Eire go Brach launch Lisbon Campaign...

Dirk Gently

Scofflaw wrote: »

So, the fact that the Referendum Commission has €5-6 million to spend on informing people neutrally is neither here not there? There are dozens of guides, hundreds of analyses, thousands of articles, debates every day - and yet still there "doesn't appear to be much effort"? Pull the other one - it has bells on.

amused,
Scofflaw

Which makes it all the more confusing as to why some people have resorted to scare tactics, don't you think?

bemused,

clown bag.

Scofflaw

clown bag wrote: »

Which makes it all the more confusing as to why some people have resorted to scare tactics, don't you think?

Not a bit. The main scare tactic is claiming that the Treaty is incomprehensible and that there's no information available. Once people have fallen for that one, they're hardly in a position to resist the rest.

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco murphy

seamus wrote: »

Ah the Nazi front have launched their campaign. They should be good for a larf. Though they'll probably get fairly good support in Sinn Fein areas.

I wonder if Harry Rea is any relationship to the Harry Rea of indymedia?

Ireland for the Irish. - Keep Ireland Irish.
Bit of a difference, dhead

Grudaire

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not a bit. The main scare tactic is claiming that the Treaty is incomprehensible and that there's no information available. Once people have fallen for that one, they're hardly in a position to resist the rest.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I've heard about all the other EU countries hating us, and there'll be a loss of influence if we vote no-

RTE wrote:

Dr FitzGerald said if the people turn it down, it would be absolutely incomprehensible to other member states, and would lose Ireland the good-will of 26 governments.

The_Minister

Cliste wrote: »

I've heard about all the other EU countries hating us, and there'll be a loss of influence if we vote no-

No one said hating.
We will lose respect and good-will, without question, but tbh, we can easily get over that if nessacery.
Our economy won't crash because of it though.

Scofflaw

The_Minister wrote: »

No one said hating.
We will lose respect and good-will, without question, but tbh, we can easily get over that if nessacery.
Our economy won't crash because of it though.

Indeed. Negotiations in Europe will be more difficult as a result, and we may not find it so easy to find allies - possibly that's more important for a small nation than for the oft-cited French or Dutch.

cordially,
Scofflaw

seamus

Poblachtach wrote: »

Ireland for the Irish. - Keep Ireland Irish.
Bit of a difference, dhead

I don't see any difference. It's still closed-minded xenophobic bull.

rowlandbrowner

there are lots of genuine reasons to be sceptical about the direction(s) the eu is heading in and a wealth of them are on display on this website, but a return to old fashioned nationalism promoted by a fear of "Johnny Foreigner" is not one of them. This group in particular sound like reactionary bigots. noting more.

jkell

I think from reading the papers that the present government are not been quiet truthful ( is that surprising )in relation to the full impact the effect of a yes vote will have on the ordinary people of this land.Neutrality , civil rights.etc.I do not want to be dictated to or ruled by foreign bodies .We are about to loose or identity .I WANT TO REMAIN IRISH NOT EUROPEAN.
DID WE NOT FIGHT FOR OR RIGHTS,FOR SELF RULE ,AND NOW YEARS LATER WE ARE ASKED TO BE RULED BY ANOTHER FOREIGN BODY DOES IT MAKE SENSE ? By the way I am not republican:mad: As far as I am aware we are the only country who have the right to vote on this referendum.If a yes vote we will loose the right to vote for any further referendums We will become 2nd class citizens with no rights .Well that my opinion anyway.The government are trying to bulldoze a yes vote without informing us of the negativity of same. I FOR ONE WILL BE VOTING NO NO NO
REGARDS,
jkell

oscarBravo

jkell wrote: »

If a yes vote we will loose the right to vote for any further referendums

Absolutely untrue.

We will become 2nd class citizens with no rights .Well that my opinion anyway.

With respect, it doesn't seem to be a particularly informed opinion. Would you care to tell us, with reference to the Treaty, how it will take away all our rights?

The_Minister

clown bag wrote: »

Which makes it all the more confusing as to why some people have resorted to scare tactics, don't you think?

bemused,

clown bag.

Which side, No or Yes?
I would say that the No side have gone that route far more, wipping abortion, tax harmonisation and other goodies out of a bag and waving them around with no or little justification.
The Yes side have however, made the odd reference to the EU being angry at us, which they will be, but anyone who went too far has been corrected by other Yes people. Dermot Ahern corrected Bertie for example.

So, both sides have used "scare tactics", using the broadest definition, but the No side is far more guilty.

Agent Smith

Conor74 wrote: »

Anyone see the Eire go Brach campaign?

http://www.eiregobrach.ie/Campaign.htm

Got a leaflet this morning. All about how the EU will attack the Irish family, foisting nasty things like abortion and foriegners on us - one of the (many) taglines is 'Keep Ireland Irish'. Apparently we will end up like China with laws restricting reproduction. And, most damning of all, we are being dragged into a 'Godless Europe'!

Anyone seen this Maire Ni Fhaoite? I'm picturing a middle aged remarkably unattractive spinster type with rosary beads.

so it is true! If you lie down with dogs, You end up with fleas

The_Minister

agent smith wrote: »

so it is true! If you lie down with dogs, You end up with fleas

I know the saying, I'm just not sure what you are saying.

Gobán Saor

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. It might be more useful to point out that the Council of Europe is nothing to do with the EU. It is an entirely separate body.

I appreciate the name is confusing, but the pronouncements of the Council of Europe have no more relevance to the EU than do the pronouncements of the American Civil Liberties Union.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Not entirely true. The Lisbon treaty will see the EU accede to the European Convention of Human Rights. The ECHR is of course a creature of the Council of Europe. Lisbon declares that the fundamental human rights established by the ECHR become a part of EU law. Lisbon says:

. The Union shall accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Such accession shall not affect the Union’s competences as defined in the Treaties.

and

Fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, shall constitute general principles of the Union’s law.

This means that they can be relied on and upheld by the EU's ECJ (European Court of Justice) which in turn is binding on Ireland. (Unlike the situation at the moment whereby the ECHR must be "taken note of" by the Irish courts but is not strictly binding.) Effectively it puts the ball in the ECJ's court (no pun intended!)

It is going to be very interesting indeed to see the future interplay of EU law and human rights law, particularly the extent to which the ECJ gives effect to:
a) The Charter of fundamental rights
and
b) The ECHR

In particular, the ECHR has been cautiously sniffing around the edges of the abortion area recently. In Tysiac v Poland the court held that the plaintiff's rights under the convention had been violated by not having access to a therapeutic abortion in circumstances where Poland theoretically allowed this in law, but made the exercise of it practically impossible. As a result, Ms. Tysiac suffered severe deterioration of her eyesight and is now almost blind. Prior to Tysiac, the ECHR seemed to regard abortion as a political hot potato and had rejected any and all cases that claimed either a right to an abortion or a right to life of the foetus as coming within the ambit of the Convention. Given that there was no great adverse reaction to the Tysiac verdict, they might well be inclined to push the boat out a little further.

One could envisage a parallel case in Ireland given that we (theoretically) allow for abortion in the circumstances of the X case judgment but haven't made any practical provision to provide for it.

By the way, I'm not criticising this development, I think the incorporation of the EHCR and the Charter of fundamental Rights is a positive development that would encourage me to support Lisbon. Others I know, think differently and regard it as a reason to vote no. Such is life!

Kev_ps3

seamus wrote: »

I was focussing purely on their "Ireland for the Irish" statement. That alone will get them a lot of support in the less affluent areas of the country, which coincidentally are also traditionally SF-friendly.

To clarify, I wasn't trying to draw any comparision between SF and Nazis. They just happen to share a similar support demographic.

I dont live in a "less affluent area" and I support them. Ireland for the Irish is something I support and I dont think there is anything nazi about it. Its very natural actually. My country populated by my people. Its the people who want to flood this country with immigrants that are radical liberals.

djpbarry

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Ireland for the Irish is something I support and I dont think there is anything nazi about it.

I beg to differ. Hitler founded the Nazi state upon a racially defined “German people”. He also claimed that a nation was the highest creation of a race, and “great nations” were the creation of homogeneous populations of “great races” working together. The weakest nations were those of “impure” or “mongrel races”.

Kev_ps3

djpbarry wrote: »

I beg to differ. Hitler founded the Nazi state upon a racially defined “German people”. He also claimed that a nation was the highest creation of a race, and “great nations” were the creation of homogeneous populations of “great races” working together. The weakest nations were those of “impure” or “mongrel races”.

Well I dont agree with that. I simply believe that we should have stricter immigration laws then we have atm!

seamus

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Well I dont agree with that. I simply believe that we should have stricter immigration laws then we have atm!

Then you're not really thinking "Ireland for the Irish", you're more thinking, "Let's make sure those of us who are rightfully here now can get jobs and access to public services before allowing more people in".

Few people would disagree with that - it doesn't mean we have to become insular. These people seem to believe that we should prevent any foreign people coming in at all, even those well-educated EU citizens who've been rightfully coming over and making a valuable contribution for years now.

Arguments lamenting loss of culture are irrelevant.

Grudaire

Ireland is for the Irish

Chance is that you're a half breed, what's your surname? most 'Irish' ones are Norman.

Then what about the fact that it seems wonderful that this 'nationalistic' has an Irish name, and yet the level of Irish shown on the site is poor to say the least.

I think that who ever wants to be Irish should be allowed, however once here people should have to learn Irish and English.

Kev_ps3

Cliste wrote: »

Chance is that you're a half breed, what's your surname? most 'Irish' ones are Norman.

Then what about the fact that it seems wonderful that this 'nationalistic' has an Irish name, and yet the level of Irish shown on the site is poor to say the least.

I think that who ever wants to be Irish should be allowed, however once here people should have to learn Irish and English.

Half breed??! Im 100% Irish, but there seems to be alot of half breeds in this fourm tbh!

Kev_ps3

seamus wrote: »

.

Arguments lamenting loss of culture are irrelevant.

Maby to you, but I want our culture to be as strong as possible.

seamus

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Maby to you, but I want our culture to be as strong as possible.

And what does that mean?

When I say "irrelevant" I mean because cultures evolve. It's very difficult to pin down a culture as a static thing. Irish culture today is very different than it was ten years ago. Irish culture fifty years ago is very different to what it was ten years ago. So to say, "I want Irish culture to stay as it is", is pissing against the wind. It's not going to happen, whether or not you close off the borders.

As for holding onto what defines our "Irishness", well you could argue that hasn't changed at all. In fact, you could argue that very few cultures have been "lost" by mass immigration - cultures only tend to be "lost" when they're wiped out.

djpbarry

Cliste wrote: »

I think that who ever wants to be Irish should be allowed, however once here people should have to learn Irish and English.

While most immigrants will have to learn English for practical reasons (and the overwhelming majority do), why should immigrants HAVE to learn Irish when the vast majority of the native population can't speak it? Bit pointless, don't you think?

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Half breed??! Im 100% Irish...

Very unlikely. You're most likely a mix of various Northern European ethnicities along with a sprinkling of the Middle East.

oscarBravo

I'm wondering how any of this is relevant to Lisbon.

Kev_ps3

djpbarry wrote: »

Very unlikely. You're most likely a mix of various Northern European ethnicities along with a sprinkling of the Middle East.

Well my parents are Irish, their parents and their parents were Irish. Going back hundreads/thousands of years is a stupid tactic employed by liberals who want to muddy the issue.

The_Minister

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm wondering how any of this is relevant to Lisbon.

EU = Immigration

You didn't get the memo?

djpbarry

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Well my parents are Irish, their parents and their parents were Irish.

So, hypothetically speaking, if all eight of my great-grandparents are Irish, then I am 100% Irish? What if all my great-grandparents are Irish, but all my great-great-grandparents are non-Irish? Would I still be 100% Irish?

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Going back hundreads/thousands of years is a stupid tactic employed by liberals who want to muddy the issue.

The point is nationality/ethnicity is not as clear-cut as you're making out and has as much to do with emotional attachment as place of birth.

sink

Kev_ps3, you make it sound like being a half breed has some negative conotations when in actuality diversification of the gene pool has a positive effect on our genetic makup such as greater immunity to bacteria/viruses and possibly greater stamina/intellegence.

I myself can trace my ancestory back trough Norman/French/Scottish and Irish lineages. Do I have some lesser right to reside on this island than someone who can trace their ancestory all the way back to the first settlers here, if such a person even exists?

You do realise that the ps3 you so seem to cherish is a collaborative effort between many persons of multiple cultures and mixed heritages, don't you? Only a blind man cannot see what is directly infornt of them, if you cannot see this kev you are blind.