This could have been written by a Republican.
About the Mexicans.
It sounds IDENTICAL.
Or an American in the late 19th century and early 20th century, in relation to the Irish.
This could have been written by a Republican.
About the Mexicans.
It sounds IDENTICAL.
Wow, we agree! I defintely think if you live in another country you need to learn the language. It's very difficult to live in a country where you can't. I can speak French and Spanish but I'll never be as good as a native so you have to remember that a lot of call centres need people to speak another language but they also want people fluent in the lingo. That's why a lot of foreign folk get those jobs, they're the best candidates.
But do you dispute that Ireland has benefited more from their membership in the EU/EEC than possibly any other country in Europe? That your standard of living has risen disproportionately during the time period, that foreign investment has gone through the roof?
I'm just wondering how you reconcile the obvious benefits with the vehement opposition?
Now we have agreed on something can we break bread and wine
Or an American in the late 19th century and early 20th century, in relation to the Irish.
lol, you are a funny guy
I don't need to consult any basic economic text books
even though i didn't chose accountantguy as an alter I did get my degrees in accountancy and am doing quite ok thanks
you are making up a lot of nonsense again to hide the apparent fact that you have no idea what you're talking about
I'm not even asking you to prove your case
I'm asking what was in the referendum that you don't agree with
I also didn't present any theory
(and, this may come as a surprise, but I'm also aware of Jacques Delors is as Europe after World War II was the major part of my history exam)
I just stated that certain things need to be solved in Europe
I wasn't saying the Dutch vote didn't matter
I was saying that when you elect people first to deal with matter than having 37% of the electorate (yes, I'm afraid I actually looked this up) state they're now against what has been decided doesn't make some extremely strong case as far as I'm concerned
maybe I should talk to this majority of the electorate who all agree with you though, because maybe they can explain what it is you all agree on
I do know of several economists that have theorised that the benefits to Ireland of EU membership are immensely overstated.
Do you think we should be part of the EU or just leave it altogether? A lot of people will say we should have voted yes because we are a part of Europe. If you want a No vote does that mean you don't think we should be a part of Europe. Just curious.
Why do you think the No vote was good for Ireland
do you think we would have lost had the vote been yes?
There's something special about island nations. Gives you a certain perspective on things, a more independent one perhaps.
Yes your right, a lot of jobs they undertake can be seen as " dogs body " jobs but they are trickling into other industry sectors too now.There are quite a lot of factories around me that specifically target the polish community for labour. Call centre's and independent shops are also becoming increasingly popular amongst the Polish community.
My biggest pet hate about the situation is their lack of English and there lack of intent on studying the language. They stay within their on communities which eliminates the need to learn English. Their inability to learn the language will/has put pressure on local services such as police and hospitals to hire translators to deal with these cases. Intergration is key, so far this is failing badly, such an admission has been admited by the British government.
It is a hypothetical question. One cannot definitely state that Ireland, or any other country, is better, or worse off, in or outside the EU as one has no exact comparison. I do know of several economists that have theorised that the benefits to Ireland of EU membership are immensely overstated. Incidentally, most of the foreign investment has been from US companies. Of course, there is a strong argument that they are here because of the access to the European market. But membership of a common free trade area - which is what the EEC was supposed to be about, and as I keep trying to explain to Salome, does not necessitate political union.
I wanna buy you guys a pint, you have liberated the people of Europe from a almost certain hell.
Why cant Brussels get it into their thick heads, we dont want this dictatorship.
again, I really fail to see what this has to do with anythingAs an accountant, then, I'd imagine you're concerned about the fact the European Court of Auditors has refused to sign off on the accounts of the European Commission for several years running. It's immensely troubling that the EC can't be bothered to balance its books and account for its expenditure (OUR money). It's quite an insult to the people of Europe that they can't even be bothered rectifying the problems that their own auditors have informed them of. (Of course, there is a more straightforward explanation. They might just be defrauding us.)
what I suggest is that you stop talking down to me like I'm 7 years oldWhat I'd suggest is that you read up on some of the speeches, articles, and published works of some these people, and that will enable you to understand and appreciate the arguments of the Eurosceptic position:
I doubt that the average voter could name more than two changes proposed in the Lisbon Treaty.
Exactly! I don't understand what the Lisbon Treaty actually is
What you're describing is very similar to the situation immediately after World War II and the millions of "displaced persons" and other refugees needing to find a home and work in Europe (and elsewhere in the world). These people often had no choice to move to other countries, and they did the worst jobs imaginable, just to make a living. Learning new languages and "trying to integrate" often isn't a priority when you're slaving to make a buck. And you are villified: wogs, dagoes, chinks....
How do I know this? My parents went through this.
And it's amazing how 20, 30 years then changes others' perceptions about you....
As I've said in the other thread, the Lisbon Treaty would have made the EU more transparent and much more democratic than it is now:
* Increasing power of the directly elected EU parliament compared to that of the EU council;
* Having the option of citizen referenda;
* Meetings of the EU council to be held in public;
* More double majority voting;
all make cries of some kind of shady dictatorship laughable at best.
My biggest pet hate about the situation is their lack of English and there lack of intent on studying the language. They stay within their on communities which eliminates the need to learn English. Their inability to learn the language will/has put pressure on local services such as police and hospitals to hire translators to deal with these cases. Intergration is key, so far this is failing badly, such an admission has been admited by the British government.
Your having a laugh arent you ? If the EU is supposed to be more transparent then why are MEP expenses covered up ? More democratic you say ? Why wasnt a referendum compulsory for all EU member states ?
Its clearly a dictatorship by stealth.
I want to point out that, over the long term, this is absolutely nothing to worry about. Yes, first-generation immigrants like this often are not very integrated into society and often do not know the native language tremendously well. This was exactly the case when it came to European immigrants to the U.S. in the late 19th century and early 20th century. In fact, of all people, the Polish heavily immigrated around where I live in the early 20th century. They had language barriers, formed their own neighborhoods, built their own churches, and faced considerable hostility from the native population up to the point that many of those who had integrated into society would legally have their Polish names/surnames changed just so they wouldn't get discriminated against in decent employment.
Today? The only way you'd know that there were ever immigrant Poles here are by the last names of people you run into. They are fully integrated as Americans and their ethnic neighborhoods and churches, for all intents and purposes, cease to exist.
I can cite plenty of examples of similar stories with various other immigrant groups just from this area alone. We also have the city with the largest population of Arab Americans (30% of the city) not too far away. Interestingly, they're pretty much next to a heavily Jewish populated area, and with no problems.
I do understand that there are other concerns to bring up with mass immigration, which I am not addressing here. Long-term integration, though, over the span of decades, is rarely a concern.
Why wasnt a referendum compulsory for all EU member states ?
I'm kind of getting the feeling that this is a massive failure of the politicians to really simplify the terms of the treaty for everyday people. Because I haven't yet heard a single specific provision of the treaty that anyone opposes, it's all just talk in terms of generalities. So either the political establishment has failed to explain the treaty or the treaty is so badly drafted that nobody, including the political establishment, really understands it.
Some European countries, especially those that have not dealt with high scale immigration, now are facing some severe problems with immigrants as they never cared to provide for those immigrants to integrate. I don't think integration in Europe can be compared to that in the US, or Canada or Australia for that matter. Those that have moved a hundred years or more ago are fully integrated as well, but today we have many immigrants in second or third generation that are often struggling with problems finding employment, problems with their identity (whether to "feel" German or Turkish for example) and other problems like language, prejudices or religious and cultural differences.
Free moving has allowed for many East Europeans to find employment in other countries, but they often don't intend to stay there for decades, hence they don't bother to integrate and learn the language. On the other hand, the European governments so far have failed to develop the infrastructure etc. to not only give these workers "shelter", but also to encourage these to integrate.
And many companies exploit the desperate situation of people from East Poland, Bulgaria or other weak countries, paying them relatively low wages and don't giving a damn how to help these workers how get along in their host nations.
I'm not sure if the European Constitution/Treaty of Lisbon is like this or is a bloated, complicated document that one would expect to be written today by a bunch of lawyers, but I thought this observation would be worth sharing on this note.
I'm kind of getting the feeling that this is a massive failure of the politicians to really simplify the terms of the treaty for everyday people. Because I haven't yet heard a single specific provision of the treaty that anyone opposes, it's all just talk in terms of generalities. So either the political establishment has failed to explain the treaty or the treaty is so badly drafted that nobody, including the political establishment, really understands it.
You complain about some kind of EU dictatorship, yet you want the EU to lay down the law for ratifying treaties? The procedure on how to deal with treaties such as this one is up to the individual member states and of no concern to the EU. It's remarks like these that seriously make me wonder if people in the opposing camp actually think their objections through, or that they just like sticking it to the man.
I would be interested to hear what issues you have with the points in the treaty that I highlighted in my previous post. Don't you think the proposed changes I mentioned make the EU more democratic? And if you think it's not going far enough, how exactly does voting against the treaty make it more democratic?