EU destroying Ireland one step at a time.

by Ronoc Sat Jul 16, 2011 08:14

Here is a link to a great paper that comes out every few weeks regarding all matters on whats happening in the EU and how its affecting Ireland. Very informative...

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:34

'..and that the EU are now dictating to the Irish government who has the right to stay in Ireland as regards immigrant children born in Ireland.'

as I recall it, it was Micko McDowell brought in the legistlation for deportations of Irish kids.

Can you clarify where you stand on the issue?Is Europe trying to reverse McDowell's law, and is it that you favour the exclusion, or the right to remain in their native country?The latter, I hope.

by Mike Novack Sun Jul 17, 2011 19:15

"'..and that the EU are now dictating to the Irish government who has the right to stay in Ireland as regards immigrant children born in Ireland.'

as I recall it, it was Micko McDowell brought in the legistlation for deportations of Irish kids.

Can you clarify where you stand on the issue?Is Europe trying to reverse McDowell's law, and is it that you favour the exclusion, or the right to remain in their native country?The latter, I hope."

Ah yes, I'd be interested to know that too. BUT, and this is a very big but, is the question of which side you are on on some particular issue the determining factor in the process you feel should be used to decide the question? Please be very clear for us. Are you for democracy when "the people" are making the right choice and for dictatorship of the wiser when the people are making the wrong choice? The original post was clearly about loss of local sovereignty in all regards. It is an inherent possibility for local democracy that "the people" will sometimes make unwise, unjust, bad, etc. etc. decisions.

So lets reverse the questioning. On those OTHER things (besides immigration) you are on the other side of the questions? (and that's why you are asking him about THIS question).

Please note, even were I on the same side as you over the immigration question I might oppose local democratic choice being overridden. I just might be less "oportunistic" than you and I might consider whether there was local democracy or not a more important matter than any particular decision.

Some of us are "one worlders" and some of us are not. That's not something over which we radicals agree.

by Declan Cullen - None Sun Jul 17, 2011 20:40

In clarification (all though I would think none was needed) to the previous replies is as follows:

Ireland is, or should say, was, a sovereign nation. The definition of a sovereign nation is one that makes in own decisions and its own laws. In addittion, it is a nation that defends itself against other entities trying to meddle in its affairs.

Are we clear?

by old codger - pensioner Mon Jul 18, 2011 12:02

I remember a time before we were conned into joining the EU when Raymond Crotty revealed his ideas as to what Irleand would lose on joining he was castigated and demonised by politicians. Every thing he said has come true. The politicians then Had only one purpose to get handouts and increase their prospects for illustrious careers,
NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
The useless idiots we have now have the same mindsets and are devoid of creativity and ingenuity.
Ireland was the cleanest country in Europe we had the best fishing grounds ideal for food production.We could have been idependant and free, instead we have been conned into slavery again by the same hypocrites that proclaim respect for the men that gave their lives for Ireland.
Our natural resources are being stolen from under our noses and the people ignore it, we are in grave danger of our enviroment being poluted and destroyed by gas Fracking and refining and the people ignore it and it is all being done by top civil servants and politicians
to line their own pockets while the people still ignore it.
UNTILL THE PEOPLE WAKE UP AND GIVE THESE CON MEN WHAT THEY DESERVE WE WILL REMAIN AS SLAVES.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Mon Jul 18, 2011 12:33

Mike, there's a barrage of suppositions and presumptions in that batch.Plus a few accusations.

For clarity, I abide by democratic principles(debate and honest argument are the best tools for solving problems), but recognise they are distorted everywhere by bad faith, duplicity, vested interests and contingencies. Democracy is a project in process, not a done deal. And human rights trump majoritarianist dictatorship, subversion of just ends, and narrow local or national interests.
If you question immigration should there not be an equal and opposite questioning of economic forced emmigration?The same economic forces govern both flows.

Same for Declan's '..other entities trying to meddle in its affairs..'. We live in a globalised interactive instantaneously connected polity. That overrides national criteria(no absolutes, please do not accuse of anti-national, anti-local inclinations), given the ecologiocal and resource distribution dilemmas pending.

And can I presume you accept that immigrant traffic is welcome and that the major relative threat of 'meddling' is from transnational corporate power, invisible 'players' of mega-banking oligarchies, and organisations such as NATO, set upon a dictated western hegemony of global power through lawless militarism in the name of their hijacked version of democracy?
But these locally impinging problems require transnational solutions. Nationalism as conjoured in the nineteenth century cannot cope with twenty-first century social and political conditions. The great game remains the same, but the situation, given the technological advances, is increasingly critical. Too many people see Orwell as a writer of fiction.

I hope that dont hinder clarity.

by Confused. Mon Jul 18, 2011 13:26

I'd love to make a contribution, however, I don't think Opus's questions have been answered. Plain English please lads.
Circumstances will 'force' us back to local solutions in the next 2-3 decades.
Ireland was not some Utopia before joining EEC. Yes, we did give up a lot of our resources but we did benefit in some ways. A balanced discussion would acknowledge the complex nature of our relationship with the EU.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Mon Jul 18, 2011 20:55

Not just.

There is no escaping the global Pandora's box.

This one is an all systems crisis. Everyone has their heads in their own local buckets(we have to, to survive as viable organisms). And the arguments for elevation of the perspective are controlled by corporate media served by Timeslord Ruperts who are insulated by a cascading pyramid of organised asocial and amoral simians impervious to experience.

It wont be solved at just local levels. if it is solved it must be engaged more comprehensively. If Europe learned the broader lesson germany learned from its idiotic experiment with national socialism and applied it to the bigger picture instead of its peninsular Euro-empire a start might be made.

Washington still holds the cockpit, and little can change till they stop driving their NATO-tipped adventurism at the behest of Wall Street and the 'invisible hand' of the marketeers.

Not much sign of that as they go after Gaddafi(Clinton called last night for a pan-African union, something Gaddafi has pursued for decades)and warm up for Iran. And even pliable Obama is too liberal for the rampant Republicans.

by Mike Novack Thu Jul 21, 2011 11:07

"For clarity, I abide by democratic principles(debate and honest argument are the best tools for solving problems), but recognise they are distorted everywhere by bad faith, duplicity, vested interests and contingencies. Democracy is a project in process, not a done deal. And human rights trump majoritarianist dictatorship, subversion of just ends, and narrow local or national interests."

Except it isn't "bad faith, duplicity, vested interests*, and contingencies" that are the theoretical limit of democracy. It's that "the people" simply might not want "the right thing".

And by all means let's have constitutions, bills of rights, etc. protecting minority interests but at the same time let's not fool ourselves. Those are LIMITATIONS of democracy. To say that we don't trust the temporary will of the people in some matters is saying that we don't completely trust democracy.

But narrow local or national interests? That's a whole different kettle of fish. Democracy is always defined according to some group boundary. So no, if the "group" in this case is a country then it's only the people of that country that have a say and the interests of the rest of the people on the planet be damned. Living in small town New England as I do we still gather in "town meeting" to decide purely local issues, and no, YOU do not get a say in whether we tax ourselves to buy a new fire engine or not -- or some other matter, even were that a matter of life or death for you.

But by all means be a "one worlder" if you like. It's respectable as long as you are honest about it.

* At some level that's the personal intests of the person doing the voting, yes? I vote according to what I want, not necessarily what would be good for YOU.