C'mon Ireland, you know you want to...

[Louis VI the Fat]

Daft, but their choice

Daft indeed.

As for 'their choice', let me give you all my careful, balanced opinion about Irish free choice. How shall I phrase it so as not to come across as too crass? Ah, here you go:

Edit: The previous statement here was, upon reflection, not a good idea. Edited to 'the rights of Irish women are my concern'.

I am too pro-choice to consider it NOT their choice, that is, of individual Irish women. To repeat my old argument: the rights of women are always relegated to second rank. In this case, to inflated demands of national sovereignity.

Human rights anywere in the world are the concern of all. Saudi-Arabia can not give a raped teenage girl the lash. Ireland can not lock up raped fourteen-year old girls either.
I do not remain silent in the face of religious fundamentalism. Five hundred threads about evil Muslims on the .org but when it happens in the EU, apparantly we must remain silent or we'll be accused of being undemocratic, imperialist, fascist and arrogant.

Still labouring under the wrong-headed idea that ireland is rich because of EU subsidies, which they then ungratefully throw back in the faces of generous continental taxpayers by undercutting them?

Nope.

Ireland is rich because it understood its position in 1985: an English speaking country, with a well-educated workforce, combined with low-wages and full acces to the world's largest market. How good can it possibly get?
Any direct EU subsidies merely served to make a 'take-off' possible, and to speed up development.

Irish corporate tax regime is intimitately connected with its position within the EU. It can not be understood outside of it. Switzerland's banking secret can not be understood outside a context of Switzerland's neutrality, stability, geo-political position and the existense of a world outside of Switzeland. The absense of income tax in Monaco, the tax regime of the Caymans, none can not understood without their outside working.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The sad thing about this new referendum is that the worst of the EU meets the worst of Ireland.

Of course, the best of both should've met. Negotiations should be about a better democratic functioning of the EU. About the Irish forcing the EU to live up to its standards. Instead of more of this mechanism of a power hungry EU abandoning its ideals to cater to particularistic demands just to keep growing, and petty national demands forcing the EU into a position where it can't live up to its ideals.

[JR-]

by those terms of reference -

I would like to see the EU limited:
> geographically to the extent of turkey and the ukraine, georgia, etc.
> politically to a free trade area

[Banquo's Ghost]

Of course, the best of both should've met. Negotiations should be about a better democratic functioning of the EU. About the Irish forcing the EU to live up to its standards. Instead of more of this mechanism of a power hungry EU abandoning its ideals to cater to particularistic demands just to keep growing, and petty national demands forcing the EU into a position where it can't live up to its ideals.

I agree, but you yourself shrugged off the democratic concerns back in the thread raised after the original referendum.

Since your position then was that the un-elected elites knew better how to steer the EU, so presenting a good treaty for the ratification of the peoples throughout Europe was redundant. In that light, I fail to see why you complain about an elitist fudge now (though I suspect your usual provocation )

As for Ireland and her awful abortion laws, you might find the comparison with Saudi Arabia a trifle over-stated. We are a democracy, and eventually enough of the people will vote for sensible laws. However, as we see time and time again in threads here, the view you and I share is not universal, and in democracies, one needs to win the argument with a majority. If a majority is still in thrall to a religious power, then that argument takes some winning but we are not far off - unlike the stick you choose to insult us with. (Usually, immigration has a positive effect on changing attitudes, but in this case many of our immigrants are from a country that has, if t'were possible, and even greater obeisance to the Holy See).

I realise that your hyperbole is adopted for effect, but it is precisely that kind of hectoring from EU proponents that alienates this people, for whom stubborn resistance to outside imposition is almost a genetic trait.

Bully us, and we are your foes for several lifetimes. Charm us, and we're anybody's for a pint and a smoke.

It's 2008, not 1922. Just join NATO, like other responsible and developed democracies.

That, however, was really funny, thank you.

[Louis VI the Fat]

As for Ireland and her awful abortion laws, you might find the comparison with Saudi Arabia a trifle over-stated.

Possibly. But I re-read the 'X case' episode again, and it made my blood boil.


This article gives a nice perspective on Irish nationalism, the identification of Miss X's body with the symbolical body of Ireland, the need to police the female body, and EU membership.
A Catholic Irish girl, taken away from Ireland and send overseas, 'England' murdering her baby, made possible by EU regulation - the episode is rife with symbolism, a stab in the heart of reactionary (and no longer emancipatory!) Irish nationalism.

Whether opportune in a charm offensive to sway Ireland into the yes-camp or not, I am perfectly consistent in who I side with, whether they be Saudi clerics, Iranian ayatollahs, or Irish priests: no patriarchal policing of the female body in the name of protection of this embodiment of the nation and of the moral hygiene of the religion.

Although I realise that in the case of Catholics, I will be a minority voice. I've said it several times in 'Evil Islam Supresses Women!' threads: we won't hear the right when it does not concern brown foreigners. So, me, I accuse you all of blatant hypocrisy and Islamophobia for not agreeing with me over Ireland's sovereignity. A sovereignity, that is better described as non-sovereignity. Because the abstract symbol of national sovereignity takes precedence here over concrete sovereignity over one's very body. Freedom is individual, not collective. Hence, I argue that it is in fact me who stands up for Irish freedom and sovereignity, and not the others.

I realise that your hyperbole is adopted for effect, but it is precisely that kind of hectoring from EU proponents that alienates this people, for whom stubborn resistance to outside imposition is almost a genetic trait.

Bully us, and we are your foes for several lifetimes. Charm us, and we're anybody's for a pint and a smoke.

I do not in the least bit expect that I endeared anybody to the EU over the past few weeks here. For this, one needs to be charming indeed, perhaps nuanced and considerate too. Me, my posts had all the charm and nuance of a charging rhinoceros.

I announced it at post 4000. Stubbornly singlesided in content and provocative in form for my next thousand posts. Why? Because when I write carefully crafted posts that weigh all the pros and cons of an argument, I get polite nods and everybody likes me. When I pick a side and stubbornly defend it with pigheaded disregard for nuance, everybody hates my guts but I get plenty of heated debate.

Confusion over what is meant as thought-provoking provocation, what is sheer buffoonery and what is serious, is entirely unintentional and the result of my own argumentative shortcomings. Live and learn, as they say. And one learns by trying something new, like experimentative posting styles.

[Sarmatian]

My weekend? Ireland has ruined my century.

Weekends for the Irish. They'll have to do it until yes wins. So, 6 months from now again they'll have to go out to vote if they say no etc...

Also, would I be completely wrong in assuming that you are still a trifle dismayed over my qualification of the Orthodox Balkan world as 'Mars, from where we're sitting'?

Yep, completely wrong. It probably would have had a major effect some 5 years ago when I wanted western Europeans to accept us from the "Orthodox Balkans" as you put it, and was actually always making an effort to leave a good impression, either in person or on the internet. You know how people are fond of stereotypes, so my logic was if I'm the first Serb they met or talked to and I leave a good impression, they'll generally extend that favourable impression to all Serbs. But, now, I couldn't give an intercourse what western Europeans think about Serbs or Serbia and I'm against Serbia becoming an EU member, for many reasons... So if Serbia ever gets close to becoming a member, I would be the guy on the streets demanding a referendum about that (if politicians suddenly decide that only a parliament decision is enough) and spend much of my time convincing people to vote No. Free trade, free flow of ideas, capital, all that stuff can be achieved without becoming a member...

Maybe my deliberately inflammatory qualification buried the thought-provoking point there. Namely, that unless one is a proponent of a global government, there must be geographical and political limit to the EU. Even we internationalists have one, that is, you and I both. My EU ends at the Mediterranean, the Bosporus and the Russian border. Politically, it ends at a confederation. Your EU ends somewhere too. I shall assume you do not want a full federation with Pakistan and Sudan.
The point is, that we can discuss the desired extent of the political and geographical limits. But we can not discuss their existence itself, or claim any moral highground against those with smaller geographical or political limits to the EU.

There are certain thing in motion and things are gonna have to change. European nations are falling behind, and it's going to continue. The only remotely sustainable solution is greater federalization of Europe. It might not be my or your thing, but it has to happen and most probably it's gonna happen. Considering limits, I have a bit of a "De Gaullic" view of Europe - from Atlantic to the Urals. Any kind of unification of Europe not involving Russia and to a much lesser extent Turkey is flawed. That doesn't mean that Russia has to be a member per se, but some kind of close cooperation will have to exist. Seeing EU as something to limit or entirely remove Russia's influence is flawed and unsustainable and will bring more problems than it solves.

[Furunculus]

Free trade, free flow of ideas, capital, all that stuff can be achieved without becoming a member...

halleujah!

[Louis VI the Fat]

halleujah!

Pft. You only have thirty posts to your name.

I won't debate with n00bs like you.

[Tribesman]

Freedom is individual, not collective.

If freedom is individual then why are individuals throughout Europe not being allowed to vote on the treaty and why are those who do vote being told that their individual choice must be changed because the collective politicians don't like the individuals choice ?
If you think the treaty is so good then pressure your politicians to have a vote and let your individuals have their freedom of choice in this treaty....oh sorry that won't happen because the treaty would probably get a big NON like in most countries .

[Furunculus]

Pft. You only have thirty posts to your name.

I won't debate with n00bs like you.

you call me a n00b? your from 2004!

[edit]

good post tribesman
not that i have much sympathy with direct democracy per-se, but in the instance of the state giving away its borrowed powers then i expect exactly that.

[/edit]

[Louis VI the Fat]

If freedom is individual then why are individuals throughout Europe not being allowed to vote on the treaty and why are those who do vote being told that their individual choice must be changed because the collective politicians don't like the individuals choice ?
If you think the treaty is so good then pressure your politicians to have a vote and let your individuals have their freedom of choice in this treaty....oh sorry that won't happen because the treaty would probably get a big NON like in most countries .

Their choice musn't change. Their wishes must be listened to and seen to.

The commonly accepted signal of the Irish 'no' is: 'Yes, we want an EU. But no, not the one proposed in the Treaty'.

So, one negotiates. What are the grievances, the wishes, the objections? What can be done to solve them? This is for the Irish and their European partners to work out, to see if a satisfactory and workable compromise can be reached. I really don't understand the outcry over a new referendum. This, in fact, is what politics is all about. Strip this case of nationalism, imagine that it is about an internal politicised subject, and suddenly it looks like a normal political process.

[Louis VI the Fat]

As for referendums, I dislike them with a passion. They are never about the issue at stake. And direct democracy doesn't work. If I need surgery, I will pick my surgeon, but I won't read the specifics of the case and demand the surgery happens in accordance with my ideas. That is a recipe for disaster.
If I go to a restaurant, I will decide my choice based upon the chef. I do not want a direct say in how he cooks my food. God forbid, no.

Likewise for politics. I shall be the ultimate judge of who is in charge, but I am much too aware of my limited understanding of all legal, economic, social and other aspects of legislation. And even if I wasn't, I have better things to do with my time.