Talk:Euroscepticism in the Republic of Ireland

Move/lead

The outcome of a recent AfD discussion was to retain this article - and perhaps improve it. To my read, there were primarily two schools of thought on how to effect that improvement:

1. To move/rename/restructure the article to cover "Irish relations with the EU in general". Personally I'm not in favour of that. Firstly because, while there are many articles covering COUNTRY_X's relations with the EU, all these COUNTRY_Xs are non-EU members. There is no precedence for articles covering general relations between a member-state and the EU. And secondly, because there's already a similar related content and an article of sorts, and we'll likely just end-up with a CFORK issue.
2. To move/rename/restructure the article to cover concerns raised by some editors in the discussion (myself included) about the use of the word "proposed" in the title. As seen in similar articles (like Greek withdrawal from the eurozone, Dutch withdrawal from the European Union) I think we should remove the word "proposed". And move the article to 'Irish withdrawal from the European Union'. This may seem a little odd - but the current wording/title seems to make it sound like it is planned or proposed by someone or some-entity that can actually affect it. (As it stands those listed in the article as "proposing" it includes far-right groups in Ireland with a few hundred members, and Brexit advocates in the UK - who have about as much sway as they might if "proposing" that the US adopt the Peso). With the above move/title-change made, we can then update the lead to avoid the slightly awkward "this article discusses" wording it currently uses.

In short:

• Suggest Move to Irish withdrawal from the European Union . {updated|as below} Guliolopez (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not a big fan of the new article name, because it implies that it's going to happen. Rather, I'd like to see Euroscepticism in Ireland or something to that degree which incorporates the whole withdrawal from the EU. st170e^talk 01:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Indeed. I much prefer your idea. Significantly better than my own. Support move to Euroscepticism in Ireland. That type of title would allow for a more graceful intro of the type "There is limited Euroscepticism in Ireland, with opinion polls indicating X and no major political parties advocating Y. Apple-tax-issue and Brexit however prompted columnists to discuss Z". Guliolopez (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. It was the POV word 'proposed' that made me vote for deletion earlier, because it gave 'equal time' to a wp:fringe position. This provides a much better npov title and lead-in. The French and Dutch articles would be much improved with the same change but let's take them in sequence. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

It's been changed, as discussed. Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality?

In what way is he article not neutral? Apollo The Logician (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant info

It should be removed. This is an article ABOUT EUROSCPETICISM not an Irish withdrawal. Apollo The Logician (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit because you only allowed 12 hours before you reverted IrishSpook's removal of your content. Give it a few days and see what other editors think. Remember, per WP:OWNERSHIP, you do not own the article but it is a collaborative effort. st170e^talk 14:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Care to comment? Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

bumped to generate discussion Apollo The Logician (talk) 07:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I've just had a look and at the minute, the paragraph doesn't really relate to the rest of the article. The info about Brexit could be incorporated and linked more to Euroscepticism in Ireland. st170e^talk 13:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I concur with st170e. Some copyediting is required to stitch it into context, but (as per the point raised by IrishSpook) I don't see the arguement for outright removal. (It is relevant to the extent that Brexit is pretty much what triggered the entire discussion about Ireland's relationship with the EU relative to the importance of Ireland's relationship with the UK. So it would seem inappropriate to remove entirely.) If no-one else attempts to stitch the content into context, then I'll likely do it myself in the coming days. Guliolopez (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

How is the economic impacts of Brexit relevant? Obviously the influence of Brexit is but the economic impacts aren't really relevant to an article about euroscepticism. Apollo The Logician (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Sinn Fein and Euroscepticism

Sinn Fein is a member of a eurosceptic party GUE-NGL, it should be included among the euroscpetic parties. Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

To any other contributors, please see User talk:St170e#-Sinn Fein Euroscpeticism. st170e^talk 15:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

(Weighing-in on discussion here. Per article talk convention). I'm inclined to agree with St170e that a verifiable cite is required which specifically supports Sinn Féin's "eurosceptic credentials". Association with the GUE-NGL grouping is not "enough" (not least as the group is more reformist than sceptic). Also, by the same logic, because Brian Crowley (FF) joined the ECR group after his election, would that make FF eurosceptic? (Certainly not). "Association" of this type isn't enough. IMO the party would need to have specifically set out a stall, policy paper or position on the issue for us to be describing it in this way. Also, if this is such a established and important statement (that it goes front/centre in the article lead), doesn't it seem a little odd that there is then no mention (not to mention a cite) anywhere later on in the body? If nothing else this presents problems relative to WP:LEAD. Guliolopez (talk) 23:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I've tagged it as dubious too. Actually I think it should be deleted as WP:SYN at least. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, Sinn Fein endorsed Remain in NI! John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the statement from the lead until such a time where a suitable reference to back it up is added. st170e^talk 13:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. There's apparently a pretty clear consensus that it shouldn't be there (for several different reasons). Guliolopez (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

"Undue weight"

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

---

Is this really necessary now?Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Guliolopez who tagged it. st170e^talk 17:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Personally I'd remove the stuff about the unnamed/unexplained/unspecified "person who setup a website" (whether or not someone setup a website is not indicative of swell/opinion - even if a partisan UK tabloid chose to "report" on it, one imagines they were delighted to grab any piece of driftwood in the swell of "wrong-decision-there-mate" that followed the vote the Express advocated). I'd also take out the stuff about what UK politicians and bloggers have to say. (Again, whether and what commentators in other countries have to say on the matter is not indicative of opinion *in Ireland*. Which is ostensibly the titular subject). I'd also review where we put the "opinion polls" content (as a reader has to wade through a sea of fringe opinion before hearing what more than 5 in every 6 Irish adults would -on balance- feel about it all). Finally, and in general, I wonder if we should be summarising content. Rather than adding quotes from small fringe/special-interest groups. (Else it's 2 steps forward, 1 step back). Guliolopez (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Its a group not a person btw. I agree mostly with that. Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi.

RE: "Its a group not a person" (that registered the ireexit.com domain). A domain is registered to a *single* named individual. (When someone pays $2 for a domain, and $10 to hide the registrant's contact info, a single person's contact and card details are used. Not those of a group). The only indication therefore that there is more than one person involved, is the text of the website itself. Where is found (among other often misspelled and grammar-poor phrases) the word "we". Otherwise the only parties listed include the 'placeholder' identity of: "AN Other Campagin[sic] Leader" :)

RE: "I agree mostly with that" (list of possible changes). OK. Cool. Let's see if anyone else has thoughts and then take a stab.

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

You've summed it up pretty much Guliolopez. I also want to bring to attention:

In response to this there was calls for an Irexit by Irish journalist, Tom McGurk, British MP, Tim Loughton and UK conservative blog, Guido Fawkes.

These are pretty minor figures in the whole scale of things. st170e^talk 00:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

More than that, apart from one minor league journal, they are British, not Irish, euroseptics. Delete. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

OK. So it looks like most of the things I was concerned about have been addressed (opinions from commentators in other countries added as if were evidence of opinion in Ireland, "there is a website" added as if it were evidence of ground-swell, etc). However, before we remove the hatnote I'd suggest that we continue some of the summarisation of fringe-opinion, give a little more weight to the opinion polls and actual ballot-box results (and perhaps just move-up that section), and attempt to balance some of the Nice/Lisbon stuff in particular. (Someone reading that section would be forgiven for thinking there was a ground-swell against the EU. Rather than, say, the sway of "£350m for the NHS"-style campaign stances going unchallenged for Lisbon I.) Finally, once we've summarised some of the other stuff a little (to "make room"), I recon there may be space for a note on reaction to influence from the ECB/Troika/etc (personally I think any questioning of EU influence is more relevant to that area than any loooong-faded hangover from Lisbon II). Guliolopez (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

How exactly do you give more weight to opinion polls?Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

What I'd suggested on 29 Dec (and again today 1 Jan) is that we might consider reorganising things slightly - perhaps by "moving up" the opinion polls section. So the reader doesn't have to wade through reams of minority opinion before getting to text that covers the majority position. (In short, we start the article by stating that "euroscepticism is a minority opinion". But we then allocate ~1000 words to the (oft-hypothetical) musings of a minority. Before affording ~100 words or so to the majority position.) This would be helped if (as also suggested) we summarised or removed the many quotes we've added recently. (It's a near dicdef of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE to lack balance like this. Per WP:UNDUE "articles should not give minority views [..] as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects"). Guliolopez (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

That seems fair. How far should they be "moved up" though?Apollo The Logician (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

In honesty I'm not sure it's just a case of "how far up to move it". The only reason I haven't done it myself already is because I actually think there's a few other things to be moved/reorganised/summarised too. If other editors agree, I think we might structure the article as follows (largely keeping the same content - just summarising and moving it around a bit):

• Lead - (Essentially leaving it exactly as it is)
• Background - Two sub-sections:
  • History: 1972 referendum. 71% turnout. 83% in favour. (Essentially the opening para of the existing history section)
  • Opinion: 2015+ Opinion polls. 80% in favour. (Essentially moving up the current text)
• Developments - Quick summary of events that drove discussion. Noting stakeholders involved in discussion (essentially the list of small far-left, far-right and lobby groups we already have). And then short(!) subsections on:
  • Lisbon/Nice: Didn't pass. Renegotiated and post-truths debunked. Passed. (Essentially boil-down what we already have to 3 lines. Not half-dozen quotes)
  • Troika/austerity: Two lines: "Some thought reaction to ECB/Troika austerity might spur eurosceptic candidates.[1][2] It didn't." (Essentially a new/short section which we don't have today)
  • Apple/tax: The decision. The discussion. One or two quotes. (Essentially summarising what we have already, and leaving broader discussion to the WP:SS sub-articles).
  • Brexit/etc: Two lines: "Some spoke of leaving too. Vast majority disagreed."

If the other involved editors want to afford me a few yards of rope, I'll take a stab this reorg myself. Or perhaps just hang myself. Guliolopez (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

That's seems like a good idea. Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

OK. If there are no thoughts from others in the meantime, I'll do it tomorrow. Likely in stages. So it's clear in particular that it isn't a massive rewrite. Just mainly moving stuff around. And a little summarising. Guliolopez (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

OK. I didn't hear back on this, so I've gone ahead with the proposed changes. In short, I "moved up" the "Opinion polls" section. I also grouped (and seriously summarised) the ostensible "scepticism drivers" into sub-sections. (And referenced some of the opinion polls in those sections - to try and afford some in-inline balance to what is otherwise largely fringe opinion). Hopefully the rationale and approach is clear. If there are no other comments or proposed changes, I guess we can consider removing the UNDUE hatnote... Guliolopez (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

This is great work and I would have no problem with the 'undue' tag being removed. It seems to be balanced enough now. st170e 13:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done OK - I've removed the hatnote. Can probably close the broader discussion on UNDUE. And deal with any balance/weight issues on a case-case basis. Guliolopez (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Apple's tax bombshell

If the whole article is based on euroscepticism, is it necessary that we bring in Irish withdrawal to the Apple tax controversy? We need to show that there was discontent with Europe. If major political figures called for a withdrawal from the EU, then sure, include it, but it really doesn't have a place in the article. st170e^talk 00:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The Irish Government was annoyed with one Commissioner, who they [and her predecessor] considered had gone beyond her remit. [There is a case to answer that giving one company favourable tax treatment amounts in effect to 'illegal state aid', but I will be very surprised if it gets anywhere]. Despite British europhobes' delusional belief that it might be something more, that is all that it is - there is no evidence to suggest the Irish Government is disenchanted with the EU in general. So should that section be deleted? Yes, I think it should. It is seriously off-topic. It was dragged in by the hind legs to feed a particular piece of POV-pushing and thus should now be dragged back out again.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

That's ironic considering it seems pretty clear to me that you have a clear agenda. Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Apollo The Logician: your attitude to editing on Wikipedia is rather concerning. Many people will disagree with you and you need to learn to accept criticism on your edits rather than criticising the character or intentions of individuals. st170e^talk 19:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I do accept criticism. I actually wrote most of the section that I am voting to delete Apollo The Logician (talk)

It should be deleted, yes.Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the section should be deleted entirely: it just gives undue weight to withdrawal. Public opinion was mixed after the EU's decision and I think this should be reflected upon. Euroscepticism is the topic of the article after all and we should start to include how certain EU decisions have changed public opinion (like this one, for example). Some people were concerned that the EU was getting involved in domestic matters (tax), whereas others were satisfied with the decision. Ireland's corporate tax rate is notoriously controversial and EU efforts to influence or change the tax rate should be noted and related to euroscepticism. It seems to me that withdrawal is being mentioned at any sign of discontent, no matter how minor the figure, and that breaks NPOV. st170e^talk 19:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

That seems fair.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Btw, St170e, I think you meant "the Commission", not the whole EU.

Tax policy, Ireland's or anybody else's, is not an item of shared sovereignty. Although the UK tabloids tried to cast it as such, the Commission did not attempt 'to get involved in Ireland's domestic tax matters': it is well aware that it has no delegated authority under any Treaty to do so. The Competition Commissioner questioned Apple's sweetheart deal: if this was not available to every other company then it is a benefit-in-kind to Apple. [Ireland did used to have a different rate of Corporation tax for multinationals and did get challenged over it. Consequently, the tax rate [12.5%] is now the same for all].

But I still can't see any evidence that the Apple tax case led to any significant change in attitude in Ireland toward the EU in general. "Get your tanks off our lawn!" to the EC does not equal euroscepticism - and Ireland has given a formal response to the unfair competition challenge. So if this section is to stay, reliable citations need to be provided that show that is relevant to this article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Apple will be forced to pay the money, in contrast to Irish law, so that is incorrect. Also the Minister for education Richard Bruton called it a violation of Irish sovereignty. After the ruling the prospect of an Irexit was discussed on Claire Byrne Live, a big Irish politics related show. http://www.rte.ie/news/player/claire-byrne-live-web/2016/1114/Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Apollo The Logician: The prospect was discussed on a politics show. I don't consider that to be major to be actually putting that in the article because it would imply that it was a view held by the public in reaction to the Commission's ruling. It's purely misleading. It may have made people think 'what if...?' but nothing else as far as I can see. st170e^talk 23:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

We could just clarify that it was just a "what if" doscussionApollo The Logician (talk) 14:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

No, that isn't notable for inclusion. It gives off the impression that many people wanted Irish withdrawal. st170e^talk 17:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

No it doesnt, it states in the lead that 80% are for EU membershipApollo The Logician (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

That's fine, but it still isn't notable for inclusion. st170e^talk 17:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Why is that?Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

A politics show discussed withdrawal from the EU. This really isn't worth including in the article, it's exaggerating the reaction to the tax ruling were it to be added. We need to approach this from a neutral angle without promoting any side. st170e 18:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Not if the impact is made clear.Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

So what do you propose we add into the article? 'A politics show discussed the possibility'. No, it's simply not noteworthy. The media is currently discussing whether the Queen will die: do we add that into her WP article? I know it isn't the same but we can't mention everything that the media (politics show in this case) discuss in a hypothetical sense. Remember undue weight. st170e 18:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: You're right, my apologies. I did mean the Commission.

I am of the opinion that we need to cover everything. The Apple tax ruling was appealed by the Irish government and there were mixed views held by politicians. Apple would effectively be paying €2,830 for every person living in Ireland (which is major) according to this article from the Guardian. I'm not of the view that it had any significant impact, but it's definitely worth mentioning in the article. The Irish government accused it of interfering with its sovereignty. I think this is major, and it deserves to be in the article. There are a wealth of sources on Google to show that people were unhappy with the Commission (and the EU as a whole), but I wouldn't go as far to say that people wanted withdrawal. That's ludicrous, but the section should stay. st170e^talk 23:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not objecting in principle to the 'Apple tax bombshell' [sorry for title, a UK political reference, maybe inappropriate!] story being included, but only that we have to show [provide citation] that it is relevant to the article topic. Your Minister can huff and puff about EC 'interference in Ireland's taxation policy' but he knew perfectly well that there is a case to answer on competition grounds. She made similar challenges to similar sweetheart deals in a few other countries at the same time. One I think was Fiat - is there an "Itexit" aricle that claims that eurosceptism has increased significantly as a result? I don't think so. The ibtimes citation does not support an argument that euroscepticism in Ireland has changed in any significant way as a result. We need solid evidence of relevance, otherwise it is just being shoehorned in as a bit of wp:recentism. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

You may have your own opinion on the EC's ruling, I don't really have an opinion on it. The ruling is being appealed by the Irish government who is calling it unfair and a breach of national sovereignty. That is important in EU-Ireland relations. The topic here is euroscepticism, which in the strictest sense, means opposition or criticism of the EU. I propose that we say in the article that the Irish government called the EC's ruling a breach on their internal tax affairs and leave it at that until we find more citations to show if it had a major impact on Irish opinion, if it did have any effect. I also propose that we mention the debate in the Dail, where Sinn Fein opposed the Irish appeal and actually welcomed the tax ruling (to cover both sides). Withdrawal from the EU is extreme euroscepticism and there is nothing credible to add to this article about withdrawal, so that should be left out. I don't have an opinion on the Fiat ruling because I don't know anything about it, but the Apple tax ruling was huge. Best, st170e^talk 17:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia rules, my opinion is irrelevant [but for what it is worth, I agree with Nellie Kroes's assessment]. What I wanted was evidence that the material, while good stuff and well cited, is actually relevant to the topic. Staring me in the face all the time is the Brian Hayes quote, which exactly hits the spot. I withdraw my objection. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I do appreciate your objection, but we do need to keep a NPOV and approach it from all angles. Thank you for your comments. All the best, st170e 15:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

John Halligan / Independent Alliance

Presumably since he is a Junior Minister, John Halligan is notable. Should his opinion be inluded anywhere?‘Won’t be long’ before calls to leave EU says John Halligan --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure but I'm not sure how it could be incorporated in to the article Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I added it as a ref to the "Brexit forces Irexit debate" text. As fun as it might be to add the "Council of Europe is a waste of fucking space" quote to the text, it doesn't add anything that hasn't already been covered ("Brexit prompts Irexit discussion"). And so, replicating quotes from every news story leads us back into WP:NOTQUOTE, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE waters. Guliolopez (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It perhaps tells you as much as you need to know about his competence that he seems not to know that the Council of Europe has nothing to do with the EU! However the reason I raised it is because he is a minister (pork barrel bounty for supporting a coalition government?], so maybe ought to be mentioned. Yes, i had the same policy concerns which is why i raised it here rather than just editing it in. A footnote is the most it merits. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I know this isnt relevant to the discussion but he never conflated the two, he just criticised both.Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Bump

On 18 Oct 2017 this quote (the "Council of Europe is a waste of fucking space" statement) was readded. I have removed it again. As, per the specific discussion above (and other previous discussions on WP:UNDUE), while it may be equal parts fun and confusing to add this quote, it doesn't add anything useful to the reader. That isn't already covered elsewhere in the Brexit section. The section already has more than enough text covering the "Brexit prompts Irexit comments" phenomenon. Adding every comment from every quarter does not provide the reader with much additional context - and serves only to lead us back where (consensus has already established) we don't want to be. Namely in WP:NOTQUOTE, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE waters. Guliolopez (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

would you be opposed to merely mentioning Halligan?Eirigi eire! (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

"Supposed" debunking

Justify why the word "supposed" should remain in the sentence "In each case, a first referendum failed to pass but, following renegotiation and the supposed debunking of certain claims made during campaigning,[16] a second one was successful (with around two-thirds majority in favour in both cases)." It's inclusion is POV and it's unreferenced. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Why should the opinions of Fianna Fail and Labour be taken as fact? Should it say that the calling of second referendums is the "political masters in Brussels" forcing their will on the people just because the Irish Republican Socialist Party says so? By your logic we should. Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Because significant portions of the electorate vote for them? As opposed to a "party" that doesn't actually contest elections. Your lack of a WP:NPOV is showing, I'm afraid. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

And? Should we put on the Irish Water page that water charges are a good thing? After all Fine Gael got the most votes in the election. Why do you keep putting party in ""? What makes you think I have any time for Coir?Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you address the point you're supposed to be addressing, please? "Supposed" is an NPOV word that isn't backed by a reference. Justify it with a reference, or it goes. Second time of asking. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

"Because significant portions of the electorate vote for them?" <--- this was your justification for taking Fianna Fail and Labour's opinion as fact. You dont need to provide a reference for NPOV. Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I agree with the removal of the word "supposed". As per the extra cite I've added to the body, the claims were debunked at time (not just by FF/Labour), were effectively accepted as bunk by Coir directly themselves, and (in no small way) proven so in the 7 years since. So - to be fair - there isn't really anything "supposed" about the debunking of those claims. I've restored the O'Leary text however (yes - he's hardly "Mr Fair and Balanced", but - without some apparent suggestion of impact, there's nothing in that section that speaks to overt impact on opinion/scepticism). Guliolopez (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

"were effectively accepted as bunk by Coir directly themselves," If you could provide a reference for that, I would drop it. Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd also point out you're now reverting two other editors and are again in danger of breaching WP:3RR. You're still new, so I'd strongly suggest you read WP:5 and WP:BRD. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The only edits I have reverted are yours. I am well aware of them you have ironically used them to justify your actions Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi guys.

@Apollo - "If you could provide a reference for that, I would drop it". I think you've seen it since, but I already did as it happens. I added a ref with a quote to the body in this edit. In short, the Cóir rep was on RTÉ Radio of somesuch, and agreed that there was no basis. Hopefully that clears it up.

@Bastun - "In danger of breaching 3RR". I appreciate some concern on tone/NPOV however, but perhaps the reason @Apollo is "defending" the status quo is because (as you might note in the discussions above), there were more than a few editors involved (myself included) in agreeing a structure and "balance" to the content. Hence it probably is worth at least raising any material proposed changes here. To avoid conflicts. Guliolopez (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Guliolopez: "I've restored the O'Leary text however (yes - he's hardly "Mr Fair and Balanced", but - without some apparent suggestion of impact, there's nothing in that section that speaks to overt impact on opinion/scepticism)." Exactly. Isn't it WP:OR or at least WP:SYNTH to quote the words of one populist businessman (apparently not even widely picked up by the media!) to justify the inclusion of the whole section? An EU investigation concluded Ireland were owed tax by Apple. Ireland is appealing that decision. Nobody except O'Leary said we should leave the EU over it, and it's a completely illogical position - the multinationals and resulting FDI only arise because we're members of the EU! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

In honesty I'm not "in love" with the inclusion of that text myself. However, after much debate (which pretty much covered every last line in the article - considering the value/weight/balance of each statement) it was considered that the previous text which stated "some people called for exit over Apple tax issue" should be updated. Not least as the "some people" listed were conservative commentators from the UK (and hence their statements were not indicative of or contributory to "Euroscepticism ***in Ireland***"). So, while, yes, there is still an aspect of "so what" to the O'Leary quote, it was considered to be better than what it replaced. And at least somewhat indicative of the ruling prompting a discussion on aspects of Ireland's membership. (Personally I agree with you that it is stretching somewhat to suggest that the reaction to the ruling indicates "scepticism". When all it really indicates is "involvement". To be honest, if we remove the quote we might as well have a discussion on removing the whole section - but that will beget a reopening of the above [now closed] discussion thread. If you want to open that thread, please do go ahead. I'm getting a bit jaded from it myself though. Guliolopez (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

And understandably so! I do think there's an element of POV-pushing in the article but it's definitely improving. Happy to let the O'Leary quote stand, so. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think the article is POV pushing?Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Because as currently constructed, the article is essentially an essay, where anything that possibly could be perceived as "euroscepticism" is lumped in (despite WP:UNDUE) and most of the inclusions don't appear to have anything to do with euroscepticism. E.g.:

• A bald, unsupported PoV statement that GUE-NGL are eurosceptics as opposed to reformers;
• "Lisbon and Nice" - there is no correlation between the initial rejection of a treaty and euroscepticism (especially when the second running of each referendum saw it pass); it is WP:OR to suggest that the initial rejections were as a result of euroscepticism;
• "Troika and the Eurozone" section - one commentator says we should leave the eurozone. Significant? Hardly.
• "Brexit" section - 80% still favour membership.
• "Apple tax ruling" section - one attention-seeking businessman produces a quote that most media don't pick up on.

Ultimately it comes down to Ireland's only eurosceptics being Declan Ganley, Sinn Féin, and a handful of extreme nationalist/socialist/national socialist parties. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

In fact, there isn't a lot to be said about euroscepticism in Ireland beyond what's already said here. Do we need a separate article at all? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

A source can easily be provided for GUE-NGL.. I will do it now.

The article isnt suggesting that the original rejection of the treaties is due to euroscepticism.

He is a signicant economist, it is notable.

And? That doesnt mean euroscepticism wasnt expressedApollo The Logician (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

1. Their own article makes clear they run a spectrum which includes reform?
2. I've removed the section, so. Glad we're agreed.
3. Fair enough.
4. Please read WP:UNDUE. The views of one businessman, in isolation, aren't notable. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

You can be both a reformer and a eurosceptic. I never agreed with you on anything. Reread it. Oh and btw that last part was in response to brexit.Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

So please do explain why the section on Lisbon and Nice is included at all. Is it just so we can have an AAA-PBP quote about neo-liberals? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Euroscpeticism was expressed by a number of parties following the calling of second referendums.Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Then why is there nothing in the article indicating that? What was said? By whom? Were the comments, or commentators, notable? Right now, all we have is essentially "There were two referenda for each treaty; both fell first time and were passed second time around by a large majority; the AAA-PBP oppose the Lisbon treaty which they regard as neo-liberal." That doesn't justify inclusion as "euroscepticism" - it's coat-racking. In fact, most of the article is. It's amazing that it completely fails to mention the genuine problems with EU membership that effect people's lives, have caused protests, and that might actually contribute to euroscepticism in Ireland. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

AAA-PBP, Sinn Fein, the IRSP and almost certainly more criticised the EU and the calling of the second referendums. How isn't it euroscpeticism? Nobody claimed the article is perfect. You are welcome to add those things if you want.Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeepoo - this section previously discussed the debunking of misinformation from EU treaty referendums. Get consensus here if you want to insert the word "claimed" into "following renegotiation and the debunking of certain claims made during campaigning" Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

"By party" section

Hi. Despite clear (and sometimes hard-fought) consensus that we might avoid representing points-of-view in an unbalanced fashion in this article, I note that a "by party" section was added recently. Pending discussion, I have reverted this, for the following reasons:

1. WP:CON - These additions were applied unilaterally. And not in-keeping with the consensus for agreeing potentially controversial changes. As this might have been expected to be.
2. WP:BALANCE - If (after a discussion and consensus agreement) it was decided that a "by party" type section might be appropriate, it would seem likely that it should be balanced. For example, if listing the expressed positions of two (small/fringe) parties, why wouldn't we balance these against the opinions of all the others?
3. WP:NPOV - Statements made in the new content seemed to represent opinion (for example a statement that the EU is "capitalist by its very nature"), but it wasn't clear that it was someone's opinion (no quotes for example) and whose opinion it was.
4. WP:VER - Perhaps I missed it, but where for example in the linked website is the statement (that the EU is "capitalist by its very nature") actually made?

Would great to talk this through (as we did before) to gain consensus. Before making further sweeping changes. Personally I don't think we need a "by party" section. As the positions of these parties is already laid-out elsewhere in the article. Guliolopez (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

100% agreed. In fact, I'd nearly be tempted to go for AfD. Euroscepticism#Ireland seems to cover everything that needs to be said, whereas this article is clearly leaning in one direction... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

1.I didn't think it would be controversial but fair enough.

2.That seems fair.

3.My bad. I didn't mean for it to sound like that.

4.That wasn't the exact quote from RSF.

Well the opinion that the EU takes away sovereignty isn't really mentioned anywhere else in the article21:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Brian Crowely not attending any votes

How is this relevant? Bastun says it shows his lack of involvement with the ECR, which isn't true but even if it was why mention it? I don't see the point. Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

You've included Crowley moving to the European Conservatives and Reformists, presumably because you think it's relevant to euroscepticism. Either it's irrelevant, in which case it shouldn't be at all; or it is relevant, in which case the fact that Crowley has failed to even once vote with the ECR is equally relevant. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. "Why does him not attending votes matter?"Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it does answer your question. It matters because one MEP not bothering to do anything to promote euroscepticism means he shouldn't be included in an article that's a coatrack being used to hang anything vaguely eurosceptical onto. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree he should be removed but for different reasons.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

DeValera

How is a statement by DeValera, made 2 years before the formation of the EEC, in any way relevant to euroscepticism, which refers to the EU - only formed almost two decades after his death? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

As explained in my edit summary. De Valera is criticising the formation of a future EU. Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

As per my own edit summary of last week[3] and the umpteen discussions in the WP:UNDUE thread above, there is broad consensus Apollo The Logician to avoid an over-reliance on one-off, one-man, and one-sided quotes. This project isn't a repository for quotes (that's Wikiquotes purpose), and we need to avoid WP:UNDUE. Guliolopez (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

De Valera is perhaps the most significant man in irish political history, not just "one man". Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

And? Even if your opinion were true, he still didn't own a crystal ball. It is irrelevant. (Therefore, yes, WP:UNDUE). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Major historians like Ronan Fanning and Tim Pat Coogan share my view. How is this WP:CRYSTALBALL?Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe the appropriate phrase is . Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Here is just the first source I found. It is written by a professor and cites two other historians who support the view.[4]Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi. As before, I think it's time to start talking about an actual proposed change here. Which is what the article talk page is primarily intended for (proposing/discussing actual material changes). Personally I think a relatively short note on DeV's opinion is probably appropriate. Not a rake of quotes mind. Just a sentence or so should suffice. However, personally, I think the current placement is not appropriate. Falling as it does in the "later developments" section (along with stuff that happened ~60 years later). If we chose to keep a summarised version, it is probably best to either "move it up" (to sit in the history section), or "move it down" slightly (to better fit within the developments section). If the former, we might do it this way:

• "Ireland acceded to the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1973 following a referendum with a near record turnout of 71% and a five-to-one vote (83.1%) in favour of joining. Approximately two decades prior, then Leader of the Opposition Eamon De Valera had stated an opposition to European federalism, noting that Ireland "did not strive to get out of that British domination [...] to get into a worse [position]."

If the latter, we might link it with the "People died for our freedom. Don’t give it away" arguments made by some during the Lisbon campaign. Like:

• "The 2000s saw the birth of a number of small organisations with eurosceptic positions [CURRENT LIST]. Some of these (like Cóir) were limited-lifespan lobby groups involved in the Lisbon Treaty campaign, whose campaign included references to Ireland's independence struggle.[5][6] These positions reflected similar statements by Eamon De Valera who, approximately two decades before Ireland joined the EEC, stated an opposition to European federalism and noted that Ireland "did not strive to get out of that British domination [...] to get into a worse [position]."

Thoughts? OK if I take a stab? Guliolopez (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the point in having two different sections for development and history. I think they should be merged. But If they are to be seperate I agree it should be moved down. That seems fine except for the fact that it excludes the fact that he opposed a European parliament. European federalism is not the support for a European parliament.Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. I'll address that by ensuring it refers to "an opposition to the formation of a European parliament and European federalism". Any other thoughts before I go ahead? Guliolopez (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I think tying Dev's remarks into their later use by Cóir et al is the only way his inclusion could be justifiably shoehorned in, but the proposed wording with the changed placement is good. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Grand job. Thanks lads. That's done[7]. Hopefully we can approach any other proposed additions in a similarly collaborative way. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Does every single edit require a consensus first?

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

---

@Guliolopez: According to you it does. Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

When did I say that pray? Every single edit does not need to be discussed. But edits should be made with consideration to the consensus already reached. And there is clear consensus to avoid WP:UNDUE in this article. Guliolopez (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

You are seeing WP:UNDUE where it doesn't exist.Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

It's interesting that you would state that. When (in the last hour or so alone) at least two other editors have overtly raised concerns about UNDUE. You may want to read the WP:IDHT guidelines. Guliolopez (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

How do you know he is raising WP:UNDUE? He opposed Dev being included because of when he said it, this does not automatically mean he is raising WP:UNDUE. If he was he would likely have mentioned it. Why would I read? My actions are in no way relevant to it.Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll obviously let Bastun speak for themselves, but it seemed clear that the concern extended to both the validity and weight of the quote. Guliolopez (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Opinion polling table

@Guliolopez: Considering the amount of opinion polls I think this is best. Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi. RE "I think [tables] are best". That may be your opinion. But it isn't the consensus/convention of the project as a whole. (Per WP:USEPROSE and MOS:TABLE#Prose). RE "Considering the amount of opinion polls". We shouldn't feel the need to list each and every one of them. (Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I dont see how those apply. How is it any different to Opinion polling on Scottish independence?Apollo The Logician (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

That's an article about polls and poll results. This isn't. Guliolopez (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok then what about Welsh independence? That is not an article about opinion polls and has polling tables.Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Welsh independence is an actual thing, with a significant political party advocating for it as its main raison d'etre. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't sufficient to override the policies and style guides linked above, and it's a bit pointless to include a table of every poll when the results of all of them can be summarised as "overwhelming majority remains in favour of EU membership." Really beginning to question the necessity for this article at all when Euroscepticism#Ireland says it all in sufficient detail. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

What about Solidarity-People Before Profit? They support an Irexit. Also some opinion polls show support for an irexit is just as high or higher then support for Welsh independence. And further more the same could be said for Welsh independance, why not just say "overwhelming majority remains in favour of Uk membership." instead of the opinion polling table?Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

What about them? For a party that allegedly supports an "Irexit" (citation needed), their policies talk an awful lot about achieving EU averages and targets in a wide range of areas. If you want to change the Welsh independence article, fire away. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

They are an established party with a decent number of seats and considering you mentioned Plaid Cymru I brought them up.Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeepoo blocked

Just to note, user Yeepoo, who contributed recently as an SPA on this article, has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. (So, incidentally, has Apollo The Logician. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

censorship

why are user so keen to censor opposing viewpoints?

We're not. It could certainly be considered for addition. However, when you've not bothered to write something in basic grammatically correct English, without spelling errors, there's not much to compel us to debate. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

ok then I apologise, although i dont understand why you just didnt rewrite it. what about the following

"Ray kinsella, an Economist and Professor at UCD has called for an Irexit. He believes that the Uk is too important to the state's economic interests and that the EU can not be trusted to look after those interests." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irish eurosceptic (talk • contribs) 14:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I've no problem correcting minor spelling and grammar errors and welcome editors correcting my own mistakes, but throwing the likes of that sentence up and expecting others to put it into basic English is not going to happen. I'm seeing at least six basic errors in the single sentence above. That aside, why would we include the views of one professor? It'd be WP:UNDUE at best, and would need to be balanced with contrary statements and opinions from those opposed to an Irexit, seeing as approximately 80% of people oppose it. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

he is a notable individual, that is why. If you are aware of a notable individual who has criticised these claims then they should be added. I edited it btw.Irish eurosceptic (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Ray Kinsella is not an economist and he's not a professor at UCD he's a professor of "Banking" at the University of Ulster in Coleraine. Far from notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:2163:2300:7067:889E:8F8D:33D1 (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Euroscepticism in the Republic of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160604231511/http://archive.peoplebeforeprofit.ie/node/156 to http://archive.peoplebeforeprofit.ie/node/156

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

If de Valera is being discussed, his contributions should be addressed in context, in the background section. Not in the 2000's and later "developments" section, by which time Dev had been dead for 3 decades. Please discuss rather than edit warring. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, Eirigi eire!, the correct protocol if you feel something lacks a citation is to request one, using a 'citation needed' tag, not to remove the text. Please stop edit warring or you may be reported for vandalism and breach of the three-revert rule. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you please provide a link to this protocol? Thanks in advance. When did I vandalise and/or break the "three-revert rule"?

edit - actually, you are right I did "break the three-revert rule", my apologies.

So please self-revert. See WP:V especially WP:CHALLENGE, and Template:Citation needed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Your own links do not support what you claim them to support. The policy you linked to states "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.". Even if a source were to be provided it still would not make sense to include it because it is both irrelevant and bias.

Sure. Now continue reading: "Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[3] ... If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.

You still need to self-revert, btw. Second time of asking now. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not think I need to do anything. I should also add that you yourself have broken the "three revert rule" as you have undone my edits four times. Well as I already said the material is both irrelevant and bias so to state it as fact is not appropriate.Eirigi eire! (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

How is it either irrelevant or "bias"? Reverting vandalism does not count towards the 3RR limit; some of your edits removed referenced material, and restoring that doesn't count towards 3RR. You are - apparently - a new editor, so may not be aware of the distinctions. Unless you've edited before under another name? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

do you seriously not see how saying "the polical philosophy of x caused economic damage" is biased? If I were to add "Communism served the soviet union well" to the Soviet union article would you not agree that it is biased? I suppose if you could provide a reference for the claim and say something along the lines of "the fianna fail government believed that the isolationist and protectionist policies of the past were unhelpful so they applied to join the EEC" it would be fine. Well as far as I am aware I have only removed the bias and unsourced claim that protectionism and isolationism harmed the economy, I have no idea how that would be vandalism. No, this is my first account, can you explain to me how I vandalised?Eirigi eire! (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Eirigi eire!:. What change (to the text of this article) are you proposing to make? Guliolopez (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not actually proposing any changes, Bastun wants to add an unsourced and non-neutral sentence in the backround section which I am opposing.Eirigi eire! (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

OK. So you are explaining your reasons for this edit? If so, can you expand a little on what "part" of it you have concerns about? Thanks for the context. By way of additional context, can you advise what you didn't like about this text? Is it that you don't like the context it gives to De Valera's stance? (And, for example, the [objectively] negative impact things like the isolationist stance taken in the Trade War had? Or other policies influenced by the then Taoiseach's traditionalist/agrarian views?). Or is it simply the lack of a reference (for the "economically damaging" statement which concerns you? If so, semi-hypothetically, if the text read as follows, what would you say? "Ireland pursued an economically damaging isolationist policy from the 1920s to the 1950s. The policy reflected statements by Eamon De Valera, [...]"? Guliolopez (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The text itself is not neutral. It is taking a stance against isolationism and protectionism, that is the first problem. The second problem is that it is lacking citations. Citations need to be provided that state that de Valera's economic policies were bad and that his comments made in the fifties about European federalism and a European parliament reflect such policies.Eirigi eire! (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hiya. The lack of cite (on Ireland's isolationist stance from the 30s onwards) is easily addressed. For example:[8][9][10][11] Respectfully it is a matter of fact (not opinion) that Ireland (steered by DeV particularly) took an isolationist stance in the immediate post-independence years. Hence, if the text simply read "Ireland pursued an isolationist policy, as espoused by De Valera [...]", then I do not see how that in itself could be considered non-neutral. (As it doesn't make any judgement claim. Neither claiming, for example, that isolationism was "good" [protecting Ireland from post-WWII economic fluctuations] or "bad" [leaving Ireland "behind" post-agrarian economic developments].) Hence I do not see the argument for at least giving context to the DeV quote/statement. Unless there are other thoughts, I'm inclined to propose a compromise between the text espoused by Bastun and that proposed by yourself. Namely, I suggest that the section in question start:

Ireland pursued an isolationist policy from the 1920s to the 1950s.[12][13] The policy reflected statements by Eamon De Valera, a leader during the Irish revolutionary period, who opposed the formation of a European parliament [...]

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure why my username matters. Everyone has political views, some just chose to pick a username that reflects them. The only thing I take issue with in your proposed version is that it suggests the statements made by Eamon de Valera in the fifties about european federalism reflect isolationism when a citation would be needed to link the two things.Eirigi eire! (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Which begs the question of why we're including anything about Dev at all at all. The term 'euroscepticism' is a neologism that isn't even recorded prior to 1994, some two decades after Dev's death. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Eirigi eire!. Taking on board your remaining concern (that we shouldn't overtly link the pro-isolationist policies of DeV's governments, with the anti-federalist stances of Dev himself), I have copyedited Bastun's proposed text. And added it back in. Rewording it from "Pro-isolationist policies {reflected/aligned with} Anti-federalist opinions". To "Pro-isolationist policies {and} Anti-federalist opinions". Personally I think we are skirting WP:UNDUE by focusing as much as we are on the opinions of one person. In particular I am unclear as to the relevance of one vote in the 1972 referendum (when weighted/balanced alongside the votes of 1.2 million other people - in a democracy). Guliolopez (talk) 11:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, and removed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe de Valera's vote is relevant because not only was he the 'President of Ireland' at this time but he was also fundamental in Irish politics from 1917 until his retirement as Taoiseach. His political reputation is larger-than-life.Eirigi eire! (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

No. One vote out of 1.2 million is irrelevant. We already say he opposed entry (and probably shouldn't, per WP:UNDUE). That's what you should be focusing on. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry but merely saying "no" and then just repeating word for word exactly what you said in your last reply is horrific critical thinking and reasoning. I really do hope that you are not representative of the wider wikipedia community.Eirigi eire! (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It's true, I'm no logician. Are you? You've not presented an argument to change our views that one person's vote is in any way relevant. Dev's views are covered (and probably shouldn't be). I propose removing reference to him, as he wasn't a eurosceptic in the modern sense. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Euroscepticism in the Republic of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160521033827/http://www.peoplebeforeprofit.ie/2016/05/lexit-why-we-need-a-left-exit-from-eu/ to http://www.peoplebeforeprofit.ie/2016/05/lexit-why-we-need-a-left-exit-from-eu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

2016-Present

I reverted dates for Eurosceptic organisations because "to present" is unmaintainable. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

May

"Fringe" has a negative connotation so I feel like "minority" is better (if a word like that is even necessary). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.230.60 (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Issues with the polling at the start

The opening sentence states "Euroscepticism is a minority view in the Republic of Ireland, with opinion polls between 2016 and 2018 indicating between 80% and 90% support for continued membership of the European Union (EU)". The problem with this is euroscepticism is not the wish to leave the EU. Using polling to show Irexit is a minority view is not evidence euroscepticism is one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.230.60 (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The opening sentences (the lead) are a summary of the body. As MOS:LEAD guidelines expect. The body also includes, for example, a referenced statement about how a significant majority of poll participants also "believe that Ireland has, on balance, benefited from membership".[14] Happy to also add this to the lead. But, otherwise, the current lead reads as a reasonable summary of the body. If you feel otherwise, then please propose alternative wording. Bearing in mind the considerable and extensive discussion on this topic (and how polls should be treated) in the multiple threads above. Guliolopez (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

It's both incorrect and original research to suggest this is opposition to euroscepticism. Let's not come to our own conclusions about what people believe, the sources stating such a thing or a poll explictly asking about support for euroscepticism would be a prequisite for calling euroscepticism a minority view. Sinn Féin for instance obviously believe EU membership is beneficial, hence why they oppose an Irexit, however the reliable sources call them eurosceptic. Sinn Féin being anti-euroscepticism is therefore engendered by your original research, alas such an engenderment is clearly in contradiction with the sources. 80.111.40.28 (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Restoring consensus version. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

What doesn't make sense is why on earth you responded with a reply like that. Why don't you tell us WHY it doesn't make sense instead of substancless, hollow, unconstructive, and frankly useless contributions (if that comment can even be called that) like that. The whole point of a talk section (per the name) is to TALK.80.111.40.28 (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Unless, of course, you're evading a block, in which case you shouldn't be here... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

If there was one sentence you could have uttered that could be called incomparably perfect at proving my point it was that sentence. I'm starting to wonder if you're the human manifestation of an empty coconut. Superfically there is something but on the inside, a void.80.111.40.28 (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)