UK Independence Party to become involved in the No campaign

MrMicra

free to prosper wrote: »

SF just playing to the gallery on the Freedom and Democracy leaflet

SF have campaigned against every amendment to the constitution which is related to Europe since 1972.

ei.sdraob

MrMicra wrote: »

SF have campaigned against every amendment to the constitution which is related to Europe since 1972.

and joining the EU itself

good thing no one listened to them then

sceptre

conchubhar1 wrote: »

I do not know how much cóir spent.


But they were succesful and put whatever money they did spend to ''good'' use.

There's a thread down the page about Coir harping on about an imposed €1.84 minimum wage. Spending money on a campaign like that isn't putting money to "good" use, even putting "good" in quotation marks. That's an organised pressure group with more money than apparent intelligence lying to people about specifics and blatantly trying to deceive them. That's not "good" use, that's everything that ordinary people should be worried about.

MrMicra

ei.sdraob wrote: »

and joining the EU itself

good thing no one listened to them then

Actually Sinn Fein opposed Irish accession to the EEC from the early 1960s when Lemass was trying to get Ireland in with the UK. They advocated a policy of withdrawal from the EEC until the 1980s.

They are still conflicted on the EU and are at heart Eurosceptics. That's fine at least they don't take their orders from the Tories or the BNP unlike most of the No campaign.

marco_polo

Actually have Sinn Fein ever elaborated on at exactly what point they came to the conclusion that Nice is great?

Scofflaw

MrMicra wrote: »

Actually Sinn Fein opposed Irish accession to the EEC from the early 1960s when Lemass was trying to get Ireland in with the UK. They advocated a policy of withdrawal from the EEC until the 1980s.

They are still conflicted on the EU and are at heart Eurosceptics. That's fine at least they don't take their orders from the Tories or the BNP unlike most of the No campaign.

I should be interested to see any proof of that latter claim. That someone like Patricia McKenna or COIR opposes Lisbon doesn't mean that they're "taking orders" from anyone.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dlofnep

meglome wrote: »

Ah come on now. I've nothing specifically against SF but that statement is funny.

What's so funny about it? There is nothing funny about having many English activists within the ranks of SF, or allowing an orangeman to step up on the Ard Fheis stage in his sash, to address the Ard Fheis - receiving a huge applause for doing so.

SF is not an anti-English party. If you want to demonstrate unfounded nonsense, be my guest - but it doesn't make it so. SF has been championing anti-racist policies for years - whether it be racism against nationalities, religious beliefs or skin colour.

K-9

marco_polo wrote: »

Actually have Sinn Fein ever elaborated on at exactly what point they came to the conclusion that Nice is great?

I don't think so. They have always opposed EEC and EU Referenda but are pro EU.

I have never heard or seen them admit at what point they where wrong and at what stage their Anti any EEC/EU Referenda swapped to being pro EU.

It would be a very interesting question to ask at a live debate.

At What stage did you swing from Anti EEC to pro EU?

marco_polo

K-9 wrote: »

I don't think so. They have always opposed EEC and EU Referenda but are pro EU.

I have never heard or seen them admit at what point they where wrong and at what stage their Anti any EEC/EU Referenda swapped to being pro EU.

It would be a very interesting question to ask at a live debate.

At What stage did you swing from Anti EEC to pro EU?

I would actually love for somebody to whip out a printed copy of this this during a Lisbon debate on Q&A or Primetime and ask them if they admit they were wrong about Nice.

http://www.sinnfein.org/releases/01/nicemanifesto.html

O'Morris

marco_polo wrote:

I would actually love for somebody to whip out a printed copy of this this during a Lisbon debate on Q&A or Primetime and ask them if they admit they were wrong about Nice.

But then someone on the no side would be able to reply by producing a list of quotes from people like Dick Roche and Willie O'Dea to show that they too have been proved wrong about Nice.

"What was that you said Dick about people who claimed we could expect a mass influx of low-wage workers from eastern Europe...?"

ei.sdraob

you again! taking another dig at immigration are we?

O'Morris wrote: »

we could expect a mass influx of low-wage workers from eastern Europe...?"

workers who worked at the jobs that were "below" the Irish people and who still work at "dirty" jobs that irish wont do since its more profitable to sit on the dole and other benefits

same workers who have now mostly went home after being raped by the Celtic kitty, and who spent most of their earning here in ireland

marco_polo

O'Morris wrote: »

But then someone on the no side would be able to reply by producing a list of quotes from people like Dick Roche and Willie O'Dea to show that they too have been proved wrong about Nice.

"What was that you said Dick about people who claimed we could expect a mass influx of low-wage workers from eastern Europe...?"

We get it O'Morris, you were happier when Freedom of movement of Workers applied to Western Europeans only. Happily most people do not share your view.

O'Morris

ei.sdraob wrote:

you again! taking another dig at immigration are we?

No, I was just responding to the point about how Sinn Fein could be proved wrong about Nice. I think it would be a bad idea for people on the yes side to accuse the other side of being wrong about Nice. Our minister for Europe would be put in a very uncomfortable position and I would hate to see that happen.

By the way, I asked you earlier in this thread if you had any evidence to back up your claim that the UKIP called Irish people "peasants, priests and pixies". I'd still be interested in seeing that evidence if you have it.

bill_ashmount

Scofflaw wrote: »

If they're in Ireland, employing Irish people, putting their investment into our economy, and affected by what happens to Ireland, that's not a problem. None of those things apply to UKIP - they're a foreign political party with an agenda of withdrawal from the EU, and they want to use us as a cat's paw in their agenda.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ok, I need to get this straight in my head? It's ok for an American Multi National Company to spend money on a YES vote because they have ties to Ireland but it is not ok for a european political party to support the NO vote because they are foreigners?

Scofflaw

bill_ashmount wrote: »

Ok, I need to get this straight in my head? It's ok for an American Multi National Company to spend money on a YES vote because they have ties to Ireland but it is not ok for a european political party to support the NO vote because they are foreigners?

It's not about whether they're "foreigners". The American MNC has a base of operations in Ireland. Any effect that Ireland's choice on Lisbon has on Ireland will affect them too. Is the same true of UKIP? No.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bill_ashmount

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's not about whether they're "foreigners". The American MNC has a base of operations in Ireland. Any effect that Ireland's choice on Lisbon has on Ireland will affect them too. Is the same true of UKIP? No.

cordially,
Scofflaw

UKIP are a European party, this is a European referendum. There are thousands of British citizens living in Ireland.

I didn't realise that you had to have a physical factory built in Ireland in order to have a say. If Intel were in the NO side, all the YES voters would be screaming murder.

And of course Irelands choice will affect UKIP, it will affect the whole of Europe. How can you say it only affects American MNC's?

PopeBuckfastXVI

bill_ashmount wrote: »

UKIP are a European party, this is a European referendum. There are thousands of British citizens living in Ireland.

I didn't realise that you had to have a physical factory built in Ireland in order to have a say. If Intel were in the NO side, all the YES voters would be screaming murder.

And of course Irelands choice will affect UKIP, it will affect the whole of Europe. How can you say it only affects American MNC's?

UKIP can have their say in the British Parliament.

Scofflaw

bill_ashmount wrote: »

UKIP are a European party, this is a European referendum. There are thousands of British citizens living in Ireland.

I didn't realise that you had to have a physical factory built in Ireland in order to have a say. If Intel were in the NO side, all the YES voters would be screaming murder.

And of course Irelands choice will affect UKIP, it will affect the whole of Europe. How can you say it only affects American MNC's?

The effects that are specific to Ireland will only affect those who are connected to Ireland. For the UKIP, there are only upsides - there cannot be any downside for them.

The same would be true, in reverse, for a pro-Lisbon party from outside Ireland.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Het-Field

If I were British, I do believe that I would be reticent to embrace a EU under Lisbon, or indeed an EU under Maastricht. The UK is large enough to stand on its own too feet montarily, and has the requsite export market to succeed. Im not suprised that the Liberal Democrats are out in the cold as a highly pro-european party, with New Labour acting as Johnny Come Lately's to EU integration. Under Kinnock, the EU was of far less relevance. Equally, the likes of UKIP, the BNP, SWP, Respect Alliance etc would all be classifiable as"Eurosceptic"

The UKIP are definately the the most right wing party, who wouldnt be described as "Far Right". I have it on authority that Nigel Farage has the ability to drop in a few racist statements in his interactions in the parliment. Equally, thier members are not "whiter than white", and they had expenses scandels prior to the massive shake up in Britain over the summer.

They are thinking soley of their British Nationalisitic spirit, and not about Ireland's interests. They must be ignored.

Het-Field

bill_ashmount wrote: »

UKIP are a European party, this is a European referendum. There are thousands of British citizens living in Ireland.

I didn't realise that you had to have a physical factory built in Ireland in order to have a say. If Intel were in the NO side, all the YES voters would be screaming murder.

And of course Irelands choice will affect UKIP, it will affect the whole of Europe. How can you say it only affects American MNC's?

Sorry, they contest elections at all levels in Britain. They just perform poorly, and no British person in their right mind would place a UKIP member as a MP, or Local Councellor.

They campaign on EU issues, but in reality should stick to campaigning from an English perspective.

bill_ashmount

Scofflaw wrote: »

The effects that are specific to Ireland will only affect those who are connected to Ireland. For the UKIP, there are only upsides - there cannot be any downside for them.

The same would be true, in reverse, for a pro-Lisbon party from outside Ireland.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ok, I don't understand the above. It makes no sense to me.

In summary I believe an American MNC are inteferring in Irish polictics in order to increase their profits. That is their sole aim as a company, they don't care about Lisbon, they care about shareholder value. The YES voters have no problem with that, because it suits their agenda. But they have a major problem with a European political party getting involved. It's amazing.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bill_ashmount wrote: »

In summary I believe an American MNC are inteferring in Irish polictics in order to increase their profits. That is their sole aim as a company, they don't care about Lisbon, they care about shareholder value.

You must have been appalled at Libertas...

bill_ashmount

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

You must have been appalled at Libertas...

I take it you agree so

bill_ashmount

Het-Field wrote: »

Sorry, they contest elections at all levels in Britain. They just perform poorly, and no British person in their right mind would place a UKIP member as a MP, or Local Councellor.

They campaign on EU issues, but in reality should stick to campaigning from an English perspective.

They were the second biggest party in the European elections. We will see fairly soon wheter or not that transfers into domestic politics.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bill_ashmount wrote: »

I take it you agree so

Yep I was pretty apalled at Libertas, but more because the company pretended to be a political party. I wouldn't have a had a problem with Rivada calling for a No as it would potentially affect their profits, openly.

I would have a serious problem with the British Labour party leafleting Ireland calling for a Yes to Lisbon, however.

It still wouldn't make me vote no, though, as when I vote I give my opinion on the issue, not my opinion on others.

Het-Field

bill_ashmount wrote: »

They were the second biggest party in the European elections. We will see fairly soon wheter or not that transfers into domestic politics.

It wont. The first past the post system puts pay to that idea. If one has a euro-critic twinge, they will vote Conservative, if one is a Europhile, they will vote Liberal Democrat. New Labour falls between the two stools. UKIP always poll poorly in national elections, dont have the infrastructure to engage in a proper national election. It if far easier to stand EU candidates, the it is to stand national ones, given the constratints ofg eography.

Equally, the EU elections proved to be something of a protest vote. Remember, in Ireland a Trotskeyite outpolled an incumbent Government MEP, while Declan Ganley, MLM and Kathy Sinnott just fell short. Remember, with the excetion of Ganley, all have these have failed n the national political realm.

In the UK, the BNP took two seats, the Swedish Pirate Party took two seats. These were not isolated incidents, and have been happening due to national displeasure at the incumbent national parlimentarians. A similar situation caused the rejection of the EU Constitution in France and The Netherlands.

ixtlan

O'Morris wrote: »

By the way, I asked you earlier in this thread if you had any evidence to back up your claim that the UKIP called Irish people "peasants, priests and pixies". I'd still be interested in seeing that evidence if you have it.

So as not to mislead, I will preface this by saying that UKIP was not founded until 1993, Silk did not join them until 2004 and left in 2005 after wining an MEP seat. Nonetheless, it's interesting that this is the kind of person they wanted to run for them...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article496198.ece

In 1992 Mr Kilroy-Silk apologised to Irish people after he used his column to launch an attack on a country “peopled by peasants, priests and pixies”. An article in the Express in January calling Arabs “suicide bombers, limb-amputators and women repressors” cost him his job at the BBC.

Scofflaw

bill_ashmount wrote: »

Ok, I don't understand the above. It makes no sense to me.

In summary I believe an American MNC are inteferring in Irish polictics in order to increase their profits. That is their sole aim as a company, they don't care about Lisbon, they care about shareholder value. The YES voters have no problem with that, because it suits their agenda. But they have a major problem with a European political party getting involved. It's amazing.

You're certainly free to simply ignore my reasons. However, it has been the Irish personnel of the MNCs who have come out to speak pro-Lisbon. That suggests that far from it being a matter of shareholder profits, it's a matter of Irish people who work for those MNCs being concerned.

As I said, UKIP won't have to live with the vote. If they couldn't defeat ratification in the UK, they should sit down and stay out of our debate. This "ooh they're a European party" thing is extremely transparent, because nobody on the No side applied it to Sarkozy, for example, even though France at the time held the Presidency of the European Council.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI

Scofflaw wrote: »

You're certainly free to simply ignore my reasons. However, it has been the Irish personnel of the MNCs who have come out to speak pro-Lisbon. That suggests that far from it being a matter of shareholder profits, it's a matter of Irish people who work for those MNCs being concerned.

It's more than that.

Irish subsidiaries of MNC's are actually Irish companies, so you have Intel Ireland Ltd. which is a separate, Irish registered company, from Intel (for instance).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Ireland

So we in effect, have the GM of an Irish Corporation, speaking out on what he believes will allow him to increase or sustain inward investment into Ireland, which in turn directly creates high quality Irish jobs.

A bit different to a foreign political party attempting to directly impact the result of an Irish-only matter (i.e. does Ireland approve the Lisbon treaty), for domestic gain (i.e. Britain's position, and UKIP's position within Britain).

Martin 2

As you know Jim O'Hara is the GM of Intel Ireland but he has also been active with EI and SFI in promoting start-up businesses, science & engineering in education and the ICT sector in general, those are not the actions of someone purely interested in increasing Intel's bottom line. It was even said a few years ago that Intel's presence here had been so successful in attracting further multinationals that the demand for engineers and technicians was creating shortages for Intel itself.