All this on the strength of a single individual in a vox pop broadcast this morning on the radio.
I suppose it avoids them having to confront the fact that the population have every reason not to trust them on maintaining our neutrality.
Will this be the excuse for a re-run? Government ministers are refusing to rule a re-run out.
The Irish times poll results on reasons for voting no - which don't mention conscription! but do mention resentment at being told how to vote on something incomprehensible - are here: http://www.ireland.com/focus/thelisbontreaty/analysis/polls/no.jpg
I'm looking forward to the referendum on children's rights whenever it comes up. I'm thinking of founding my own personal think tank to campaign for a no vote on some spurious basis so that I can get lots of free time telling lies on TV. Maybe I'll become a traditional Catholic and argue that 14 is a suitable age for marriage or something.
The national elections were a joke in that regard as it was apparent to voters that no combination of parties would reverse the situation. After all the party that was most vocal in opposition to it - Greens - went into government without insisting on CIA planes passing through ireland being checked or on any change in the situation.
Maybe this is partially fallout from that. There is no trust on the part of a lot of people about there being a willingness to support neutrality in the political classes - and military neutrality is still a very popular notion in Ireland.
Rule: 1. Do what suits us when it suits us.
Rule 2. Refer to rule 1. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
This is an extract from: http://www.irishantiwar.org/node/189
"Irish participation in the Nordic Battlegroups was slipped through the Dail at midnight on July 4th 2006 after only a few hours of debate. Twelve TDs voted against - the Greens, Sinn Fein, 3 Independents and Joe Higgins. The Labour Party abstained! Referring to these Battlegroups, that hardly raised an eyebrow in Irish media circles, BBC correspondent Paul Reynolds stated: "The EU has quietly acquired what might be described as a standing army."
And now part of that "standing army" - including an Irish Battlegroup, but with a much greater French contingent - finds itself in the former French colony of Chad. We are all aware of the dangers that lie there, especially as France has over the past couple of years been supporting the President of Chad, a dictator, in his battles with rebels ( or will they soon be described as "terrorists"). The Irish troops are there to protect refugees, but the fear is they will be sucked into the bigger conflict between the rebels and the regime in Chad.
What the human cost of our participation in this "standing army" remains unknown. But one thing is sure, the financial cost will be prohibitive. The Irish Defence Budget for 2008 is a whopping €1.078 billion. It is estimated €60 million of this will be used to fund our adventure in Chad. And if the authors of the Lisbon Treaty have their way Irish "defence" spending is certain to increase. Article 28(3) of the Lisbon Treaty states: "Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities". More money for warfare means less for health care."
Irish participation in the Nordic Battlegroups was slipped through the Dail at midnight on July 4th 2006 after only a few hours of debate.
(and sorry for posting last comment in wrong place - was replying to Frank (?) who said Lisbon had nothing to do with neutrality. What a thread eh! Is 200 comments long for here?
Of course there is an honest opposition, but I'm afraid it's a relatively small part of the electorate, or the debate wouldn't have been run in terms of lies and fear-mongering.
I assumed you lived in Ireland Colman. And I don't want to be coming across like I am in a position to know better than others interested in this issue. I like this site - usually lurk - and only stick my nose in when I think I have something to contribute that isn't being contributed already.
Sorry, I'm grumpy today. Extra grumpy in fact.
What did get my goat was the way in which a well funded front for two businessmen with close links to the US security establishment were able to get equal time and space to almost all the political parties with about 90% of the vote in all of our general elections.
We were bough for a couple of million quid and a clever appeal to nationalistic instincts.
However the Left element of the NO vote probably only accounted for perhaps 5% of the vote (I count Sinn Fein as more fascist than socialist) and the major portion of the no vote was made up of wildly disparate groups and reasons almost none of which had much to do with the Lisbon Treaty itself.
Don't get me wrong. Ultimately the political establishment have got to take the responsibility for putting a very poorly drafted and explained proposal to the Irish people. The days of blind trust (or when Fianna Fail could put a donkey on the ballot paper and still win) are long gone.
My big concern is not that things will not now change, but that they will (from an Irish perspective) change for the worse rather than the better as a consequence of this vote. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
Indeed. But the EU has nothing to do with that. (See: Shannon.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
A lot of FOLLOW LEADER LEADER going on there too and that is not always good.
The politicians are really really furious and the barely concealed contempt for the no vote is something to see at present.
If anything, they are hypocrites of high order. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
