some questions

which tendancy is this forum ? left or right ?

what were the true reasons that lead to the "no" in Ireland ?
( we have a lot of desinformation in France we don't know if we can trust the information about theses reasons our local papers published )

sandy wrote:

which tendancy is this forum ? left or right ?

Bonjour Sandy

Left or right ... ? I'd say we'd be more likely here to ask what left and right were than to automatically take a position. I think the political profile used more often now is the authoritarian/libertarian + left/right but even that isn't sufficient. I'd like to think we're a fusion of Green and Red with some Blue for colour. Does that answer your question ? Someone else might answer it differently I hope. (I personally believe that caring for nature/people by using appropriate infrastructure & technology is one of the keys to political and community success )

Quote :

what were the true reasons that lead to the "no" in Ireland ?
( we have a lot of desinformation in France we don't know if we can trust the information about theses reasons our local papers published )

I think confusion and fear. And lack of awareness and knowledge about the EU, the Treaty itself, where Ireland was going, about militarism and the opening-up of a floodgate of liberalism that would lead to abortion on demand among other things. Many older people I spoke to were concerned about our loss of power through the consolidating of competencies (if that's what was going to happen)

It wouldn't be far from the truth either to say that the people were giving our Government a kick in les ballons too. Between the last election here in May 2007 and the Referendum in June 2008 there has been a steady economic collapse and the Government, it could easily be argued, has shown a lot of incompetency in dealing with that collapse.

In that period too our Prime Minister or 'Taoiseach' spent a lot of his time before a Tribunal of judges being questioned about allegations of taking bribes from property developers. We'll summarise the stories he told for you sometime - they are colourful.

Bienvenue á Machine Nation

(did I get that preposition right ?)

left and right is a farcical concept these days. I subscribe to neither.

In France, Right and Left positions come from our French Revolution in 1789 and make the distinction between those who are for equality between people ( left ) or not ( right )

But it's true, in reality, it's very confusing

sandy wrote:

which tendancy is this forum ? left or right ?

Classically speaking, something of both - from very strong left wing (communist or anarcho-syndicalist) to mild right wing (socially conservative, economically liberal). Ireland doesn't do the kind of right wing one finds in the US.

sandy wrote:

what were the true reasons that lead to the "no" in Ireland ?
( we have a lot of desinformation in France we don't know if we can trust the information about theses reasons our local papers published )

There is no one reason, but many reasons, sometimes even for one voter. There is always a part of the vote that votes No against every EU treaty, usually for sovereignty and nationalism. There are then people who vote No to 'protect' Ireland's neutrality, ban on abortion, low corporation tax, public services. There are people who vote No because the government has not explained things to their satisfaction. There are then people who vote No because they are annoyed with the government, and see a referendum as a way of giving them a kick. There are some (nobody knows how many) who voted No because of immigration. Last, there are people who voted No because of some specific provision(s) of the Treaty.

You may choose any you like.

Why is militarism a main concern for you ?

Not being too au fait with the French political scene (a bit of the Del boy), I not sure what constitutes right and left in your country. While there may have been a bit of a left-right divide in Ireland in the 1960's-70's is was anemic (not effective) at best. Irish politics today, as in Britain, works along the lines of which party can be more right wing than the other party. Strangely enough, being a foreigner from the six counties, I'd say Ireland is a bit like Japan. They love concensus and hate anything that is deemed to upset the cozy mainstream view.

Irish politics works along the lines of a triumphvarite containing the dominant political party (Fianna Fail), the business community and a politically embedded media. Essentially, what is good for business is good for the nation and one shouldn't be asking any silly questions or you'll upset somebody. However, I must say that day to day life is fairly low key and laid back for most of us mere plebs. As long as you don't rock the boat, do as your told and take out a big mortgage on an overpriced property, you're deemed one patriotic Irish person.

Bon chance in your exploration of Irish politics.

sandy wrote:

Why is militarism a main concern for you ?

That's an excellent question on the character, history, personality, culture and attitudes of the Irish .. (which someone else should answer better than me)

Historically we've taken 'neutral' positions on certain subjects - major world wars for example and we've leaned towards humanitarian issues instead. My family background is the Army and my grandfather, father and several first cousins have all served with the UN - in the Congo and the Middle East. I think as a nation we're proud of our neutrality too. Perhaps we saw Lisbon as forcing militarism on us.

Perhaps our tendency towards neutrality is because of our closeness to Catholicism or Christianity generally ?? We are the "Land of Saints and Scholars" after all.

We're also mighty hypocrites at times. We allow the Americans to use Shannon airport to refuel for example when there is a deep suspicion that those flights are torture flights. We tend to get indignant at that kind of thing yet allow it.

We were also ruled for 800 years by our neighbours and fought many wars with them. Maybe that contributed to our attitude towards war.

sandy wrote:

which tendancy is this forum ? left or right ?

what were the true reasons that lead to the "no" in Ireland ?
( we have a lot of desinformation in France we don't know if we can trust the information about theses reasons our local papers published )

We are an open forum and welcome anyone who wants to discuss and debate in good humour. I think there is great value if opposites can test their ideas against each other: forums where everyone is from the same world aren't very stretching.
Racism is against the Charter though along with any kind of abuse.

Oh you know we french are often saying we are the country of human rights, but we are one of the main country who produce and sell guns and munitions that are used in the most bloody conflicts or mass murder of this era, and our police go in our schools to arrest childs because their parents have not the papers to stay in our country and expulse them from France by force, without no concern if they will survive their

So we know what hypocrite means

What article in the Lisbon Treaty is threatening your neutrality ?

sandy wrote:

Oh you know we french are often saying we are the country of human rights, but we are one of the main country who produce and sell guns and munitions that are used in the most bloody conflicts or mass murder of this era, and our police go in our schools to arrest childs because their parents have not the papers to stay in our country and expulse them from France by force, without no concern if they will survive their

So we know what hypocrite means

What article in the Lisbon Treaty is threatening your neutrality ?

I wait with interest for a response to that question!

"Militarism" is a slightly fuzzy issue, as far as I can see. A lot of people object to the idea of the EU engaging in any military action, or having anything to do with military action in its structures or relationships - aiming for a 'purely civilian' EU. Most of the same people object strongly to US-led actions, and thus to NATO. They are therefore particularly opposed to any development of a relationship between the EU and NATO, and fear that such a development might draw us, as EU members, into an EU/NATO military bloc. They are equally opposed to the idea that the independent development of military capacity in the EU might pull us into an EU military bloc.

The fact is that most of the EU is in NATO, and most of NATO is in the EU. A completely civilian EU, to me, simply means that NATO will continue handle all European joint military actions - and so joint European military actions will continue to be US-led, because NATO won't be doing anything without US approval. I don't see, myself, what's so great about that - except of course that we can thereby claim complete (and hypocritical) distance from the actions of our EU partners.

A purely civilian EU would thus guarantee the continuing US military use of Europe as a manpower reserve through NATO - which means as far as I can tell, that the two issues raised are contradictory.

So I favour a limited military capacity for the EU. Again, the fact that most of the EU is already in NATO means there is virtually no chance that EU military capacity will ever amount to anything more than is needed to run limited, temporary, military interventions of the type sufficient to do post-conflict stabilisation or to do other short-term 'garrison' type duties. In fact, the aim of the EU is to have a small amount of military force to carry out such limited operations, and the aim of its involvement with NATO is explicitly to provide civilian capacity and civilian-military cooperation. I fail to see the issue.

Elements of Lisbon like the clauses covering the European Defence Agency tend to create great excitement in such circles. Leaving aside the fact that the EDA is already established, and that Ireland, for example, is already a member, and that therefore the changes introduced by Lisbon are not equivalent to "the establishment of an EU Pentagon" (as claimed by more excitable online posters) - the case is that the EDA is separate from the other issues. It's an agency with a specific purpose, and a political one at that - to help European armies become interdependent and interoperable, rendering it much more difficult for them to fight each other. It has the additional element that it allows economies of scale that no one country could manage by itself.

I'm open to correction on this, but the underlying concern seems to be that of Ireland specifically being drawn into European militarism. Irishmen formed a third of the Imperial British Army, and a quarter of its officer corps, so it may even be that those whose mindsets have yet to move firmly out of the nineteenth century see this as a major issue, because the huge participation by Irishmen in British forces forms a counter-fact to the nationalist myth, in which we are purely the victims of brutal foreign aggressors and that people like India and African ex-colonies are our brothers in oppression, even though many of the British oppressors who held them under were actually Irish.

ibis wrote:

sandy wrote:

What article in the Lisbon Treaty is threatening your neutrality ?

I wait with interest for a response to that question!

Got anyone in mind ?

There's no Article is there ? I haven't read your post though yet ibis.

Well I for one am an economic liberal. I believe that low taxes, a reasonable but not restrictive regulatory environment in a context of openness to international trade and investment are the best routes to prosperity. I am also a social liberal, believing in people's rights to choices and decision-making in their own affairs. I don't know how generally felt that position is in Machine Nation but there quite a number of posters who would be classically defined as socialists.

Auditor #9 wrote:

ibis wrote:

sandy wrote:

What article in the Lisbon Treaty is threatening your neutrality ?

I wait with interest for a response to that question!

Got anyone in mind ?

There's no Article is there ? I haven't read your post though yet ibis.

I think this is quite a good response to the general question:

lostexpectation wrote:

maybe a lot of anti-militarism worries isn't to do with specially eu stuff, or post lisbon EDAs etc, but ireland's military policy, maybe even legally binding protocols will not satisfy this concern, but if Ireland changes it foreign policies now it probably wouldn't need to have these awkward protocols, if they got rid of the idea that ireland is going to sit back and let europe and others do whatever it wants and indeed aid in military manoeuvres then it be much easier to pass the lisbon refendum.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Well I for one am an economic liberal. I believe that low taxes, a reasonable but not restrictive regulatory environment in a context of openness to international trade and investment are the best routes to prosperity. I am also a social liberal, believing in people's rights to choices and decision-making in their own affairs. I don't know how generally felt that position is in Machine Nation but there quite a number of posters who would be classically defined as socialists.

Hello =) I'm not economic liberal

I believe the best way to prosperity is to create in Europe a high regulatory area, and it can't be done in a context of low taxes and openness to international trade without restrictions. This kind of openness for me in a world where some people are only paid a misery can only lead to a general social decline, only world corporates and financial people will gain something from it.

Economic liberal in France is classified generally at right.

sandy wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Well I for one am an economic liberal. I believe that low taxes, a reasonable but not restrictive regulatory environment in a context of openness to international trade and investment are the best routes to prosperity. I am also a social liberal, believing in people's rights to choices and decision-making in their own affairs. I don't know how generally felt that position is in Machine Nation but there quite a number of posters who would be classically defined as socialists.

Hello =) I'm not economic liberal

I believe the best way to prosperity is to create in Europe a high regulatory area, and it can't be done in a context of low taxes and openness to international trade without restrictions. This kind of openness for me in a world where some people are only paid a misery can only lead to a general social decline, only world corporates and financial people will gain something from it.

Economic liberal in France is classified generally at right.

Well I disagree. International trade is a fantastic vehicle for prosperity, progress and peace in the world. It is only by embracing it more fully that we can realise the advantages associated with it.

Sorry but the idea of progress seems more credible for me.
When we change partially our society to go to a better society, we should feel some kind of progress. I can't believe to an ideal that show us a lot of regressions each time we embrace it more fully.

sandy wrote:

What article in the Lisbon Treaty is threatening your neutrality ?

Well done Sandy for asking the obvious question. Basically the Lisbon Treaty has nothing to do with our neutrality.

The treaty however will allow countries to make available civilian and military resources to the union for its common security and defense. It will also allow member states to undertake disarmament operations and humanitarian and rescue tasks. But any member state has the right to oppose such operations and all contributions to them will be on a voluntary basis.

Now the No side have said that the above will undermine our neutrality, which I certainly don't and I think you don't either (and your a euro skeptic). But a certain proportion of the Irish people believed the No side because they didn't bother doing any research. Sandy the pub and drinking culture in Ireland means that when Irish people get together to discuss things they are usually half drunk and a simple (but sometimes wrong) message will be easier to get across that than a complex argument.

What really annoys me is that the No side say that the Lisbon Treaty is undemocratic. But they undermined our democracy to win the referendum.

There were many intelligent people on both the Yes and No sides of the debate and all voted yes/no for good reasons which were important to them. There was also a simpler section of our society which were sacred and confused into voting NO (and yes). It is this section that needs to be turned firmly into Yes voters to win the next referendum.

These simple types can be easily spotted on the roads in Ireland, they leave there front fog lights on at all times and blind ongoing drivers. Based on this definition I would estimate they make up 25% of the population.

The last paragraph was sightly tongue in cheek! But only slightly, why oh why do so many Irish people drive with their front fog lights on when theres no fog? In Germany you have to drive a 30KPH if your front fog lights are on. I recently had an eye operation and its killing my eyes to drive at night at the moment. Sorry for being off topic.

Neutrality was never an issue for me as I've never believed this country to be neutral in the proper sense of the word. Vagueness, arrogance and downright bullying was what made me vote no. Nothing has changed there so I'll be taking the same option when the 'change your minds,you plebs' vote comes up again.

Not many countries have been neutral in the proper sense of the word. Sweden extensively exported iron ore for the German War Machine during the Second World War, The Swiss provided the Nazi's with banking facilities and the Irish provided the British with vital weather reports as well as a host of other policies which were questionable insofar as neutrality.

One could make an argument that none of them had a particularly neutral policy. One could also make a strong argument that each merely acted in the manner which they considered most expedient to their particular position... which is what most States in Europe did at that time in one way or another.

Each one looked after their own ass, nothing more, nothing less.

The idea of Ireland's neutrality being something, almost superior, to other nations - a position of morality - is a distinctly post war phenomenon.

Ireland is about as neutral as Nike is ethical

I personally don't believe in neutrality. But many wouldn't like the way that I apply this view. Take the Iraq question for example. We help the US presently and gloss over this fact with our faux-neutrality. To me, our alleged neutrality is a piece of propaganda that prevents this from being examined. More importantly, it stops folks like me from causing a lot of trouble. You see, if we weren't a declared neutral and we openly supported the US in its unlawful wars, that'd be a very legitimate ground for me to take up arms against the State for its treasonous actions. Afterall, any action designed to subvert the Constitution is an act of treason. Taking part in an unlawful conflict is against international law, which Ireland recognises in the Constitution and indeed, we're supposed to seek pacific settlement of international disputes - treason. Couple this with the fact, that if I had to choose sides, I'd not be siding with the US. Promoting and inciting a civil war is an act of treason too.

So, despite the fact that our neutrality policy is a meaningless piece of crap, it is a very important piece of crap nonetheless.

Many of the sychophants in the Dáil have claimed that our alleged neutrality has remained a constant, that it has never changed. This too is a lie.

When DeValera first introduced this policy, he secured the return of the treaty ports. This had to be done as a neutral is not allowed to help belligerents by allowing them to transit through their sovereign property. Of course, since then, we've allowed the US the use of our airPORTS. There's an example of how this policy has changed in a big way.

On top of that, we allow the shipment of tons of weapons and ammunition every day through Shannon to aid in the genocide. Some of this weaponry probably ends up in Israel too. Our government lied about this too on many occasions.

Our government will not like me telling you this either, but that's tough. We also ship depleted uranium. I cannot prove that we ship depleted uranium shells and rounds. But, thanks to Ed Horgan's case against the State and the discovery he sought, we know that missiles have been shipped through Shannon. These missiles use depleted uranium as ballast. The US doesn't like this ballast to be described as part of the payload, but that's tough too. We probably contributed to the chemical weapons disaster that is Fallujah too. Phosphorous. The US doesn't like this to be described as a weapon either (knowing full well that it's a banned weapon of mass destruction). Yeah, it's meant to provide light, so that troops can spot more potential victims, apart from the ones burning to death. But don't refer to it as a weapon...

Another area of our policy that has changed, despite the lies of the sychophants, is that during WWII, we opened up the Curragh as an internment camp. You see it's the duty of a declared neutral, to arrest and detain belligerents found on sovereign territory. Germans we tended to keep and allies tended to be returned. So yup, we didn't stick to the rules fully, but we did show some effort. Now we show no semblance whatsoever.

The 'no' camp were in a very difficult position during the campaign prior to the vote. If they concentrated on pointing out that Ireland wasn't anything close to being a neutral instead of pointing out that voting yes diminished further our policy, things would have become very confused and would have taken from the 'no' campaign. The fact is, that Lisbon further reduced this alleged policy to the status of an outright joke. It called for an increase in military spending so that we wouldn't be an embarassment to the likes of the French in the furtherance of their imperialistic African conquest.

So does Lisbon lessen Ireland's neutrality? No. Because Ireland is not neutral.

Does Lisbon increase the negativity and uselessness of our policy, jokingly called a 'neutrality policy'? Absolutely.

Ireland's neutrality policy is such a slimy issue that even the good guys are reduced to playing the game that it mandates. And I'm including both 'yes' and 'no' voters in the good guy's camp.

Hermes wrote:

I personally don't believe in neutrality. But many wouldn't like the way that I apply this view. Take the Iraq question for example. We help the US presently and gloss over this fact with our faux-neutrality. To me, our alleged neutrality is a piece of propaganda that prevents this from being examined. More importantly, it stops folks like me from causing a lot of trouble. You see, if we weren't a declared neutral and we openly supported the US in its unlawful wars, that'd be a very legitimate ground for me to take up arms against the State for its treasonous actions. Afterall, any action designed to subvert the Constitution is an act of treason. Taking part in an unlawful conflict is against international law, which Ireland recognises in the Constitution and indeed, we're supposed to seek pacific settlement of international disputes - treason. Couple this with the fact, that if I had to choose sides, I'd not be siding with the US. Promoting and inciting a civil war is an act of treason too.

I'd have to point out that while I agree with what you're saying here, I think you'll find that if the government is acting unconstitutionally in promoting illegal war, your correct recourse is to the courts, because acting unconstitutionally is no more treasonous than any other illegal activity.

Hermes wrote:

So, despite the fact that our neutrality policy is a meaningless piece of crap, it is a very important piece of crap nonetheless.

Many of the sychophants in the Dáil have claimed that our alleged neutrality has remained a constant, that it has never changed. This too is a lie.

When DeValera first introduced this policy, he secured the return of the treaty ports. This had to be done as a neutral is not allowed to help belligerents by allowing them to transit through their sovereign property. Of course, since then, we've allowed the US the use of our airPORTS. There's an example of how this policy has changed in a big way.

On top of that, we allow the shipment of tons of weapons and ammunition every day through Shannon to aid in the genocide. Some of this weaponry probably ends up in Israel too. Our government lied about this too on many occasions.

I believe the cover is that we allow use of our airports to everyone, which is another form of neutrality.

Hermes wrote:

Our government will not like me telling you this either, but that's tough. We also ship depleted uranium. I cannot prove that we ship depleted uranium shells and rounds. But, thanks to Ed Horgan's case against the State and the discovery he sought, we know that missiles have been shipped through Shannon. These missiles use depleted uranium as ballast. The US doesn't like this ballast to be described as part of the payload, but that's tough too. We probably contributed to the chemical weapons disaster that is Fallujah too. Phosphorous. The US doesn't like this to be described as a weapon either (knowing full well that it's a banned weapon of mass destruction). Yeah, it's meant to provide light, so that troops can spot more potential victims, apart from the ones burning to death. But don't refer to it as a weapon...

Another area of our policy that has changed, despite the lies of the sychophants, is that during WWII, we opened up the Curragh as an internment camp. You see it's the duty of a declared neutral, to arrest and detain belligerents found on sovereign territory. Germans we tended to keep and allies tended to be returned. So yup, we didn't stick to the rules fully, but we did show some effort. Now we show no semblance whatsoever.

The 'no' camp were in a very difficult position during the campaign prior to the vote. If they concentrated on pointing out that Ireland wasn't anything close to being a neutral instead of pointing out that voting yes diminished further our policy, things would have become very confused and would have taken from the 'no' campaign. The fact is, that Lisbon further reduced this alleged policy to the status of an outright joke. It called for an increase in military spending so that we wouldn't be an embarassment to the likes of the French in the furtherance of their imperialistic African conquest.

So does Lisbon lessen Ireland's neutrality? No. Because Ireland is not neutral.

Does Lisbon increase the negativity and uselessness of our policy, jokingly called a 'neutrality policy'? Absolutely.

Ireland's neutrality policy is such a slimy issue that even the good guys are reduced to playing the game that it mandates. And I'm including both 'yes' and 'no' voters in the good guy's camp.

Hoo boy. Yes, it's interesting that it wasn't a very strong campaign element (an issue it certainly was, but raised by the public rather than the campaigns), and you may well be correct about the reasoning. Certainly Libertas threw absolutely every other Irish bogeyman into the mix, but not neutrality - and that was quite noticeable - but thinking back, none of the other campaigns used it much either. Startlingly coherent policy formation - far better than the Yes "side".