A vote against the Lisbon Treaty is a vote against a United Ireland

Captain Furball

meglome wrote: »

Can I ask a question... If there just one of you or a team reading from the same script? just curious like

kettle black

meglome

Captain Furball wrote: »

kettle black

Feel free to explain?

starbelgrade

United Ireland...

Yawn.

Get over it.

patrickthomas

Captain Furball wrote: »

kettle black

:pac::pac::pac:

the_dark_side

this thread is nonsense... Its scare mongering. We know that the NO vote would have a considerable amount of clout amongst the ranks of the Sinn Fein party.... The left leaning vote would probably vote no... this is an attempt to sway the left into a YES vote

nesf

This is complete nonsense. Vote Yes for an United Ireland? Christ, it's like Cóir have realised how best to secure victory and started campaigning for the other side..

MrMicra

nesf wrote: »

This is complete nonsense. Vote Yes for an United Ireland? Christ, it's like Cóir have realised how best to secure victory and started campaigning for the other side..

In any situation where sovereignty of Northern Ireland passes from the UK to the Republic of Ireland significant civil disturbance is to be expected and should be planned for.

This is the case even in the most desirable probable outcome one where Ireland is united after the marginalisation of the terrorist organisations, the normalisation of policing and a campaign of outreach and understanding to the Protestant community who traditionally have dominated Unionism.

Even in this most desirable (but not necessarily most probable) unification scenario civil disturbance is to be expected and should be planned for. The Lisbon treaty's solidarity clause provides a mechanism whereby the Republic of Ireland can access military assistance from outside the state should our government request such assistance.

As Pope Buckfast has pointed out:

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

We make a whoppingly big deal about not wanting to help anyone else out, even to the point of getting special guarantees that we won't be disturbed by calls for military help, I don't see why we would expect any help in return.

The assistance given would have to be agreed by the Council of Ministers and perhaps they would look slantendicular at our request for help. Some might even regard it as hypocritical. However it is not likely that any European State would be refused assistance if it needed it.

Even if our military could contain any civil disturbances taking place subsequent to unification and it is possible to envision secenarios where they could in fact contain such disturbance, the introduction of a European dimension would have a positive effect for a number reasons.

These include external pressure to use best practise in policing and managing any civil disturbances, the marginalisation of anti United Ireland elements in any countries whose personnel are killed in Ireland and external pressure rapidly to accomodate the legitimate cultural aspirations of Irish Protestants.

The claim that as Sinn Fein would be most closely identified with a united Ireland their opposition to Lisbon invalidates the above points is false even should the claim that Sinn Fein is the political party most associated with a United Ireland be granted.

Sinn Fein have campaigned for a 'No vote' in every treaty on the European Union and in 1971 it launched a document called 'EEC NO!'. This position has acquired a degree of nuance but Sinn Fein remains at heart a eurosceptic party. I do not accept that one must be a eurosceptic in order to be a patriot. In fact euroscepticism by virtue of the fact that it delays a united Ireland is currently less patriotic than the 'euro optimist' position. This is not to say that Sinn Fein activists and voters do not desire a united Ireland, of course they do but their position is counterproductive in achieving that end.

What of the claim that 'we will get a united Ireland all right united with Brussels' or 'we will get a united Ireland that cannot make its own laws? Apart from the factually ludicrous and dishonest nature of these claims they are morally dishonest.

Proponents of the above point of view are like those 'patriots' of the 1950s and 1960s who claimed to want a united Ireland and at the same time demanded that Ireland be unified under an aggressively gaelicising, Roman Catholic dominated and economically backward socio economic polity. This type of hyper nationalism is not patriotism it is either intellectual masturbation or it is a demand for ethnic cleansing.

I accept that there may be people who believe that the pooling of sovereignty is problematic, however I would ask them instead of thinking about nationality in the abstract to ask what is best for this nation. If you would like a 26 county republic that is outside the European mainstream (but has less input from Brussels) and are not interested in a united Ireland than that is your position.

But please don't call yourself a patriot.

Jackovarian

I absolutely hate that word, Patriot".
Its been overused by Americans, If Obama walked out on stage, and simply said the word "Patriot", the place would erupt with cheering!
Well actually, all he has to do is make a noise and people cheer. Which is great, because they wouldn't want to seem opposed to him or his ideas, that would be racist! :rolleyes:

MrMicra, do you not think Ireland has enough social degenerates already, without welcoming the likes of Adair into our united country? (Northern Irish people are lovely, I'm just pointing toward the louts up there.)

People should be focusing more on trying to look after what we have rather than always looking towards what we should have.

MrMicra

Jackovarian wrote: »

MrMicra, do you not think Ireland has enough social degenerates already, without welcoming the likes of Adair into our united country? (Northern Irish people are lovely, I'm just pointing toward the louts up there.)

People should be focusing more on trying to look after what we have rather than always looking towards what we should have.

Of course I don't like Johnny Adair but I think that this country would benefit hugely from the good sense and hard work that some people call the protestant ethic.

Just one example. Ian Paisley Junior was lobbied by a DUP supporter and property developer named Seymour Sweeney to let Mr Sweeney get the concession for the Giants Causeway visitor centre.
Mr Sweeney gave Ian Paisley Jr a contribution to the running of his office and Ian Paisley Jr bought a house from Mr Sweeney (he paid full or near full market value). When he was asked if he knew Seymour Sweeney he said ' I might be acquainted with him'. Even though it couldn't be proved that Ian Paisley Jr had broken the law and by southern standards he certainly hadn't lied he was still forced to resign as a Junior Minister.

Can you imagine that happening in the south? And that's the DUP who are usually represented as a bunch of knuckle dragging backwoodsmen.

Ireland will be a better country when it is united and I believe that Lisbon brings that day closer.

Jackovarian

Well I disagree. On the grounds that a United Ireland through Lisbon would still be a loss. Not because of any NO side arguments, but because for your plan to work, foreign soldiers would have to operate on Irish soil. That in itself shows us up to be a weak nation and easily gives rise to bullying and indeed permanent residence of said military.

Look at it from this point of view. If we had to call in another country to aid us, and said country was stronger than us, in a military sense, that country could occupy us as they see fit, for whatever period they see fit.

Thats not some crackpot conclusion I've come to, all you have to do is look at the last 100 years of world history. How many countries are America occupying at the moment, and how many pies have they their grubby little fingers in?
Post WW2, Germany was occupied for how many years? and split up into parts!

The fancyful European big brother you speak of would only gladly seize the opportunity to occupy Irish soil.

So deleting the imaginery line between North and South would be worth losing our Pride, Dignity and eventually Identity over?

Furious-Dave

Jackovarian wrote: »

The fancyful European big brother you speak of would only gladly seize the opportunity to occupy Irish soil.

Poppycock! Besides if they were to do that they would have to answer to the UN and probably NATO.

yuzbin

RoyalMarineComm wrote: »

and the sad thing is these are the people who are going to vote no.
these are the people who hold humanity back.
these are the people who cause problem after problem in the world with racism and religious hate.

you're looking at the world throught the rosiest glasses I have ever seen. do you honestly believe that everyone in europe or on the planet would be best served by a united government??

while there are numerous similarities, we ARE differeent from other europeans. all the different nationalities are different. the most obvious difference wanting whats best for their own country first

Jackovarian

Because America answer to the UN or NATO?

The only thing UN does is help places like America destabilize other countries and regions.
Just look at the Israel/Palestine problem. The UN came out and condemned what Israel were doing, stopping food and aid into Gaza and the West Bank.
Oh wow, I condemn you! Lets run away scared!
If they had any actual interest in whats happening they would have done something. Why haven't they, probably because America and Israel are best friends, and are full of Zionists, and America dictates the pace to the U.N.
The only reason we dont see it is because of the corrupt western media. Thats not conspiracy! Its completely obvious. If you do any sort of digging you will see the truth about those kinds of situations!
(Reference the Irish documentary "The revolution will not be televised" if you think I'm making all this media corruption up.)

Plus, you seem to forget, did or didn't the UK go to war in the early eighties over some stupid islands down the bottom of the Atlantic?

They wont just hand Northern Ireland back to us.
So you want the rest of Europe and the U.N. to help us fight the UK?

Even if the Lisbon treaty was a stepping stone towards what you propose, we will still be throwing away a lot of other freedoms just for that little chunk of land above us. And for what? We will be owned by Europe then anyway. All the effort would have been in vain.

Jackovarian

Sorry, I actually thought it was MrMicra that replied with the "poppycock" reply.

Furious-Dave

Jackovarian wrote: »

Because America answer to the UN or NATO?

The only thing UN does is help places like America destabilize other countries and regions.
Just look at the Israel/Palestine problem. The UN came out and condemned what Israel were doing, stopping food and aid into Gaza and the West Bank.
Oh wow, I condemn you! Lets run away scared!
If they had any actual interest in whats happening they would have done something. Why haven't they, probably because America and Israel are best friends, and are full of Zionists, and America dictates the pace to the U.N.
The only reason we dont see it is because of the corrupt western media. Thats not conspiracy! Its completely obvious. If you do any sort of digging you will see the truth about those kinds of situations!
(Reference the Irish documentary "The revolution will not be televised" if you think I'm making all this media corruption up.)

Plus, you seem to forget, did or didn't the UK go to war in the early eighties over some stupid islands down the bottom of the Atlantic?

They wont just hand Northern Ireland back to us.
So you want the rest of Europe and the U.N. to help us fight the UK?

Even if the Lisbon treaty was a stepping stone towards what you propose, we will still be throwing away a lot of other freedoms just for that little chunk of land above us. And for what? We will be owned by Europe then anyway. All the effort would have been in vain.

Ok your right about the UN. But it's not the UK the EU would come to our aid against. It's the paramilitary organisations.

Jackovarian

Well, thats assuming the UK give it back to us.

Which is what I meant when I said they fought for the Falklands, why would they give up N.I. now, after all these years.
Maybe, if it became a cost rather than contributor. With all the hassle its caused since the 20's they could have easily got sick of it and just let us worry about the problems.

Also, from an observable perspective, the Irish Government seems to have no interest in a united Ireland. In fact its become a bit of a taboo subject as far as I can see.

The only place with any real interest left in the matter is the North itself, and even that's starting to quieten down.

And the paramilitary organisations you're talking about would be perceived as terrorists, therefore, the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan (by the British Government too)which has gone on past the point of necessary, would be a current view of what would happen to us. Its now just occupying a country. They say its to stabilise the region, but really its to usurp power and put whoever they want into office.

Also, how do you find out who is part of these organisations? Well, you can either spend years gathering intelligence or you can ship them off to somewhere like Guantanamo and torture the bee-jazuz out of them until they will confess to anything.

I really dont want to see innocent Irish people being tortured at the hands of a foreign army. That wouldn't be a result for us.

Furious-Dave

Jackovarian wrote: »

why would they give up N.I. now, after all these years.

They wouldn't.

Jackovarian wrote: »

the Irish Government seems to have no interest in a united Ireland.

Neither have I to be honest. I mean I really like NI. I was in Belfast a few weeks ago and it's a great place.

MrMicra

Jackovarian wrote: »

Plus, you seem to forget, did or didn't the UK go to war in the early eighties over some stupid islands down the bottom of the Atlantic?

They wont just hand Northern Ireland back to us.
So you want the rest of Europe and the U.N. to help us fight the UK?

Under the good friday agreement when 50% of the voters in Northern Ireland vote for a United Ireland we get it. That's the deal.

Jackovarian wrote: »

Even if the Lisbon treaty was a stepping stone towards what you propose, we will still be throwing away a lot of other freedoms just for that little chunk of land above us. And for what? We will be owned by Europe then anyway. All the effort would have been in vain.

So you are happy not to have a United Ireland for fear of losing alot of freedoms "for a little chunk of land above us". That's fine. I am sure that you cannot identify nine freedoms that we are giving up under Lisbon ( the minimum that I would accept as alot- less than that is several.-)

That little chunk of land is part of Ireland. It is not 'above us' it is us. But I don't think we will ever see eye to eye on this because your position seems to me to be internally contradictory. You claim to be an Irish nationalist but support partition.

Jackovarian

I do not support partition. I am saying its never going to happen.
When is this vote of yours going to take place?

Losing any freedom is not a good thing.
So don't patronise me by asking for nine freedoms we will lose.
The only one that matters as an actual country/nation is sovereignty. That we will lose. Not through Lisbon itself, but through a larger process.

I never claimed to be anything! So don't dare put words in my mouth. Just because I don't agree that voting yes on Lisbon is good for Irish Union doesn't mean I'm not a nationalist.
I might call you a fascist. Disprove that. Seeing as we are throwing words around here. (So far you told people not to call themselves patriots, they didn't. You've told me I claim to be a nationalist, when clearly you do not know the first thing about me.)
I'm not the one who wants to further develop our integration into Europe solely to join the two parts of the country again.
Are you completely blinded by your own arrogance, or do you not see that what you have been spouting is in itself contradictory? Join our country, but become part of a bigger country, therefore eliminating Ireland anyway.
So do not come on here claiming people that vote no are committing treason or some crap just because they don't share your narrow minded ideals.

ro09

Furious-Dave wrote: »

Umm, No! If anything constitutional law is protected by EU law.

Sorry it does not take a look at Article 29 of our constitution -

10° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State.

FreeEnergy

Q1. Does anyone know the page and section of the TOL that states that foreign troops can be called up on to serve in Ireland at the request of the government?

Personally I think this is a really bad idea and worth a no vote just for that reason.
As oil runs out and society breaks down, they will need to control people more. Or in the short term, even if the thieving bastards that run the country realise that one day we might be outside the dail with ropes tied to lampposts, they might actually need these troops to defend them.
I wait for that day with anticipation.

meglome

FreeEnergy wrote: »

Q1. Does anyone know the page and section of the TOL that states that foreign troops can be called up on to serve in Ireland at the request of the government?

Personally I think this is a really bad idea and worth a no vote just for that reason.
As oil runs out and society breaks down, they will need to control people more. Or in the short term, even if the thieving bastards that run the country realise that one day we might be outside the dail with ropes tied to lampposts, they might actually need these troops to defend them.
I wait for that day with anticipation.

What would stop the government calling in troops in an emergency now? Of course this is never going to happen, but hey keep fantasising all you want.

I think the bottom of the barrel in the No scaremongering is finally being reached.

ro09

Furious-Dave wrote: »

I feel I should point out that I am actually a 'totalitarian-democrat' and that I am also not fully Irish. I currently hold a passport for 2 EU countries.

OH your one of those I want to be citizen of the USE. (united states of europe)

ei.sdraob

ro09 wrote: »

OH your one of those I want to be citizen of the USE. (united states of europe)

like Declan Ganley of Libertas campaigning for the NO side

http://federalunion.org.uk/quotebank/?p=76

“The EU has served the people of Europe well. It is abundantly apparent that it is capable of much more, which is why we must jealously guard it from those that would try to snatch its levers from us. A United Europe could provide for European peace, prosperity, strength, quality of life, and the ability to build not just a better Europe but a better and safer world. A United States of Europe, structured properly, could benefit Europeans and the world.”

“A federal Europe is a pretty good idea, if it possessed an accountable administration with a clear European identity and position on the world stage; had vested in it only those key disciplines that are best and most efficiently managed on a European level; embraced Europe’s diversity; and devolved as many matters as possible to Europe’s regions.”

from “Europe’s Constitutional Treaty: A Threat to Democracy and How to Avoid It” - Foreign Policy Research Institute Newsletter, Volume 4, Number 5, December 2003 - http://www.fpri.org/ww/0405.200312.ganley.euconstitution.html

N.B. The article is very critical of the constitutional treaty, on the grounds that it is not federalist enough