can anyone explain this to me

by Daithi Tue Oct 01, 2002 20:44 macsithd at tcd dot ie

There is currently no direct reference to neutrality in the Constitution, according to certain people, and it can be argued that the referendum contains a reference to neutrality, therefore it's the opinion that by voting YES you are getting something that is not there at present.

The two objections to this argument are as follows:

(1) There is already a commitment to neutrality, in that Ireland accepts under the Constitution the principle of the "pacific settlement of international disputes"
(2) The new clause does not have any legal effect and is not enshrining anything that could be pointed to in a court.

Hope this helps.

(PS on a political note - this was what was obviously expected when the government passed the changes to the Referendum Act in a single day's action in the Dail. There was a calculated decision to remove the jurisdiction of the Commission to present both sides of the argument and the record clearly shows this).

by JF - AAN Tue Oct 01, 2002 22:32

Daithi is a Labour PArty member and wants a yes vote!

The neutrality clause that was added means nothing. It is only put in to attract people that are pro-neutrality into voting yes. Also it was put in so that the FF-FG-Lab-PD-IBEC Party can argue that's it a different wording this time around.

It's a red herring and in reality the Nice Treaty is a further step towards the creation of a Rapid Reaction Force and a European imperialist army. VOTE NO!

by Daithi Tue Oct 01, 2002 22:39

I'm not selling anything, I was merely pointing out both sides of the argument. Read again where I wrote that there exists differing points of view - that neutrality is being enshrined and that it isn't. The Ref Com did not make this clear.

And for the record I do NOT support a yes vote.

by Just Wondering Tue Oct 01, 2002 23:28

Is this all about the Saville declaration?

This declaration has no legal standing. Will there be a legal challange to the Referendum Commissions adverts on the basis that they are providing false information?

by Bryan Tue Oct 01, 2002 23:48

oral contract, not worth the paper its printed on

by Des Tue Oct 01, 2002 23:52

If there is anyone out there that believes that the so called referendum commission is neutral, then they have got serious problems. The Nice treaty clearly involves the formation of a "European Army" which our government has already allocated troops to, I also have to add that I find the idea of a member of the "socialist" labour party attempting to have it both ways hysterical. The spectacle of the leader of the "party of the working class" supporting a treaty which advocates imperialist resource wars, privitisation and further inequality is obscence but not surprising. Obviously Ruairi is following in the footsteps of "socialist Blair".

by Irish military advertising Wed Oct 02, 2002 00:35

The Irish Military are running ads on the TV with ww.military.ie at the end of the ad so it looks like its trying to build itslef up.

As for Labour and Blair well what a joke they are: the middle class + corporate party, theres nothing working class about them. Tony Ben should take over leadership.

by Daithi Wed Oct 02, 2002 01:50

I repeat once more, in capital letters for extra effect:

"ACCORDING TO CERTAIN PEOPLE"

Scroll back up the page to my original comment and look for that phrase. See if you can find it.

Now please explain to me how I am defending ANYTHING.

You know, it is actually possible to refer to an opposing argument without endorsing it. It's called responsible writing, and it's a little different from using nothing but tub-thumping rhetoric.

My comment was an attempt to give an honest answer to an honest question, deliberately attempting not to show any favouritism for one side or the other (something that the Referendum Commission is obviously confused about!) and this is clear to me from re-reading what I wrote.

"According to certain people" does not mean "endorsement" no matter what way you look at it. Backwards, forwards, upside down.

If you're not prepared to even mention the argument of an opponent your own argument is always going to look foolish. Maybe some of the authors of the responses here should think about that before deciding that they know anything about my views.

Or does membership of the evil Labour party just mean that I can't be trusted?

by Paul O'Donnell Wed Oct 02, 2002 10:56 paulod20 at hotmail dot com

I note that Daithi doesn't deny that he's a member of the Labour Party. It has been said that there are many people in Labour who are against Nice and from talking to them I believe this is the case. However I note that for all the talk of the four Labour leadership contenders about making the party more radical or indeed moving it to the Left (although nobody actually said that) - not one of the four has had the guts to come out for a NO vote to Nice. In other words they'll all tow the line.

Le Roi est mort. Vive le Roi.

by Ray Wed Oct 02, 2002 11:45

- I note that Daithi doesn't deny that he's a member of the Labour Party

And there was me thinking it wasn't a crime. That'll teach me to pay more attention to those Dail debates.

by Sean Wed Oct 02, 2002 11:54

"does membership of the evil Labour party just mean that I can't be trusted?"

Well Daithi the answer to that is YES.

Members of capitalist parties cant be trusted!

by Daithi Wed Oct 02, 2002 11:57

I don't deny it because (1) most people here know it, (2) JF pointed it out (correctly), (3) why the hell would I be a member if I was going to turn around and deny it?

(In case there is still any confusion, I am, and have been, a member of the Irish Labour Party)

And Paul's right, there are many members of the party intending to vote No. How many, I'm not sure, though I suspect quite a considerable number.

by o as if = iosaf - reclaim the genome & streets! Wed Oct 02, 2002 15:06 iosaf at email dot com codols 23 barcelona 08002 Catalunya 0034 679 708 674

in case anyone is still under any illusions
WE ARE AT WAR.
and we have been for quite a while.
and will be too.

The only reason I can think of for the Dublin parliament not allowing non-resident citizens to register their vote before was to stop opposition to the group you now know we term "the little rascals".

well there are greater and more evil rascals out there.
WE ARE AT WAR. that means globally.
Ireland must remain neutral for the sake of her countless sons and daughters who live throughout the world in the constantly changing "war zones".
Remember they are the ones who practise first aid instead of healthcare in the "third world".
c/f (becuase today the server here is playing up) http://imc.sweden.indymedia.org.
and panda bear will see to the server.
back in a while.
by the way find out how many Labour members will vote NO.
Tell them WE ARE AT WAR.
remember the last global war?

by decent skin Thu Oct 03, 2002 00:00

while there are a few decent skins left in labour at grassroots level, none of the leadership is any good. They will never have any credibility as a left party after supporting Nice a second time!
They will never be forgiven either, regardles of which way the result turns out.