” Furthermore, I said nothing about conspiracies, and neither did Lette.”.

Perhaps not in so many words. But I felt that alleging that the no campaign was secretly being funded by the US establishment amounts to the same thing.

“Why aren’t you able to show respect to people who hold a different point of view to yours?”.

Suggesting that the no campaign is secretly funded by the US is simply not true and this, what my self and other posters have called a lie, needs to be nailed. I am not suggesting that you and Lette are personally responsible for this as it seems to come om on high in the yes lobby. In my view this is a swear being deliberately being put out there.

Given the fact that you and Lette were personally offended by the term “lie”, I unreservedly withdraw it and apologise. I was speaking more in terms of the political campaign then trying to personally insult you or Lette.

http://www.50states.com/

While most of it was way above my head, the bits that were understood were a cause for concern.

Firstly, the articles of the treaty can be changed after it is ratified.

Second, there was the introduction of a process where 1 million signatures could be collected in order to bring motions before the powers that be, however what the Forum on Europe is not saying, (they have a 10 minute “summary” of the treaty on youtube) is that the 1 million signatures have to be spread over 15 countries. And I am not sure if they would accept the one million signatures if they were collected online.

Third, I share SIPTUs concerns about the absence of legislation guaranteeing the right to collective bargaining for workers. While it is contained in the charter of rights, it requires legislation in order for it to be legally binding.

Why aren’t you able to show respect to people who hold a different point of view to yours?

You need to inderstand that this debate is not about what the US may or may not like to see. This debate is about Ireland and its place in Europe. But fair play to you guys, you have managed to divert the debate into nonsense about US conspiricies. But it suits the yes lobby to keep us in the dark.

Todays Sunday Times also believes that the yes lobby want to keep us in the dark. To quote the header in todays editorial , titled “Be positive, vote no”

This editorial also states “Not for nothing did Giuliano Amato, the former Italian prime minister, claim that the document “should be unreadable”. This lack of transparency was regarded as a particular benifit by Valery Gisgard d’Estaing, who stated in 2007 that “public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it the proposals that we dare not put to them directly”"

The editorial also maintains “With each passing week the public has seen beyond the mixture of bland reassurances and thinly veiled threats being punped out by the yes campaign. The most serious of these threats, that the EU will be thrown into “chaos” is a piece of desperation on the part of the yes camp. According to the Independent Referendum Commission, in the event of a no vote, the EU would continue to operate under its present rules”. So the chaos theory is bogus”

But perhaps in the eyes of the busy yes lobby here, the Sunday Times is part of some giant conspiracy along with Sinn Fein, SWP, American military complex etc :-)

I feel that our incompetent politicians should be rapped on the nuckles and sent back to negotiate a better deal. I am being positive about Europe and voting no this time.

Again Ireland is not neutral. Our military neutrality policy means nothing whatsoever outside Ireland – it means next to nothing here either. Our supposed neutrality policy isn’t even self-consistent. When DeValera demanded the return of the Treaty Ports before the outbreak of WWII we became a declared neutral. We even interned belligerent forces in the Curragh during the war as mandated by the laws that define neutrality. However, since then, we’ve offered our airPORTS and other services to belligerents and have destroyed any semblance this policy had regarding neutrality or indeed, self-consistency.

Moreover, the Constitution demands that our participation in conflicts be put before the Dáil, according to article 28 of Bunreacht. However, we lent material support to the US in its undeclared war on Iraq without the assent of Dáil Éireann. We didn’t even wait for the UN to confer legitimacy, we acted and rightly presumed that this lapdog would eventually sanctify it, which it eventually did.

This notion of defending Ireland is a red herring. The truth of the matter is that if Ireland were invaded, it’d be all over before any of our alleged allies would get their shit together and respond. But you’re right, we probably will never be invaded in the ‘good old’ sense of the word. Those days are long over. We have good relationships with those who’d be capable of launching a traditional style invasion (no thanks to the EU either) and the other types who might choose to bomb the shit out of us because we decided to aid the crusade will not send a traditional invasion force and thus any military muscle sent to our aid will be rendered impotent.

Our build up of military power will have nothing to do with defending Ireland. It will act as a threat, much the way the nuke once acted as a deterrent (not a deterrent anymore though: UK, US and Israel etc. have reserved the right to launch first-strike offensives). Ireland in Bunreach has affirmed its intent to seek to resolve international disputes through pacific means. This went out the window ages ago. This military build-up is the next step in rejecting the ideals our constitution demands. I cannot realistically be seen to be discussing peace with you whilst I point a gun at your forehead.