US military in Shannon a problem for FF

Húrin

SeanW wrote:

Would you blame them? The U.S. is one of our main trading partners, and has a whole bunch of US multinationals providing jobs here.

I have never understood this argument. Why will the US multinationals care if the Irish government kicks the US military out of shannon? I don't think that this is a reason why they are continuing to do business in Ireland.

Liam Byrne

karen3212 wrote:

For the poster who sited 100,000 civilians, jaysus that really popped out at me, cause I remember even fox had a red banner with 250,000 alleged deaths on screen recently.

That would be me, and I was quoting a figure that I'd seen a while back. If the Bush-propaganda-pushing Fox "News :rolleyes: " is saying 250,000, you could probably put a bet on that the actual figure is probably around 500,000.

I was just

What airport would the US use, if they couldn't use Shannon?

Who cares ? Maybe there is a country left somewhere that doesn't care what happens to innocent people as long as George and the oil barons are kept happy, but even the obvious option of the UK is now looking iffy now that Bush's Andrex substitute - Blair - is on the way out. It doesn't look like Gordon Brown or public opinion there supports the current level of involvement in an illegal war, let alone supporting additional involvement.

Maybe a decent compromise would be to have compulsory, random searches without any notice, but to be honest I wouldn't put it past Bertie to give George & Co a call in advance of each one, just to make sure that he wouldn't be put on the spot.

Best option is for McGrath and the Greens to stand their ground; who knows - the rest of the world (and a lot of the war-sickened Americans, many of whom are presumably involved in large companies) might actually applaud us for standing up to the bullies; that would only be a bonus though - regardless of the outcome we should do what is right.

redspider

ateam wrote:

But the figures speak for themselves. FF have the majority of seats and are therefore in a much more commanding position than Fine Gael. Bertie is a master of negotiation, so there is no problem there.

Well, the difference between FF and FG+Lab+GP is 1. That is not commanding. The difference between FF+PD and FG+Lab+GP is 3, and still not enough, again, not commanding.

Looking at the track record of 2002, when FF had 81 and only needed 3 of the PD's 8, FF 'traded' away two key ministries (Justice and Trade/Industry, then Health) plus the Tanaiste position and junior ministries (if they count) for just getting 3 votes from the PD's out of their 8. If that is a 'master of negotiation' then I'm a chinaman (discrimination not implied!). The facts of the matter is that the PD's got far more out of FF than FF got from the PD's.

Typically, parties that need others more tend to give away more, and when the majority is slim, which looks likely no matter who forms a government, then the threat to bring it down is there and more of a realistic risk. I dont envy FF in their negotiation position at all.

But phrases like 'no problem' and 'dictate' do not reflect the real negotiating situation.

Who knows, maybe FF think that they could do better in another quick election. FG certainly do I would expect (maybe an FGer knows?), whether that's right or wrong only time will tell, and Lab and GP might be willing to give it another bash. The turnout may be less the 2nd time, who knows how that will affect the vote. I would expect a lot of 'spin' from both sides and all parties.

> Why will the US multinationals care if the Irish government kicks the US military out of shannon? I don't think that this is a reason why they are continuing to do business in Ireland.

Correct, they dont care. Yet this is the line that Bertie and Michael Martin and others (Harney, O'Donoghue, ministers, etc) spew out on a regular basis. Ah sure, didnt Bertie get a 'promise' from Dubya that the CIA flights are kosher. Sure didnt he aks him himself. And how many US soldiers have gone through Shannon never to return? Never mind the effects of what they did on the Iraqi's!

As it happens, the US Chamber of Commerce (I think that's what they're called, I have their business card somewhere, they represent the MNC's) are embarassed by the Irish Government's stated position.

This is a point of principle to concede on FF's part, so it will be interesting if they are willing to trade that or not. It is unlikely.

Speaking of 'dictate', isnt there a vast majority of the population that want these flights stopped, couldnt we hold a referendum on the matter, or are FF (not the only party) afraid of some real democracy?

Redspider

ateam

FG+Labour+Greens+PDs+Independents = 84

That's 4 parties and 5 individual independents with different political backgrounds and needs. Not to mention the difference between the 4 parties(Labour and the PDs for example). Looking at it in terms of the national interest, this would be a hugely unstable government. If a party or independent decides to withdraw their support, the government will collapse.

tck

U.S companies ain't going to pull out over Shannon - we practically pay them to stay in Ireland, the tax is so low.

And if they did, well the irish people can pull through it - we've done so in the past. And to tell you the truth I'd rather sacrifice a profiteering company over human lives.

And doesn't our constitution say no weapons through our airport? there's FOI requests showing chemical agents being brought through let alone guns.

It's a shame, USA says jump and Ireland says how high.

There's two independent TD's that FF banked on that won't go in with them over Shannon.

Looks like they'll end corporate donations before Shannon.

colindkavanagh

Section 13 of the Green Party manifesto states:
"end the use of Shannon Airport by US military forces involved in the war in Iraq:
insist that any aircraft suspected of involvement in illegal movement of prisoners must be searched"

I know parties especially in a coalition tend to break their manifesto's anyway, but the Green Party being to the left like to think of themselves as being honest. I think the war in Iraq and the use of Shannon Airport would be a big deal for a lot of Green voters.

Labour also say in their manifesto:
"Furthermore, in Government we will not allow Shannon Airport or any other Irish facilities to be used for the prosecution of any war, or military preparation for such, outside of international law, international humanitarian law, or in breach of the Charter of the United Nations"

The Green Party position is much clearer, Labour, if they did go into coalition, could and probably will argue that the UN now back the efforts in Iraq and therefore the US involvement is nolonger illegal. I'm sure it'll sicken a lot of people who carried Lab banners on the anti-war marches around the country.

Liam Byrne

I had a listen to Clare FM discussing this this morning, and some consultant guy from the airport indicated that he was delighted that Bertie had used an international stage to restate that this issue was not open to negotiation!

Of course, I think the presenter introduced him as being someone from FF......

Where in the hell is Bertie getting his "I'm not changing my position" from ? Surely even someone as out-of-touch as him knows that there's very few in favour of the U.S. using Shannon to invade and blow the crap out of Iraq ? OK, maybe there are a lot of people who couldn't care less, and might be a lot more interested in things that affect their lives more directly, but I'd say the majority of people are completely against it ?

Or am I wrong ? Is there anyone here actually in favour of it ?

Here's hoping that this issue cropping up will have 2 benefits; (1) we get disassociated from the illegal war and (2) Bertie fails to create a coalition because of his ignorant, inexcusable and infathomable refusal to move on the issue, so we either get FG in or we get another election.....

But of those 2, us not being implicit in the killing of thousands more innocent people is actually the bigger picture - the other one is only a side-benefit, and I'd put up with just getting option 1 if Bertie cops himself on.....

Zebra3

Liam Byrne wrote:

Where in the hell is Bertie getting his "I'm not changing my position" from ? Surely even someone as out-of-touch as him knows that there's very few in favour of the U.S. using Shannon to invade and blow the crap out of Iraq ? OK, maybe there are a lot of people who couldn't care less, and might be a lot more interested in things that affect their lives more directly, but I'd say the majority of people are completely against it ?

Or am I wrong ? Is there anyone here actually in favour of it ?

It's like when the No vote came in on the Nice Treaty. Ahern was more worried about doing what foreign politicans wanted Ireland's position to be as opposed to the people who voted him in and who pay his wages.

What a fantastic democrat. :rolleyes:

Seth Brundle

Sure Bertie is so embarrased by the fact that we manually count out votes and how that looks internationally!
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055083789

RedPlanet

SeanW wrote:

The U.S. is one of our main trading partners, and has a whole bunch of US multinationals providing jobs here.

Interesting choice of words SeanW.
Are they "giving" us jobs from the goodness of their hearts? Or are they here to capitalize on our tax policies and will move to another country when they see a better deal?

SeanW

I don't like the Iraq war any more than the next man, but we have to be realistic. It isn't as simple as "US out of Shannon." Realpolitik does get in the way.

1: If we wanted to be idealistic about the Iraq war and get the US armed services out of Shannon Airport, the time to do it was back in 2003 when this whole unfortunate business started. The war has already started, and become a low-intensity conflict. On a timeline, kicking the US out of Shannon now would have no effect.
2: If we forced the U.S. to find a new stopover point, they'd probably move to a military airfield in the U.K. Geographically, kicking the US out of Shannon would have no effect.
3: The US armed forces stopover provides justification and business for Shannon Airport. This is key. In the past, the promotion of Shannon Airport was a national priority, not just the imposed "stopover" that drove the cost of providing transatlantic service to Dublin skyward, but also other decisions like to build Dublin Airports main runway to only 2.637 kilometres, the shortest of any capital city in Europe, this was done to try to force large or heavily laden planes to unload at Shannon, but planes from the East unloaded in Manchester. When Aer Rianta was broken up, guess who carried Shannon's debts? That's right, Dublin Airport. Past policy, lead by professional Western whingers, has been to promote Shannon often at the expense of damanging Dublin.

If a major customer of Shannon, like the U.S. military were to pull out, you can bet the professional whingers in the West would be screaming that the West and Shannon is left to die, demanding God knows what, and probably getting it too. Since Dublin Airport is about to go into some serious redevelopment (planning app. in for a new runway! Terminal 2 etc), that cannot be allowed to happen under any circumstances. Maybe in 2011 or so when Dublin has a world-class airport, we could kick the U.S. out of Shannon and tell the whingers to jump in the river, but until then its an absolute national imperitive that Dublin Airport be allowed to develop in a Muppet-Free Zone. Which means keeping the professional whingers in the West quiet at any cost for years to come.

4: The U.S. government would become somewhat hostile to Ireland if we suddenly pulled the rug under their war-machine. The most likely consequence would be that diplomatic relations between both countries would be much frostier. That's something we really don't need.
5: Just because the Democratics control Congress doesn't mean there's been a sea-change. For a starters, Bush and his neocons still have the White House, and there's no guarantee the Republicans will be turfed out in 2008. Even so, the Democrats rarely offer anything anyway dissimilar to the Republicans (all but one voted for the Patriot Act in Oct 2001 for example). The U.S. still fighting wars other than Iraq (Afghanistan?). Michael McDowells words (the Left, hard Left and Left overs) come to mind only in the U.S. it's the center-Right, the hard Right and the Right over the Edge. Generally anyway.

That said, we don't have to just sit back and do nothing. It's time some hard questions were asked of the CIA. My main concern about the U.S. using Shannon is these "rendition" flights. Personally, I draw the line at torture of people who have not been convicted of any crime. It's not enough to take the CIAs word that no Irish or International laws were violated by CIA flights through Shannon. The Minister for Defense should now ideally announce a programme of random, unannounced inspections.

is_that_so

Much of the answer to this question will depend on how FF can lock the potential partners into a deal. In other words how strongly the like of McGrath,Gregory and the Greens are prepared to go. Although the Independents might lose some credibility, provided that what was secured was worth trumpeting about , then they could live with it. There is also the fact that , in 12 months time Bush will be out and the US may start looking at ways to get out of it all. Who knows, that may even happen before then, thus eliminating that headache.

The Greens have a more difficult problem given that they represent the electorate as a whole and their members. It might be something that they could either swallow or sell.

Yes there is realpolitik at work but excluding the PDs some of the other possible candidates actually do have principles.

I wouldn't expect it to scupper a deal but I could see the reneging on whatever was agreed giving us a new election.

Liam Byrne

SeanW wrote:

I don't like the Iraq war any more than the next man, but we have to be realistic.

1: If we wanted to be idealistic about the Iraq war and get the US armed services out of Shannon Airport, the time to do it was back in 2003 when this whole unfortunate business started.

I agree completely, but don't use the word "unfortunate" when referring to Iraq - something that's "unfortunate" is an accident, or a side-effect, not a deliberate antagonistic act.

2: If we forced the U.S. to find a new stopover point, they'd probably move to a military airfield in the U.K. Geographically, kicking the US out of Shannon would have no effect.

....and if we had a strong offensive that forced drug dealers to use UK airports instead of ours, that might "have no effect" either - does that mean we shouldn't try ?

3: The US armed forces stopover provides justification and business for Shannon Airport.

"justification" for Shannon Airport ? Please explain, otherwise that comes across as condescendingly patronising - I almost didn't read the rest of your "point" as a result.

[runway length] was done to try to force large or heavily laden planes to unload at Shannon

Past policy, lead by professional Western whingers, has been to promote Shannon often at the expense of damanging Dublin.

Bull****. If that were indeed the case, there would be no need for Dublin to be looking for a second terminal, since the country would use Shannon and Cork. The provision of flights, and the cost, are the key, and RyanAir has started new routes from Shannon to attempt to counteract the delays and costs with Dublin Airport, if you're looking for "professional whingers", find a mirror!

If a major customer of Shannon, like the U.S. military were to pull out, you can bet the professional whingers in the West would be screaming that the West and Shannon is left to die, demanding God knows what, and probably getting it too. Since Dublin Airport is about to go into some serious redevelopment (planning app. in for a new runway! Terminal 2 etc), that cannot be allowed to happen under any circumstances. Maybe in 2011 or so when Dublin has a world-class airport, we could kick the U.S. out of Shannon and tell the whingers to jump in the river, but until then its an absolute national imperitive that Dublin Airport be allowed to develop in a Muppet-Free Zone. Which means keeping the professional whingers in the West quiet at any cost for years to come.

Christ, have you a chip on your shoulder or what ? I don't know any professional whingers, so I don't know what they'd be screaming if the U.S. were told to feck off, but I know that most normal people want this abuse of our facilities, and the resulting involvement of us in the war, to stop.

4: The U.S. government would become somewhat hostile to Ireland if we suddenly pulled the rug under their war-machine. The most likely consequence would be that diplomatic relations between both countries would be much frostier. That's something we really don't need.

Naw - much better to sell our soul and our ethics, and to hell with those that we (sorry, Bertie & Co) have helped to their deaths.

5: Just because the Democratics control Congress doesn't mean there's been a sea-change. For a starters, Bush and his neocons still have the White House, and there's no guarantee the Republicans will be turfed out in 2008. Even so, the Democrats rarely offer anything anyway dissimilar to the Republicans (all but one voted for the Patriot Act in Oct 2001 for example). The U.S. still fighting wars other than Iraq (Afghanistan?). Michael McDowells words (the Left, hard Left and Left overs) come to mind only in the U.S. it's the center-Right, the hard Right and the Right over the Edge. Generally anyway.

You admit that they are aggressive, war-mongering neocons, but you still think we should stand by them ?

That said, we don't have to just sit back and do nothing. It's time some hard questions were asked of the CIA. My main concern about the U.S. using Shannon is these "rendition" flights. Personally, I draw the line at torture of people who have not been convicted of any crime. It's not enough to take the CIAs word that no Irish or International laws were violated by CIA flights through Shannon. The Minister for Defense should now ideally announce a programme of random, unannounced inspections.

An improvement in the rendition flights issue problem would be significant, but we would still be involved in an illegal war.

Since you obviously favour good relations with warmongers over ethics, let me put it this way; if the flights were going through your beloved Dublin Airport, and the suggestion from a few years ago that airports involved in the war might be targetted by extremists in opposition to the war as legitimate targets to hamper the invasion, would you still be arguing that we should stay involved ?

It'd be sad if this were the only argument to sway you, consider that it implies that we'd only stand up for other people's rights when we ourselves had something to lose, but at least it might have the required end result.

SeanW

Liam Byrne wrote:

I agree completely, but don't use the word "unfortunate" when referring to Iraq - something that's "unfortunate" is an accident, or a side-effect, not a deliberate antagonistic act.

Fair enough.

"justification" for Shannon Airport ? Please explain, otherwise that comes across as condescendingly patronising - I almost didn't read the rest of your "point" as a result.

...

Bull****. If that were indeed the case, there would be no need for Dublin to be looking for a second terminal, since the country would use Shannon and Cork. The provision of flights, and the cost, are the key, and RyanAir has started new routes from Shannon to attempt to counteract the delays and costs with Dublin Airport, if you're looking for "professional whingers", find a mirror!

Ouch. It seems you aren't well up on just how much protectionism has been applied to Shannon Airport in the past and how much whining local vested interests do over it. For your enlightenment:
Wikipedia page on Shannon Airport

The first Air Services Agreement with the US in 1945 only permitted flights to Shannon and only permitted Irish airlines to serve Boston, Chicago and New York Idlewild (now JFK). At the end of 1971 the US Civil Aeronautics Board announced that unless US planes were allowed operate into Dublin Airport they proposed to ban Aer Lingus from landing in New York. This provoked an instant reaction from the Shannon staff.

The Shannon lobby were outraged at the loss of the Stopover Status, however, in reality little has changed.

Cork Airport has also been marginalised before the altar of the Shannon whingers.

This would also mean that transatlantic routes could develop between the US and Cork International Airport, which is unable to develop scheduled flights due to the current Stopover Status at Shannon. Many in Shannon fear this would lead to the downfall of the airport as many passengers might choose to opt for Cork.

Ouch! Passengers actually having a choice of airports! That whole "free market" thing that Shannon's been immune to until now.

Christ, have you a chip on your shoulder or what ? I don't know any professional whingers, so I don't know what they'd be screaming if the U.S. were told to feck off

No, it's a simple fact, the squeakiest wheel gets the oil.

In addition:

Financial figures released in April 2005 show that the airport lost €2.5m, whilst the transport of US troops made an income of €18m for the airport.

In other words, the US military plugged a major hole in Shannon's finances.

In light of this, can you honestly guarantee that the loss of this business for Shannon would not result in some class of mutilation to the other two main Irish airports or to Irish aviation in general?

Since you obviously favour good relations with warmongers over ethics, let me put it this way; if the flights were going through your beloved Dublin Airport, and the suggestion from a few years ago that airports involved in the war might be targetted by extremists in opposition to the war as legitimate targets to hamper the invasion, would you still be arguing that we should stay involved?

I have news for you: Islamist terrorists don't give a f**k what constitutes a "legitimate target" since they mostly target civilians, both in the West and in Iraq etc. They will attack, kill, maim and terrorize anyone where they think they'll get a result. Were the defenceless, unarmed and nonagrressive civilians on the Spanish trains on March 11th a few years ago "legitimate targets?" By most reasonable definitions, no, because the only legitimate targets in warfare are those using force to immediately prevent you from achieving your objectives, but then again that event did change the course of the upcoming Spanish elections. How about the ordinary civilians in Baghdad markets and mosques? Were the thousands of innocent people slaughtered at these locations posing any kind of thread to their attackers? If not, how can any be descibed as "legitimate targets" in warfare?

It doesn't matter whether or not we let one side use Shannon - if terrorists attack Ireland it will be because they see an advantage in doing so, not because of Shannon or anything else, though it may appear in their propoganda.

Liam Byrne

Slightly selective quoting there, SeanW.....

Firstly, by its nature, Wikipedia is a far from authorative source, but since you're referencing it.....

Wikipedia wrote:

Shannon was voted Best Airport in Ireland for the past two years running by the ATUC (Airport Transport Users Council) and Best Airport in Europe in the 1-5 million passengers per annum range in 2006.

With that opinion by anyone who uses it, doesn't it seem strange that (according to the "professional whingers" in Dublin, more people want to use Dublin Airport than want to use Shannon....?) I know that if direct flights were available, Shannon is a much more attractive option for me, and if we had proper rail and road links from, say, the western half of the country, it would be a no-brainer for them either.....but we don't, because all major road (motorways) and ALL rail services in Ireland lead to Dublin. With that in mind, it is only fair that Shannon get some preferential treatment in an attempt to restore the balance.

Personal preference would be that no preferential treatment be required; if we can get the current BertieDub administration to stop looking after their own backyard and provide the necessary non-Dublin-focussed infrastructure for the rest of the country (and not just for Shannon), then there would be nothing to balance up, and Shannon could easily compete with anyone, without the need to build another terminal in Dublin, giving gains all around - improved infrastructure, less congestion in Dublin Airport, more convenient for the travelling public, etc.

By most reasonable definitions, no, because the only legitimate targets in warfare are those using force to immediately prevent you from achieving your objectives

So what you're saying is that Bush & Co might blow up Ireland if we "prevent them from achieving their objectives" ?

It doesn't matter whether or not we let one side use Shannon

Yes it does, if only on purely ethical matters. And the fact that we are supposed to be neutral. Following your argument, should we let the Iraqis use Dublin or Cork to fight back ?

And as for

can you honestly guarantee that the loss of this business for Shannon would not result in some class of mutilation to the other two main Irish airports or to Irish aviation in general

I. don't. care. We should not be involved in an illegal war. Period. Financial considerations do not come into the equation when you are looking at a supposedly passive "look-the-other-way" approach to an illegal war that is causing the deaths of thousands of people every day.

Bertie going on an international stage the other day and voicing his own opinion, rather than that of the general public, made us look bad, apparently implying that Ireland wants to maintain the current arrangement, rather than highlighting the fact that enough people disapprove that it is now an issue in the formation of his Government.

Yet more proof that Bertie is an out-of-touch plonker.

philologos

karen3212 wrote:

What airport would the US use, if they couldn't use Shannon?

They are also using Derry and Belfast Aldergrove so I don't think they would have much problems with losing Shannon. And Glasgow and others in the UK.

Liam Byrne

Jakkass wrote:

They are also using Derry and Belfast Aldergrove so I don't think they would have much problems with losing Shannon. And Glasgow and others in the UK.

Which makes perfect sense, considering the UK got into bed with them to start the invasion that led to the war.

But like I said earlier, who cares ? I mean, if your neighbour occasionally borrowed your car in order to commit crimes, and you said "Oi, that's not on", and told him that he couldn't use it any more, would you care what transport he used in order to commit the future crimes ?

Voipjunkie

Liam Byrne wrote:

Yet more proof that Bertie is an out-of-touch plonker.

Unfortunately we have just had an election and more people voted for bertie and his party than any other party by a long shot so whilst we may disagree with Bertie perhaps we are the out of touch plonkers because in reality a very large part of the Irish people do not seem to be that bothered about Shannon or the lack of inspections or extraordinary rendition (kidnapping)

K-9

Voipjunkie wrote:

Unfortunately we have just had an election and more people voted for bertie and his party than any other party by a long shot so whilst we may disagree with Bertie perhaps we are the out of touch plonkers because in reality a very large part of the Irish people do not seem to be that bothered about Shannon or the lack of inspections or extraordinary rendition (kidnapping)

Well rightly or wrongly, FF aren't against, it's up to the parties who where against it to follow that policy. Is this a case of Labour/Greens just filling out their manifestos knowing there really is politically no chance of it happening?

SeanW

Liam Byrne wrote:

Slightly selective quoting there, SeanW.....

But of course, you ignored it ALL ...

With that opinion by anyone who uses it, doesn't it seem strange that (according to the "professional whingers" in Dublin, more people want to use Dublin Airport than want to use Shannon....?)

When you're being funded out the Wazoozo by two governments to provide International services to a relatively small number passengers, it's not hard to get it right.

Meanwhile most people living in this country live and work closer to Dublin and Cork airports, but those airports have a ball and chain around their necks.

I know that if direct flights were available, Shannon is a much more attractive option for me

DUH! You live in Limerick!

ALL rail services in Ireland lead to Dublin.

Nope. There are passenger services from Limerick to Rosslare and Ballbybrophy. They're slow, infrequent and carry about 10 people a day. But seeing this shining success, the Western lobby wants to do it again, in the form of the Western Rail Corridor. Originally built as a light railway with steep gradients, sharp curves and a lot of level crossings, most of this "Corridor" could never provide a modern rail service even with a boatload of money thrown at it. But that hasn't stopped it from being placed ahead of critical projects to places that have no railway services at all, like Navan in Transport 21.

With that in mind, it is only fair that Shannon get some preferential treatment in an attempt to restore the balance

... BertieDub

... without the need to build another terminal in Dublin

Thank you for proving my point.

So what you're saying is that Bush & Co might blow up Ireland if we "prevent them from achieving their objectives" ?

If they declared war with that stated intention then yes. But of course any red blooded Irishman would fight back.

Yes it does

I was highlighting the fact that terrorists don't give a toss about "legitimacy" of targets because they're not fighting a war, they're fighting a campaign of terror against civilians primarily for the purposes of promoting Islamo-fascism.

And as for I. don't. care. We should not be involved in an illegal war. Period. Financial considerations do not come into the equation when you are looking at a supposedly passive "look-the-other-way" approach to an illegal war that is causing the deaths of thousands of people every day.

1: I believe there has been a UN resolution on the matter of post-war occupation. So it's no longer illegal AFAIK.
2: Remind me, becuase I seem to have forgotten, who's doing all the killing, like blowing up car bombs in the middle of crowded markets? And whos trying to stop it?
3: I'm just pointing out that if you want to be idealistic, in addition to being 4 years too late you also have to deal with practical realities, the key two of which are the cooling of diplomatic relations and the possibility that if a huge hole is opened in Shannon's business/finances, the powerful Western whinger lobby will be baying for Cork and Dublin's blood - at a key juncture in Dublin Airport's history. These practical realities alone are enough reason to put caution over idealism.