I have read none of the Treaty.
One problem with this is Portugal only joined the EU in 1986 so our waters weren't give away to them or Spain in '73. Spain had been fishing our "precious" before we joined the EEC anyway. As had everybody else since how could we stop them as we've no navy to speak of.I was going to mention fishing myself. Talk is often made of the money we got from the EU. Noone ever mentions the billions upon billions worth of fish we gave back to them ; since 1973, worth far more than we took in EU grants. Barroso won't want to destroy the fishing economy of Portugal.
I have read none of the treaty
One problem with this is Portugal only joined the EU in 1986 so our waters weren't give away to them or Spain in '73. Spain had been fishing our "precious" before we joined the EEC anyway. As had everybody else since how could we stop them as we've no navy to speak of.
Another problem is "noone ever mentions" isn't true, in the last week every single Noer I've heard has come out with more and more ludicrous estimates of the value of our fishing area. Apparently in the '70s we were a thriving fishing based economy, instead of the struggling backwater with a ramshackle fishing fleet I seem to remember. The EU should be thanking us for joining.
What's really going here is most reasonable Noers can see that they're being just a little ungrateful, so by "calculating" the value of fisheries they feel a little more comfortable. Much better than admitting that possibly they were wrong.
Not at all. I have freely admitted that I did not read the document. My vote Yes was on the following planks:Ouch that gotta hurt Harchibald!!
CJ rejected all your arguments for a No and a few others I had thrown in. His main objection was with the document itself. I thought that needed some clarification.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?