thats not true at all, the green party aren't taking a a position as such, so your full of crap don't been your climate change denial into everythread.

youngdan wrote:

Those here who want the Lisbon treaty passed are the same who are most concerned about global warming.

Do you have some evidence for this youngdan ? - it would not tally with my experience.

That is very strange. I am reading that 63% of the Greens voted to favour the Lisbon Treaty and that Gormley is in favour of it as well http://www.greenparty.ie/ga/news/latest_news/majority_of_greens_back_lisbon_treaty
So they want a bigger military and carbon controls. Am I incorrect, did Gormley this morning come out and urge a vote against the military increase. Just how green are the green supporters.

cactus flower wrote:

youngdan wrote:

Those here who want the Lisbon treaty passed are the same who are most concerned about global warming.

Do you have some evidence for this youngdan ? - it would not tally with my experience.

No offence, but you're on a hiding to nothing there, I fear.

Cactus. I said that those here who want Lisbon passed also are worried about global warming. Except for myself every other poster here believes in global warming as far as I can see. So who else besides me would like to see Lisbon defeated.

i do, but your current point is weak as piss we all know the greens are inconsistent that not news are hardly worth mentioning, try harder.

You tell me, is Gormley for the treaty or is he not. Is he your leader.

no he isn't my leader. and yes he is for the treaty he's the mainstream establishment now has been for a long time, that his bag now. stop being so stereotypical. and faux naive

It has been quite a while ago when I said here that true environmentalists were being taken for a ride by the likes of Gormley who I feel is just out for himself. I hold the same view of the people who are concerned about global warming. The actions of those at the top of this movement show that they have no concern for global warming.

again blow us all down with a feather! (as in we're not shocked by that opinion) do you have something unique and intelligent to say? that isn't based on climate change denial?

anyway we were talking about neutrality

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Get this.

I received a hand written (address) letter (inkjet) form a person in Austria pleading with me to vote no in the referendum. Return address included. Went on about the Austrian Govt defying the wishes of 70% of the people to have a referendum. Mad. Never got a letter like that before. Sent from Vienna on May 5th.

There is a Sunday Business Post article on the subject. It's our old friends Libertas:

Quote :

Austrian activists are urging Irish voters to reject
the Lisbon Treaty in a letter-writing campaign backed by Declan
Ganley’s Libertas.

An Austrian group which is campaigning
against the Lisbon Treaty is supplying names and addresses of Irish
voters to activists through its website. It is asking them to write
looking for a No vote in the forthcoming Lisbon Treaty referendum.

Rettet
Österreich (Save Austria) has consulted Libertas, the group led by
entrepreneur Declan Ganley, on its campaign. Ganley travelled to Vienna
a fortnight ago to meet the group and accompanied them to present a
petition urging a No vote to the Irish embassy.

Rettet Österreich has been described as a far-right
group in some media reports, a label it disputes. It has lodged an
official complaint with the state broadcaster.

However, a rally
held by Rettet Österreich in Vienna on March 12 was attended by members
of the National People’s Party, a group that espouses Nazi-style race
theory. It also advocates Austrian exit from the EU. It is campaigning
against the construction of a mosque in the city of Linz, which it
describes as a ‘‘pig mosque’’.

A Libertas spokesman confirmed to
The Sunday Business Post that the group had been consulted by Rettet
Österreich, but said there were ‘‘no formal links between the two
groups’’. The Austrian group has also produced the ‘‘three monkeys’’
image that has been used by Coir, another anti-Lisbon group.

interesting to know what our data commission would say about this, this started a good few weeks, ago, i wish data commissioner would be pro-active and not just wait for complaints, im sure he reads newspapers and heard about this weeks ago.

Quote :

He was satisfied there had been adequate discussion of Irish neutrality in advance of the referendum.

"There is an absolute acceptance of the nature and character of our own commitment, especially in peacekeeping, and we will continue to have the very same position post-Lisbon as is the case now."

When asked if he felt Irish people had a coherent and consistent understanding of Irish neutrality, he said: "There are some who seek to misrepresent it as if we don't get involved in international obligations at all. That has never been our policy.

"Our policy is one of not joining up to mutual defence pacts. We're not in any way committing ourselves.

"We will continue to work with colleagues and in line with the UN charter as we did before."

On defining peacekeeping, peace-making and common defence, he said chapter seven of the UN charter sets out the circumstances in which military involvement may be required.

However, he emphasised that it would not involve Ireland "in any way changing the character of its military participation in international peacekeeping forces after the Lisbon Treaty is passed".

from an article in today's IT quoting Brian Cowen speaking yesterday.

It seems our Taoiseach has defined our neutrality as simply not getting involved in military pacts. In which context it's not hard to see why we have a rather euphemistically titled "special position" within the Treaty.

What is wrong with that Kate P? Surely mutual defence pacts are the thing that people fear? Surely they are the thin end of the wedge that could lead to the resource wars or pre-emptive defensive attack wars that people fear?

Also, neutrality or no neutrality, are we going to stand idly by if an EU member is unjustly invaded? Would that inaction not be beyond craven? We will be loading our guns and off to help defend our neighbours if we have any decency.

In all honesty, while I do not like the commitment to military spending it is very minor compared to the co-operation provisions in the Maastricht Treaty. That ship has sailed; we signed the contract; the only way out is to sign Lisbon and use the exit mechanism (which allows exit from all Treaties).

Forget Lisbon for a minute and just consider what kind of pathetic neutrality that is, that we simply don't get involved in military pacts. And then try to marry that with the agreement we have that allows thousands of American soldiers to land in Shannon. It seems rather inconsistent.

I don't feel that we have had any kind of genuine discussion in this country of the real nature of our neutrality, its implications and our international obligations and responsibilities and the practical framework within which any defensive action would be taken. I don't think Lisbon is clear enough on that either - with language lifted from NATO and an homage to the UN.

While I'm grateful for Cowen's succint definition of Irish neutrality, permit me at least to feel underwhelmed by its implications.

Kate P wrote:

Forget Lisbon for a minute and just consider what kind of pathetic neutrality that is, that we simply don't get involved in military pacts. And then try to marry that with the agreement we have that allows thousands of American soldiers to land in Shannon. It seems rather inconsistent.

I don't feel that we have had any kind of genuine discussion in this country of the real nature of our neutrality, its implications and our international obligations and responsibilities and the practical framework within which any defensive action would be taken. I don't think Lisbon is clear enough on that either - with language lifted from NATO and an homage to the UN.

While I'm grateful for Cowen's succint definition of Irish neutrality, permit me at least to feel underwhelmed by its implications.

Hmm. However, Lisbon, like the other EU treaties, doesn't define our neutrality, or try to do so - it simply says that it will respect our individual position, whatever that may be.

So, while there ought to be a debate about Irish neutrality, it's an Irish debate, on which Lisbon has no bearing.

Agreed, ibis - but we haven't had that debate, though the Taoiseach appears happy that we have.

To me it all seems woolly, then again, international relations are probably never anything else. I find it interesting that we continue to hear so much talk about our blessed neutrality being compromised - when it seems compromised by its very nature. The vague language of the Treaty doesn't help with terminology like 'peace-making.'

Between the military implications of Lisbon on the one hand and Irish neutrality on the other, I doubt if there are two consistent views held throughout the country

Well, fair enough if it leaves you cold, but I think that is what most people are concerned about in terms of the Treaty.

That neutrality is a moral good that should be enshrined in our constitution is complex and questionable. Brian Cowen did well to keep it simple and narrow.

Otherwise, he would leave himself open to many questions of the "how long is a piece of string" variety.

Quote :

That neutrality is a moral good that should be enshrined in our constitution is complex and questionable. Brian Cowen did well to keep it simple and narrow.

Well, it serves his needs in terms of achieving a yes vote, but it doesn't really serve the public, does it? The role of neutrality in the constitution is complex and questionable as is its role in Europe but strangely, no one seems to want to talk about either in very much detail, possibly because discussion of the latter should really only take place in the context of a discussion about the former...

I think that is a bit cynical. Arguably, the country has had its most meaningful debate over neutrality in terms of the Shannon stop over and again in relation to extraordinary rendition. The Government had no choice but to be straight up and maintain the stop-over subject to American reassurances and in light of EU investigations.

The EU Treaties have affected neutrality by moving towards de facto military integration. However, we agreed to that at Maastricht. If people want to get out of that then we would have to resile from the existing treaties. Considering the people re-elected a Government who supported the Shannon stop-over it is hardly likely that we are going to resile from the EU and Nice Treaties to avoid increased military co-operation, especially when such co-operation and integration is crucial to our peace keeping efforts.

every time they mention neutrality they talk about peacekeeping, they don't talk about shannon, I don't think i've seen one yes voter or pol mention shannon and lisbon and the eu in the msn.

i can't even remember of all the articles in irish times about this subject mentioned shannon

Zhou. Who do you expect to invade a EU country

I don't expect it to happen in the next 20 years but the Treaties will be around longer than that. The whole neutrality debate is hypothetical in any event and is based on self interest rather than on morals. The point about how we would regard somebody invading an EU state is to highlight this.

lostexpectation wrote:

every time they mention neutrality they talk about peacekeeping, they don't talk about shannon, I don't think i've seen one yes voter or pol mention shannon and lisbon and the eu in the msn.

i can't even remember of all the articles in irish times about this subject mentioned shannon

In fairness, that is because Shannon has everything to do with neutrality but the Treaty opposition would have to agree that the EU was more neutral than Ireland. It was EU citizens which opposed the war and the EU (Parliament?) which carried out extensive investigations into extraordinary renditions, including having a dig at Ireland. It would not suit the people opposing the Treaty to drag this up.