Should the Republic of Ireland Stay in the EU?

Former Irish ambassador Ray Bassett has written a detailed report for the UK think-tank Policy Exchange entitled After Brexit, Will Ireland be Next to Exit? He argues that Ireland should seriously consider whether or not it stays in the European Union, and he appears to favour an Irish exit.

The issues raised by Bassett certainly deserve serious deliberation. As shown in the UK’s referendum, those in favour of continued EU membership were found wanting when it came to articulating the benefits for remaining within the EU. It would be highly risky to assume that Irish voters will continue to support Ireland’s EU membership if a referendum was held five or ten years down the road, once the future UK-EU relationship is clearer and potentially major changes have occurred in the European Union itself. After all, Ireland has already voted ‘no’ to two referendums on EU treaties.

In my opinion, it is not a case of anyone saying they simply agree or disagree with Bassett’s report, as there are a number of separate arguments and ideas to be addressed. In order to engage with the issues that he has raised, I have written my own analysis, which is essentially from a social democratic perspective that is in favour of a reformed, more democratic EU: Should the Republic of Ireland Stay in the European Union? (click on the link to read more)

, , ,

  • hollandia

    So nothing to say on the substantive issues of my reply other than you own a dictionary. Well done you.

    Your dictionary should also be able to tell you that synonyms don’t mean different things. A book on English idiom, might tell you that “total and utter” or “complete and utter” are commonplace tautologies used for effect.

    Now, do you want to respond to my post properly, or do you want sit here all day and fling metaphorical poo around?

    Your move.

  • Reader

    Oggins: Where did I say that?
    Previously you had said this in a reply to Chris:
    Oggins: on a posting in which you described SF as “mad, alcoholic, psychotic and enemy of the peace Process”
    You still haven’t clocked that Chris isn’t accusing SF of these, he was saying that making these accusations is part of the SF playlist. (which is true)

  • Oggins

    And at the bottom of that statement I said it was referred to Choncúr. You seem to be picking what you want. Can you clock that reader?

    Well that would be your opinion and Chris of SF. It’s actually quite silly to refer to a group, organisation as mad, alcoholic, psychotic and enemies of the peace process. Because you have supplied no evidence.
    ……😉
    How can a group be mad? U supposed everyone would have to be diagnosed with a mental illness. Which they are not.

    The group would all have to be people who suffered alcoholism… Guess what, not all of the them…

    Psychotic… Refer to mad

    Enemies of the peace process… Do I need to spell out GFA.

    As highlighted and ignored or avoided by you and Chris, is that it’s pure whataboutery dot com
    It deserves to be called out as the childish and senseless as it is.

    Trt to behave in a decent manner Reader. Also, do what your name say read…. What is posted, not what you want to see. 😉

  • David Crookes

    Heh, heh, heh!

    First, my point was not that I own a dictionary, but that your attempt to correct my own orthography was wrong. It is impossible to take seriously biters who refuse to admit that they have been bitten.

    Secondly, it is not the job of a dictionary to tell its reader that “synonyms don’t mean different things.”

    (Language is stronger for containing no such “commonplace tautologies” as you mention, because what you call their “effect” is zero.)

    Thirdly, I acquit you of a coprophilous tendency, hollandia, but when a person’s attempt at an orthographic correction is corrected, that person does well not to resort to “metaphorical poo”.

    Fourthly, there is nothing more “substantive” in argument than the use of precise language.

    Now, then. Let me advert to one matter which you may consider “substantive”.

    You say, “Regardless of ‘hatred of the other’, which isn’t actually a factor in this debate in any event…..”

    Is that so? Strong feelings not altogether remote from “Hatred of the Other” (I was lightheartedly using a piece of pompous postcolonial jargon) have been clearly expressed since Mr Bassett’s paper was made available to the public, even on the present thread. (The near-racist phrase “gone native” appeared on a parallel thread.)

    John: “Captain Boris and his football hooligan mates egged on by the Daily Mail as we sail off on the bridge of HMS Delusion to set up Empire II. ROOL Britannia init…Two World Wars and One World Cup doo daaa doo daa”

    John again: “But we will of course be an equal on HMS Delusion and a priority for our new British ‘equals’ when it comes to trade talks with Pitcairn Island.”

    Conchúr: “We have no intention of becoming a British satellite state again. Ray Bassett’s economically illiterate nonsense wouldn’t sway a halfwit let alone anyone with any sense.”

    Such pieces of language, if I may use a word beloved of the Diplomatic Service, are unhelpful.

    Many thanks for your posting, hollandia.

  • hollandia

    So, you have nothing other than abuse. Thought so.

  • David Crookes

    Many thanks for that urbane display of rationality, hollandia.

  • DB McGinnity

    Still waiting for your erudite economics discourse?