Comments on: Lisbon: The Brussels View

By: Fjordman’s Book: “Defeating Eurabia” Part 2 (an update) « Islamophobes United

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:16:05 +0000

[...] to the Irish Election blog from October 19 2008, Brussels’ view of Ireland after the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was rather [...]

By: Defeating Eurabia- An Update-Now That EU leaders Consider Their People To Be— Defeated!! « Centurean2’s Weblog

Sat, 08 Nov 2008 09:17:52 +0000

[...] to the Irish Election blog from October 19 2008, Brussels’ view of Ireland after the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was rather [...]

By: Defeating Eurabian-An Update…Now EU leaders Consider Their People To Be, Defeated!! « uk1884

Sat, 08 Nov 2008 09:14:27 +0000

[...] to the Irish Election blog from October 19 2008, Brussels’ view of Ireland after the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was rather [...]

By: Simon

Simon — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 20:36:35 +0000

ok Jer no prob I thought the fish was a bit wierd. If we were talking subsides then of course fish come into it. Although simply Ireland getting better off and being a better trading partner is probably more then enough of a justification of subsides.

By: Francis S Codjoe

Francis S Codjoe — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:57:01 +0000

The Reality is that , Ireland, by rejecting the Lisbon Treaty, unconscouslly, heeded to the warning their brilliant father wrote about political Europe and its future. The Unknown truth is that, It was a native of Dublin, who wrote about a politiocal alliance of European nations -how it would develop, its nature and future prospects even before the the French founding fathers of EU – Jean Monnet and Robert Schumam – were born in 1888 and 1886. Whatever the Irishman wrote about EU has come to pass. Indeed the Lisbon Treaty paves the way for his predictioin of the future of Europe to be fulfilled. The Irish people should first examine what their brillinat Father wrote about political Europe before committing their future to the EU. It is the end that crowns the work. Is th erfuture of EU

The EU might have started well. Ireland has gained from its membership of the EU. But what are the future prospects of EU?. If the passengers who boarded the luxurious Titanic had known that the unsinkable ship would sink on its maiden vioyage, would they have joined the vessel?
The man from Ulster warned Britain as well. The ‘Seer’ predicted that a politoical Europe would be the next major political feature in history after the restoration of the Jews to Palestine. He has been proved right. The nation of Israel was reborn in May 1948. The EU was born in May 1950.

By: Tomaltach

Tomaltach — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:18:13 +0000

Jer,
I take your point about using a single post to characterize the entire No camp. I would say, however, that there were many issues on which prominent No campaigners argued points that lacked political reality. There was Sinn Féin arguing that vote No for a better Yes. But they seriously underestimated or, if you are less charitable, misrepresented, the chances of substantial renegotiating. (I don’t want to open up the entire Lisbon debate again but I don’t buy Sinn Féin bona fides here. Mary Lou McDonald argued for a more democratic Europe, yet she barely turns up in the only directly elected institution, the parliament.)

I spoke to Kathy Sinnot at the Eu parliament last week. She is still in denial and stood out as a lone voice who said we need to start from scratch. I pressed her on whether this was politically possible. She responded with opinions that are to say the least, not mainstream, arguing we need a short, simple straightforward document that will last for two or three hundred years!

You talked about exaggerating when I mentioned the rotating presidency. Yes, I mean six years. A dozen leaders in six hears, where each is already busy with national issues. One leader may not even have been present at previous meetings. Yes, he or she will be briefed but it’s hardly a substitute for continuity.

By: Tomaltach

Tomaltach — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:17:53 +0000

By: Jer

Jer — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:09:54 +0000

Hi Simon, When I read your reply I was thinking hold a minute Simon the ECB is only a recent invention what do you mean. Then of course i looked at the relevant paragraph in Tomaltach’s response and well okay I can see how the fish thing was a bit confusing. Arises from posting during obair you see. I misread and took it as a reference to general subsidies to Ireland over many years and not to those drawn down from the ECB.

I can see how the fish swap looks a bit incongrous in that light but I have to say when I realised my mistake it made me think of a surrealist scene involving Cowen, Bankers and trucks of fish.

By: Simon

Simon — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:21:33 +0000

It did not and it is regrettable that successive govts and campaigners of all hues have not highlighted the broad equity of the swap rather than allowing much of Europe believe we received charity.

Fish? Seriously?
The reason the ECB gave us funds is the same reason as the bank of England gave english banks funds. It is our central bank. That is what central banks do.

By: Jer

Jer — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 14:40:49 +0000

“All of which would have to be borrowed, yet we drew down 69 billion basically as a result of eurozone membership

Your comment underlines the pitiful and dangerous lack of political reality that permeated the No camp.”

Hold a minute Tomaltach dont you mean your view underlines the pitiful and dangerous lack of political reality that ccasionaly permeated the No camp.

Even then I would disgree with you but at least I would not be able to write off your statement as being misrepresentative of an entire segment of the electorate based solely on Barry’s post mixed in with your own prejudice as regards the merit of the treaty.

You state “Foreign leaders need to meet a dozen different presidents in the space of a few years, all of whom are also doing their day job of running a country.” Either you mean over a 6 year period of else thats hyperbole. Whether your words or from some civil servant in Brussels they are eminently defendable but slightly exagerated no? A small thing I know but you should recognise that the sin of over-dramitisation is one that the yes side often attribute to others but rarely corrects in itself. All adds to mood music of uregency though so a fair tactic.

For me that part of you enjoyable post that reasonated the most was “Personally I feel that those who say this actually want it to be true more than knowing it to be true.”

On the drawdown of the funds certainly a valid point but then you have to look at the access the EU derived from our fishing area and the benefit derived by our European partners. In essence they allowed us to realise an asset that we did not have the labour or capital to realise. In return they gave us money. I disagree with those who argue the EU has not benefited Ireland as strongly as I disagree with those who imageine that 69 billion came for free. It did not and it is regrettable that successive govts and campaigners of all hues have not highlighted the broad equity of the swap rather than allowing much of Europe believe we received charity.

Barry is I think a commentator from a neighbouring state and I would disagree with him in his brief arguments.